What is the difference between Joe Calzaghe and Bernard Hopkins?

[scap]

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.

[phil28]

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.

I think their careers are pretty similar Scap, but BHop has bigger names on his resume with Oscar and Tito. They were both fighting way above their natural weight mind.

It's all opinion, but I think their careers are similar (although Joe has never lost).

[Bozo_no no]

Hopkins dominated his division and unified all the titles. He beat and knocked out future Hall of fame fighters, and broke Carlos Monzon's record of Middleweight defenses. In that time, there is not a fighter you'd be hard pressed to say he didnt' fight.

Calzaghe didn't unify any belts at 168 until this weekend, didn't beat a primed Hall of Fame opponent, and had a list of contenders he didn't fight.

Calzaghe has never been undisputed in his division, and even after beating Lacy, Kessler still looms to dispute his #1 spot.

Bernard's a lock for the hall. Joe won't make it unless he starts from here and picks it up big time.

[scap]

Bernard is the middleweight king who has never beaten a great middlweight, he lost to a great middleweight but he has never beaten a great middlweight (doesnt bother most but it bothers me).

Both of his defining victories came very late in his career and as we all know they came against guys who would not make the hall of fame at middlweweight or even junior middlweight they came against guys that did there best work 13 pounds south at welterweight.

To throw the whole Joe hasnt beaten a hall of famer and Nard has argument out is crap-Bernard Hopkins is the luckiest man alive for having guys like Tito and Oscar come up and challenge him when they had no business doing so.

Nard is a middlweight so he should not be defined by how he performed against welterweights....the real Bernard Hopkins fought against Roy Jones and Jermain Taylor and what happened-he was hesitant as all hell, he fought as if a good stare at his opponent was eual to a hard right hand-he fought like a ***** in the three biggest middleweight fights of his career.

Bernard Hopkins is a huge overachiever, he really didnt have any amazing physical talents...it is easy to talk about Nard and how great he is-I dont do things the easy way-I take the hard route which is to call him out for what he is-an overhyped,overrated, overachiever.

As for Joe-he's still got a ways to go but at least his career definer wont come againt Winky Wright or Fernando Vargas.

[Bozo_no no]

Bernard is the middleweight king who has never beaten a great middlweight, he lost to a great middleweight but he has never beaten a great middlweight (doesnt bother most but it bothers me).

Both of his defining victories came very late in his career and as we all know they came against guys who would not make the hall of fame at middlweweight or even junior middlweight they came against guys that did there best work 13 pounds south at welterweight.

To throw the whole Joe hasnt beaten a hall of famer and Nard has argument out is crap-Bernard Hopkins is the luckiest man alive for having guys like Tito and Oscar come up and challenge him when they had no business doing so.

Nard is a middlweight so he should not be defined by how he performed against welterweights....the real Bernard Hopkins fought against Roy Jones and Jermain Taylor and what happened-he was hesitant as all hell, he fought as if a good stare at his opponent was eual to a hard right hand-he fought like a ***** in the three biggest middleweight fights of his career.

Bernard Hopkins is a huge overachiever, he really didnt have any amazing physical talents...it is easy to talk about Nard and how great he is-I dont do things the easy way-I take the hard route which is to call him out for what he is-an overhyped,overrated, overachiever.

As for Joe-he's still got a ways to go but at least his career definer wont come againt Winky Wright or Fernando Vargas.

No, it just may have come agaisnt Jeff Lacy.

Any way you try and spin it, Hopkins cleaned out his division, unified all the titles, and knocked out other hall of fame fighters.

Are you going to tell me Hearns and Duran weren't good wins for Hagler and that he shouldn't be judged against those welterweights and Lightweights?

Give it a rest Scap, you hate on Hopkins and we both know it.

He's a lock for the Hall, and Joe isn't unless he picks it up big time starting right now. That's just the way it is.

[DIEGO DA HITMAN]

I agree with you there, Scap. I think Hopkins' wins over Trinidad and De la Hoya, two definite hall-of-famers, were a little bigger than Calzaghe's over Lacy. Other than those two wins, the similarities are very much alike. Both guys have had very long reigns, with Calzaghe's still going. Hopkins did unify, and I think a lot of people would like to see Calzaghe do it. However, there's more money at Lt. Heavyweight, and you can't blame the guy for wanting some retirement cheddar. Both of these guys have fought many mandatories, and that's one reason they weren't always considered as having tough opposition. Some guys disregard mandatory challengers, and get stripped of their belts, and these two guys never did that. Hopkins was very effective in his late 30's, and if Calzaghe wants to stick around, I think he can be, based on his performance Saturday. But there are many parallels as far as their careers, and the people that say Calzaghe didn't fight anybody until Lacy should look at Hopkins' title reign. If Calzaghe were to beat Tarver, Glen Johnson, or Kessler, I don't think anyone could question his legacy. That would give him two wins over big-time fighters, and would legitimize his legacy even further. He should even consider fighting two of the aforementioned fighters. That would give him a third big win, and even though he wouldn't have a Tito or Oscar under his belt, he would have some nice names to go along with the guys he's already beaten. You make a very valid point, IMO.

[machotime]

The difference is obvious, B-hop is a Black-American and Calzaghe is a Welshman.

[JuicyJuice]

I never rated Bernard Hopkins, he was never in my top 10 lb4lb whereas Calzaghe always was. Calzaghe came to fight, Hopkins came to run. The only decent, natural middleweights that Hopkins has fought are Taylor and Jones - and he lost to both.

[Bozo_no no]

Both guys have had very long reigns,

It's a stretch to call defending the WBO title on it's own a 'regin'.

Compiaring Calzaghe to Hopkins is not the least bit credible.

If anything, his career at this point is comparable to Sven Ottke. Making defenses in a very weak division in his own backyard with an unimpressive resume.

[JuicyJuice]

I think Hopkins' wins over Trinidad and De la Hoya, two definite hall-of-famers, were a little bigger than Calzaghe's over Lacy.

Imagine Chris Eubank fighting Pernell Whitaker and Julio Cesar Chavez.