WHICH performance was more impressive: Hopkins or Calzaghe?

Bernard Hopkins vs Antonio Tarver
Calzaghe vs Mikkel Kessler

Hopkins dominated (virtually shut out) Tarver who had a recent string of good victories (Jones and Johnson).

Cazaghe convincingly beat Kessler who was undefeated.

So in combination:

who looked more impressive?
Which Feat was more Impressive?

 

Calzaghe

and Calzaghe

and IMO, it's not even close (either question, for that matter)

 

Hopkins.

 

Don't ask a compound question for a one vote poll.

 

Hopkins was coming off of two losses, skipped a weight class and clearly beat the 'best' guy at 175 whereas Calzaghe clearly beat the 'best' challenger in his weight class.

What Hopkins did is more impressive because it was far more unlikely than what Calzaghe did.

What Calzaghe did was more impressive because Kessler is better than Tarver.

So it just depends on how you interpret the question, I suppose.

 

That's how I see it.

 

Tarver just looked pathetic in that fight....physically. That's outside of Hopkins' performance, who did shut him down completely and knocked him down.

Even if Kessler did have a pre-existing hand injury, he was in his prime and was there to win the fight all 12 rounds.

Not sure the same is true for Tarver.

I'd say Calzaghe, about as emphatically as Jake did.

 

How do you know that was Kessler's prime?

 

I can do whatever the fuck I want on my topic! :warning: :tease:

 

I voted Hopkins. Tarver had done more impressive things at that point, IMO, than Kessler had leading up to the Calzaghe fight. Sure Kessler was undefeated and collected a couple ABC belts..but Tarver had beaten everyone he had faced and more importantly he beat the GREAT Roy Jones.

Also Bernard moved UP from 160lbs to do it.

No question in my mind. None!

 

Here's why I see it as I earlier posted:

the Hopkins that beat Tarver would've struggled against the Kessler that lost to Calzaghe.

The Calzaghe that beat Kessler would've not only beat the Tarver that lost to Hopkins, but at the very worst the fight is a duplicate of Calzaghe-Lacy.

As much as I'm sick of Tarver's excuses (STILL whining about a fight that happened 18 months ago), there is a lot of truth to the fact that he was a dead man walking that night.

 

Tarver was also sitting on the title...as evidenced by the fact that he fought Jones a third time and Hopkins.

 

agREED.

An older guy fighting a younger champion vs an older guy fighting an uninterested old champion.

 

C'mon Sly I thought we covered this yesterday.

 

This post is based too much on your opinion of the mythical matchups...which is a shame to say because you're usually better than this.

If we are going by what we think each would do against the other opponents:

I happen to think that Bernard would have beaten Kessler just as easily as Calzaghe did, because Kessler is just a straight up predictable fighter...although good. Hopkins is more dynamic and dimensional than Kessler. Kessler's not fast or particularly elusive. He plays right into Hopkins.

Secondly, it's ludicrous (IMO...wink) to think that Calzaghe would have dominated Tarver, ala Lacy. Tarver is 6'2", fast hands, stright punches, murderous left and is capable of a pretty good workrate himself (see the second Johnson fight).

Cazaghe doesn't beat Tarver as easily as Bernard did, IMO.

 

::

 

I don't really disagree with what you say about Kessler, though you are oversimplifying what he brings to the table, and severely exaggerating Bernard's effectiveness. Bernard gets away with fouling and mauling and all of his other tricks against smaller/weaker fighters that he can bully. Kessler is none of those things.

And regardless of Tarver's stat sheet, the fact is his stamina sucks and he's looked like shit in his past few fights - including the 3rd jones fight, only it was masked by Roy's unwillingless to do any more than survive for much of the 2nd half. Calzaghe remains just as active as he's ever been, which means about 3x more active than Hopkins, is a far better defensive fighter than Tarver, and a lot closer to his prime.

Also, if you want to cite Tarver's streak heading into the fight, then how about the fact that Kessler arguably hadn't even lost 10 rounds in his entire career heading into the Calzaghe fight? Tarver lost more than that in just:
- his two fights with Harding (out of 17 total rounds)
- his two fights with Johnson
- his 1st and 3rd fights with Roy

I just don't get much value out of what Hopkins has done the past few years, considering the way he does it. I honestly believe if that same version of Tarver showed up for the rubber match with Jones, the series would be 2-1 in Roy's favor.

 

Well, Jake...knowing your flair for linking your opinions to betting lines going into the fight:

Tarver was a big betting favourite...Kessler the underdog.

How does this sit with you? Being that you hadn't mentioned this, even though I'm sure you knew? Well, I think it means it damages your stance and undoubtedly strikes at your heart of hearts :nono: :blobbox:

 

..agREED with Jake..plus I have no doubt that calzaghe would have dominated that Tarver..

 

curses, foiled again.

that said, that gives Hopkins the edge in achievement, not necessarily performance. But even that's up to debate, considering what was at stake in Calzaghe-Kessler, and the fact that plenty of people argue that the linear LHW title is stuck in a sea of meaningless defenses in Germany.

 

And the linear 168 pound title is laying somewhere in Wales, right? :crafty:

 

That's all anyone needed to say in this thread.

Achievement? Hopkins.

Performance? Calzaghe.

Peace.

 

Why though? It's not so cut and dry. Hopkins arguably won every round, against a far more accomplished and polished fighters in Tarver, than Calzaghe did against Kessler.

What makes Calzaghe's performance impressive, is simply that Kessler was a young buck, hungry for what Calzaghe had and Calzaghe was the one who finished stronger.

But make no mistake, Calzaghe's performance wasn't even close to a shutout, and he needed to rally to get the win. Hopkins toyed with Tarver.

And to the belief that Calzaghe would have done the same with Calzaghe? Well, thats pure conjecture. Hopkins did it. All the time Calzaghe was struggling against the likes of Sakio Bika and that 160 pound scrub who he hurt his hand against.

Calzaghe v Kessler was not Calzaghe v Lacy. THAT was Joe's "perfect performance". Calzaghe was all the more human vs. Mikkel.

 

I agree it's not so cut and dry and there are many takes and angles; but was just trying to simplify assuming I had a gun to my head and had to make a choice. ::

We get criticized when we're long winded and overly analytical; we get criticized when we're concise and to the point. I can't win. :doh: ::

1. I would dispute that Tarver was more accomplished and more polished than Kessler. I would dispute that heavily. ESPECIALLY considering we are talking about TODAY'S Tarver. Kessler beat alot of top-10 competition at 168; unified; and barely lost a round in the process. And Kessler has facets to his game that Tarver doesn't (and vice versa).

2 & 3. And what makes it even more impressive is that Calzaghe had to be at his absolute best AND adjust several times to overcome Kessler - because Kessler himself was more active, younger, fresher, harder, better, and adjusted more and thought more in the ring than Tarver did. Tarver was flat and lethargic and offered nothing. He came out in first gear, and stayed there - to the point that in the 10th round Hopkins turned his back, raised his arms, then ran across the ring to flurry on Tarver - and Antonio just stood there. Hops put on a masterful performance - a beautiful one - but Tarver basically stood there and let him.

4. Agreed. That's just conjecture.

5. Agreed. But like Tarver, in many ways Lacy LET Calzaghe have his brilliant performance by virtue of his style, limitations, and how he fought.

It's close, no doubt. I don't see it as black and white and an argument could be made either way.

Peace.

 

1. You dispute that Tarver was more accomplished and polished? How?!? Tarver was a near undisputed P4P entrant, beaten more quality opponents than Kessler and over a longer period of time. He was without question the #1 guy in the division, by virtue of the fact that he took on and defeated the two best claimants out there....knocking one of them into a space where he is still to recover his repuation.

2. I think in saying "Tarver was flat" then you're cutting short what possible effects being in the ring with Hopkins had on him. That tends to be the norm for Hopkins opponents; they look like trash. Somewhere along the line, the unpopular ex-middleweight star deserves the credit for making the same thing happen over and over and over.

5. Bah. Lacy let Calzaghe beat his head in? Lacy did his best. Sure, people were wrong about what Joe and Jeff were or were not, but no way will I buy that "Lacy let him have it" argument. Again, that takes away from the way Calzaghe made him look. Never before had Lacy looked so impotent.


Oh and black and white? Well, I knew you couldn't let a topic go by without dropping some racially charged bomb. Shame.

 

Calzaghe by far.

Tarver was in no shape or form to be in the ring when he was. The same exact thing happened with Lewis with his first fight with Rahman.

 

:laughing::laughing:

 

LOL, I was thinking the same thing. ::

 

::