Calzaghe or Hopkins: Whose 20 Defenses Were Better?

[riza]

again its very close but both were weak for 20 defences.

[lesterprettyboy]

I think there is a huge difference...B-Hop was known as "Undisputed" champion...Joe only has the WBO belt.Yep, thats right, the least recognized among the 4 alphabet bodies.

[Gatti9783]

Who picked Calzaghe?!?

[squealpiggy]

Hopkins slightly. Take away his two biggest wins (who were his smallest wins in stature) and there's not much between them. Calzaghe could overtake Hopkins if he fights Kessler and unifies the division and defends against Taylor.

[bsrizpac]

Who picked Calzaghe?!?

Geoff is a troll.

[yrrej]

You gotta be kidding! I give Calzaghe all the credit in the world for fighting in his home territory anyone who has the guts to face him, but Hopkins fought better quality guys.....

[moochi]

both were lists of bums and some big names:

therefore i go with calzaghe as he KO'd most of them!

[Ramamaiden]

hopkins.....

[squealpiggy]

I think that Calzaghe will have the better run if he defends against Kessler and Taylor because he will have had two big names, just like Hopkins, only his two big names would not be former welterweights and super featherweights, they would be former middleweights and natural super-middles. Also five of hopkins' defences were against two fighters.

[Mick Hucknall]

Hopkins has wins over Trinidad and Dela Hoya...does anyone on Calzaghe's list come close to those two?...of course not.Calzaghe has never risked anything...which is why he not one of the 'big boys',and is just a boy.

DLH and Tito are both blown up welterweights, you do the math Einstein