I swear you Calzaghe fans or British fans in general get me more aggravted than that one time a guy told me and seriously believed Miguel Cotto beat Roy Jones for a belt while I tried to tell him that wasn't possible because Jones is at 175 while Cotto was at 147. He kept insisting I was wrong. He also said the Cotto-Margarito fight was fixed, cause Cotto went down to his knees on "soft" shots. As a Cotto fan, He pissed me off. but damn you Calzaghe people are ridiciulous.
I swear you Calzaghe fans or British fans in general get me more aggravted than that one time a guy told me and seriously believed Miguel Cotto beat Roy Jones for a belt while I tried to tell him that wasn't possible because Jones is at 175 while Cotto was at 147. He kept insisting I was wrong. He also said the Cotto-Margarito fight was fixed, cause Cotto went down to his knees on "soft" shots. As a Cotto fan, He pissed me off. but damn you Calzaghe people are ridiciulous.
You should have followed him home and finished the job god began.
at 168 calzaghe has the best resume ever. only guy to win all 4 belts.
also he conquered america. hopkins and jones in vegas and new york.
hopkins' resume at middleweight wasn't all that good either. id say hopkins at middleweight is about equal to joe at supermiddle.
hopkins' best win was against trinidad, not as good as kessler
hopkins' second best win was ODLH( at middle wtf?) about as good as lacy?
above middleweight, calzaghe beat hopkins and roy jones.
hopkins beat winky, tarver, and pavlik and lost to joe. - to be fair; tarver is **** and hopkins fought winky and pavlik out of their natural divisions, giving him an advantage.
jones basically has two careers, one of the greatest ever, and a fringe contender career afterwards.
verdict: its hard to say any of these guys are clearly greater than eachother.
Comment