If Calzaghe had lost to Hopkins...?

Joe picked up a split decision win in his encounter with Bhop, so it's fair to say it was a close fight. Now, Im not here to debate if Calzaghe deserved the win or not...we'll save that for another time.

What Im interested in is how Joe's career may have ended differently if he'd lost that fight ?

Personally I think Calzaghe, towards the end of his career, was more focused on protecting his Zero and hence he left the game with possibly more to give.

I also think Calzaghe, to an extent, was a wasted talent in that he was probably much better than the opposition he'd faced.

If Calzaghe had lost the Hopkins fight do we think he would have gone out with a whimper like David Haye or gone wild trying to redeem himself finally free of the fear of loss?

If he lost a split decision then Id say a rematch could have happened or else a return to SMW to face Pavlik.

If he lost convincingly to Hopkins then retirement may have been his only real option.

I have the feeling that a lost split decision to Bhop may have been the best think to happen to Calzaghe.

As you said there would certainly be a rematch clause and we may have even seen him around to take on Froch.

I think the end of JC's career was about making as much cash as possible as much as protecting the '0'. If he lost the Hopkins fight but the RJJ fight was still offered I imagine he would still have taken it. Pavlik or Froch were both options but they weren't the mega money fights JC was looking for at this time. A return with B-Hop would probably be the most likely other scenario.

i agree with sugar, Calzaghe needed to make a couple big cash out fights to retire on which he deserved, if he had lost then still would have had RJJ and retirment, he very nearly did lose tbh and no one was calling for a rematch because the styles made the Bhop fight a stinker. Calzaghe had fallen out of love with it by then anyway he was past his prime and i think he wanted to retire anway, which is fine.

I dont think the Jones fight would have been viable after the Hopkins loss really. Most likely it would have been Hopkins v Jones II if anything.

Also Pavlik was a bigger name back then than I think is credited. Certainly far far bigger than Froch. He was favourite to beat Hopkins and having beaten Taylor twice was considered something of a star in the U.S. I think its a great pity Calzaghe never took this fight. He could have still had Jones after, who wasnt going anywhere as we know.

Hello



Decided to settle here for a while.

Unfortunately Union ruined the boxing adverts thread.

Hello



eerie silence in here

Looking back, I think its fair to say pavlik was like a bad jeff lacy...in that he was all hype. I said at the time and i'll say it now he was a limited fighter at a weight he was too big for.

I think Joe would have embarrassed him in a similar fashion to lacy.

as much as I used to give froch stick for constantly calling joe out, that would have been a great fight. I'd stick with joe to take a close fight but a wide decision as I ust see him benig busier in every round.

I think Joe knew he was nearing the end with Hopkins, and was just out to top up his money with big fights. If he lost to hopkins I think he would have walked away.

Is it just me or does the longer hopkins continue to be at the top of the tree, the more impressive joe's victory was.

Joe was clear winner for me, the only thing hopkins had going for him was his spoiler tactics, if he fought clean joe was boxing rings around him

Lacy was overrated imo

I thought he did lose it, for my money he was a very lucky boy that night.

He might have taken a few riskier fights?

Waingro wrote:Lacy was overrated imo

8thank god youre here

all pretty pointless really, what if Roger Bannister hadnt ran under 4 mins? What if Spitz hadnt won 7 golds? Thats the whole point of sporting achievement, they did do it, its in the record books and no one can take it away from them

You're Welsh aren't you..