"Joe Calzaghe would beat prime Michael Spinks"- Max Kellerman

Merry Christmas from all the guys in Team Elite. :hi::happy:hammertime:****off:boogie:freddyarty:lama:clown:nutcase

 

Merry Christmas back at you and Arsebanger :good

 

this man must be joking....

 

Clearly.


Joe would go life and death with Murray Sutherland. A man who struggles with David ****ing Starie and Robin Reid wouldn't have a prayer against Spinks. It would be a laughable early KO.

ESB is run out of Joe's garage and Connor and his friends are its most regular posters.

 

Any chance of another one of your threads about your career? atsch

 

In an earlier post I said Joe would be on the same level as Murray Sutherland back then. That's not a knock on Joe. The division was stacked with solid contenders, a handful of really good fighters, and a couple of elites.

Sutherland's resume' reads like a who's who of the best from that era. He only lost at the highest levels, and was the very first SMW world champion. There's nothing wrong with comparing Calzaghe to a guy like that. I think it's realistic.

 

I think it is realistic too.

OTOH, we know comparing Joe to Spinks is ****ing ridiculous.


But we were there in '76 to watch Spinks and all the way to the end.

This fantasy matchup is EASY to call whereas others can be difficult to impossible.

 

Looking for an update? What do you want to know? I've still got seven digits in the market every day. Getting to eight is gonna take quite a long time. You're still spending a lot of time on the forum Connor. Hope your dad's love of powder doesn't crimp the inheritance. I can't imagine where a kid will end up who spends this portion of his life posting daily on a boxing board. You should leave this to older guys who have already made their way and can afford to spend their time anyway they please.

 

Watch tape of Sutherland and Kessler. Pretty similar. I think Sutherland may have been the better man. Maybe not technically better, but I never saw Sutherland get that "rabbit in the headlights" expression on his face, and we've seen that from Kessler twice.

 

:good

The man faced some of the first big names in the newly created 168 division (Park, Holmes, then Hearns) and overall, the comp he faced in his career was a pretty damn amazing list.

The shoddy comp for several generations (now) in boxing is nothing like it was then. Obviously, it actually could and should be more difficult today than before. Boxing is the ONLY major sport that has gone backwards. The greats in the other sports from the '60s, '70s, and '80s would find today a very challenging environment - far far less so for boxing. Almost no "A" level athletes - relative to what participates in the other sports - today in boxing.


I don't think I've watched Sutherland since watching those fights when they happened. I'm gonna try (after the new year) to find a moment and give a look back at the man.

 

There is just so much wrong with this post,but why let facts get in the way?"Hidden hate?"-I have always been very open about my opinion of Calzaghe.I've not "come to terms with how good Calzaghe was."I've always admitted he was a terrific fighter-which he obviously was.And if you've read any of my previous posts about Calzaghe,you would have known that.But then,why should you let facts get in the way when you're trying to prove your point-which is obviously your modus operandi?I used to be a fan of JC's,but had my eyes opened when he proved himself to be a lying tosser.I also had him beating Hopkins by 2 or 3 points and when I heard split decision,thought it was a sick joke.Secondly,I never wrote or said that that Qawi was "unbeatable"(he lost to Spinks ffs),but I did correctly say that he was a wrecking ball,so there's another example of your lies.Again,as far as Qawi is concerned,he drew in his pro debut,and lost a 6 round split decision in his 3rd pro fight(a loss he later avenged),not been "beaten a few times" before Spinks,like you claimed.That's just another example of your lies when you're trying to prove your point.Shame on you.And as far as my "getting over" JC beating Hopkins and Jones,there's nothing to get over as I'm not much of a fan of those 2 either.But I am a fan of Michael Spinks, and he most definitely would have beaten JC.But honestly,you REALLY need to stop lying like your hero.:yepBtw,your credibility is shot to **** just like Jones was when he fought Calzaghe like Calzaghe said in his autobiography.

 

the gulf in resume between the two are so wide that it's not even a fair comparison for calzaghe.. Spinks would eat up calzaghe and spit him out possibly in the first round.. When calzaghe has wins like qawi, Lopez, saad Muhammad, etc let me know. this guy doesn't even compare to the likes of spinks. Even the idiots at ESB know this

 

Please highlight all these lies on this thread. Dont just waffle to back out of a debate that you are being schooled on

 

You can't read?I pointed out 3 of your lies in that last contri alone.Put on your reading glasses or whatever you do."Being schooled" in this debate?You have yet to mention any worthwhile "evidence" that JC would have beaten Michael Spinks other than grouping Spinks in with people like Manfredo or pointing out that JC was undefeated.Your credibility is now officially invisible.:yepSay farewell to your credibility:hi:

 

Maybe overly simplified but:

Old Hopkins>>>>>Pavlik>Taylor=Young Hopkins