WHICH performance was more impressive: Hopkins or Calzaghe?

oh ok. I don't disagree with that,but most seemed to drop him after the 2nd fight with Taylor, where more people seemed to agree with the decision (though I didn't).

 

Jones was #1 or #2 after the Ruiz fight, but physically - something independent of Tarver - he didn't look good in the first Tarver fight after coming down in weight...and he still won, or managed a draw (on some cards). Almost nobody had him losing that fight...outside of the crowd ::.

A lot of fighters' p4p rankings, especially late in their careers, are done almost as much out of respect for their careers and accomplishments (and Jones had arguably just had his biggest)...and many won't drop them until they actually lose in the ring.

(Though with Hopkins, I still don't believe he lost either Taylor fight, so I rank him - and Taylor - based on that opinion...as well as moving up and beating Tarver.)

It's hard to argue Jones was actually the best p4p fighter - in terms of the fighter he was on the ring - on any night he fought Tarver.

 

I thought Tarver won their first fight.

I disagree 100% with people who maintain a fighter's p4p ranking out of respect, but you are right that a lot do.

I agree with ranking guys p4p on what you see rather than what the judges see. It gives you something you have to acknowledge, but it doesn't mean you have to buy it.

Going into the Tarver fight, Roy was coming off of maybe the best win of his career so anyone who had him #1 p4p going in, I wouldn't argue with. But, your point that he wasn't 'actually' the best or at his best in any Tarver fight is hard to argue with. Contrast this with Calz/Kessler...the Kessler that Calz beat seemed to mE to be the same Kessler I thought so highly of and predicted would beat Joe.

 

that's because most people treat it like an AP poll. Its use now is far removed from its original concept, which was to give non-heavyweights (particularly SRR) their shine.

 

I gotta go with Calzaghe/Kessler since I always thought Tarver sucked and was lucky to be a B-class fighter ... He simply caught Jones at the right time ..

 

Not when Tarver beat him.

When Tarver beat Roy, nearly everyone viewed Roy as a little past his prime, but far from shot. Roy had one of his best wins ever against Ruiz, then had an off-night but still won a close win over Tarver. Then after the loss to Tarver and especially Johnson, came the talk of Roy being shot overnight and maybe the jump in weight (fighting weight, not a between camp jump in weight) and drop back down hurting his body irreversibly.

 

You mean when Jones beat Tarver .... :doh:

 

I was referring to the rematch, as the next sentence indicates.

But either way it's the same.

November 2003 or May 2004, Roy was looked upon as slightly past his prime but not a "shot fighter".

Certainly not "shot for years".

 

1. Understand your point about being more accomplished, and can see that technically Tarver was.

But Tarver went 2-1 with RJJ - and don't tell me that was an at-his-best RJJ. He went 1-1 with Harding, and 1-1 with Johnson.

Kessler was undefeated, beat a host of top-10 contenders and was no worse than 2nd best in the division, beating everyone HANDILY and partially unifying.

Maybe what got to me is saying Tarver is "more polished." TODAY'S Tarver? No. And I'd disagree that Tarver at ANY time is "more polished" than Kessler. I don't see that in any way, shape or form.

2. Granted. Hops had alot to do with it. But come on, bro....looking at that fight objectively, do you really think that was the best Tarver in there? I do not. He was listless and lethargic, IMHO. And I don't say that lightly and you know this; as I hate using "mitigating circumstances" or sounding like I'm 'downplaying' a win. But in this instance the impression was undeniable.

3. Lacy had shown serious limitations before the fight with Calzaghe (see Wiggins, Vanderpool, Sheika, Williams). He's continued to show them after the Calzaghe fight. But your point again is granted and a good one.

It's close and no one can deny that what Hopkins did in terms of achievement is huge (and bigger than Calz-Kess).

IN terms of performance a strong case can be made for either fight deserving it....I happen to think Calz-Kess was more impressive.

Peace.

 

Techincally correct? ::

First: Tarver didn't lose to Johnson in either fight and I wanted to score that first one for Johnson as well. Val can testify to it.

Second: No, Jones wasn't at his best...but Jones not at his best > Calzaghe not at his best. Not only that, but you think Tarver was primed as well? I don't know many 35 year olds who are just hitting their straps, regardless of the amount of fights theyve had. Especially rear foot counter punchers.

Third: Objectively? Like I'm not already? Please.

Fourth: I can handle anybody saying Calzaghe's was more impressive. But to act like Hop's was out of the question is out of line and its the only reason I've wasted so much time preaching faggot ass Tarver's case.

 

First: fine, I scored it very close for Tarver too, but fact is Johnson won and it was extremely close.

Second: what does Calzaghe being "not at his best" have to do with anything - where does this come from? I don't get this point. And who said I thought Tarver was at prime? That's exactly my point...Kessler is in prime or MUCH closer to it than Tarver was/is - especially in the Hops fight.

Third. Ok. Tarver looked terrible. ::

Fourth: I said as much in both of my posts. Again, I was making a pick - that doesn't mean I didn't think both fights had merit and that it was close either way.

Peace.

 

Shutup.

 

I love you. Hide no hate in your heart. :nono: