Having thought about it, I'd have an elite tier of fighters, then A level, B level, gatekeepers/European, domestic, etc. That's my new definition. So I'd class A level fighters as world class fighters ranked high at their weight class. So I've no issue with now classing Eubank and Kessler etc, as A level fighters. Because it sounds better than labelling them as B level fighters. It's just that when you classed them as A level, I automatically assumed that you were classing them as elite guys. So I should have asked you before jumping straight in. So my definition is: Elite - Floyd Mayweather etc. A level - Carl Froch etc, genuine world class champions at their respected weight classes. :good
Good post. But listing Bernard's losses obviously aren't highlights, and I don't believe that Felix Trinidad was a bloated WW. :good
Because Joe Calzaghes resume isn't a claim for being a HOF, it's a claim for being the best SMW of all times, and an ATG. He barely crosses that line, and that's why he sparks so much debate. He needs those two big names on his resume to make it, and it also helps that he consistenly showed he could hold down a bunch of other good fighters. Had he been a fluke, someone would have kicked his ass along the way :deal
Because I suppose not everyone can be as consistently right about everything as myself :think This is what I mean. Eubank fought a couple of average guys. It's normal that the top dogs within the sport fight average guys, and you'll find it on every resume you look at, save perhaps with megastars like Mayweather and Pacquiao. Moving down from CW could have been an issue, perhaps it even should have been an issue, but you can't tell from Eubanks performence that it was. I agree but those circumstances needs to be substantial, otherwise it will be very subjective and speculative. Eubank was 31 and only one fighter had been able to kick his ass. Poor circumstances for preparation and some wear and tear surfacing are the two factors there are. I can't imagine Bailey doing that. Judging from his overall posting, I'm sure that if Calzaghe had fought the version of Kessler that Ward did, Bailey would be the first one to point out just how rusty, unwell, and double visioned Kessler obviously was ... Do you think it would have mattered against Calzaghes slap-fu? When Calzaghe fights it out close up, which was his way at that point in his career, the only tactic that will work out is having the power to crack his skull wide open. I would assume it's fairly common that top athletes suffer from pain in knees, shoulders etcetera and therefor get injections, but it would require someone from within the boxing industry to give a reliable answer. As above and below :deal What is unclear is how much those circumstances took from Eubanks performence. You don't seem to have anything clear cut to bring to the table. My personal theory is that Calzaghe could have been beaten by a fighter with sufficient power, killer instinct, skill and motivation. Any of those names could have fit the bill at their absolute best. But what happened in the real world, is that Eubank was far from being able to handle Calzaghe. While Eubank was a live dog, Calzaghe is the only fighter ever to comfortable outpoint him. The key issue for this debate is when it makes sense to downplay a win. Eubank had lost twice to Collins, and seemed to have lost some of his edge. Is that sufficient in your book? If it's resonable to assume that a fighter has lost a step, that means the win doesn't live up to the name? :nono It either is, or it isn't. If Eubank held his own well enough to get the nod against those guys, it wasn't because he was "extremely lucky". It was because he was fighting it out. You need to give up on the weight argument.
Hopkins a all time great. There was a point where they were comparable both having reached 20 ABC title defences etc. But Hopkins has just kept going. Joe does have a valid win over him but Hopkins has been the greater overrall fighter.
AnotherFan, I think you're going through an argumentative phase. Of course. But they were just two keep busy fights at CW. He'd left the SMW division, without planning to return there. His scheduled fight with Mark Prince was at LHW, and then he retired as a CW. So what does that tell you? He was once a top SMW fighter. But not when he fought Joe. You can't say Joe beat a great SMW, when he fought a guy who'd be campaigning at CW, who hadn't won at SMW for three years. I agree he put up a great performance. It doesn't matter how old he was. We're going around in circles. Again, I'm only arguing that it wasn't a GREAT win for Joe. And what about the fact that he'd been fighting at CW, and hadn't even fought at SMW for two years? Again, he also hadn't won at the weight since 1994. Then after Joe, he went straight to CW. How can these not be factors? You've got to be joking? Bailey wouldn't point any of those things out. I know that, because he completely overlooks all of the factors involved regarding the Eubank fight. Again, if somebody else had've fought Eubank in 97, he'd have been all over it. You must know how he debates. He's deluded when it comes to Joe. This is why I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Sparring is one of the most, if not THE most important thing in a fighters camp. It's easy to look from the outside and say it wouldn't have made any difference. But look from the fighters perspective. Come on now. It's not common for fighters to have injections in both knees before fighting. Well I obviously can't prove how the fight would have played out, had Eubank been at his 100% best. But all of the factors I've put forward are clear cut. Joe did not beat the best version of Chris Eubank. He fought a guy who was faded, and who'd been fighting as a CW. He beat a guy who hadn't had a SMW win for three years, who'd got bad knees, and who'd had no sparring. As far as I'm concerned, those are all facts. http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/Interesting-Eubank-Interview-m2051620.aspx You're entitled to your opinion. Like I say, Joe was that great, he could well have beaten the greats of the past. But prior to the Watson tragedy, Eubank had the power, skill, motivation, and the killer instinct required to have pulled out the win. As great as Joe was, he was always relatively easy to hit. If Kabary Salem, Byron Mitchell, Bernard Hopkins, and a near 40 year old Roy could drop him, then I believe that Eubank would also have had a reasonable opportunity to have done the same. Again, I give Joe a lot of credit. It was his first big fight, for a vacant title, against one of the biggest names in the history of british boxing. But I can't class it as a great win. If he'd done the same thing to a pre Watson Eubank, then I'd have no issue. But I just can't see how it was this great feat beating that version of him. I'd class it as a very good win. Likewise, I don't think Collins holds great wins over Eubank and Benn. Held his own? No disrespect to the likes of Ray Close, but he shouldn't have been holding his own against guys like that. He was never the same mentally after the Watson fight, and his busy ITV/SKY schedules definitely took their toll on him. You need to stop overlooking all of the factors involved. :good
AnotherFan, Below are a few articles for your consideration. Joe himself didn't think that Eubank was a great fighter. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Boxin...;+But+I'm+simply+the+best,+says...-a090376892 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...alzaghe-still-chasing-his-American-dream.html