: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:00 am  

General Zod. wrote:

Not a chance. PBF is a far superior boxer to Calzagie in every respect possible.


The Super Middle weight limit is 15/16 years old so to use the word "history" is misguided.


What planet are you on? Calzagie is not fit to wipe Hagler's @rse. If both fighters were at their peak, Hagler would have eaten him...

PBF is far superior to just about everyone in history in terms of technique, but technique alone does not a fighter make, he doesnt have the heart of a lion Calzaghe has... I am aware of the age of the Super Middle weight division...
Hagler would beat just about every middleweight you care to mention... does that mean Monzon, Zale et al are not legends? Just because Hagler would beat them. IMO with what Joe has achieved, he is without a doubt in the top 10 Middleweights/SuperMiddle weights Alltime... but Hagler would be number 2 for me, 2nd only to Robinson.

: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:49 am  

Calzaghe didn't lose a round from the 4th onwards in my eyes. Did well to adjust to the fight as you could see from the first 3 rounds it wasn't what he was expecting.

: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:05 am  

Hopkins = sore loser.

: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:30 am  

Before the fight I went for Hopkins on split decision and to be honest the verdict could have gone either way - the fight going to points must have been the easiest money anyone could ever make.

The fight itself, was, as expected, a bit of a dire affair between two counter punchers, Joe deserevd the verdict on the fact he tried to make it a fight, however, Hopkins with a little more work ethic would have really made things interesting.

I hope Joe doesn't go down the Roy Jones route next, he's another on the way down, Froch would be an interesting one but the Americans wouldn't be interested.

: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:48 am  

Dead Man Walking wrote:

Hopkins = sore loser.

I agree. But then again, it's usually a sign of being a winner.

: Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:15 am  

where on earth do you get that one from? Its usually the sign of being an arrogant fwit with a fragile ego.

: Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:22 am  

beax wrote:

where on earth do you get that one from? Its usually the sign of being an arrogant fwit with a fragile ego.

Most winners occasionally spit the dummy out in the immediate aftermath, often because of the annoyance with their own performance. In the cold light of day, they often change their stance. Just look at Ali's reaction when he lost to Frazier.

: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:11 pm  

Sthelens RLFC wrote:

Calzaghe didn't lose a round from the 4th onwards in my eyes. Did well to adjust to the fight as you could see from the first 3 rounds it wasn't what he was expecting.

Pretty much how I saw it although I was suprised the American judges called it similar.

: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:43 pm  

Sheddy wrote:

Pretty much how I saw it although I was suprised the American judges called it similar.

American judges love come forward fighters, the fact Hopkins sat back from round 4 onwards was borderline suicide.

Having said that it is a good job Hopkins did sit back because he looked like he had all the tools to take Joe out, Hopkins looked stronger, the right hand was dangerous and Joe had problems all night with that shot, the perfect Southpaw counter.

: Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:42 pm  

beax wrote:

PBF is far superior to just about everyone in history in terms of technique, but technique alone does not a fighter make, he doesnt have the heart of a lion Calzaghe has... I am aware of the age of the Super Middle weight division...
Hagler would beat just about every middleweight you care to mention... does that mean Monzon, Zale et al are not legends? Just because Hagler would beat them. IMO with what Joe has achieved, he is without a doubt in the top 10 Middleweights/SuperMiddle weights Alltime... but Hagler would be number 2 for me, 2nd only to Robinson.

Fair points.