Joe Calzaghe's Greatness?

[BennyST]

hopkins never said that lol.he just gave his thoughts on how fights with hagler,and monzon plays out.he actually said he'd beat both,but it would be tough.

hagler wasnt a heavier hitter than young hopkins and hopkins would have a huge size advantage.hagler never fought anybody his size with a punch so we dont know how his chin would hold up.hagler is in no way shape or form more skiled than hopkins.hopkins can make any fight into his type of fight unlike hagler.hagler beat the alcohol outta duran for a good 13 rounds and coulndt put him out,mugabi went 11 and landed some great shots,so im not sold on this whole hagler punching power thing.majority of hags foes were in the 5'8 range so he never faced any real physical adversity.many a lesser fighter than hops was able to find haglers chin.roldan was able to land alotta great shots and hes the = of mayorga.only fights ive really seen hops get hit clean were against mercado when he was young an jones who are both light years ahead of any mw hagler fought.

tito trinidad is pretty close to hearns,but like i said hagler fought 3 atg's in oscar,tito,and jones.he went 2 for 3 with 2 k.o's over guys who hadnt been stopped.hagler fought 3 atg and went 2 for 3 also but against a lw and a ww.he never faced another atg mw.which isnt his fault as there wrent any others but he never moved up to challenge himself either and quit after the loss to sugar ray

No, he only fought someone bigger than him that is generally regarded as the, or at least in the top three, most powerful punchers ever.

He caught Hagler clean with his freak right hand and moved him a little bit, and even stunned him somewhat, but that's it. No more. The punches after that one did nothing. Anything Hopkins landed would not even register. A guy that has Hop-like power couldn't even dent Hagler whether it was to the body or whatever.... This fight wouldn't be about how could hurt the other as the only fighter to ever be hurt and dropped in his career was Hopkins. Nonetheless, it wouldn't come to that. It would be a chess game.

Also, one other thing you said was wrong. Hopkins did say those things about Hagler and Monzon. He actually said that he didn't think he could beat Monzon but that the Hagler fight would be a war in which both would end up in hospital. He really did say though that he didn't think he would beat Monzon. Very surprising given Hop's nature. I remember cause I was so shocked.

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE=r.burgundy;8174281]

come on now jab.i know you love to debate but please,lets not try and make max schmeling out for anything other than a hype job.he sucks.plain and simple.how on earth does conn rank higher than tito,oscar,jones or tarver.unless you mean atg lb 4 lb?or did ypu mean at the time they fought?

you know i like conn and at welter theres no way possible to put him ahead of tito or oscar.at lhw i couldnt put him above tarver.beating jones who dominated the lb 4 lb rankings for a decade trumps anything conn did easily.conns 1 of my few old favs but he's also 1 of the least accomplished

Schmeling beat better fighters than An Oscar who never belonged at middleweight, a Tito who only beat one decent middle before losing to Hop, and none after he lost, and an old and shot RJ who was just starched in less than a round in his previous fight.

Conn is easily better p4p than anybody on Nards resume. Im not trying to be rude here, but you would have to know a bit about the fighters he fought to understand this, you clearly don't if you could ever in a million years think Antonio Tarver beating a sorry version of Roy is better than anything Conn ever did. Hell, I would rank Conn's loss against Louis as more impressive than Tarvers win against Jones.

[r.burgundy]

[QUOTE=JAB5239;8174377]

Schmeling beat better fighters than An Oscar who never belonged at middleweight, a Tito who only beat one decent middle before losing to Hop, and none after he lost, and an old and shot RJ who was just starched in less than a round in his previous fight.

Conn is easily better p4p than anybody on Nards resume. Im not trying to be rude here, but you would have to know a bit about the fighters he fought to understand this, you clearly don't if you could ever in a million years think Antonio Tarver beating a sorry version of Roy is better than anything Conn ever did. Hell, I would rank Conn's loss against Louis as more impressive than Tarvers win against Jones.

key word is at mw.oscar at welter is and atg,just like tito.again this is at welter.not mw.anything oscar and tito did at ww trumps anything conn did at welter.period point blank.

based on what lol.tony zale and a loss to louis.rise and shine my man.please tell me 5 great conn foes?he didnt have 5.and i like conn.ive seen you make plenty arguments against conn so dont try and defend him now.how did tarver beat a sorry roy lol.roy was the reigning lb 4 lb king for a decade.roy just won a piece of the heavy title,came back an beat tarver in the 1st fight.roy was far from done when he fought tarver.and what version of roy would conn have any chance at beating

[r.burgundy]

No, he only fought someone bigger than him that is generally regarded as the, or at least in the top three, most powerful punchers ever.

He caught Hagler clean with his freak right hand and moved him a little bit, and even stunned him somewhat, but that's it. No more. The punches after that one did nothing. Anything Hopkins landed would not even register. A guy that has Hop-like power couldn't even dent Hagler whether it was to the body or whatever.... This fight wouldn't be about how could hurt the other as the only fighter to ever be hurt and dropped in his career was Hopkins. Nonetheless, it wouldn't come to that. It would be a chess game.

Also, one other thing you said was wrong. Hopkins did say those things about Hagler and Monzon. He actually said that he didn't think he could beat Monzon but that the Hagler fight would be a war in which both would end up in hospital. He really did say though that he didn't think he would beat Monzon. Very surprising given Hop's nature. I remember cause I was so shocked.

hearns was a welter so how he was he bigger than hagler???taller yes,but bigger,hell no.and hearns was far from a k.o artist above welter.he is not 1 of the top 3 punchers in history.he was 1 of the top 3 in ww history,just like tito is.

he caught hagler with 1 decent shot,and again,he was a naturally smaller guy.that punch didnt do anything to hagler.margarito was thought to have an undentable chin also.hit anybody enough and they will go down.facts are as follows

1)hagler never fought another atg mw
2)majority of haglers comp were in the 5'8 range,so he has never faced a mw bigger than him
3)haglers chin wasnt hard to find.hamsho,mugabi,roldan,vito all found hags chin easily and all were no where close to the size,skill,and power of hopkins
4)hagler also had no problems calling out sugar ray,but tunred down quawi and spinks

i agree it would be chess,and chess isnt haglers strong suit

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE]

key word is at mw.oscar at welter is and atg,just like tito.again this is at welter.not mw.anything oscar and tito did at ww trumps anything conn did at welter.period point blank.

First off Oscar probably has a claim inside the top 20 all time welters. But he doesn't have a claim as even a top 100 middleweight. If you want to use Oscar and Tito to blow up Bernard I'll just use one name that ranks higher all time by a mile for Schmeling.....Mickey Walker

And who is talking about a 16 year old Billy Conn at welterweight?

based on what lol.tony zale and a loss to louis.rise and shine my man.please tell me 5 great conn foes?he didnt have 5.and i like conn.ive seen you make plenty arguments against conn so dont try and defend him now.how did tarver beat a sorry roy lol.roy was the reigning lb 4 lb king for a decade.roy just won a piece of the heavy title,came back an beat tarver in the 1st fight.roy was far from done when he fought tarver.and what version of roy would conn have any chance at beating

Fritzie Zivic
Tony Zale
Freddie Apostoli
Teddy Yarosz
Young Corbett III

Theres your five. He also fought some of these guys multiple times as well as most of the top contenders from the day. I could name them to but would good is it if you don't know who they are?

[GJC]

Hopkins record at MW isnt anything special imo,but he did have a lot of defenses and dominated the majority of them

Don't get me wrong I rate Hopkins highly and have him in my top 6 at MW I believe but I'm making the point that if you want to chop up other MW's records then BHop's doesn't stand up to too much scrutiny apart from longevity.
But then the same posters don't give say Louis the same respect and nit pick at who he fought.

[GJC]

as we all know great is a matter of opinion.so that brings me to 1 of my fav quotes from ali."we got it right here on t.v.television is exposing these guys"
he was speaking on louis and dempsey i believe.but it sums up what i think.alot of "great" fighters had extraordinary records but we have no clue of who they were doing it against.and alotta them would be exposed.fans always try an cling to some strange idea these guys like greb fought nothing but world class killers.thats b.s.i've seen tunney.and he's a bum.these dudes fight like the irishmen in movies.its comical

Re what Ali said I'm sure someone with more patience than me could probably find a video of him praising the same guys,Ali never let opinion even his own get in the way of a good line. A more modern fighter, Tyson, is very complimentary on the old school fighters. No not every fighter Greb fought was a world beater he had a lot of club fighters in the 300 but an awful lot of great fighters too, you have more fights you fight more rubbish and more quality thats maths. Tunney was a very good fighter, very clever at studying his opponents and nullyfying them, bit like Hopkins?

but anyway as for bernard,true his run at m.w wasnt filled with atg's but he did beat 2 of them in oscar,and tito,beat the linear champ in tarver at lhw and beat the linear champ in pavlik who is about 15 years younger.thats 3 linear champs he's beat.all of those fights he was an underdog.

Tito and Oscar were Welters the other fighters wern't at MW

as has been pointed out before,louis hasnt not beaten a prime atg heavy.he gets props for his long title reign.

You would probably find it hard to find many fighters who actually beat a prime atg at their weight, those fights are as rare as hens teeth. As for HW's no Louis didn't but nor did Tyson, Holmes, the Klits, Lewis etc etc. In fact the only one that comes to mind is Ali beating Foreman.

as for monzon,and hagler,they are 2 and 3 on my list.based strictly off of m.w,i rate hopkins ahead cause i feel he has the stronger resume and would beat both of them.i think haglers resume is a bit better than monzon but i think monzon would beat him

Hopkins resume is similar to Haglers in that his best wins at MW are against fighters moving up in weight. Monzon had Griffith and Napoles but Valdez, Briscoe and Benvenuti were all solid MW's. Personally I rate Hagler and Monzon over Hopkins.

[r.burgundy]

[QUOTE=JAB5239;8175883]

Fritzie Zivic
Tony Zale
Freddie Apostoli
Teddy Yarosz
Young Corbett III

Theres your five. He also fought some of these guys multiple times as well as most of the top contenders from the day. I could name them to but would good is it if you don't know who they are?

well,if you consider apostili,and yarosz great i dont what to say.do you factor in what these guys looked like when they fought or do you base strictly off of record?

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE=r.burgundy;8181212]

well,if you consider apostili,and yarosz great i dont what to say.do you factor in what these guys looked like when they fought or do you base strictly off of record?

You tell me. What fights have you watched of these guys to say they weren't great fighters? Seems to me you're coming to conclusions based on a predetermined bias. By the way, all those fighters are in the IBHOF. I'll bet you cash money Antonio Tarver doesn't get that Honor anytime soon after his retirement if ever.

[BennyST]

hearns was a welter so how he was he bigger than hagler???taller yes,but bigger,hell no.and hearns was far from a k.o artist above welter.he is not 1 of the top 3 punchers in history.he was 1 of the top 3 in ww history,just like tito is.

he caught hagler with 1 decent shot,and again,he was a naturally smaller guy.that punch didnt do anything to hagler.margarito was thought to have an undentable chin also.hit anybody enough and they will go down.facts are as follows

1)hagler never fought another atg mw
2)majority of haglers comp were in the 5'8 range,so he has never faced a mw bigger than him
3)haglers chin wasnt hard to find.hamsho,mugabi,roldan,vito all found hags chin easily and all were no where close to the size,skill,and power of hopkins
4)hagler also had no problems calling out sugar ray,but tunred down quawi and spinks

i agree it would be chess,and chess isnt haglers strong suit

Yeah, Hearns was a WW, but he was also naturally a LMW and MW and when he fought Hagler he was a MW, not a WW. He was never smaller than Hagler. At the time they fought Hearns was a genuine 160 pounder. In fact he was better as a 154 pounder than a WW and was not naturally smaller than Hagler. Hearns was perfectly fine at MW and was bigger than Hagler.

I mean, Hearns is rated higher as a JMW than as a WW. Does that mean he is a WW or JMW from your point of view? Was he a small JMW now because you say he was a WW?

Hearns is one of the few guys that was definitely not smaller, naturally or otherwise, than anyone he faced from 147 to 160.

Was Williams the smaller man against Martinez just because he started at 147 and was there longer? No. HIs size was his bioggest advantage ion that fight. Without he would lost quite badly. Hearns is one of the few guys who was a genuine 147 through 160 pounder. He wasn't naturally smaller than Hagler. Even against guys at LHW through to CW he wasn't small. He was perfectly suited to fighting a prime Virgil Hill at 175, along with Dennis Andries whom he brutally KO'd. None of these guys were bigger than him and not one of them was able to impose what you would call their massive natural size advantage being that he was a WW and they LHW's. You wanna know why? Because they weren't bigger than him. Hearns was a natural at nearly every weight he was at because in terms of size he was one of those rare freaks that could fight just as easily at 160 as at 147.

He was still bigger at 160 than everyone he fought. Even Barkley couldn;t impose his size on Hearns and Barkley was a monstrous MW. He was just lucky he was able to catch him with that shot.

He also knocked out everyone he faced at 160 apart from the iron chinned Doug DeWitt. I'd call that a pretty good KO record at 160.

In fact, his KO record above 147 is astonishing. That's why he is called one of the greatest single punch KO artists of all time. How many fights did he have above 147? About 35 or so? He knocked out all but about ten and that's across weights from JMW to CW including some of his best one punch highlight reel KO's. He knocked out all but two of his opponents above LHW, which was probably about fifteen fights. Not bad for a past it WW.

Anyway, saying Hagler couldn't take a shot based on your theory of him never fighting a guy that was as big as him is absurd. Face it, Hopkins would never hurt Hagler. He just wouldn't. He's not one of those guys that could and whatever you're basing it off is wrong. He wouldn't even try to. He didn't even try to finish his opponents until he knew they were badly hurt and couldn't do anything back.

Was Mugabi not a big enough puncher and size for you? Hearns? Bennie Briscoe? Come on, of all people, to say Hagler couldn't take a shot from Hopkins, of all people. That's just funny.

Not only that, but if we use your great theory, that means Hagler would have an easy time hurting Hopkins since Hopkins was dropped twice and hurt badly against Mercano in that draw he got against him, who only had ten knockouts in twenty wins and was knocked out in every one of his losses and those KO wins were against absolute bums. Accordingly, that would mean Hagler would knock out Hopkins yes?

I don't get you mate.