This needs 2 get clear'ed up.... About hopkins

[ИATAS]

With the greatest respect dude, that's poor logic. Is Hopkins equally as close to his prime having just come off one of his best wins?

Hopkins was 43 Calzaghe 36. Ok, there is a big difference there. I'd say Hopkins absolute prime, his peak was between probably 1998 to 2001. 7-10 years prior to the Calzaghe fight.

[tommy boo boxer]

Prime Hopkins would not beat JC........it would go to cards and JC workrate will be far more as it was in their recent fight. remember JC is not in prime at time of that fight and still obvioulsy outpointed Bhop.....fight was not close

your name says it all

but your entitled to your opinion

[dde91]

Hopkins was 43 Calzaghe 36. Ok, there is a big difference there. I'd say Hopkins absolute prime, his peak was between probably 1998 to 2001. 7-10 years prior to the Calzaghe fight.

yea, Hopkins from 98-2001 was a Beast. Fighting Johnson, Echols, Tito, Vanderpool, ETC.

Who was Calzaghe from 98-2001? he didn't peak till like 2 years ago.

[T-97]

'Most people?' Almost nobody but his haters think Bhop has truly lost since RJ beat him. And there's been many prime for prime threads that show him ownin these guys if they fought him in younger days.

I'm a huge 'Nard fan. I had him losing to Calzaghe 114-113, although I know I had him winning the Taylor rematch. Can't remember my score for the first Taylor fight, I think is was a draw or to Taylor closely.

And on topic, I think 'Nard is better than both Prime for Prime, although it's close with Calzaghe imo.

[Kris Silver]

Hopkins was 43 Calzaghe 36. Ok, there is a big difference there. I'd say Hopkins absolute prime, his peak was between probably 1998 to 2001. 7-10 years prior to the Calzaghe fight.

But your previous post just suggested Calzaghe was near prime purely because of coming of one of his best wins. It doesn't work like that.

With both these guys theyre prime is highly debatable and subjective though to be fair. Calzaghe used to hit harder but not be so polished, tactical of well rounded. Hopkins defence, experience, tactical ability now is immensely good which is what gave Joe the most trouble.

In 1998 Calzaghe had beaten Eubank but was far from his best. So you can't pick and choose to favour one guy and not the other. But yes any earlier then that Hopkins would take it. In 2001 / 2002 Calzaghe takes it by around the same margin. He probably loses some early rounds but would win rounds with more actual contact and aggression from Nard suiting him.

[Da Hammer]

i thought Taylor did beat him those 2 fights although they were close but i did think he beat Calzaghe!

[Fighting Champ]

Really Hopkins got popular after getting older and became a better fighter, but not much of an exciting one.

Hopkins got mostly known after beating a Felix Trinidad, who went up in weight and came all chubby for that fight. Fighters have been going out of their weight class just for the money.

Can people really determine Hopkins greatness for beating fighter that went up in weight to fight him? Because Trinidad, De La Hoya, Pavlik, Winky Wright all went up in weight to fight him. But Hopkins hasn't done as well against fighters that are from his same weight class. Taylor (2), Calzaghe. he beat Antonio Tarver, but people are forgetting Tarver had been filming the Rocky movie and had to gain many pounds to get to heavyweight and then lose all those pounds to be able fight Bernard Hopkins.