Joe Calzaghe vs. Michael Watson @ 168

[Thread Stealer]

Watson spent most his time @ 160, he had a lot of over-the-limit bouts @ 160 but the only time he fought close to 168 was the 2nd fight with Eubank after beating Eubank the first time but the judges gave it to Chris.

Watson was boxing brilliantly, then Eubank pulled out a miraculous right uppercut that led to tragedy.

Anyway, how do Watson's boxing skills and his high guard do against the busy and quick southpaw Calzaghe?

[killerkai1]

Good Thread especially for brit fight fans. Micheal actually beat Eubank in the first fight in my eyes and was the better fight erin the second fight for 95% of the fight and had already done benn and fought well against Mccallum. Watson by decision. Anyone disagree? That should kick off!

[achillesthegreat]

The Watson of the second Watson fight was unbelievable. He was a man possessed. Calzaghe could go the hard 12 and I think he could add spice to his work i.e. body work and inside work. He'd be scoring in combos and it would be telling at the end. Calzaghe UD12. Something like 7-5 in a fantastic fight.

[TBooze]

What happened to Watson was terrible, but lets put sentiment aside.

Watson was a fair fighter, who could rise to the occasion. But look at the McCallum fight, Watson lacked the class at the absolute top level.

Calzaghe by very painful TKO11; Watson's heart and sprit will keep him in it for half a dozen rounds, but eventually Calzaghe will start to totally and utterly dominate.

[Mantequilla]

Watson was pretty inexperienced when he fought McCallum.

Do you think the Calzaghe from the Eubank fight would have done much better?.

I certainly don't.

IMO Calzaghe has never fought anyone remotely close to as good as Watson.

He's not a great fighter or absolute top level by a long stretch.

[TBooze]

Originally Posted by Mantequilla

Watson was pretty inexperienced when he fought McCallum.

Do you think the Calzaghe from the Eubank fight would have done much better?.

I certainly don't.

IMO Calzaghe has never fought anyone remotely close to as good as Watson.

He's not a great fighter or absolute top level by a long stretch.

Watson was good to a level; Don Lee, a one dimensional Benn; but when he fought the best in his division, even when they were not at their best (Eubank being weight drained for fight one) he still found a way to lose.

Calzaghe at 168lbs is on par with McCallum at 160 (McCallum having peaked four years and six pounds lighter at 154 in 1984-86), so that is why I see a very similar result.

[Mantequilla]

I'm not saying Calzaghe will lose to Watson, just that i can't see him dominating the fight

I mean Calzaghe couldn't dominate the likes of Robin Reid or Starie.

If he shows up like that he might lose to even the Watson that lost to McCallum.

Calzaghe has been given far too much credit for his thrashing of the overhyped lacy.I tend to think that's a feat most good fighters would replicate.

[China_hand_Joe]

If a good version of Calzaghe turned up it would take about 6 rounds until Watson became totally bewildered by Joe's speed. Once his self-belief faded the result would be all but certain.

[achillesthegreat]

Originally Posted by TBooze

What happened to Watson was terrible, but lets put sentiment aside.

Watson was a fair fighter, who could rise to the occasion. But look at the McCallum fight, Watson lacked the class at the absolute top level.

Calzaghe by very painful TKO11; Watson's heart and sprit will keep him in it for half a dozen rounds, but eventually Calzaghe will start to totally and utterly dominate.

That isn't true at all. Someone can look at Watson and say he beat two top 5 168s in Benn and Eubank. He was dominating Eubank prior to the ko.

The loss to McCallum showed just how good McCallum was. McCallum set himself apart by going for the kill and absolutely exhausting himself to do it. He failed the first time but got it the second time. McCallum was just that good, not Watson that bad.

[achillesthegreat]

Originally Posted by hughweb

Eubank did an even better job on Watson for six rounds of the first fight than McCallum did (until Eubank fell to shit due to being ridiculously weight-drained), but Watson's level of performance improved soo much for the second fight it was like a completely different fighter!

Eubank freely admits he was always weight drained and horribly so.

Agreed, Watson was a totally different fighter in the rematch. Better than he has ever been.

[TBooze]

Originally Posted by achillesthegreat

That isn't true at all. Someone can look at Watson and say he beat two top 5 168s in Benn and Eubank. He was dominating Eubank prior to the ko.

The loss to McCallum showed just how good McCallum was. McCallum set himself apart by going for the kill and absolutely exhausting himself to do it. He failed the first time but got it the second time. McCallum was just that good, not Watson that bad.

Well the record books show Watson lost to Eubank twice, fight two by KO.

He beat Benn at 160lbs, when Benn was still learning his trade.

And Watson was so badly thrashed by McCallum it was not funny...

[enquirer]

The thing is calzaghes speed,stamina and unorthodox style are someting that watson will never have faced...Speed tends to make good or even 'great' fighters ordinary.....