Calzaghe - does each Hopkins win help his legacy?

Irrespective of the fact that some had B-Hop as winner of the fight, the match was close and the record books shows a Calzaghe victory.

So with Bernard winning another title, does this put into context how good Joe was?

Should he get more credit for that win?

No..........Because Hoppo has lost to Jermaine Taylor twice...

Yes, but only on the basis of people knocking Joe's win by saying Hoppo was past it.

I thought Calzaghe lost, but the win does look better in hindsight than originally given how Hopkins has gone on to prove he wasnt washed up.

Hopkins was past it....Anybody at 42 has diminishing returns when it comes to reflexes.....speed etc............

He wasnt at his peak but I dont believe he was past it.

I also thought Hopkins won, but Hopkins has proven he was not as washed up as many claimed with his exploits since then:

Highlight victories include:

-> Pavlik
-> Pascal (Twice)
-> Cloud

The victory over Cloud is especially impressive, considering how many people were picking Cloud and the dominance of Hopkins victory.

Show me a 42 year old athlete in any other sport that isn't past it...........

He's a cunning guy that fights 30 seconds a round and manages to spoil his way through the rest....

fair play smartest fighter in Boxing........that he manages on a regular basis to make it look like the other guy is clinching....

Referees need to man up..start taking points off..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Show me a 42 year old athlete in any other sport that isn't past it...........

Not quite what you're asking, but Ryan Giggs is about 40 and still playing football at the highest level despite his early career being reliant on physical attributes such as his pace and speed of turn. And he's not in a sport when you can get away with competing in 30 second spurts.

"Not quite what you're asking".............

Plays every week does he??......How did he get on yesterday.

I don't know how people could score the Calzaghe fight in favor of B-Hop. He got out worked and clearly lost 9 rounds of that fight. He was gassing heavily between rounds and even had to fake an injury to get a rest.

I rate Calzaghe's win better then both of Taylors. At least he was competitive against Taylor.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Show me a 42 year old athlete in any other sport that isn't past it...........

He's a cunning guy that fights 30 seconds a round and manages to spoil his way through the rest....

fair play smartest fighter in Boxing........that he manages on a regular basis to make it look like the other guy is clinching....

Referees need to man up..start taking points off..

The average age in many sports is higher than in boxing so I'm sure it woudln't be too difficult to point out many equestrian or golf sports people that are in that bracket and performing well. Could even look at darts and snooker - but well, they're not really sports.

Hopkins may not have as much speed, stamina or the reflexes he used to have but he has vast amounts of experience and manages to continually upset boxers with much more speed, stamina and better reflexes.

The fact is it was a better victory than a lot of people realised due to how well Hopkins is still doing in the division now.

I think there's a difference between 'past his best' and 'past it.' Hopkins is the former, for sure. But 'past it' to me indicates somehow who just can't compete on anything like their former level and is no longer any kind of threat to the best around in their division, ala Jones.

I certainly agree that each victory Hopkins has managed since losing that fight has made Calzaghe's victory look better in time. One of those victories made him the (just about) consensus number one at 175 lb again and another one of them (Pavlik) was totally unexpected in most quarters. On the back of that it's basically impossible to argue that Calzaghe beat a finished Hopkins who had nothing left - had Hopkins retired immediately afterwards, you can guarantee that most observers would have done down that road when evaluating Joe's career.

Calzaghe didn't beat a prime Hopkins, of course, but he beat a still very good one.

Talking mainly about physical sports..............Golf gave some a limited chance at rebuttal...........

He is past it...He spoils like crazy because he can't fight more than 30 seconds a round........

I struggle at the gym..huffing and puffing after a set of Squats...

The tank is the first thing to go..............

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"Not quite what you're asking".............

Plays every week does he??......How did he get on yesterday.

Relative to an 'in prime' career he's a lot more active than Hoppo now.

Not relative at all....................Hoppo doesn't fight two rounds of a twelve rounder one week and then two the next...

How many games has he played in contrast to a Carrick or an Evra..

Giggs is hardly more than Part time..admit you're wrong.

No, I'm not. Giggs is playing relatively regularly, certainly comparable to Hoppo's one fight every 12 months or so. Giggs' activity, relative to 'Prime' is no different to Hoppo fighting 1 in 12 rather than 3 in 12 of a Prime boxer.

And they're both still operating at the upper echelons of their respective sports.

Teddy Sheringham was also playing EPL football at 40 (and lower league till 42) and is another example of someone who used craft/skill/experience to lengthen his career when he couldn't compete physically with his younger counterparts.

Paolo Maldini was still playing for AC Milan aged 41. Astonishing.

"relatively regularly".................Giggs is part time................and no doubt gets substituted regularly or comes on as one.......

Hoppo has to train like a fighter and fight.............Pity he only manages 30 seconds a round though....

Anyway I have to go to some boring dumbass meeting so we'll agree that I'm right.....

we get this question everytime hopkins wins...

no it means nothing for calzaghe. why dont all boxers retire after beating a good fighter and sit back and watch their legacy grow when the other guy wins...

i thought hopkins beat calzaghe and ive watched it many times. there was a reason why the calzaghes told everyone they wouldnt do rematches after the hopkins fight. joe was good but he was more bothered about his zero than he was his legacy.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"relatively regularly".................Giggs is part time................and no doubt gets substituted regularly or comes on as one.......

Relative to their respective careers they're equally active. End of. If anything there's an argument to say that Giggs training 5 times a week and playing 70 mins a week on average is a lot more than Hoppo doing 1 8 week training camp and 1 fight every 12 months.

Not sure we can give Hopkins too much grief for inactivity, outside of Donaire how many guys at the top of the game are in action with anything approaching regularity. Plenty of fighters not in action much more than once every nine months. Hopkins’ schedule over the last few years is not especially more active or inactive than Floyd’s has been.

I think Hopkins was past his best even then, and still won the fight i have seen it a couple of times since and still have Hopkins a clear winner every time. For me Calzaghe is better off if people dont look back on the old washed up fighters farewell tour he embarked on after being outboxed by Hopkins, getting dropped by the sad shell of RJJ is nothing to be proud of either.

hogey wrote:I think Hopkins was past his best even then, and still won the fight i have seen it a couple of times since and still have Hopkins a clear winner every time. For me Calzaghe is better off if people dont look back on the old washed up fighters farewell tour he embarked on after being outboxed by Hopkins, getting dropped by the sad shell of RJJ is nothing to be proud of either.

I would like to see your score card out of interest....

Rowley wrote:Not sure we can give Hopkins too much grief for inactivity, outside of Donaire how many guys at the top of the game are in action with anything approaching regularity. Plenty of fighters not in action much more than once every nine months. Hopkins’ schedule over the last few years is not especially more active or inactive than Floyd’s has been.

Not knocking him for it, just trying to draw equivalence.

Without the cheating, who's to say Calzaghe might not have dtopped Hopkins? Or have completely dominated the last rounds?


No Calzaghe won the fight. I'm sure of that now.


It certainly doesn't harm Calzaghe's legacy- Hopkins subsequent success. It just goes to show how good Calzaghe was, that being one of the four or five best SM's ever. Still think a win over Dawson and a win over Hopkins in a rematch would have been more beneficial though, than anything Hopkins does.

he would never have won a rematch. hopkins coasted because he thought he had won. in a rematch he would have dominated and possibly stopped calzaghe

Lance wrote:we get this question everytime hopkins wins...

no it means nothing for calzaghe. why dont all boxers retire after beating a good fighter and sit back and watch their legacy grow when the other guy wins....

So to put a question to you, Lance. Let's say that, after being hammered by Calzaghe in early 2006, Jeff Lacy immediately sprung up to Light-Heavyweight, beat Tarver that summer to take the title and then racked up a few defences / part unified against some good, solid fighters like Clinton Woods, Glencoffe Johnson and Jean Pascal over the next two or three years.

Had that been the case, are you really saying that, in your opinion, Calzaghe's demolition job on Lacy wouldn't be looking at least a fair bit better than it does (and it's already impressive, mind) in light of Lacy basically doing nothing of note afterwards?

hopkins coasted because he thought he had won



You say that Lance, but he wouldn't actually have been able to coast without the breather.

Also Roach told him things were getting pretty close after one of the late rounds. I just don't buy the 'coasting' argument.

Great win the JC at the time and even better in hindsight. I had JC winning the fight and that Hopkins has continued shows to me that JC is probably the best boxer from these shores in history.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"Not quite what you're asking".............

Plays every week does he??......How did he get on yesterday.

Well he plays every other week.

Hopkins fights about onces a year.

Really don’t get the line of argument that it does not add to Calzaghe’s legacy. Remember at the time most of the criticism of the win was Hopkins was washed up and finished. His subsequent wins show that this is quite clearly not the case. Given one of the major asterixes that was attached to the win has now been removed struggle to see how the win does not look better.

I think maybe jeff, the reason plenty still think Hopkins won is because Calzaghe wouldn't grant a rematch. and you can see their reasoning. Have to say, I think Hopkins wins the rematch, but as you rightly ay, the win is looking better these few years on.

Lance wrote:he would never have won a rematch. hopkins coasted because he thought he had won. in a rematch he would have dominated and possibly stopped calzaghe

Please tell me you're joking. The same Hopkins who hasn't stopped anyone since 2004 and you think that he would have stopped Calzaghe who had a solid chin and great powers of recovery? If you think that someone of Hopkins experience who lost two narrow decisions to Taylor pretty much because of his output would chose to coast because he thought he had it won then you are a bit special. No way on earth does Hopkins just decide to take it easy because he thinks he's got it won.

Perhaps Joe should come out of retirement and fight Hopkins again. Maybe Jones v Collins could be on the undercard

I think Hopkins tired down the stretch against Calzaghe which cost him the fight. His low blow stunt was an act of a man needing a breather rather than a guy coasting.

I thought Calzaghe lost but I had the knockdown making the differance. In a rematch I think I would favour Calzaghe a bit more. Probably not as likely to get caught cold and I just dont think at that stage of Hopkins career he had the engine needed.

Having said that, I think Hopkins a few years earlier beats Calzaghe.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Show me a 42 year old athlete in any other sport that isn't past it...........

He's a cunning guy that fights 30 seconds a round and manages to spoil his way through the rest....

fair play smartest fighter in Boxing........that he manages on a regular basis to make it look like the other guy is clinching....

Referees need to man up..start taking points off..

It's a bit simplistic to say Hopkins is past it. Some past prime fighters seem better than when they were in the physical pomp. Calzaghe for example it is fair to say was past his best in terms of physicality when he fought Hopkins, (eg. his hands had been smashed to bits by then) but should get more credit for the win and no-one, absolutelky no-one ever mentions that Calzaghe was stepping up in weight which adds even more value to the win.

As for past prime, Hopkins seems to have had some of his best wins as a "past it" boxer. People keep bringing up the Trinidad win but for me that was way overrated. Tito was looking to be owned at middleweight and a huge middlewight in Hopkins was always going to get him. It slightly annoyed me in that BHop was always on the back foot in that fight even though he was like a man smashing up a boy.

DAVE667 wrote:Perhaps Joe should come out of retirement and fight Hopkins again. Maybe Jones v Collins could be on the undercard

Don't even joke about that

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"Not quite what you're asking".............

Plays every week does he??......How did he get on yesterday.

Well he plays every other week.

Hopkins fights about onces a year.

Played 90 against Madrid instead.

Wow he had a full game...

Truss have you actually seen Hopkins fights against Pavlik, Pascal and Cloud?

And football is a lot easier than boxing.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:And football is a lot easier than boxing.

Aye, you don't have to hit 'em particularly hard for them to fall over and strat weeping like big jessies

bellchees wrote:

Lance wrote:he would never have won a rematch. hopkins coasted because he thought he had won. in a rematch he would have dominated and possibly stopped calzaghe

Please tell me you're joking. The same Hopkins who hasn't stopped anyone since 2004 and you think that he would have stopped Calzaghe who had a solid chin and great powers of recovery? If you think that someone of Hopkins experience who lost two narrow decisions to Taylor pretty much because of his output would chose to coast because he thought he had it won then you are a bit special. No way on earth does Hopkins just decide to take it easy because he thinks he's got it won.

taylor and dawson both nullified hopkins work. hopkins got over confident against calzaghe. the first round knock down and freddie roach's over confidence really went against hopkins in the end. he didnt even try and go through the pain barrier towards the end, he thought he was safe coasting it. hopkins would have had a point to prove in his next match, which in fact turned out to be the pavlik fight. hopkins very nearly stopped pavlik, who has a better chin than calzaghe.

if you cant debate without out giving personal insults, then you have failed in your arguement, no matter how strong you think it is.

He was out on his feet Lance, I love Hopkins and have has much admiration for him as possible but lets not overstate certain things. I would also question your theory that Pavlik has a much better chin than Calzaghe who may have been dropped a few times but never looked at risk of being stopped, he also connected far more on Pavlik than he ever would on Calzaghe.

[quote="Lance"][quote="bellchees"]

Lance wrote: hopkins very nearly stopped pavlik, who has a better chin than calzaghe.

if you cant debate without out giving personal insults, then you have failed in your arguement.

Wrong...idiot!

JC needs a lie to help his legacy. Like, he fought a prime anybody good type lie.

Why all the hate for JC? You Brita are a weird bunch. One of your few ATGs and you criticise him so much. Perhaps its true that Brits love a good loser. No wonder losers like Bruno and Price have a love fest with you guys and winners like Naz, Eubank were disliked. Eubank started getting support after he lost.

Eubank started getting support after he lost.

It was more after he went to war with Benn twice, Thompson twice, Collins twice and was very compassionate post Watson.

Just sayin'

When he was beating people for fun, he was disliked.

JC to me is britain's best ever fighter. Give him some props.