The Signficance of the fight!!

Not much more credible than Kessler, IMO.

If we're talking about Kessler at 168 vs. Trinidad at 160 in a p4p sense, I'd take Kessler.

 

That's a debate for another day. Right now I would still take Tito, but Kessler still has time to add to his legacy.

I brought up Lacy and Tito because those were the two fights that really propelled Bhop and Cal to stardom.

 

If Hopkins wins you could maybe, MAYBE make a case for him being top 20. If Calzaghe wins? Well, he beat a 43 year old Hopkins who has been past it for almost five years now. Wouldn't do much for me.

 

That's fair.

Trinidad, however, was a way bigger/more important win and it isn't close.

 

I agree with this post 100%. When it boils down to it Hops is still 43. However, this is still a huge ass fight that I really can't wait to see. There are so many scenarios that can play out that it's crazy. Folks we are getting yet another treat this Saturday. I'll Holla 5000

 

I agree with Sly- this is a HUGELY significant fight, particularly for Joe Calzaghe.

Joe was over-protected for far, far too long, and as a result ended up fighting a lot of bums who he really had no business fighting. Whilst this will always tarnish his reputation, it should also be remembered that 168 has been a dead-man's-zone for almost a decade.

Joe really came too late for the 'Golden Period' of 168- RJJ, Toney, McClellan (albeit he was predominantly a 160 fighter), Benn, Eubanks, Collins et al, and his legacy will always be tarnished by this unfortunate set of circumstances.

Really though, for all of the talk of Joe ducking people, who was he really meant to fight at 168, save for perhaps Hopkins 5 years ago (and it was 'Nard who pulled the plug on that one) and Sven Ottke?

People rag on the Lacy fight, and hindsight seems to show that Lacy wasn't all that, but the significance of that fight was that, for the first time since he beat a faded Chris Eubanks, he stepped up to the mark against a guy who was considered at LEAST an even money chance to beat him. In fact, many odds-makers and pundits felt Joe would lose. In the end, Joe practically ended Jeff as a top level fighter.

Then, another top-level 168 fighter came along in Mikkel Kessler. The same Kessler that people like to denigrate now but, again, many picked him to beat Joe. And this guy had beaten everyone Joe was supposed to be ducking (Beyer, Andrade, Mundine). Yet Calzaghe came through again.

This fight, even if Hopkins is old, will define Calzaghe more than all of his other fights put together. This is his one chance to show that he really could mix it with the elite on foreign soil. No one can doubt, as has happened with Lacy and Kessler, Hopkins' stature or quality retrospectively. If Joe wins, then his place as a HOF-er is assured.

As for Hopkins, I'm not sure that this fight carries as much significance. His achievements are already noted and stretch over many years. If he loses, he will find apologists who will say that he was old and would have beaten Joe 5 or 6 years ago anyway. If he wins, then people will claim Joe wasn't all that anyway and so, whilst it would be a nice bookmark to a great career, it will not be held in the same light as his wins over Tito and De la Hoya.

For Hopkins, this fight is almost a 'freeroll'. For Joe, it is career defining.

Can't wait... opcorn:

MTF

 

Right... and if at 43 he can beat the undefeated Joe Calzaghe, well, that is greatness. Not so much the other way around.

A win over Joe Calzaghe is worth WAY more than a win over Bernard Hopkins in 2008, IMO.

 

Yep.

 

hopkins as at the top of his game? ::

 

Past if for five years? He arguably looked better at light heavyweight than he did at the tail end of his middleweight stretch.

He's certaily not in his prime, but Hopkins' style was never predicated on athleticism and he's kept himself in such good physical condition that his 43 is like a lot of fighters mid to late 30's.

 

....i honestly don't think Hopkins is far from his best.

There is very little evidence in the fights themselves that he has slipped. His game has never been about utilising his physical attributes, because he has never had lightning hand speed or knockout power.....what has kept Hopkins at the top of his game so long is a combination of always keeping himself in surpreme condition out of the ring, and using his brains in the ring....he doesn't get hit much, and he can simply out smart opponents. Unlike speed and - to a lesser extent - power, that will never go.


what i find most fascinating about this fight, and what is making it very hard to envisage how the fight will go, is the styles. Usually we get these fights, and we can weigh up the styles. Casamayor-Katsidis, Mayweather-Hatton.....even if you couldn't pick a winner, you had a good idea of the pattern of the fight.

But this is different. Neither Hopkins or Calzaghe can be accused of being one dimensional, they are both very adaptable. Calzaghe can come forward, throw a lot of punches....if that doesn't work, he can counter punch too....Hopkins will probably start with a counter-punching plan, but if this isn't working, he will try and force things on the inside.....against Tarver he took the centre of the ring.

....there are so many ways this fight could play out....it might not be exciting to the casual fan (as the ticket sales tell us), but it is a purist's wet dream.

 

I thought Mayweather - DLH was more significant of a fight than this. Overall they represent a more elite level of fighters than Hopkins vs Calzaghe, as close or closer to their primes.

 

btw.. In my opinion the best fights are made between guys with similar styles, and similar physical sizes. I've always been of the opinion that these guys have a similar style, and they are sized simlarly, thus I think it will be a much more exciting fight than we saw with the contrasting styles of DLH-Hopkins, DLH-Mayweather, or Mayweather-Hatton. Despite both fighters involved often being considered 'boring' fighters, the stylistic matchup is excellent.

 

Fair point... he did look very good against Tarver, and healthier after the move up in weight. Tarver was awful that night though, but a case can certainly be made that Hopkins made him look that way.

I should have been more clear. He's been clearly past his prime as a fighter for that long. Hopkins was better in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 than he has been since.

Hopkins simply can't fight full rounds like he could when he was in his prime. He has to take rounds off to be effective these days.

 

When was the last time Oscar won a significant fight? Hopkins is coming off a championship victory in a new division and Calzaghe has been the Champ at 168 for over 10 years.

This is by far more significant than Oscar vs Floyd.

 

I agree with that. I think its a little similar to the way Evander Holyfield aged. He can't fight the entire round like he used to, but he uses ways - both inside and outside of the rules - to buy time and limit the overall activity level of the fight - both his and his opponent's - and he makes what he does count.

 

DLH's been out of his prime for years, and mentally/emotionally I think he's far gone from it.

Hopkins and Calzaghe still have their minds focused on boxing and while they've both aged - Hopkins obviously significantly older - they're both near their prime weights.

Plus, both are still top 5 p4p, IMO. DLH wasn't.

This fight is for the light heavyweight crown...Mayweather-DLH wasn't for the 154 crown, just a belt.

 

A win over Calzaghe will be bigger than Tito, IMO. Better fighter, bigger fighter, higher weight, and Hopkins is old. A win over Calzaghe will be the biggest of his career.

 

That's Hopkins for you- the man is very, very skilled but is nowadays as exciting to watch as a glass of water. :doh:

 

I should have been more specific- I meant that he is dull as dishwater to the casual sports/boxing fan.

I'm happy to watch him fight generally because as a boxing fan I can appreciate that he is a tough, skilled SOB. And I can't wait for tomorrow night- I've been looking forward to this fight for about six years ::

 

Is Joe the "dogs balls"?::

 

Well, my brother, who is a MAJOR Calz nuthugger (and who boxes Ammy at 168) and every single person I know is rooting for Joe. He's also getting some very favourable press here in almost all of the national newspapers. This fight is very big in England- a lot of my local pubs are staying open late to show the fight. :clap:

The irony, of course, is that there is pretty strong evidence that Joe hates the English, generally... ::

 

I don't know, man. More impressive? Sure. But that Tito win was MASSIVE at the time.

 

Absolutely.

 

:nono: :nono: