Tweet
Agree or Disagree? A younger Hopkins would have beaten him, a 43 year old Hopkins beat him and got robbed but a younger better version of B-Hop who was more active and aggressive would have beaten him.
-
88Yes he would50.00%44No he wouldn't50.00%44 -
Calzaghe lost to a 43 Year old Bernard Hopkins. I just cant imagine a younger Hopkins against him -
Prime Hopkins actually FOUGHT. The Hopkins you see today is actually more difficult for Calzaghe to beat because he doesn't engage in any fights. The "Prime" Hopkins did.
Ya'll judging Calzaghe on a fight against Hopkins where no one looks good against him.Comment
-
A negative fighter should NEVER win.
The aim of the game is to fight not run.Comment
-
Prime Joe Calzaghe, who punched MUCH harder, would have KOed Bernard Hopkins.Comment
-
The name of the game is to punch not slap, and if your goona slap slap them where it counts, not on the shoulder and back...
Comment
-
No doubt a Younger Hopkins would have beaten him. Hell this version did IMO and he is way out of his best days.Comment
-
A 43 Year old way past his best days Knocked him down in the first round and cut him in the process. He won no doubt joes dad said he needed a knockout to winComment
-
Calzaghe underperformed tonight, because he didn't see Hopkin as a threat and was even smiling before the fight.
Calzaghe wasn't properly mentally prepared. A ready Calzaghe knocks a prime Hopkin out.Comment
-
Your opinion is as useless as your scorecard for May/Hatton fight. British fighters are overrated and next victim is Amir Khan. Stop making excuses Mayweather knocked da **** out of Hatton and Hopkins beat Calzaghe after knocking him down, cutting him, and winning rounds using his occasional counter right, all calzaghe punches were in the air he wasnt landing at all. no ****ing acccuracy...bull****Comment
Comment