Jermain Taylor vs Felix Trinidad @ 160

Tito knocks Taylor out.

Also, fuck Calzaghe.

 

Boo Hoo. Joe was better, deal with it :bears:

 

That isn't what I'm saying. What I am saying is that if we're willing to exert our powers of observation, just a little bit, it becomes clear that in fact Trinidad's gloves were loaded to the point of being deadly. And that following the Joppy fight, this was never again the case.

There's no evidence of it, so my take is strictly a judgement call, but to act as if there's no merit in it? Just because it can't be proven?

What I find ridiculous and somewhat distrubing is everyone's willingness to try to minimize Trinidad's transgression, and to refuse to recognize it for what it was - a fighter cheating at the peril of his opponent's well-being.

I'll tell you this - I'd be real interested in having a candid and off the record conversation with both Reid and Vargas to discuss their experiences fighting Trinidad.

 

LOL. You are fully aware that isn't true.

 

Na I'm serious man, it's the most blatant and ridiculous double standard in boxing today

 

Except it isn't mate and you know it. Watch the Hopkins of 98-01 vs the one who fought Calzaghe and the difference is (as you'd expect in the decade odd leading up to a guy turning 43) big. Calzaghe was as good as he ever was.....not quite as quick maybe, but he'd evolved that unorthodox slappy-volume style to its upmost and he was in by far the best run oof form of his career.

Hopkins, flat out better, Calzaghe, the Harold Shipman of boxing.

 

Nope, don't see it. It's easy to look like a superstar against bums and blown up welters/light middles. Both of their resumes suck ass, except one guy consistently gets a pass whilst the other is derided. Pick them apart and you will see there isn't much difference, if at all.

 

Taylor domintes the one dimensional bum

 

So you're saying no version of Hopkins was a good fighter, and that the version Calzaghe beat was every bit as bad as the one who beat blown up welterweights? So does Joe get credit or not for beating Hopkins? Because if Hopkins wasn't any good, even if he wasn't past his best against Joe, what does it all mean? but that the

 

No, that isn't what I said. Hopkins was a good fighter, but so was Calzaghe. I said that there isn't nearly as much disparity between their resumes as people like to pretend there is. Hopkins seems to get way more credit because Tito was a big fucking hype-job, and subsequently he beat a "name". Calzaghe would have beaten seven shades of shit out of Trinidad also. Fuck, Kessler would have too. They both fought shite opposition, but one gets put on a pedestal and the other is constantly derided for it.

 

How about this explanation: they're both coward pussies afraid most of all of losing?

 

Nah Bernard wanted big fights. He also wanted to be treated fairly.

Calzaghe was just a gaping fucking vagina, afraid to lose, content to hide away at home.

 

I think people are neglecting to imagine the power factor here

One of the reasons that Taylor was able to do his thing (sort of) against Hopkins is that Bernard had nowhere near the power necessary to alter things with one shot... Trinidad has that power, I'd argue he probably hit harder than Pavlik and you CAN hit Taylor... he's not a great boxer... he's an athlete with something of a jab, but the Idea that he could box the way Hoya, Bernard, Wright did against Trinidad is pretty ridiculous to me... I don't see it... Trinidad could both hit him and, more importantly, hurt him in a fight-altering way... I refuse to believe that Trinidad is any dumber than Kelly Pavlik and that motherfucker hit Taylor plenty

 

oh, Calzaghe sucks, also

 

I gotta say, even though I think a younger Hopkins would have reversed their actual fight result, and he unquestionably ranks above Calzaghe all-time for me, I have to agree that Hopkins' MW opposition was pretty damn mediocre for the most part, and if it was collectively better than Calzaghe's at SMW, it sure wasnt by much.

Not that I am pro-either guy. Im not.

 

nonsense.

Calzaghe was tremendous.

 

yeah, if you enjoy faggot Tae-Bo instructors

 

Calzaghe was tremendous at smoking pole

 

He had a Wales of a time sucking big floppy dicks

 

with mustard.

 

Dijon

 

:laugh11:

That fucking sociopath didn't want Calzaghe when he had something to lose, he was the guy that backed out when they were closer to their primes.

Calzaghe > Hopkins.

Seriously, every time we all get into this debate, we break it down, you guys realise "shit, Bernards resume isn't really all that, I can't win this, lets just crack a joke and leave". You're all doing it already. Eaaasehhh

 

Theres truth to that first part Slice, but it isnt as though Calzaghe is blameless. "Fear of flying!?"

I mean, cmon ::

 

Please don't make me post, again, the quote from Richard Schaffer which explicitly states, in print, that Calzaghe agreed to all of Hopkins demands for a fight in 2002/3 and that Werren was in the US to sign contracts, only for Hopkins to double his demands the next day and pull the plug.

MTF

 

I don't disagree Ramonza, he was a pussy in that respect, as was Hopkins. They both were. Neither of them wanted anything to do with RJJ when he was in his pomp at 175 (Hopkins asking for a 50-50 split he KNEW he was never going to get was ridiculous).

I'm not even saying Hopkins was a bad fighter, he was good, as was Joe. Their career paths are actually similar, both had long reigns feasting on bums when there were better chalkenges out there, both beat up hype jobs who were favoured to beat them, and they both have one very good win - Tarver and Kessler.

I just get annoyed with the double standard, people just come out with lazy, blanket statements and they can't back it up with facts. I'm not emotionally invested in Calzaghe, he has the personality and charisma of a dead cat, I couldn't care less that he's retired. My only point is this, if you want to hold Bernard up as a great fighter, then Joe should be held up as one too, because there really isn't anything at all between them resume wise. If you don't agree I will be more than happy to break it down, unlike others here.

 

:laughing:

 

Their lengthy titles reigns are comparable, but Hopkins has separated himself since moving to 175.

 

Hopkins didn't pull out of 'a Calzaghe fight' though, he pulled out of a 3 fight deal with showtime of which a Calzaghe fight was part, and re-signed with HBO instead. Bearing in mind that in 2002 a Tito rematch was still on table and Oscar, Mosley & Vargas were all just one division south. I wish to hell the fight had happened in 2002 though, there's really no doubt who the winner would have been.

 

By losing to Calzaghe? ::

 

I won't pretend Hopkins resume is miles better than Joe's. He was just better.... and if they'd fought when Hopkins was in his prime (2002 would have done), Hopkins would have won with no arguments.