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

Jeez, you think that Joe rates higher because he dominated his division, whilst ignoring every other factor.

So let's look at Rocky Marciano and Muhammad Ali:

Rocky Marciano dominated the HW division for years, retiring undefeated.

Whereas Ali never dominated his era for as long, and he suffered 5 losses.

So by your warped logic, Rocky must have been a better HW than Ali, and he must rank higher?

You're absolutely clueless.

 

Look at state of Lance's bumhole after that Grizzly bear got done with it!

 

But is he A Level? If so, how are guy who have done much more, only A Level still? Can a wide arrange of fighter accomplishments, some much more than others, be all at the same level? That's just my issue with all this silliness.

 

Fantasize about my butt much?

 

Everybody who voted a level is full of **** horse **** to be exact. It's funny every single person who voted him a level said ggg would brutally ko Jacobs. Need I remind you all this is the same Jacobs that no one here rated or even talked about before fought ggg. After he runs ggg close now he's a level i mean you can't make this type of **** up. Just goes to show you how desperate ggg fans are and will say anything to further their agenda. What they need to realize is that instead of trying to prop up ggg and Jacobs they need to realize that they overrated the hell out of him.
Hell no Jacobs isn't a level he's a b level fighter at best. An a level fighter wouldn't need 2 fights with the likes of Sergio Mora the Latin snake hissssssss!!!!!!

 

I don't care about the poll results you fool.

You haven't provided the members with your definition of an elite fighter, nor have you given them proper options.


You may as well have just asked:

Is Danny Jacobs good, or is he rubbish?

The result tells us nothing.


Floyd Mayweather and Andre Ward are A level/elite fighters.

Danny Jacobs is obviously on a good level below.


Your poll looks like a small child has created it.

 

Mike McCallum was indeed fundamentally superior to Calzaghe. Now, that's not to say he'd beat Joe or that he's greater. But as far as pure boxing technicality goes, Loudon's statement wasn't false.

 

Yikes!! All this profanity! Are you angry little one? Why are you so angry? Oh yeah, because you take all this way too personal. Hang in there emotional one... you'll be OK.

 

If you seriously think that Joe Calzaghe possessed more technical ability than Mike McCallum, then go and throw yourself down the nearest flight of stairs.

Joe was a volume puncher, who cuffed most of his punches, whilst defending a lightly regarded belt against mainly B and C class opposition.

He has neither the skills or the wins, in order to be ranked higher than Mike.

But how can we even debate this, when you don't know anything about Mike's career?


Super Joe struggled with Robin Reid.

He struggled with a 43 year old Hopkins.

He had competitive fights against Kessler and Bika.

Yet despite the above, you're penalising Mike for having had tough fights against Kalambay and a peak Toney etc.


Mike could have gone 70-0 feasting on guys who were the calibre of: Kabary Salem, Branko Sobot, Byron Mitchell, Charles Brewer, Tocker Pudwell and Peter Manfredo etc.


You don't rate greatness on statistics without also doing some in-depth analysis.


Any great fighter should be able to dominate a weak era.


Mike didn't dominate in the same way as Joe, simply because he fought better opponents in a better division.

 

Right.

As yet, he's not on the level of Mike, and neither is Crawford.

It's not just as simple as dominating a division.

You have to look at who they're dominating.

 

Calzaghe can't lose a poll here. He's almost held in higher esteem in H2H match ups than guys like SRL, Ali or Duran. That tells me more about how overrated he is rather than how good he actually was.

I like to judge fighters based on what I see inside the ring instead of judging them based on how popular they are.