What were the major differences between Calzaghes reign at 168...

...and Hopkins reign at 160?

Calzaghe often gets shat on because he was content to stay in the UK fighting no-names in a dead division, which is fair enough, he could have done alot more by going up the weights, but alot of the time I don't see the same criticism directed at Hopkins. To me the two reigns are strikingly similar, sure Hopkins has De La Hoya and Tito on his record, but Oscar was in no way cut out to be that high up in weight. 168 is often called a dead division, but whilst 160 has historically been one of the glamour divisions, lets not kid ourselves that it was that during Hopkins time on the throne. So what are the major differences?

 

The biggest difference? Calzaghe had options. Hopkins didn't.

 

Exactly

that and 168 was even worse than 160 back then

 

He did have options, he could have moved up comfortably. However, disregarding that, what were the major differences between the actual reigns themselves?

 

I really don't see a marked difference to be honest

 

Calzaghe's biggest wins were Charles Brewer (who had the chin of a four year old girl) and Jeff Lacy (who had the boxing baility of a four year old girl) ... other than that its a list of some of the shittiest fighters anybody has ever seen, and even then it was toughh for him sometimes... after that you have two wins against ancient guys that somehow made Calzaghe this "legendary" champion

If he had fought Hopkins or jones in 2000, he would have gotten defeated SOUNDLY

 

He had Kessler and Eubank as well.

Hopkins best wins were Tito and a shit De La Hoya at a weight he shouldn't have been at. He lost his titles to a guy everyone now considers shit, bad decision or not. We could go into the second level guys but to be honest there really isn't much of a difference.

 

Calzaghe, because of his name, really could have fought anyone for good coin. He decided not to go after the best.

Hopkins wanted the best but no one would fight him.

 

Doesn't matter now. Joe dry humped him onto the floor and ruined Soapy's rep.

 

Calzaghe openly refused to fight anyone decent during his prime years, including Hopkins.

 

Well, Hopkins agreed to fight Joe back in his fighting prime, and then pulled out to demand more money. So you can't really blame Calzaghe for that one.

Anyway, that's irrelevant, I'm talking about the reigns which actually transpired, what is so radically different about them.

 

Both were pretty bad. The Tito wins craps all over anything Joe did, however.

 

Only in name, imo, was never really that high on Tito. Also I'm pretty sure Joe would have done the same kind of job on Trinidad.

 

Careful of De La Hoya chap,.. he was absolutely nothing,.. a dreg, scrub opponent at 160,.. this a trap alot of people fall into,.. 'names' ,.. it's like if the Klitschko's yanked up 'name' supermiddleweights and Lightheavyweights, sure they would be burned through the media as much as they always are,... but within 3 or 4 years when glossing over thier resumes,.. you can guarantee.. just like Hopkins ^ .. people will mention these 'names' as some sort of glorious highlight, regardless of the details..

 

Doesn't matter. It's a greater win by a significant margin.

You can't take it away from Bernard because he made it look easy.

Kessler is Joe's best name. He hasn't done anything before or after the Calzaghe fight to warrant being in the same sentence as Trinidad.

 

Steven,.....Do you think the Hopkins that beat Pavlik, loses to the 2001 Tito Hopkins fought?...

 

Tito at lightheavyweight? You have to take Hopkins.

 

Well if you wanna add Trinidad as the monster at the time, then I'll raise you the "168 Mike Tyson" Jeff Lacy and "Heir apparent" Kessler, which evens it out.

 

Also Eubank > Mercado. Only took one attempt as well.

 

You're suggesting either of those guys were even close to Tito's stature in 2001?

Really?

 

Maybe not individually but both fighters back to back probably even it out.

 

I do realise it's taboo by American standards to add... psssssst,.. Bernard Hopkins himself to Calzaghe's resume... but it doesn't count because,.. Hopkins by way of irrefuteable evidence pulled out and refused to fight Calzaghe in 2002 during his apparent prime.. his prime wedged neatly inbetween Mercado and Taylor.

 

Maybe not individually. ::

No one can defend Calzaghe disgusting reign at 168.

 

psssssst... you might want to read the thread title.

When did Calzaghe fight Hopkins during his reign at '68?

 

Glen Johnson is another guy who is head and shoulders better than anyone Calzaghe beat at 168.

 

OK, say Tito puts Hopkins up, then what about the fact Calzaghe comfortably beat his heir apparent, whilst Hopkins lost twice to his?

 

Steven please,.. I said 'American standards' ...collectively,.. there are no snipes towards Fightbeat's first democratic leader.. :nono:

But Steven, if we leave out Hopkins resume post-Taylor losses,.. we're missing out on pretty much the best stuff Hopkins ever fought,.. I'm giving Hops a fighting chance.. :: ..doing him a favor

 

::

I'm just answering question posed in the thread.

I agree, though. When you include what they did outside of their long reigns, Hopkins seperates himself even further from Calzaghe. Good point.

 

By losing to him?

 

As Slice and Dice said,.. ^ ,.. now we have Hops trapped.. in directly losing to the supposedly inferior man.