Who is greater: Bernard Hopkins or Joe Calzaghe?

[woola4]

By Matthew El Cepillo Potter:

 

Is Bernard Hopkins greater than Joe Calzaghe, or does the Welshman eclipse the Philadelphian hard-man? This is a debate that often rages amongst real boxing fans. And I will admit at the outset, that it’s not as clear as I hoped it would be. This debate is frequently cause for a sad enticement of tribal loyalties, with Brit's often favouring Calzaghe, and Americans championing Hopkins. Of course, this is a generalisation, and many fans, with various passports, are capable of coming to a logical and unbiased conclusion. This article is here to help, should you so need it.

 

Firstly, let’s make one thing clear; everyone has a different definition of greatness, and every fighter’s record and resume of wins is open to criticism and deconstruction. With regards to Hopkins, the first and most tediously frequent allegation is that he only fought smaller men..

 

The reality is that Hopkins fought the best opponents available at the time. Carlos Monzon and Marvin Hagler both have smaller men ranked amongst their greatest wins. However, no one can credibly claim that De La Hoya was a proven Middleweight, or that Winky Wright didn't look a bit flabby at 170 lbs, but these are still solid wins, against elite opponents. And it's not like Winky Wright was a crude slugger who relied on size and weight advantages to bully his opponents into submission! Winky was a defensive master, a technician who relied on skills and ability, not size and weight.

 

Puerto Rican great, Felix Trinidad is often cited as one of these so-called ‘smaller men’. The reality is that Trinidad was not only undefeated at the time, not just ranked the pound-for-pound number three, but he was also proven at the weight and he was the betting favourite going into the clash with Hopkins in the September of 2001. Trinidad performed well at the weight, before and after his defeat to Hopkins. And to call it a 'defeat' is doing it a disservice. Hopkins put on a master class performance, against a guy many thought would beat him into retirement. And if all this sounds weirdly familiar, it’s because Hopkins would go on to do it again, seven years later, against another young-gun and undefeated Champion in Kelly Pavlik.

 

Pavlik, was, in theory, a smaller man, although he had fought successfully just 2lbs south of the 170lbs catch weight. So, while there is some truth in the allegation that Hopkins only fought smaller men, it’s really not as significant an issue as some people like to claim. Similar allegations have never been levelled towards Calzaghe, just allegations of a different kind. Mostly of the 'scared to leave his comfort zone' variety.

 

So, to look at the genesis of the Calzaghe/Hopkins debate, we need to see how they first won the belts that would make them famous. Neither story is particularly impressive. Hopkins had originally lost his title to Roy Jones, and went on to reclaim his IBF belt with a fight against Segundo Mercado for the vacant title. The first fight between these two was a draw, and thus Hopkins became a paper champion at the 2nd attempt when he won the rematch. Calzaghe's win over Chris Eubank for the WBO title was almost as unspectacular, again fighting for a vacant belt.

 

Of course, Eubank was a former champion, and therefore more credible than Mercado. But he was also at the end of his career and took the fight on short notice. Eubank is on record as saying that he had to cut several pounds of muscle and fat in the weeks leading up to the fight. Not only that, but just a few months later, he was campaigning two entire weight divisions higher.

 

But it wasn't the way they won their belts that made Hopkins and Calzaghe great. It was what they did afterwards. Bernard Hopkins would go on to defend his IBF title successfully on twenty occasions. Calzaghe faired slightly better with a total of twenty one successful defences.

 

Both men became Undisputed Champions. But the difference here is quite distinct, and is one of the three primary reasons why Hopkins should be regarded more highly than Calzaghe. Calzaghe became undisputed when he beat Mikkel Kessler in 2007. There is no doubt that Kessler is a good fighter, a credible belt holder. He was young and undefeated, but unfortunately very one dimensional. Having captured the 168lb Championship, Calzaghe immediately moved up to Light-Heavyweight, having made zero defences of his most prestigious title to date. Now compare that with Hopkins after he won the 160lb Championship; he became the first man to dominate and stop the undefeated Trinidad, then went onto to defend his Undisputed title successfully on six occasions, before, like Calzaghe, moving up to Light-Heavyweight and challenging the legitimate Champion.

 

The second primary reason why Hopkins is greater than Calzaghe is simply down to resume. Hopkins defeated four men who all held belts at the time; Pavlik, Trinidad, De La Hoya and Holmes. Two of these men were ranked amongst the pound-for-pound elite.

 

Calzaghe defeated just two current belt holders (at the time) in Lacy and Kessler - neither of whom were close to being ranked amongst the best on the planet - by any sane analyst!

 

Amongst the second tier of Hopkins’ wins were notable former or future titlists like Glen Johnson, Lupe Aquino, Winky Wright and William Joppy. Calzaghe had a few more notables on his record in the guise of former belt holders like Robin Reid, Byron Mitchell, Richie Woodhall, Charles Brewer and of course, Eubank. So far, so close, in terms of resume - it’s tempting to think. But by moving up and capturing the Linear Light-Heavyweight belt, this is where Hopkins' edges marginally ahead again. While Calzaghe moved up and got a razor thin split decision over the 43 year version of Hopkins, the man himself moved up and schooled, in the most embarrassingly one-sided way possible, the bigger, stronger, younger man in Antonio Tarver.

 

So, in terms of resume, Hopkins beat more current champions, more notable names, and usually in a more convincing manner than Calzaghe. While there isn't a huge difference between the two men’s resumes, comparing their top three victories clearly shows that Hopkins is in the ascendancy in this regard.

 

In terms of achievement, they both made a similar number of defences of their belts and they both moved up and became the man to beat at 175lbs. But it was Hopkins reign as the first true Middleweight Champion since Halger, and his subsequent six successful defences, which again places him clearly ahead of Calzaghe in the achievement stakes.

 

So far, that's 2-0 to B-Hop. But this is where Calzaghe claws one back - Hopkins has lost three times. Although the nature of these defeats means that they aren’t quite as damaging to his legacy as perhaps they could be. Hopkins only lost very close decisions to world class fighters when he was fast approaching middle age and simply couldn't match the fresher fighters work rate.

 

Calzaghe, obviously, has an unblemished 46-0 record, and so therefore rightly is ahead in this respect. This undefeated record makes the final comparison much closer than some might think, but Hopkins, as I've shown, has the better resume and the more significant achievements, whereas Calzaghe has a slightly better record. This means, that Hopkins wins the final analysis; he is the greater fighter, when judged objectively and dispassionately.

 

Some eagle eyed readers might, at this stage, notice that little has been said of either mans win over Roy Jones Jr. This is simply because neither Hopkins nor Calzaghe deserve any credit for beating the empty shell of a once great fighter. The fact is, speaking entirely without objectivity, and with a lot of passion, a peak Roy Jones was light-years ahead of both, and neither could compete on the kind of stratospherically high level that Jones made his own domain.

 

www.eastsideboxing.com

 

woola4: I would like to invite forum members to please share their comments, viewpoints, opinions and/or analysis of who they think is greater and reasons why. Cheers boxing//

[grapevine241]

definitely hopkins. its really no contest. in fact, i thought hopkins beat calzaghe in their fight.

 

look at how many signature wins hopkins has: pavlik, tarver, trinidad, & de la hoya... joe doesnt even have one signature win. not to mention hopkins 20 middleweight title defenses and the fact that he has only decisively lost 1 fight (jones). calzaghe is just barely a hall of famer. he might be the greatest super middleweight ever (in the relatively new weight class) but hes definitely not the greatest fighter to ever fight at SMW

[WelshDevilRob]

Joe Calzaghe for me. No contest really as Grapevine pointed out. (though for the other side)

 

I scored the fight for Joe even though it was close. It was an ugly clash of styles. While neither was at the prime of their career, Bernard was still closer instyle to his prime where as Joe was fighting with brittle hands.

 

Alot has been made of Calzaghes lack of quality defences in his 10 year run as Super Middleweight Champion but I have seen the same leveled at the opposition that Bernard Hopkins defended against when he held his Middleweight crown.

 

I will conceed that they aren't far apart with regards to achievement and opposition.

 

Also, Roy Jones Jnr is better than both in every aspect. (Prime for Prime or by achievement)

[Wheelchair]

Both had long reigns in their respective divisions, but Hopkins fought the better fighters. Having said that, Calzaghe is undefeated. It's a very close one to call, but I think a prime Hopkins beats a prime Calzaghe, so I'm going for Hopkins, but only just.

[Skav]

For me, it's Hopkins.

 

Wins over an undefeated Trinidad and Pavlik plus another upset win over Antonio Tarver beat Joe's accomplishments.

 

He was also the first man to floor and knockout Oscar De La Hoya, even Pacquiao couldn't floor him.

 

Joe was good but he got there a bit too late in fighting the opponents that matter and I have noticed that a lot of fans pick on Joe being knocked down by a past it Jones and an old man in Hopkins so I think that's hurt his legacy a little.

 

Calzaghe's best win was really against Kessler but even he isn't on the level of a Trinidad.

[donlevy]

Well I scored the fight for Calzaghe but regard Hopkins as the greater fighter regardless of the result.

 

 

Most of Hopkins greatest wins have come past his prime too.

[The_budweiser]

Joe dosnt have a signature win ? a young calzaghe a massive outsider beat Eubank, the 2nd only fighter to do so. he beat a jeff lacy which most of america said would destroy Joe by ko. Also he beat Kessler 39-0 to unify the division. id favour hopkins though , joe avoided alot of oppenents in his career and should of thought hopkins/jones sooner

[gavpowell]

I always said there was nothing to choose betwee the two up until they fought, so when Calzaghe beat him, I think that put him in front. Pavlik and Lacy are basically equivalent but the one-diomensional Pavlik had to go up in weight to face Hopkins, so it's a lesser win - he was always going to lose to Hopkins anyway, but the weight won't have helped.

 

Joe's best wins weren't moving up in weight against him, so I say that's better.

[battlingsiki]

Joe's unbeaten record helps him here.

[LondonRingRules]

Re: Who is greater: Bernard Hopkins or Joe Calzaghe?

 

By Matthew El Cepillo Potter:

 

...........Eubank was a former champion, and therefore more credible than Mercado. But he was also at the end of his career and took the fight on short notice. Eubank is on record as saying that he had to cut several pounds of muscle and fat in the weeks leading up to the fight. Not only that, but just a few months later, he was campaigning two entire weight divisions higher.

 

..........the bigger, stronger, younger man in Antonio Tarver.

 

www.eastsideboxing.com

 

------- Hope nobody here is Senor Potter as this article is as dire as eastside is.

 

Can hardly be bothered to pick apart the whole article, but for starters, it's hardly a raging debate. With an assist from Oscar, Golden Boy, and GB owned Ring, Popkins has assumed a mantle of Archie Moore type greatness lasting to this very day in spite of a couple utterly shameless cur-like ring performances.

 

Only a few Brits rate Joe in comparison, and he certainly lacks the media and promotional push Popkins has regardless.

 

Regarding Eubank, he was already in training for a LH bout, so this idea that the 3 weeks notice he took this fight on is misleading. Joe also took the fight on 3 weeks notice..........duh!

 

Yes, Eubank was past his best, but he was still very fresh from an age standpoint, having just turned 31 and having a pretty fair defense, and this was a HUGE opportunity against a fresh, untested opponent, who frankly looks looks as tough as a creme pie.

 

So, beating Eubank is better than anything on Popkin's record until he beats Tito from a legacy point of view.

 

Now, the spector of Tarver being the bigger, stronger, younger man is ludicrous. OK, he's incrementally bigger boiled down to LH, but I don't regard a 40 yr old fighter who has lost more titles than he won coming out of Hollywood and having to lose a Jim Jeffries like 80 lbs as some kind of superior being when Popkins has never let himself get out of shape in his life and had special conditioning coach in Lee Haney.

 

http://www.solid-gains.com/gallery/albums/lee-haney/Lee-Haney-10_thumb.jpg

 

No need to go into the vitamin details of that training when Tarver's fat farm training simply can't compare, regardless.

 

I could go on and on, and on picking the article into rags, but can't be bothered. I'll let historians rate them, but head to head, Popkins backed out of a SuperJoe fight the first time and paid a couple million in damages to Dibella whom he signed with to make big fights. Then he gets his manhood slapped silly by Joe when they do meet.

 

So, head to head, it's a shut out for Joe. The type needed to beat Joe has to knock him out with a big punch, not the Popkins style or ability.

[davemurphy]

I think most of us Americans just knee jerk-like say Hopkins, but to be quite honest, how many impressive wins did he have before the King tournament in 2001? Those Middleweight Defenses weren't much better than what Calzaghe was doing, and his most impressive wins were over what, although great, were basically Welterweights in Tito and Oscar. What good Middleweight did Bernard Hopkins ever beat in his 20 plus Defenses, the answer is none.

 

Tarver was maybe the thing that sways me to say BHOP, but even then it was off a long layoff and movie stardom and I really don't think Tarver was at his best. The Pavlik win is looking like crap now, and BHOP's two losses to Jermain Taylor not standing up well over time :) I guess beating Winky had some value, but once again that's got it's negatives with WW's inactive schedule.

 

I've been very vocal in my criticism of Joe Calzaghe, but I don't think Bernard Hopkins has accomplished all that much other than longevity. I don't expect EITHER guys Legacy to fair well over time.

[Sheils]

A hard one to call. I'd edge on Clazaghe, the fact that they did go head to head and he won, probably seals it. Calzaghe did have scalps to his name, but he was maybe there at the right time - which, I suppose, is another feather in his cap. He also knowed when to call it a day, though has let himself down outside the ring.... Two great fighters - but in my view, Calzaghe the boxer is the greater.

 

A good moot point, credit to woola4.

[Wheelchair]

 

I've been very vocal in my criticism of Joe Calzaghe, but I don't think Bernard Hopkins has accomplished all that much other than longevity. I don't expect EITHER guys Legacy to fair well over time.

 

Agreed. Both fighters may be above average, but they're not great.

[McBride]

If the yardstick is names on the resume it has to be Hopkins. If its what happens inside the ring, then its Joe by a country mile. Hopkins negative style, and constant bitching to the ref could send a glass eye to sleep.

[brooklynbrawler]

 

The Pavlik win is looking like crap now...

 

 

I always laugh at this stuff.

I said this at the time, that if Joe beat Pavlik and he went onto just one more loss, he would be thought of alongside Lacy - a hype job one dimensional fighter...

But so many people made the argument that Pavlik would have been some career defining fight for Joe. I still disagree and his couple of losses kind of put paid to that argument now anyway.

 

I think greatness comes down to performances more than the opponents you face. The manner of a victory goes a longer way to proving it than the victory itself.

 

There is no doubt that Bernard faced the better calibre of opposition. However he rarely looked "Great" doing it. He's looked very good in a few fights, but he's also looked decidedly average at times, and his boxing style is terrible to watch. In my opinion you don't achieve greatness by taking the fight out of the fight, which is what Bernard has basically done for the best part of 15 years.

It may well have gotten him the results, but to say that he is the better fighter vs a guy who defeated him (quite comfortably in the end imo) and who also rarely slipped below his devastating best in an unbeaten almost 50 fight career (albeit against at times a lot lesser calibre of opposition - Bernard was also guilty of this for large parts of his career), is not a statement I could ever agree with.

 

Joe's biggest fault was to be fighting in a division largely starved of talent and promotion.

[Wheelchair]

Joe's biggest fault was to be fighting in a division largely starved of talent and promotion.

 

He should have moved up to 175lbs sooner, and fought a 'live' fighter. He obviously wanted an easy time at 168lbs instead.

[TheBigTodd]

Joe's biggest fault was to be fighting in a division largely starved of talent and promotion.

 

He should have moved up to 175lbs sooner, and fought a 'live' fighter. He obviously wanted an easy time at 168lbs instead.

 

Out of his last 4 fights at SM, how can you not say they were "live":

 

Kessler, Bika, Lacy. I dont count Manfredo obviously. Before that I woulnt even call Ashira or Veit bums.

[Wheelchair]

I'm talking about fighting a live fighter at 175lbs, not 168lbs.

[TheBigTodd]

I'm talking about fighting a live fighter at 175lbs, not 168lbs.

 

Ok miss read that and ill agree...but swap my live fighter but for your easy time at 168, none of those 3 fights were easy on paper.

[Wheelchair]

I'd agree that Lacy, who was expected to beat Joe, and Kessler were good fights for Calzaghe to take.

[LondonRingRules]

Joe's biggest fault was to be fighting in a division largely starved of talent and promotion.

 

He should have moved up to 175lbs sooner, and fought a 'live' fighter. He obviously wanted an easy time at 168lbs instead.

 

Out of his last 4 fights at SM, how can you not say they were "live":

 

Kessler, Bika, Lacy. I dont count Manfredo obviously. Before that I woulnt even call Ashira or Veit bums.

 

------ Manfredo was highly publicized in the Contender series, had worked his way into Ring rankings, and is generally considered a tough go for anyone. He's maintained a high ranking, currently boxrec #14 and #2 American.

 

Manfredo was an excellent choice for Joe to introduce himself to the American market before coming over, certainly better than some the defenses of certain ballyhooed modern Brits.

 

Concensus is the ref stopped the fight prematurely. It was just a poor decision by Manfredo to ride out a blizzard of slaps, but he's done right fine for himself overall and I don't understand the out of hand dismissal by some of an higher level journeyman who fights like hell everytime I see him.

 

But, sure, not in the class of the 3 you mentioned, but still a decent contender for the moment me thinks.

[Greb]

Re: Who is greater: Bernard Hopkins or Joe Calzaghe?

 

I make them about even. The criticisms of one pretty much apply to the other too. Lacy looked rubbish since Calzaghe beat him? Well so has Pavlik since Hopkins beat him. And so on and so on.

 

In fact, their careers have a lot of parallels. Both spent a long time in relative obscurity fighting lots of mandatory type challengers. Neither's main division was particularly talent laden. Both made 20-odd defences of their ABC belt. Both did eventually unify. And both moved up to win the Ring 175lb title.

 

The only thing that really separates them is when they fought. Calzaghe actually came to fight and Hopkins put in a performance which would have shamed Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles and the other old-timers he compares himself to. So they're very close but I'd give Calzaghe the edge.

[grapevine241]

calzaghe always seemed like a local UK fighter to me, i never really saw him as world class... basically he was a step above sven ottke in my eyes. neither fighter is usually exciting to watch IMO. but there is something special about hopkins being the underdog against tito, pavlik, and tarver then putting on a dominating performance to beat them.

[davemurphy]

 

The Pavlik win is looking like crap now...

 

 

I always laugh at this stuff.

I said this at the time, that if Joe beat Pavlik and he went onto just one more loss, he would be thought of alongside Lacy - a hype job one dimensional fighter...

But so many people made the argument that Pavlik would have been some career defining fight for Joe. I still disagree and his couple of losses kind of put paid to that argument now anyway.

 

I think greatness comes down to performances more than the opponents you face. The manner of a victory goes a longer way to proving it than the victory itself.

 

There is no doubt that Bernard faced the better calibre of opposition. However he rarely looked "Great" doing it. He's looked very good in a few fights, but he's also looked decidedly average at times, and his boxing style is terrible to watch. In my opinion you don't achieve greatness by taking the fight out of the fight, which is what Bernard has basically done for the best part of 15 years.

It may well have gotten him the results, but to say that he is the better fighter vs a guy who defeated him (quite comfortably in the end imo) and who also rarely slipped below his devastating best in an unbeaten almost 50 fight career (albeit against at times a lot lesser calibre of opposition - Bernard was also guilty of this for large parts of his career), is not a statement I could ever agree with.

 

Joe's biggest fault was to be fighting in a division largely starved of talent and promotion.

 

Brawler-

I was just pointing out that you can gain or lose some credit for a win, depending on what that particular opponent goes on to accomplish. In many cases, it's simply because the said Champion destroyed him and he was never the same. In some cases, you can argue it was that the guy was overhyped to begin with and further fights bore that out. The Door can swin both ways too. Had Kessler swept through the Super Six without breaking a sweat, that benefits Calzaghe even in his retirement.

 

My All Time Favorite Example of the latter was Salvador Sanchez-Azumah Nelson.

It was considered a suspect performance by Sanchez in what was his last fight before dying in a Car Crash..................but when Azumah won the title and then went undefeated for the next Seven Years (and it took a Pernell Whitaker to do that), it suddenly became one of his greatest performances, all this while he was DEAD. In summation, what I'm saying is that your Legacy can shift even when you've hung them up. Is it fair? Probably not and we should judge the performance above the names, like you suggest. But it DOES happen, and like I say, it can swing both ways.

[londoner]

I've been very vocal in my criticism of Joe Calzaghe, but I don't think Bernard Hopkins has accomplished all that much other than longevity. I don't expect EITHER guys Legacy to fair well over time.

 

I agree. I'm not sure who to go for.

 

I'd probably go for Hopkins, the same way i went for Hopkins over RJJ. But, Calzaghe was by far a better boxer than Hopkins, the same way RJJ was a better boxer than Hopkins. I put a lot of emphasis on MAJOR wins. Calzaghe had Kessler, Lacy and Hopkins and Hopkins had Trinidad, Joppy, ODLH, Johnson, Tarver, Wright, Pavlik.