Roy Jones should be favored against anyone from 160-175

[The_Demon]

Another very good fighter like Kessler. Solid skills, excellent puncher, just lacked the adaptability to make the jump to elite. My point is, Calzaghe's resume isn't as barren as some people think it is. It's not as stacked as I get the feeling Zagz thinks it is, either, but he's got some wins.

Im a huge fan of calzaghe and always have been and i agree with you,his resume is somewhere in between

[BigStereotype]

The ultimate definition of a fraud: Someone who is not an elite fighter who is touted as an elite fighter by their moronic fans and boxing's hype machine.

He was overrated but still a quality fighter, especially when you consider that B-Hop was 45.

[BigStereotype]

The fact that he lost to a 45 year old fighter who hadn't won a big fight in years speaks volumes.

Now we're going in circles. Pavlik sucks because he lost to Hopkins who wasn't that good because he could only beat Pavlik who sucks because he lost to Hopkins...

[The_Demon]

Hopkins sucks because he's the boxing equivalent of a geriatric. If Pavlik had lost to Hopkins circa 2001 that would have been one thing. If Fraudslappy had beaten Hopkins circa 2001 it would have been one thing. Instead it was a post-40 year old has been against both.

Hopkins,despite his age,certainly doesnt suck

Pavlik and Pascal are good strong young fighters and bhop beat them both (imo) post calzaghe

[BigStereotype]

Hopkins sucks because he's the boxing equivalent of a geriatric. If Pavlik had lost to Hopkins circa 2001 that would have been one thing. If Fraudslappy had beaten Hopkins circa 2001 it would have been one thing. Instead it was a post-40 year old has been against both.

He was still a top p4p fighter who looked alright in those two fights.

[ScrotieMcBooger]

He was still a top p4p fighter who looked alright in those two fights.

He shouldn't be. The only reason he considered such is because a) people are idiots who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground; and b) there's a dirth of talent in boxing when a 45 year old with shot reflexes and no big wins to his credit in years is considered "top" anything. The above two reasons are why Evander Holyfield keeps getting high profile fights.

[BigStereotype]

He shouldn't be. The only reason he considered such is because a) people are idiots who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground; and b) there's a dirth of talent in boxing when a 45 year old with shot reflexes and no big wins to his credit in years is considered "top" anything. The above two reasons are why Evander Holyfield keeps getting high profile fights.

I would hardly call Holyfield's fights high profile. I agree he probably shouldn't have been top p4p, but he did look pretty good in those fights. The Calzaghe fight was next to unwatchable, but Hopkins has never been a very aesthetically pleasing fighter.

[ScrotieMcBooger]

I would hardly call Holyfield's fights high profile. I agree he probably shouldn't have been top p4p, but he did look pretty good in those fights. The Calzaghe fight was next to unwatchable, but Hopkins has never been a very aesthetically pleasing fighter.

I'd call the Valuev fight reasonably high profile especially considering all the overblown hype about him soley due to his size. Hopkins used to be pleasing to watch (see the Trinidad fight) and has only used the spoiling tactics since he's faded past his prime as a means of survival.

[BigStereotype]

I'd call the Valuev fight reasonably high profile especially considering all the overblown hype about him soley due to his size. Hopkins used to be pleasing to watch (see the Trinidad fight) and has only used the spoiling tactics since he's faded past his prime as a means of survival.

I wasn't really following boxing when Valuev was a big deal () but I get the feeling his appeal, if you can call it that, was always more as a sideshow. Did anyone actually take him seriously?

As for Hopkins, I don't think either of us is going to agree on this. Differing opinions.

[ScrotieMcBooger]

I wasn't really following boxing when Valuev was a big deal () but I get the feeling his appeal, if you can call it that, was always more as a sideshow. Did anyone actually take him seriously?

As for Hopkins, I don't think either of us is going to agree on this. Differing opinions.

Depends on who you talk to. If you ask Klitschko2011 (wlad_ownz) then he'll swear up and down he's the THIRD best Heavyweight in history.

Don't get me wrong: Hopkins WAS a great fighter and historically an ATG, but that was YEARS ago. The truth is he's a gatekeeper now: He can turn aside the frauds like Pavlik but he isn't capable of beating even marginal top fighters these days (see the Taylor fights).