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

[daggum]

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.

no he didn't what fight were you watching? hopkins only landed like 3 punches in the first round and he actually landed a lot more in the next 5 until he started gassing out. calzaghe landed...........well he tried hard!

[Blubba]

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.

every boxer age different, maybe slappy was feeling it. so he quit while he was ahead. i cant blame him, i never liked him but i wont discount his win, a win is a win.

[Stromprophet]

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.

Well, there's disclaimers to all kinds of wins.

Trinidad over DLH for instance. Or Pac over JMM. You have to discount that win compared say to another win.

So Pac over Cotto has a full authority to it, Pac over JMM, not so much. Tough fight, gets credit for the fight, but it's not as good a win as the other.

[ckamp]

I'm willing to offer a perspective no one has thought to offer and that is quite feasible to me but correct me if I'm way off...

the Hopkins Calzaghe fight could have easily been called a draw..

[daggum]

every boxer age different, maybe slappy was feeling it. so he quit while he was ahead. i cant blame him, i never liked him but i wont discount his win, a win is a win.

yeah every boxer is diferent you are dead right. some boxers like to chase greatness and some retire when the going gets tough and they might lose if they fight good fighters.

[daggum]

I'm willing to offer a perspective no one has thought to offer and that is quite feasible to me but correct me if I'm way off...

the Hopkins Calzaghe fight could have easily been called a draw..

no not really. at best calzaghe won 1 out of the first 6 rounds unless you score based on phantom compubox punches. calzaghe landed 15 punches in the second round.............where are they? calzaghe landed 23 punches in the third round.............where are they? they must have been digitally edited out of my version. sneaky hopkins indeed.

[Blubba]

yeah every boxer is diferent you are dead right. some boxers like to chase greatness and some retire when the going gets tough and they might lose if they fight good fighters.

chase greatness? i think his chances of that was long gone before he even took on the two granny boys. so i think retiring was the only option.

[-Spinal-]

Calzaghe beat a prime Eubank, prime Hopkins, and prime Roy Jones.

Jones stopping Lacy, which has never been done before, proved Roy was in his prime vs Joe.

Hopkins beating Pascal twice, and prior to that beating a prime Jones, but damaged from the Calzaghe fight, in their rematch, proved Hopkins was still prime against Calzaghe.


And finally Eubanks two then-recent 12 round losing efforts with the great Steve Collins, proved Eubank was entering the Calzaghe fight at his best.

[Clyde Barrow]

The Hopkins-Pascal fight made Calzaghes resume look even better.

No it didn't. It doesn't change the fact that Joe eked out a SD in a boring and ugly fight that could have been a loss.

[forget]

So Jermain Taylor was a great too? He beat Hopkins younger than Calzaghe did.
Calzaghe's resume should not be measured by his wins over the aged Hopkins and Jones Jr. and Hopkins win over a limited Pascal should not be overrated.