Is Joe Calzaghe an ATG?

Joe didn't need to land " many " punches on Hopkins, just more than he took. Which he did. Hence the decision.

 

****yzing Jones/ Calzaghe is your Achilles Heel as far as retaining your objectivity. I sense your emotion whenever these two are discussed.

 

Yes.no doubt at all.

 

that, is an amazing post and so simple.Hopkins is an an old fighter who likes to set the pace, calzaghe didn't let him.

 

I think he is great but let me out this to you.

Is he amongst the best 20 who campaigned from 160 to 175

 

definitelyl top 20 yes. knocking on the door of top five, in fact.

 

Really I don't see him that high.

 

Question for ForemanJab...

Why would you make a poll with two possible answers a multiple choice poll ?



Question for Rumsfeld ?

Why would you vote both YES and NO on a two -choice poll ?

 

come on dude maybe he makes top five, behind solid jones, toney, eubank, ward etc. ottke isn't above joe, he was twice the con artist joe was.

certainly on purely h2h basis yes hes not top ten, he would get battered by uninjured Kessler froch and prime echols, eubank and Byron Mitchell without joes cheating ref amongst others etc.joe was on par with robin reid abilitywise, so somewhere h2h2 between 10 and 20.

 

You misread my post, I see that now.

 

and we love you for saying no

 

Ffs get in the real world. So and so a fighter would " kill " so and so fighter is objective is it?:roll::roll:

 

All boxing is simple. It's just that quite a few so called " fans " would try to convince you it is rocket science as opposed to being merely the sweet science.

 

How would you know one way or the other?

He NEVER fought at 160, had 44 fights at 168, and 2 at 175, all of which he won.

 

Easy question.

Yes.