The definitive poll: Who's higher on the ATG list--Calzaghe or Hopkins?

[KJB]

Again people are confusing resume with who is the better fighter.

Hopkins has better names if not necessarily better opponents (DLH at 160 FFS) but ask me who wins prime vs prime and who is the better boxer and I'll pick Calzaghe. Just a shame we never got to see it in 2003 when Hopkins reneged on his agreement.

Thats because you cant tell the difference between a slick boxer and a Jazz Bassist.
Resume is one thing, but prime for prime BHop is that much farther ahead of Calzaghe.
This conversation is really ridiculous. The only reasoning someone would have for claiming Calzaghe was better in his prime is that he always looked good on account of fighting **** opponents.

[SHB]

You mean a verbal agreement or a real agreement like the one Calslappy backed out of to fight Glen Johnson 3 times?

Twice. Due to injuries. Are people really doubting that Calzaghe's hands weren't genuinely injured? Jesus. Would have happened the 3rd time if Johnson hadn't so carelessly lost to Woods.

And, lets be honest, Johnson never beats Calzaghe although it would have been fun to watch and more competitive than some of his defences.

[Obama]

Thats because you cant tell the difference between a slick boxer and a Jazz Bassist.
Resume is one thing, but prime for prime BHop is that much farther ahead of Calzaghe.
This conversation is really ridiculous. The only reasoning someone would have for claiming Calzaghe was better in his prime is that he always looked good on account of fighting **** opponents.

Yep, pretty much how I see it too. Calzaghe never fought an elite opponent in his entire career...Kessler and a 43 year old BHop were as close as he got. He looked good against Kessler, not so much against B-Hop. Every body else he looked good against was B level and below. And quite a few of them gave him hell...Robin Reid and Richie Woodhall at the top of the list.

[Patheticfraud?]

A common logical **** up that the people who make it never have an answer for.

Problem with your "argument" is Hopkins resume is not the one in question by anyone. Calzaghe's pathetic excuse for a resume is questioned by any and everyone in boxing aside from a few stubborn die hards.

[hookoutofhell]

You don't even know me and you're talking about bias.

De La Hoya despite being in his 6th weight division was still in the prime of his career. He also came into the fight in top conditioning, unlike the Sturm fight. He gave a great account for himself in the fight prior to the KO.

Johnson was pre-prime when Hopkins beat him. He was at his best circa 2004.

Tarver was post-prime when Hopkins beat him, and only A- in his prime to begin with. You saw Tarver slip in the third RJJ fight.

And I didn't forget to rank his losses, most don't mean all that much considering he never lost in his prime, and Calzaghe beat him after he was already over the hill. I'm sure you'll come back with "how did he beat Pavlik so easily then?", but I have an answer for that too.

bottom line is DLH had no buisness at 160 and the top 5 at MW would have beat him. DLH isn't even a big WW wtf was he doing at MW?

johnson was arguably a little green, but was still touted very highlly had a good punch on him, agree that he only really developed a good style after 04.

maybe thats what seperates calzaghe from hopkins - calzaghe never lost wther he was in his prime, green or at the end of his career whereas hopkins did...several times.

as for pavlik - i always said that the weight and smarts from b-hop would be too much for him, pavlik has no buisness at @ 166, 168 or 170. even if zaghe had beat him at 168 i wouldn't rank it as a good win for zaghe in the same way i dont rank it as a good win for b-hop.

[Patheticfraud?]

The only reasoning someone would have for claiming Calzaghe was better in his prime is that he always looked good on account of fighting **** opponents.

That's the understatement of the year.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Problem with your "argument" is Hopkins resume is not the one in question by anyone. Calzaghe's pathetic excuse for a resume is questioned by any and everyone in boxing aside from a few stubborn die hards.

I didnt make an argument, I just pissed myself laughing at yours.

[hookoutofhell]

Twice. Due to injuries. Are people really doubting that Calzaghe's hands weren't genuinely injured? Jesus. Would have happened the 3rd time if Johnson hadn't so carelessly lost to Woods.

And, lets be honest, Johnson never beats Calzaghe although it would have been fun to watch and more competitive than some of his defences.

yeah i dont think zaghe withdrew he just postponed the fight - johnson thought 'sod that' i need a fight and both went their seperate ways.

no ducking involved

[Obama]

bottom line is DLH had no buisness at 160 and the top 5 at MW would have beat him. DLH isn't even a big WW wtf was he doing at MW?

johnson was arguably a little green, but was still touted very highlly had a good punch on him, agree that he only really developed a good style after 04.

maybe thats what seperates calzaghe from hopkins - calzaghe never lost wther he was in his prime, green or at the end of his career whereas hopkins did...several times.

as for pavlik - i always said that the weight and smarts from b-hop would be too much for him, pavlik has no buisness at @ 166, 168 or 170. even if zaghe had beat him at 168 i wouldn't rank it as a good win for zaghe in the same way i dont rank it as a good win for b-hop.

Uh, De La Hoya was in fact a big Welterweight. He was also rated #1 JMW in the world prior to "losing" to Mosley. Who are these top 5 Middleweights that existed at the time that would have beat him? Name them please.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

yeah i dont think zaghe withdrew he just postponed the fight - johnson thought 'sod that' i need a fight and both went their seperate ways.

no ducking involved

Funny thing is that no one mentions the fact that Johnson withdrew from the Calzaghe fight twice..........by losing to Clinton Woods and Omar Shieka