What is the difference between Joe Calzaghe and Bernard Hopkins?

[Bozo_no no]

You may think Hopkins is not comaprable to Joe which is both fine and easy and respectable but dont stoop as low to compare Sven Ottke to my man Joe we both no that is wrong.

Bottom line is that his legacy is closer to that of Ottke's than it is to that of Hopkins'.

[JuicyJuice]

Hopkins is very similar to Ottke. Calzaghe is the complete opposite to those two, in that he always wanted to fight the best and was always willing to go to war.

[Bozo_no no]

Hopkins is very similar to Ottke. Calzaghe is the complete opposite to those two, in that he always wanted to fight the best and was always willing to go to war.

That's insane. It's a step below calling Calzaghe a pound for pound fighter years back.

Hopkins has the better resume and Legacy over Calzaghe by a country mile at this point. It's not even debatable.

All you can do about that assertion of Joe wanting to fight the best is make excuses for all the guys he didn't fight.

Bottom line: Calzaghe's resume is weak, he didn't come close to cleaning out his weak division, and didn't unify a title until last week.

The only thing going for Calzaghe is that he still has a few years to make something happen.

[scap]

Bottom line is that his legacy is closer to that of Ottke's than it is to that of Hopkins'.

Your bottom line reads this way and as I said earlier it is so easy to be a lockstep Hopkins lover and not question him.

Tell me this Bozo...

Do you agree Nard's three biggest middleweight fights (I know you will say Tito is a middlweight but Im not buying it and neither should you) were against Roy and Jermain(2)...at the very least we can include Tito is this mix and say he fought like a ***** n 3 of his 4 biggest tests- I can throw Tito in there.

And if you can agree with this (which again you wont)then give me your assessment of how your beloved Hopkins performed in these bouts. (if you quote and asnwer anything I say please make it this paragraph)

[RAESAAD]

Im just looking for some opinions here...

Both guys have a laundry list list of medicore defenses and a super fight break thru late in theri careers...sure Nard's was over Tito but Tito was also moving up where as Joe fought a a green Jeff LAcy but it was Lacy's division.

What do some of you think about this?

Comapre the two.

Very good topic........I have been a Hopkins fan for quite a while but really can't remember him ever having a performance like Calzaghes last weekend.I think Hopkins has better D but Calzaghe has better O and power.If they fought I would pick Calzaghe after seeing what he did to Lacy but that would be now.5-10 years ago god only knows.....Calzaghe I think may end up with the better all around career if his next 3 or 4 fights are won against big name guys.

[Bozo_no no]

Your bottom line reads this way and as I said earlier it is so easy to be a lockstep Hopkins lover and not question him.

Tell me this Bozo...

Do you agree Nard's three biggest middleweight fights (I know you will say Tito is a middlweight but Im not buying it and neither should you) were against Roy and Jermain(2)...at the very least we can include Tito is this mix and say he fought like a ***** n 3 of his 4 biggest tests- I can throw Tito in there.

And if you can agree with this (which again you wont)then give me your assessment of how your beloved Hopkins performed in these bouts. (if you quote and asnwer anything I say please make it this paragraph)

Hopkins was 41 in those fights with Taylor, and I thought he won both of them. Discrediting a fighter for losses at the end of their career is as weak as you can get.

The Jones fight was a clear loss, but Roy went what, 12 years after that without losing? There's no shame in losing a competitve decision to the best fighter of your generation.

You are just trying to twist, and change the point.

This is as clear as it gets: Calzaghe has been in one weight class for years, did not come close to cleaning it out, and didn't unify a title until last week.

Hopkins is a lock for the Hall of Fame, and widely regarded as one of the best in the history of one of boxing'a most prestegious divisions.

Calzaghe's resume and Legacy is nowehere near that of Hopkins at this point.

All of the twisting and loaded questions isn't going to change this.

[scap]

Hopkins was 41 in those fights with Taylor, and I thought he won both of them. Discrediting a fighter for losses at the end of their career is as weak as you can get.

The Jones fight was a clear loss, but Roy went what, 12 years after that without losing? There's no shame in losing a competitve decision to the best fighter of your generation.

You are just trying to twist, and change the point.

This is as clear as it gets: Calzaghe has been in one weight class for years, did not come close to cleaning it out, and didn't unify a title until last week.

Hopkins is a lock for the Hall of Fame, and widely regarded as one of the best in the history of one of boxing'a most prestegious divisions.

Calzaghe's resume and Legacy is nowehere near that of Hopkins at this point.

All of the twisting and loaded questions isn't going to change this.

But you still like Joe alot right?

[Bozo_no no]

But you still like Joe alot right?

Not as much as I like your sister.

[Crumble]

I dont think names like Eubank, Woodhall,Reid(prime),Sheika(prime), Veit,Brewer,Mitchell,Lacy signifies a weak resume, you can pick holes in Joe though because names like Tocker Pudwill creep in there but if he wins a title at light heavy retires undefeated you'd look pretty ******ed trying to argue why an undefeated 2 weight world champion is not a HOFmer, so realistically one fight and one win is all Joe needs to conclude his legacy.

[Bozo_no no]

I dont think names like Eubank, Woodhall,Reid(prime),Sheika(prime), Veit,Brewer,Mitchell,Lacy signifies a weak resume, you can pick holes in Joe though because names like Tocker Pudwill creep in there but if he wins a title at light heavy retires undefeated you'd look pretty ******ed trying to argue why an undefeated 2 weight world champion is not a HOFmer, so realistically one fight and one win is all Joe needs to conclude his legacy.

When you're adding (prime) to Reid and Sheika, you're really reaching.

It's not a terrible resume, but it's weak in the big picture when talking Hall of Fame. Those were not the best fighters at 168 in those years, and he didn't unify any of the major titles at that time.