Who is higher all time p4p, trinidad or calzage?

atsch It's a lot easier to look like a "better P4P fighter" when you're fighting bums and nobodies for most of your career.

 

Firstly, the mans name is Chris Eubank, not Eubanks. Secondly, the win over Eubank was an excellent one, whatever the circumstances Eubank was still a great fighter at that stage in his career. Same with Hopkins, he is BERNARD ****ING HOPKINS...he schooled Pavlik in his next fight, another quality win for Calzaghe (well, would have been, if he actually managed to "win" a bit more clearly). Roy Jones was shot to ****, agreed.

 

Tito...

O lss record means nothing if most of those wins comes from fighting bums!!!...

 

i see calzaghe more timeless than tito, as of now, i rank tito in the 10 spots higher than calzaghe

 

If Tito had stayed retired i would have said Tito, but he has hurt his legacy for one by coming back and being 1-2, and secondly because the two defeats he had he hardly won a round and was totally beaten, plus i think Jones Jnr could have gotten him out of there if he really wanted too.

In a p4p mythical match up i would take Calzaghe.

 

Trinidad had a great run of his own at ww and unified the titles - but also unified lmw and won a mw title to become a 3-weight world champ. Add to that he has a better resume. I don't see the argument myself for Calzaghe being as good in all-time p4p terms, it's Tito a clear winner for me.

 

These Calzaghe posts/polls are getting old. I mean seriously. With all due respect if all Joe fan's are so insecure about his legacy that they have to put him next to everyone (ive now seen Hopkins, Jones, Trinidad, hell even John Ruiz) to try and get general fans to say he's better than someone finally then that just goes to show what we all know, he's not as good as his record would indicate.

 

Lets review there resumes shall we???

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Eubank was not a great fighter at that stage in his career. He was barley a great fighter when he was in his prime. He was never the same after the second Watson fight and was half way retired. His next fight he jumped all the way up to Cruiserweight.

And Hopkins schooled a Pavlik that has yet to show how good he really is at MIDDLEWEIGHT let alone at Light Heavyweight. It's a good win that looks even worse by the fact that it could have gone either way.

 

calzaghe is the potential to be the best 168 fighter by 2100, while tito may be forgotten

 

Tito hardly won a round vs Jones???atsch Tito took atleast 3 of the first 4 rounds vs Jones.

 

atschYou don't forget fighter like Tito Trinidad. Sorry just doesn't happen.

 

Cash you also gotta count a fighter's losses. They are part of his resume

The manner in which Tito lost his fights against Winky and especially BHop (when he was still prime) really hurt him

 

The Winky fight I don't count because he was past his prime. The Hopkins fight he was in his prime but really didn't belong at 160 and it's a prime Bernard Hopkins.

How can you really bring a fighter down to losing to someone like Hopkins?? Esp when you are comparing him to a fighter that never fought anyone close to a 01 Hopkins.

 

All I'm saying is that you gotta count the losses too. It doesn't mean he is defined only by his losses but they still count for something.

Like Roy Jones, he has some losses and they don't define him as a fighter but they do count for something.