Who ranks higher All time? Hopkins or Calzaghe?

Fantastic example of a duck coming up here when I ask this one question.
Failed on what?
Now watch the duck :yep

Calzaghe win 12 :good

 

You know I love debating with you, but it's now getting silly. I've read your last response, but I haven't replied to it directly, because I'd just be repeating myself.

I've never said that Eubank was way past it. I said that he was past his best. You yourself have said that he'd seemed to have lost his edge. I've also never said he was weight drained.

In my opinion, Eubank was never quite the same after the Watson tragedy, which is more than understandable. That opinion is shared by Eubank himself and his former promoter Barry Hearn.

Now again, all I've said, is that in my opinion, Joe's win over Eubank wasn't great. Now I'm entitled to that opinion, and I've given you valid and logical reasons for my thinking. I think it was a very good win, and great for Joe personally, but not in the boxing world. I also don't think that Steve Collins has a great win over Eubank, and I don't think that Carl Thompson does either.

I've got nothing but respect for Serge, and he knows that. But the great enjoyable info that he's put forward, doesn't tell me anything that I didn't already know. It shows that he'd still got a lot left in the tank, and he was extremely motivated. But none of that overrides everything that I've spoke of.

Below is another interview with Eubank.

http://www.606v2.com/t46255-chris-eubank-interview


I've mentioned this before, yet you've bizarrely tried to brush it all off as though it wasn't important.

You've said that him not having sparring didn't matter, because he was an experienced fighter, and it wouldn't have made any difference.

You've also tried to tell me that it's common for fighters to have injections in both knees before a fight.

So I'm at a complete loss here.

And not only was he past his best with poor preparation, I've also shown you two links where Joe has said that he never classed Eubank as a great fighter, and in 2002, he felt as though he'd never beaten a great fighter at that point.

Yet for some reason you're questioning my reasoning?

Why?

I haven't criticised Joe, and I've taken into account his own circumstances.

So I'm not trying to pull anything.

Just put everything together that's been discussed.

Look at Eubank's own comments, look at Joe's comments, and look at all of the facts that we know of. Then take into account your own comments, as well as my logical opinions.

If you put it all together, you shouldn't have an issue with anyone who doesn't think that the win was GREAT.


:good

 

I respect your opinion.

Personally, I never rated Collins that highly, and in 1997, I don't think he was motivated to fight a guy like Joe. I think Joe definitely would have beaten him. But I'd have had to have rated the win based on the manner of the victory etc.

I don't remember Collins being anywhere near the pound for pound list back then though.

 

bailey,

I have posted my opinions. Opinions that are based on logic. But not only that, I've posted actual facts, as well as comments from both Eubank and Calzaghe.

But you can't process any of it, because you're completely blinded.

When referring to Kessler, how many times since you've been a member, have you mentioned that he was faded, unwell, and suffering from double vision etc? You literally must have typed it about 50 times.

Yet you'll happily sweep under the carpet all of Eubank's circumstances going into his fight with Joe.

So who can take you seriously?


Here's Eubank's thoughts:

http://www.606v2.com/t46255-chris-eubank-interview


But seeing as though it was Joe that fought him and nobody else, I guess you'll just ignore it all, right?


Here's Joe's thoughts:

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


Now we all know that if Froch, Ward, or someone else had've fought that version of Eubank instead of Joe, you'd be ramming the above information down our throats at every opportunity.

I said that Eubank had no plans to return to the SMW division.

He'd lost back to back fights against Steve Collins.

Then in the two years that followed, he fought two CW fights.

He was then scheduled to fight Mark Prince at LHW.

Then after the fight with Joe, he retired after having two more CW fights against Thompson.

So join up the dots.

You don't need to be a psychic or a detective to fathom out what his intentions were.


:good

 

laugh at your own face, ODLH, Echols and Winky are better wins by far.
But I understand that in faileyworld beating injured Kessler is better than beating an ATG and HOF.
Echols was better than Kessler prior to Echol's injury

 

anyone see baileys write on the front page last week



ried still wants his rematch which joe and f w an k promised him soon as the bell sounded for the end of the fight

joe threw more landed less

reid threw less and landed more


all of what i have posted is fact


and the poll speaks volumes

 

B Hop top 50 ATG

Calslappy.....:conf

 

Interesting point. A victory over Calzaghe could be easily argued as Hopkins' best win IMO.

 

:good

 

Zaggers :happy

 

:good

Why?

 

Because Zaggers :happy

 

It would matter though who was doing the arguing.

I could see Calzaghe fans arguing that shot, bloated, injured hand, end of career Calzaghe with no LHW pedigree lost to prime Hopkins totally discrediting the win.