Do you think Jacobs is A-level after Canelo's performance?

You should be on stage.

As if Danny Jacobs was on the same level as Mike McCallum.

Ha!

I despair.

You are simply dismissing fighters who you don't know.

If you don't know anything about Mike McCallum, then do us all a favour and don't bother ranking him at all. Because that's better than ranking him low on the basis that you don't know him or his opponents.

Now kindly explain to me why it's laughable to group Mike McCallum in with Joe Calzaghe?

You're rep will never recover from these tragic posts.

Look at the poll? Ha! A poll that you couldn't give proper options for?

 

Canelo did slightly better, but they both lost clearly.
With fair judging I reckon Jacobs beats him if he doesn't get caught.

 

No, that's not all there is to it you absolute fool!

Seriously, I thought you said you'd been watching boxing for years?


How can you not account for their skills, their achievements, the depth of their divisions, their opponents, and the manner of victories etc, etc?


Let me smarten you up a bit:


Mike McCallum fought in a far more competive division.

He fought much better competition.

He moved up through several weight classes.


Joe Calzaghe reigned in a weak division, where he repeatedly defended a lightly regarded WBO belt against mainly B and C class fighters.


Now do you get it?

Is it sinking in?


If you'd have put Joe in the mix with the likes of Roy, Toney, Liles, Benn and Eubank etc, the chances are, he wouldn't have retired undefeated.

Likewise, if Mike had remained in 1 division for 14 years, fighting the calibre of guys who Joe did, then the chances are, he too would have had a 10 year reign.


How hard is that to understand?

You don't rate fighters just on statistics that look great on paper.


You're giving a pass to Joe because he dominated his weak weight class, whilst you're penalising Mike for having tough fights against Toney, Kalambay and Graham etc.

It's embarrassing.

Not only that, Joe struggled against lesser fighters than those.


Technically, Mike was a better boxer than Joe. He had a higher skill set.

He also possesses better wins on his resume.

Therefore, he should be rated higher.


Let's try this an*logy:

Are you a football fan?

If a Championship striker scores 35 goals in a season, does that automatically make him better than a Premiership striker who scored 25?

Understand?

Statistics don't allow for circumstances.

 

If Jacobs is an "A Fighter" (whatever the heck that means...), what was Andre Ward? A+? What was Floyd? or Pac? A++? What's canelo? Sure he can't be rated the same as a guy who's accomplished ten times less? is 3G an A fighter? Ranked the same as a guy he beat? Yeah, that makes sense (But...but....many thought Jacobs won... )..

This is why personal 'ratings' or rankings here tend to be closer to crap than quality... There's virtually no consistency in these.

 

Look at the state of you.

You're an absolute embarrassment.

Supporting a guy who thinks that Garcia is a better fighter than what Mike was.

Absolutely TRAGIC.

 

So now it's about:
A Level
Elite
World class...

good grief... you can't even pick a a phrase and stick with it. You probably think ATG and HOFr are the same thing too!

 

posters like Kevin will kiss up to anyone who's beefing with someone he doesn't like. He's essentially the little yippy chihuahua from old Bug Bunny cartoons who would talk smack and then run and hide behind the big bulldog for protection.

 

Lance, I interpret it as "is he world class?". And the answer is yes.

 

Hahahaha...

"Look at the state of you"- I'm stealing that line!

 

Nah Jacobs hasn't got the whiskers, Golovkin has a granite chin, Jacobs hasn't.

And Canelo proved over the weekend he can take a shot too.