So, in summary, you think Calzaghe loses to: Wlad, Lennox, Tyson, Holmes, Foreman, Frazier and Ali. But that Calzaghe could defeat Dempsey, Louis, Marciano and Liston. Not to mention Charles, Moore and just about anyone else who ever laced on gloves. You are one serious fan boy.
I'll pick Moore by knockout. Calzaghe is too wide open when he punches. He gets in some terrible position. If he tries that wide slugging with Moore he is getting bombed out of there. When Calzaghe does tighten things up, Moore defense is the perfect foil for Calzaghe's punches. The styles are all wrong. Calzaghe is going to sleep in this fight.
About this talk about Louis and Conn. Conn did show that speed was Louis' enemy. The problem with the Conn fight is that Louis could be too patient sometimes and this was one of those instances bigtime. But in the end, Joe got the job done. What about Calzaghe versus Conn? Conn had mixed success as a middleweight so he moved up a division. He was always a bit light in the division, but the division wasn't very strong in his day, so it was okay. A fight between Calzaghe and Conn would have been interesting, and both probably would have weighed around 168 pounds. If you pick Conn to beat Calzaghe, then the idea that Calzaghe beats Louis seems out of the question. If you pick Calzaghe to beat Conn, then I guess you can imagine Calzaghe giving Louis problems, but, again, the Louis-Conn fight was a bit of an off night for Louis who was usually bothered by speed. Here's the problem with Calzaghe: his defense isn't as good as Conn's. Conn was a slick boxer. Calzaghe is not as slick. He is also more quickly drawn into slugfests than was Conn, which against a puncher like Louis is a death sentence.
This goes beyond nut hugging when it comes to Calzaghe, with some of these postings, its down right ball licking. What a disgrace.
Conn was an alltime great boxer,better than Ali for eg,Calzaghe is a good fighter but his boxing is not in that class,he has a good chin ,fast hands but isnt that hard to reach,plus he doesnt allways turn his hands over when he punches,he has struggled with some ordinary fighters his best wins are over fighters past their prime eg Eubanks or limited boxers like Lacy.Calzaghe has never beaten a great fighter ,and at his rather advanced age its difficult to see him improving,all this talk of guys ducking him,why didnt he leave his comfort zone and go to the states?
Conn better than Ali? What makes you think that? Conn is very overrated based on his temporary success in 1st fight with overtrained Joe Louis.
Come on now, We're all blessed by being in the prescence of one of boxing's foremost experts on.........Well........Everything............
Are you serious? From mid-1949 through mid-1960, Moore's record was 75-3-2. In these 11 years, Moore beat, among many other noteworthies, Harold Johnson(future light heavyweight champion and Hall-of-Famer) three times, Joey Maxim(light heavyweight champion and future Hall-of-Famer) three times, Jimmy Bivins(former simultaneous heavyweight-and-light-heavyweight #1 contender, but denied a title shot in either division, and future Hall-of-Famer), and Bobo Olsen(middleweight champion and future Hall-of-Famer). The losses were to Marciano, Patterson, and Harold Johnson. All three were far more tested-and-proven fighters than Calzaghe and were world champions and future Hall-of-Famers, Marciano and Patterson were both great heavyweight champions, and Moore beat Johnson all of the other four times they fought. Your statement that Moore "regularly" lost to "anyone even approaching Calzaghe's level" is, then, extremely ignorant.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's all fine and dandy, but did any of the fighters you mention resemble this man: This content is protected I think not. Case closed.
This is a difficult one to call. We have one fighter with a pristine record, and superb speed and all-round boxing ability, but without any genuinely noteworthy victories, and a "dominance" of his respective division which consists of cherry picking the most convenient opponents, and refusing to move up in weight to fight. In fairness, he has shown little vulnerability throughout his career, although he faces a real test shortly. On the other hand, we have a boxer who fought from the mid 30's to the mid 60's, a fighter who commenced his career as a middleweight and ended up fighting all the best fighters of any weight through a 30 year period, sometimes outweighed by up to 30 pounds, often outweighed by ten or so, compiling possibly the finest resume in boxing history. However, his vulnerabilities have been established - Ezzard Charles was one boxer who truly had his number, a fleet footed master boxer who can fight on the outside and in, box or punch, and with sufficient handspeed. Admittedly, although Calzaghe is not in the same league as Ezzard Charles, you can attribute a lot of these qualities to him - He is fast on his feet, and will box and/or punch you with blistering handspeed and unrelenting flurries. Lacy was too slow to catch Joe with anything - On the other hand, Moore has similar or better power with much better handspeed and combination punching, much better in-ring intelligence and defensive nous. Moore is not renowned for his use of the ring, although I have seen experts credit Archie with having good footwork, I don't think he's particularly light on his feet. All things considered, I would lean towards the old Mongoose. He fought successfully through three eras of boxing, and three of the "major" weightclasses. Calzaghe may trouble him stylistically but he hasn't proven he has what it takes to defeat a genuinely topclass opponent like Archie Moore. I think Joe establishes an early lead, but gets caught with something really heavy coming inside, and is battered down for a few rounds before suffering a TKO loss in the 11th.
Guys; he is obviously on the wind up. On a small scale this is how every debat involving CHJ goes, or so it seems. He makes a series of borderline claims about Calzaghe which are refuted/disputed/mocked. Rather than back the original claim he makes a serious of properly outrageous claims to either cover his tracks or for his own amusement (trolling, then). What's he's done over the past few weeks is exactly this on a larger scale. It's a **** take that has culminated with Calzaghe beating Liston. Either to **** as many people of as is possible for a joke (trolling) or because he's trying to cover his earlier claims concerning his total refutation of Charles as an ATG or the 40's as a poor era. YOU decide. But what not to do is to take this seriously, at all.