Great Britain vs USA the facts.

[FRKO]

Exactly, eubanks was past it and took the fight on short notice i think.

Reid was never a superstar and calzaghe won by SD.

Reid was in his prime and was more dangerous than he is given credit for. Also, Calzaghe fought that fight with an elbow injury and recovering from food poisoning. No wonder he struggled, but I had him clearly winning 7 rounds to Reid's 5.

Yeah, Eubank took the fight on short notice, but I don't think Eubank was past entirely it at all. the problem was the the fact that Eubank changed after the Watson tragedy, but I believe he could fight as hard as ever. Also consider that Joe was young, and even if Eubank was past it, it was still a massive step up for Calzaghe, being only his 23rd fight and having been up against no major competition at that point in his career. It was a great fight and a fantastic win for Joe, we shouldn't try to discredit him for it because doing so makes us look like a bunch of sad bastards.

[Knicksman20]

WTF? I don't need to BoxRec that info, I am enough of a fan of Hopkins to know who he was fighting at the time. I know very well who Carl Daniels is. Calzaghe's wins over Eubank and Reid are better than Hops' wins over Daniels and Hakkar.

Then you would've known that Daniels was a solid fighter back when Hopkins fought him. And not the 12 loss guy you looked up on Boxrec because that's exactly what I saw just now when I looked him up. Losing to Terry Norris & Julio Cesar Vazquez is nothing to be ashamed of.

[FRKO]

Then you would've known that Daniels was a solid fighter back when Hopkins fought him. And not the 12 loss guy you looked up on Boxrec because that's exactly what I saw just now when I looked him up. Losing to Terry Norris & Julio Cesar Vazquez is nothing to be ashamed of.

Daniels was solid, yes. Not great. Let's backtrack and put this argument straight, though. We were comparing the opponents that Hopkins and Calzaghe were facing around 2002 because someone asked "who was Calzaghe fighting 6 years into his reign". I posted about Hopkins facing less than stellar competition at times, reminded some people here that the sun does not shine out of Bernard's ass, and that most fighters fight nobodies at some point, or less-than-great opponents at others. They can't fight spectacular fighters every time, it just doesn't happen like that.

Calzaghe fought Pudwill as a late replacement. He also fought Byron Mitchell and Charles Brewer around this point in his career. Again, solid, but not great opponents. Defeating Carl Daniels doesn't give Hopkins or his fans a big reason to brag. Then again, nor does beating up welterweights.

[Knicksman20]

Daniels was solid, yes. Not great. Let's backtrack and put this argument straight, though. We were comparing the opponents that Hopkins and Calzaghe were facing around 2002 because someone asked "who was Calzaghe fighting 6 years into his reign". I posted about Hopkins facing less than stellar competition at times, reminded some people here that the sun does not shine out of Bernard's ass, and that most fighters fight nobodies at some point, or less-than-great opponents at others. They can't fight spectacular fighters every time, it just doesn't happen like that.

Calzaghe fought Pudwill as a late replacement. He also fought Byron Mitchell and Charles Brewer around this point in his career. Again, solid, but not great opponents. Defeating Carl Daniels doesn't give Hopkins or his fans a big reason to brag. Then again, nor does beating up welterweights.

You're absolutely right in your post. But this is what you said:

Mr. Pudwill was a late replacement. He lasted 2 rounds with Zaghe.

Everyone has a few nobodies on their resume, including Hopkins. The sun does not shine out of his ass. The same year Calzaghe fought Pudwill, Hopkins fought Carl Daniels, a little 5'9" guy with 12 losses on his record.

I was saying that Daniels was not nearly as bad as you made him out to be. He was a solid fighter that was better than Salem, Pudwill, & Brewer.

[squealpiggy]

Exactly, eubanks was past it and took the fight on short notice i think.

Reid was never a superstar and calzaghe won by SD.

Eubank was 31 when Calzaghe fought him. Calzaghe now is 35.

[hardmanbrit]

Eubank was 31 when Calzaghe fought him. Calzaghe now is 35.

That is a common misconception!

Calzaghe's present day age, I mean.

Joe Calzaghe is actually 36!

[215Chaingang]

I was saying that Daniels was not nearly as bad as you made him out to be. He was a solid fighter that was better than Salem, Pudwill, & Brewer.

he also had a belt at the time

[FRKO]

I was saying that Daniels was not nearly as bad as you made him out to be. He was a solid fighter that was better than Salem, Pudwill, & Brewer.

My intention wasn't to make Daniels out to be a nobody, maybe I over exaggerated my words or something. Daniels is (or was) solid, I agree. Pudwill, as a replacement fighter on 2 weeks notice, can kinda be excused, but guys like that really shouldn't have been anywhere near a ring with the likes of Joe Calzaghe at that point in his career. Thomas Tate, the American boxer Joe should have been fighting, might have been a slightly more interesting fight, but again, he was beaten by Ottke (twice), and probably would have lasted about the same amount of time in the ring as Pudwill anyway!

Of course, Joe was supposed to fight Hopkins in 2002. Shame Hopkins backed out.

[Clegg]

It's important to know the USA has a lot more people than the UK,we only 60million and the USA its 300million.To expect equal numbers of Champions is lack of judgement.Having said that however,the customers in the UK fall for anything.Can anyone understand how 55000 fools bought tickets to go and watch Hatton fighting a nobody.Fans here are not demanding,if they were they wouldnt buy stuff like that.

More people than that paid for Mayweather vs Baldomir on PPV. At least the Hatton-Lazcano fight will have at least one serious punch thrown at some point in the fight.

UK fans like to go out to sporting events and have a good time. The atmosphere, the occassion...all of these things are enjoyable. I'd rather watch the football team I support play against Barcelona than against Rotherham, but I'd enjoy going to either match. Most UK sports fans are the same so Hatton selling so many tickets isn't surprising. Nor is it a bad thing, either.

The same explains why it took Hatton 38fights to face a real champion and how Calzaghe could afford to fight the likes of Ashira and still getting paid

Yeah, Hatton took his time, but I don't think that Hatton is a great fighter so I think it's understandable. Even if he was a great fighter, different boxers need to be handled differently, and Hatton was handled the right way in my opinion. Chavez was pretty experienced at the time of his first title fight.

As for Calzaghe, all fighters have some unimpressive opposition on their record. Calzaghe's worst defences are comparable to Hopkins. This point has been made a million times.

By the time Mayweather had the same fights as Amir Khan,Mayweather was already a world champion,we might wait some 27fights from Khan to see that happening.

Is Mayweather an average fighter? Do most boxers move as quickly through the ranks as him? You could compare almost any fighter to Mayweather, even ATG's, and they wouldn't have such an impressive early career.

Maybe your next argument should be to criticise all UK fighters, because none of them ever fought for the world heavyweight title in their first fight, unlike Pete Rademacher.

Khan is 21 and has had less than 20 fights. There is absolutely no reason for him to be pushed into a world title fight yet. Most fighters are older than 21 when they first fight for a title, so he is doing fine.

By the time these guys face real champions they fall

Hold on, you just said that Tszyu was a real champion, and now you're saying Hatton et al lose to real champions. But Hatton beat Tszyu.

[hardmanbrit]

Regarding your point about that arrogant, hit and run driver Amir Khan, I know that after just 11 professional fights, De La Hoya was a World Champion.