Who took more risks in their careers and why?

[ИATAS]

so hopkins having guys come up to 160 and 170 from 147 and 154 took more of a risk than guys like toney and roy?

a natural middleweight fighting at 175 like roy didn't take any risks?

a fat short , bastard fighting cruiserweights and heavyweights is not taking a risk?

Even though I explained it some people just dont get it.

Throw oscar aside. No one considers that a risk.

Tito was a risk. he was CHAMP at 160. Hopkins was a 7-1 underdog and tito was 40-0. He could have been like calzaghe and held on a to a belt or two for 10 years but he decided to UNIFY the division, winning the four major alphabet belts plus the ring mag. Tito was a big win, don't down play it like he's some chump. Ask yourself if nard didn't exist at 160, would tito ran the division or not??

Pavlik was a huge risk at age 43. Pavlik was undefeated. Pavlik was a 4-1 favorite. MANY people predicted hopkins would get KO'd for the first time. Hopkins was coming off a loss and looked fatigued against Calzaghe. 90% of people counter hopkins out. It's easy to look back now and discredit his win but that simply isn't *****g things in perspective.

In addition, hopkins never fought tune ups, everyone else on the list did. You wont find any peter manfredo's or Omar Sheika's on bernards list, only mandatories and champs, big names

[ИATAS]

Calzaghe took the biggest fights he could take. He was calling tarver hopkins and roy out years before he got his big fights but they laughed at him.

Don't kid yourself. Calzaghe and his ex-promoter have admitted themselves they didn't take any risks.

[Abstraction]

Hopkins
Toney
RJJ
Calzaghe

Toney is more of a throwback, but considering Hopkins age, every bout is a risk, which is why i think he should retire now
How is Hopkins facing De La Hoya a WW?

De La Hoya was LMW and had been for about 3 years, and about 4 more years.

The bout was at 156lbs, with the LMW limit being 154. I don't see the problem?

[deuce_drop]

fights wise i would have to say james toney, he fought everyone and was usually the smaller guy, not counting fatness, but his resume is vast and he's had to fight a lot of his fights with his back to the wall, because in certain points in his career, a loss would've sent him into obscurity, even though toney has been there before and always finds a way back i would have to say he's taken a lot of risks in his career.
now if you want to talk about the ultimate risk a fighter can take which is the biggest risk a fighter can take, well, that one goes to Bernard Hopkins. Hopkins took on the boxing establishment, he went up against promoters and lawyers, and went to war with don king, king made his feelings about Hopkins very known by keeping Hopkins off of any sort of televised fight card that he possibly could. the middleweight tournament was don kings idea and chance to get hopkins belt by being the main promoter of the whole thing and having his number one guy at the time, trinidad, go up for his belt and try and take it. we all know what happened there. but hopkins fight against the promoters and being the only boxer show up for the court hearings in favor for boxers rights and pensions, making sure the fighters aren't taken advantage of. standing up for whats right and going against the grain because it's the right thing to do and not the popular thing to do or to doing nothing because of fear, well hopkins has taken the biggest risk in that regard, what ever is more risk that a fighter has taken, take your pick as to what is really risk?!?!?!?!?

[TheGreatA]

Toney without question.

[-MAKAVELLI-]

you could make good arguments for roy, nard and toney.....my initial instinct made me vote for the fat guy....he may have lacked the discipline to fight at a lower weight but he had no business being up that high for that long

and for the most part, he stayed active...dude has what? 80 fights...my opinion, my vote...its Lights Out

[The_Italian]

i think for me my vote is hopkins...

the person who took the LEAST amount of risks in their career had to be joe calzaghe. he had took a very conservative approach to his career in terms of opponents and willingness to travel outside his country.

joe calzaghe just recently had his first fight in america...after ALL THOSE YEARS he comes to the u.s. towards the END of his career to fight a roy jones jr who is past his prime...

hopkins i think has taken a lot of risks in his career...from what opponents he'd faced to how long he's been fighting (he's what 43 or 44 yrs old now)? thats a risk different than most are thinking when answering this question.

you have to take into account that he's much older than all his opponents...he's old enough to have fathered the up and comers in this sport...and he still shows signs of dominance even at this age and stage of his career...he went in and absolutely crushed pavlik for 12 rounds...not many could do something like that...people couldnt do it in their prime and hopkins did it well past his.

[WhoreUs]

In addition, hopkins never fought tune ups, everyone else on the list did. You wont find any peter manfredo's or Omar Sheika's on bernards list, only mandatories and champs, big names

omar sheika was a pretty good fighter.

my favorite 168 fighter for a bit. always on espn.



bernard is overrated. fuck him.

[-EX-]

Sure as hell wasn't Calzaghe...

[-Antonio-]

The hell is wrong with you all? It's James Toney and it's not even close.