What is the difference between Joe Calzaghe and Bernard Hopkins?

[Bozo_no no]

Your right but where you and Bozo need to concede a bit is Bernard Hopkins pre-felix trinidad.

Pre Felix Joe and Bernard are very similar...its not like Bernard Hopkins grabbed his second belt a year after he won his first it took years and years and years to get it and when he did get it its not like he lifted it off of Roy Jones or Nigel Benn, he took it from Keith ****ing Holmes.

The point Im trying to make is that Pre-Tito Bernard had accomplished similar things to that of Joe Calzaghe and vice versa...are we gonna argue and say Nard's victory over Antwun Echols is head and shoulders above Joe's victory over Charles Brewer...if we do were a bunch of dip****s. (we may be disp****s regardless)

Both men are very comparable-sure Joe has a ways to go but to ignore the simlarities is to be pig headed, lets not be pig headed.

BTW-Juyjuy **** the **** up.

lol,

I'll tell you what, if you want to cut off a chunk of Hopkin's carrer to suit your agenda, yea, you're right, they might be comparable at that point.

But the problem is, that's unrealistic.

We know what Hopkins accomplished, and it puts him in a different league from Calzaghe.

Unless Joe picks it up starting right now, he doesn't come close.

[Memorex]

one is white and the other is black

[Bozo_no no]

What has he done since then that is so great? DLH is really the only outstanding fighter he has beaten, but he was clearly at the wrong weight. DLH never even had a single legit win at 160. So I don't really even give Bernard much credit for that one.

And if you take away DLH, then his career reads pretty much the same post-Tito as pre-Tito. Joppy, Eastman, Allen- those guys are good fighters, sure, but they aren't any more spectacular than Reid, Sheika, Veit, or Mitchell. In fact, I'd say they were lesser fighters, p4p.

Good thread, scap. This is a good discussion.

lol, you guys are really sad.

"What if we take away wins from Hopkins"

and


"It's not Calzage's fault he hasn't fought anyone so..."


Give it a rest.

The two don't compare.

Bernard's a lock for the Hall, and one of the Greatest Middleweights of all time.

Joe's got a sub par resume, hasn't cleaned out the weak division he's in, and only unified a major title last week.

One's legacy is undisputable, one's legacy is average at best.

[mECHsLAVE]

lol, you guys are really sad.

"What if we take away wins from Hopkins"

and


"It's not Calzage's fault he hasn't fought anyone so..."

I never said either of those things, so not sure who you are quoting. I did say that I don't give him much credit for beating a fighter who, while great, was clearly at too high of a weight without a single legit win at 160.

I simply said if you compare the quality of wins between Calzaghe and Hopkins for the bulk of their careers it is very comparable.

[Bozo_no no]

I never said either of those things, so not sure who you are quoting. I did say that I don't give him much credit for beating a fighter who, while great, was clearly at too high of a weight without a single legit win at 160.

I simply said if you compare the quality of wins between Calzaghe and Hopkins for the bulk of their careers it is very comparable.

A) I wasn't talking to you

B) you'd be correct that their careers are comparable if you take away the fact Bernard cleaned out his division, stopped Hall of Fame fighters, and unified the the titles where Calzahe did none of that.

Hopkins deserves the same credit for stopping Trinidad and Oscar that Hagler got for beating Hearns and Duran relative to the elder group being better all time fighters.

[scap]

lol,

I'll tell you what, if you want to cut off a chunk of Hopkin's carrer to suit your agenda, yea, you're right, they might be comparable at that point.

But the problem is, that's unrealistic.

We know what Hopkins accomplished, and it puts him in a different league from Calzaghe.

Unless Joe picks it up starting right now, he doesn't come close.

Ok we are getting somewhere now!

You finally admit that Hopkins and Calzaghe have comparible records...to make sure we have things straight Hopkins pre-tito and Joe pre-Calzaghe is very similar...Super duper!

Now Hopkins beiggest win by far was against undefeaed Tito Trinidad...big props, almost al the boxing public thought he would get killed...instead he embarrassed Tito Trindad and at the time only Roy Jones could have been a bigger win.

Joe Calzaghe last Saturday finally got his chance to face an opponent that was being dubbed the next great boxing superstar...you were hardpressed to find any member of the American boxing media that was not picking Lacy indside of 8 (who'd you like in this one Bozo?). Well Joe didnt just win he put on one of the most one sided beating in recent memory.


Sure the Tito win will be looked at as a bigger win of the two but DONT MAKE THE MISTAKE OF DISCREDITING THE LACY WIN TOO MUCH-it was a great win make no mother****ing mistake about it...LAcy had never been exposed before-there is something to be said about being the first weather it is the first to **** a hot chick on the block in college, or the first to beat fighters like Tito or yes Jeff Lacy.

So What did Bernard do next?

Carl Daniels (puke)
Morrade Hakkar (now were talking)
William Joppy (Trinidad's sloppy seconds)
Robert Allen (3 times? imagine Joe fighting Mario Veit again)

What would you say if Joe did this for four fight right after Lacy? Bozo you would **** all over his face! What if after four meaningless defenses by Joe he fought Winky Wright...would you forgive him? Ask yourslef the same question about your boy Bernard, please dont be a Hopkins idealogue.



Oscar (Bernard hits the lottery-thank god for hot mexicans)
Howard Eastman (defines the word lazy-this was a waiste of time)
Jermain Taylor (both fights could go either way-Nard fought like anything but)

Are you that impressed with Bernard Hopkins post Tito Trinidad? What am I missing?

If Joe goes out and beats Tarver (assuming Tarver beats Nard-big assumption) then the Tarver win is more impressive then any win on Nard's resume beside Tito (do you want to argue this point?)...Joe is one win away, one win away.

If Joe fights Tarver in the states-we are hookin up Bozo and were going to the fight...together to watch my boy cement his legacy! Just think we'll be so close to the action that we can write BOZO AND SCAP WERE HERE, beofre that cement drys, yeah baby!

[Easy-E]

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.

tito was the favorite in the bhop fight, many people forget that. he also ko'd oscar, as well as holding many wins over good opposition. joe's opposition isnt as good, but the main problem with his career is that he never really left the uk.

[GunStar]

Big difference between Hopkins & Cal. First of all Cal never owned a real belt until he beat Lacy. Also people keep mentioning that Tito was not a true middleweight, then tell me why many picked Tito to beat Hopkins. Hopkins was the first man to beat the legendary Tito. Also Hopkins resume is 10 times better then Calzaghe.

Record 20 legitimate title defenses speaks for itself.

[OptimusWolf]

tito was the favorite in the bhop fight, many people forget that. he also ko'd oscar, as well as holding many wins over good opposition. joe's opposition isnt as good, but the main problem with his career is that he never really left the uk.

Rubbish - leaving the UK has nothing to do with his career - it doesn't matter where you fight (assuming its not biased scoring) its who you fight.

I agree that their careers are very similar (Scap-view), but that Joe C needs to unify SMW and beat Tarver at LHW (or unify LHW if he prefers).

Thats 2 fights away from HOF in my book, and I hope he gets them. seeing JC fight I can't believe peoplewho think he didn't want to fight Jones, Hopkins, Ottke. He might not be SRR but he loves fighting and seems like he'd have fought anyone earlier in his career. Now he's ****ed off with that after so many disappointments (and **** ups on his part) so wants a few paydays.

[scap]

Big difference between Hopkins & Cal. First of all Cal never owned a real belt until he beat Lacy. Also people keep mentioning that Tito was not a true middleweight, then tell me why many picked Tito to beat Hopkins. Hopkins was the first man to beat the legendary Tito. Also Hopkins resume is 10 times better then Calzaghe.

Record 20 legitimate title defenses speaks for itself.

IBF, WBC, WBA, WBO...they all mean **** and you givng preferencce to some and not others is ridiculous.

The best champion in a respective weight class could have any of the belts or none of the belts...

So none of Joe's title defense were legitimate because he held the WBO? 18 illegitimate title defenses speak for itself too!