What does it say about Calzaghe that fans give him credit for Hopkins's achievements?

[Richard Wadd]

Does it mean his resume is awful, or that his fans are just desperate and insecure? Or both?

I mean, you never hear Roy Jones's fans talking about Jones's legacy getting boosted because of what B-Hop is doing now, or when James Toney won FOTY in 2003 and in the eyes of everyone but some drunk judges, beat a HW contender in Sam Peter in 2006. Or Lewis's fans taking credit for Vitali's wins, or Sanders's fans talking about his legacy because of what Wald has done.

Pacquiao's fans didn't swell with pride when Erik Morales took 4 to 5 rounds against Maidana and later won another title. Floyd's fans didn't get happy when El Famoso and El Matador went on to win world titles, and his fans are among the worst in the sport.

Could it be that the fans of Corrie Sanders, who had one notable victory in his career, are less desperate to boost his resume than the fans of Joe Calzaghe, an undefeated first ballot HOFer, are?

[Larry the boss]

Calzaghe was a damn good fighter,adjusted well and had underrated defense,.....But no way in hell does he get credit for Hopkins wins and posters are just trolling with that....atleast i hope

[Boxing Goat]

Nobody is saying he gets credits for Hopkins wins, it just further solidifies that he did manage to beat a still very good ATG fighter whos legend grows with nearly every fight and that very few can say they have beaten.

The Jones win was smoke and mirrors though. That win means absolutely nothing and everyone knows it. Even the most ardent Calzaghe supporters.

[jas]

Clinton Mitchells legacy is growing.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

I don't think he should get credit for Hopkins' achievements.

What I think is funny is how the impressions of the Calzaghe-Hopkins fight changed and were revised throughout time.

The initial line was that Calzaghe picked on a 42 year old man and would have never beaten him in his prime.

Then as Hopkins kept winning and beating younger guys, the theory was that Bernard was actually "robbed" in the fight and Calzaghe never actually beat him.

It's one of the biggest false controversies I've ever seen. The only controversy from that fight was how Hopkins was allowed to take two separate knees without being counted out.

[daggum]

I don't think he should get credit for Hopkins' achievements.

What I think is funny is how the impressions of the Calzaghe-Hopkins fight changed and were revised throughout time.

The initial line was that Calzaghe picked on a 42 year old man and would have never beaten him in his prime.

Then as Hopkins kept winning and beating younger guys, the theory was that Bernard was actually "robbed" in the fight and Calzaghe never actually beat him.

It's one of the biggest false controversies I've ever seen. The only controversy from that fight was how Hopkins was allowed to take two separate knees without being counted out.

wasn't that always the case? tons of press and fans scored the fight for hopkins that very night. no one really cared though because they thought calzaghe would fight on and make something of his career and not cling to a dubious decision over hopkins as his crowning. achievement. they were wrong. he's clinging!

[soul_survivor]

I don't think he should get credit for Hopkins' achievements.

What I think is funny is how the impressions of the Calzaghe-Hopkins fight changed and were revised throughout time.

The initial line was that Calzaghe picked on a 42 year old man and would have never beaten him in his prime.

Then as Hopkins kept winning and beating younger guys, the theory was that Bernard was actually "robbed" in the fight and Calzaghe never actually beat him.

It's one of the biggest false controversies I've ever seen. The only controversy from that fight was how Hopkins was allowed to take two separate knees without being counted out.

10000000000000% spot on/

Before the fight on another forum, "fans" weer saying that Calzaghe was picking on a past it Hopkins, when he won they said no biggy, Hopkins is shot.

Then Hopkins has worked wonders, beating Pascal, Cloud, Shumenov etc. Now everyone's saying Hops was robbed. SMH.

[Godsfly]

I don't think he should get credit for Hopkins' achievements.

What I think is funny is how the impressions of the Calzaghe-Hopkins fight changed and were revised throughout time.

The initial line was that Calzaghe picked on a 42 year old man and would have never beaten him in his prime.

Then as Hopkins kept winning and beating younger guys, the theory was that Bernard was actually "robbed" in the fight and Calzaghe never actually beat him.

It's one of the biggest false controversies I've ever seen. The only controversy from that fight was how Hopkins was allowed to take two separate knees without being counted out.

wait a minute.

where the **** were you & soul_survivor when that fight happened? tons of people were calling it a robbery & tons more were calling for a rematch (hopkins even agreed to go to the u.k. for the rematch) calzaghie said "i will never look good against that style. it's too much of a ugly style" & he quickly declined the rematch in the u.k.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

The "robbery" claims are also humorous because then you ask the same group of people how they scored the fight and they'll say "114-113 Hopkins".....LOL so in theory both guys won the same number of rounds yet it was a "robbery".

Joe Calzaghe was robbed of KO victory.

[IronDanHamza]

It does speak volumes.

It's also extremely ******ed.

What's even more so is when the question is beckoned "why does Taylor's legacy enhance every time Hopkins wins?"

The TS replies with "Taylor was knocked by Pavlik and Abraham"

What the hell does that matter?