Is this proof that Calzaghe didn't beat an over the hill Hopkins?

[THe TRiNiTY]

To an extent, yes. However, Hopkins wasn't in his prime when he fought Calzaghe. Calzaghe wasn't in his prime, either.

However, I've always stated that Calzaghe's win counts and it's a good win. Could have been better for both if it took place three or four years earlier, but it was a good win. Calzaghe did what little have done in the ring with Hopkins. He fought hard, stuck to his game plan and managed to keep his rate up more than any other fighter.... ever, really.

Neither were in their prime, however. You're prime isn't you're mid-to-late 30's, regardless of whom you are.

[Blubba]

Jermain Taylor close fight with Hopkins = rematch
Jean Pascal close fight with Hopkins = rematch
Joe Calzaghe close fight with Hopkins = fight shot to **** Roy then retire.

nice ******ed logic,

no rematch means the win didnt exist ? lol

[shonuff488]

The problem with Calzaghe fans is that they want to build their hero's name off what other fighters do. Kessler beat Froch and Calzaghe beat Kessler so therefore Joe is better than Froch. Hopkins is still winning, and Joe has a win over him which means Joe has a greater legacy. It doesn't work that way. When your best wins are Jeff "Left Hook" Lacy and Mikkel Kessler you have a questionable resume. He did not beat Hopkins in my opinion, and should have gave Hopkins the rematch.

[IronDanHamza]

Nobody is in their prime at 40+ years old.

Fact.

[shonuff488]

nice ******ed logic,

no rematch means the win didnt exist ? lol

It was a split decision that a lot of people thought Hopkins won. It deserved a rematch.

[Blubba]

The problem with Calzaghe fans is that they want to build their hero's name off what other fighters do. Kessler beat Froch and Calzaghe beat Kessler so therefore Joe is better than Froch. Hopkins is still winning, and Joe has a win over him which means Joe has a greater legacy. It doesn't work that way. When your best wins are Jeff "Left Hook" Lacy and Mikkel Kessler you have a questionable resume. He did not beat Hopkins in my opinion, and should have gave Hopkins the rematch.

problem wit boxing fans is they cant accept that hopkins lost to a silly slapper n retired lol.

im sorry but it really did happen. hopkins career will always be tarnished by that.

[-Antonio-]

It's always been a big win to me. People are thrown off by how ugly the fight was, and how ridiculous some of Calzaghe's flurries were. What people don't look at is he adjusted from the kd immediately, and made it difficult for an extremely negative Hopkins to score after that. Hopkins was still dangerous. It's a great win.

[daggum]

To an extent, yes. However, Hopkins wasn't in his prime when he fought Calzaghe. Calzaghe wasn't in his prime, either.

However, I've always stated that Calzaghe's win counts and it's a good win. Could have been better for both if it took place three or four years earlier, but it was a good win. Calzaghe did what little have done in the ring with Hopkins. He fought hard, stuck to his game plan and managed to keep his rate up more than any other fighter.... ever, really.

Neither were in their prime, however. You're prime isn't you're mid-to-late 30's, regardless of whom you are.

yeah he managed to keep his rate of missing up. i'm impressed! silly hopkins throwing those accurate punches. if only he knew you just had to throw the punches not land them to win.

[Blubba]

It was a split decision that a lot of people thought Hopkins won. It deserved a rematch.

sure he deserved a rematch, but if a man is ready to retire there nothing they can do about that, it dont make the win any less valid.

[daggum]

sure he deserved a rematch, but if a man is ready to retire there nothing they can do about that, it dont make the win any less valid.

yeah and he was ready to retire because he knew he couldn't beat hopkins legit. he even said himself that he only retired because he knew he was gonna lose soon. all time great stuff.