Hopkins calls out Calzaghe...

[SHB]

I got bored and I'm calling it a day anwyay. Anyway it's a bit pointless continuing to dissect someone's argument when it either changes every post or they ignore what you posted.

[Technical_Skill]

What an utter utter ****ing scrote you are. I bet you get beaten every day in school like the ****sexual ***** that you are.

Seriously lad, don't go onto a forum if a) you can't put together a coherent and consistent argument and b) you know **** all about the subject the forum is about. Your boxing knowledge is as ****ing laughable as your attempts to act all "hard" and "edgy" when in reality we all know your some spotty 18 year old kid hiding in their bedroom in their parents house who's 120lbs soaking wet and the closest they've actually come to a boxing ring is when they bought Fight Night for their ****ing xbox. Mind you that's closer than you've come to popping your cherry.

And I thought the Danes were bad. At least they're just harmless fanboys at worst.

What? Dude honestly you have been seriously misinformed, let me break it down for you.

-Hopkins resume> Calzaghe's

-DLH, Trinidad and Jones Jr> Brewer, Shieka and Mitchell

Very simple.

I really dunno why u feel the need to cry like a ***** that just tried **** for the first time,

Fair enough, you like calzaghe's ****, its tastes of both Mutton and Spagetti, im multicultural too, but you take it a little too far.

That's a coherant arguement, hope u enjoy that.

[SHB]

Well, there's certainly no answer to that. Night night.

[Technical_Skill]

The quality of the opponents is undisputed. The fact remains that neither De La Hoya or Trinidad were fighting anywhere near their real weight. If Ricky Hatton now went and stepped up to Middle-weight, would you give many people credit for beating him, despite him being a P4P top 10 fighter (please try and answer this without telling me that Trinidad and De La Hoya are better quality fighters than Hatton, I know you understand that isnt the point of this comparison)? De La Hoya and Trinidad has no business being at Hopkins' weight and Roy Jones JR BEAT him.

Calzaghe's victories may not have come against fighters as high in quality, but they were at least at the right weight level and at least he beat all of his. To me, that just about makes them pretty equal victories.

Very simple answer, resume = Name of boxers you have fought

Resume is not the reason behind a boxer winning a fight and the circumstances behind it.

I acutally agree with most of what you have said, but no they are not equal victories, you can't just say because Winky, DLH and trinidad came up weight to fight hopkins, those wins are equal to the Likes of mitchell, Brewer and shieka, lol.

[.Mik.]

If you agree with most of what I have said, there is no need to laugh at it, is there?

I completely disagree that your resume is equal entirely to the NAMES of the people you have fought. If thats the case, would you say that Danny Williams has an incredible scalp on his resume because he beat Mike Tyson? Its the condition of the boxer at the time that has a huge impact on the resume and comfort within the weight is a big element that makes up the condition of the fighter. Quite simply, Tito and De La Hoya and now even Wright were completely out of their comfort zone fighting at that weight. They are unproven to be forces at that weight. That HAS to take away from the legitimacy of them as victories.

Meanwhile, Calzaghe fought guys who were nowhere near the class in name. However, they WERE comfortable at that weight, the weight is where they fit and as such they are comparable (note I do not say better) victories.

In honesty, I think that your argument that 'name is all that matters' is quite incredulous. I could probably beat Ali in a fight now if I called him down to light-heavyweight. My resume would start out pretty ****ing hot.

[Technical_Skill]

If you agree with most of what I have said, there is no need to laugh at it, is there?

I completely disagree that your resume is equal entirely to the NAMES of the people you have fought. If thats the case, would you say that Danny Williams has an incredible scalp on his resume because he beat Mike Tyson? .

Unfortunatley yes, but it does depend who is looking at the resume, average fan or scholar.

Its the way boxing works, 10-15 years from now, people see danny williams's record, they are gonna see 'Tyson', they will most likely forget he was shot and think, whoaa, williams beat tyson.

Resume in its most basic form is simply who you have fought, wether you choose to look into that resume and criticize and or embrace it is up to you.

Lol@ you saying 'equal victories' what you are saying there is that their resumes are equal are you not?

Let me know if you are,

i could have sworn i saw you say you didnt dispute hopkins had fought better fighters, or was that someone else?

[Technical_Skill]

Oh and i didnt say "Name was all that Matters"

I simply said Resume = Names of boxers you have fought.

[Nate126]

Hopkins tryna get himself hurt.

[.Mik.]

Unfortunatley yes, but it does depend who is looking at the resume, average fan or scholar.

Its the way boxing works, 10-15 years from now, people see danny williams's record, they are gonna see 'Tyson', they will most likely forget he was shot and think, whoaa, williams beat tyson.

Resume in its most basic form is simply who you have fought, wether you choose to look into that resume and criticize and or embrace it is up to you.

Lol@ you saying 'equal victories' what you are saying there is that their resumes are equal are you not?

Let me know if you are,

i could have sworn i saw you say you didnt dispute hopkins had fought better fighters, or was that someone else?

Thats not true whatsoever. Its been more than 10-15 years and the VAST majority of people, boxing fans or casuals, remember that the Ali that lost to Berbick and Holmes was not the great name to have on your resume that Ali once was.

Resume in its most basic form, may well be 'who you fought', but in a boxing discussion forum...why are we discussing such a thing 'in its most basic form'? We're a bit beyond that, surely?

I am, and continue to say, that Hopkins' resume is a bit better than Calzaghe...not much though. Hopkins HAS indeed fought better fighters, but the quality of the fighters at their ideal weight is not the same as the quality of the fighters at the weight they fought Hopkins. You really cant deny this. So while I'd say that the fighters we're talking Hopkins fought were of a higher quality than the ones Calzaghe fought, I certainly wouldnt put any of his victories on Hopkins' resume above those victories on Calzaghe's (again, I must stress that I'm talking about victories, these are different to opponents in much the same way as a victory over prime Ali carries much more weight on your resume/legacy than a victory over a shot Ali, even though his name did not change). Particularly as the only big names on Hopkins' resume who were legitimate top contenders at his weight when they fought him...all beat him. Whereas none yet have defeated Calzaghe.

If you can genuinely attempt to put up much of an argument to that, then I'll have to leave this one, as its too late in the day to try to get through to a brick wall.

[Technical_Skill]

Thats not true whatsoever. Its been more than 10-15 years and the VAST majority of people, boxing fans or casuals, remember that the Ali that lost to Berbick and Holmes was not the great name to have on your resume that Ali once was.

Thats pure assumptions, you dont know what the majority of casual fans think of Ali's resume lol, seriously, it happens, it took some people 5 mins to forget Ricky Hatton beat a totally shot castillo

Resume in its most basic form, may well be 'who you fought', but in a boxing discussion forum...why are we discussing such a thing 'in its most basic form'? We're a bit beyond that, surely?

Oh Mik, that is poor by your standards, ive have explained it before, the way i see things at the moment Resume= Who you have fought, thats the simplest way i can explain a near definition of resume, as i have said before.

Wether you choose to look into that resume and question it and the circumstances behind it is up to you, the resume is still the names on the paper or database, not the circumstances behind it. But i am open to a change of opinion on that one.

I am, and continue to say, that Hopkins' resume is a bit better than Calzaghe...not much though. Hopkins HAS indeed fought better fighters, but the quality of the fighters at their ideal weight is not the same as the quality of the fighters at the weight they fought Hopkins.

Agreed.

So while I'd say that the fighters we're talking Hopkins fought were of a higher quality than the ones Calzaghe fought, I certainly wouldnt put any of his victories on Hopkins' resume above those victories on Calzaghe's (again, I must stress that I'm talking about victories, these are different to opponents in much the same way as a victory over prime Ali carries much more weight on your resume/legacy than a victory over a shot Ali, even though his name did not change). Particularly as the only big names on Hopkins' resume who were legitimate top contenders at his weight when they fought him...all beat him. Whereas none yet have defeated Calzaghe.

This is bad stuff here, you cannot call a win over Felix trinidad and Oscar De La Hoya equal to a win over a Bryon Michell, Branko Soobot, Sheika, Woodhall or any of those guys, simply because they were not fighting at their ideal weight, the skill difference between those guys calzaghe fought and De La Hoya alone is immense. You cant even things up because those guys came up weight.

Surely i dont have to explain to you the difference in skill level between de la hoya at 160 and the likes of Peter manfredo jr or Brewer or Mitchell?

(Btw, manfredo was not a natural 168 pounder you know, so hopkins aint the only one who fights blown up middleweights)