ATG at 168: RJJ, Calzaghe, Ward?

I will state my position again

The thing which determines where a fighter is in his career is his reflexes.

Green: Peak reflexes but without the experience to use them to the best of their ability. Basically a fighter here is still working out his foundation

Prime: Peak reflexes with the experience to use them effectively. The fighter has now got rid of the flaws and has his skillset set down

Past Prime: A fighters reflexes slip a notch. This can happen due to age you are past your physical peak at 34+ or you can be past prime due to tough fights, wars, which shave years off your career. Fights like Ali-Frazier or Barrera-Morales I

Eubank had two wars with Benn I and Watson II. He was never the same after Watson II. Neither Froch or Kessler have had any wars and they are under 34 so they are still prime when they lost their fights.

 

It is all subjective.

As I said before some top fighters don't get the breaks they need, while journeymen on the other hand have a lot of title defenses.

Both Froch and Pascal would of been at the same stage in their career. Two green fighters fighting for their first world title. So its still a valid win for Froch.

It's not really a matter of if your style is amaterish or not, its a matter of if your style is effective. Pascal gave Dawson fits and Hopkins fits during the first quarter of their fight. He dropped Hopkins three times and caught him with numerous counter left hooks. Pascal's style is not really the problem, its his sub-par conditioning.

 

??????????
Froch would of hit his prime around the Taylor fight. Since then he has had five fights, no wars, and now his completely washed up? Your clutching at straws.

Scorecards for Froch-Johnson
116-112 4 points
117-111 6 points
114-114 0 points

Does this look like a close fight to you? The reason we have three judges in boxing is in the hope that at least two of the judges will score the fight effectively, which means that the scorecard of the incomptenet judge gets overuled.

Scorecards for Calzaghe-Reid
116-111
116-111
111-116
One of the judges had Reid winning by 5 points. Do you agree with that?

Irrelevant

?????????
There are know around 5 belts in each division. Getting a belt does not mean much these days. Plenty of journeymen have picked up belts. You dont become a great fighter because you pick up a sanctioning body strap. You become a great fighter because of your abilities as a fighter.

A previous post of yours

You rate Eubanks win over Rocchigiani because he moved up to lhw and became a champion, but you don't rate Froch's win over Pascal.
Talk about double standards.

I doubt that very much. This is Chris Eubank we are talking about. The guy who hated training so he crashed trained a week before fights and was drained most of the time. Which is why he got outworked by most of his opponents at smw, including Close, Collins x 2 and Schommer.

I rate fighters on their:
-Abilities as a fighter
-Quality of opposition faced
-Consistency

Accomplishments/Title defenses dont mean anything to me.

Calzaghe defended his wbo belt 20 times. Of those 20 defenses he beat

One world class contender: Kessler (b+)
Two fringe contenders: Mitchell (b), Bika (b)

The other 18 were against journeymen-binmen

 

I think accomplishments can be fit it there somewhere. Abilities are obviously important, but can often be deceptive. It's a very subjective way of looking at it. We've often seen fighters lose to guys with inferior ability.

I do agree with quality of opp being an important factor, maybe the most important. But one needs to be consistent in order to win every pro fight they had, even if it was against weaker competition.

I'd say in addition to those 2^, I think Reid and Woodhall were a step above journeymen.

 

True

I completely disgree.
Lacy did way too much weight lifting, which is bad for your stamina. All those bulky muscles restricing your range of motion and weighing you down.

You know that tends to happen when you face a better level of competition

Froch title fights:
Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham, Kessler, Ward
Lacy title fights:
Vanderpool, Sheika, Williams, Pemberton, Reid, Calzaghe

Froch fought way superior comp, which is why he got less ko wins.

You have no problem with Eubanks close decisions, but you now critisize Froch for the same thing?

Froch-Taylor ko win for Froch
Lacy-Taylor ud loss for Lacy

The footwork of either of them is nothing special.

Flogging a dead horse.

We have gone over this already

Benn was shot after the McClellan fight. Beating him means nothing.

Froch won the Johnson fight fair and square. He should of won by a wide ud win, not md win.

I will state this for the last time. There is only 7 lbs between lhw and smw. You do not become a completely different fighter because you put on 7 lbs.

I dont know what you are talking about

I never posted that. Stop claiming I posted things which I didnt.

??????????
Defending a sanctioning body strap against journeymen means nothing

You are the one who keeps repeating himself and making outlandish claims.

Lacy never beat anyone worth mentioning before or after Calzaghe. He was a muscle bound bodybuilder with a left hook, no jab and no defense.

 

Back in the days of a one belt system, sure.

I should also of mentionied that the following also have significance:

Linear champion: the man that beat the man

Unified champion: because that means you cleared out your division.

Racking up wins over journeymen with a sanctioning body belt doesnt mean much to me.

True

That's why I rate over all consistency so highly when looking at resumes

I agree.

How would you grade them?

 

A step above journeymen

 

Agreed with all of the above. I just think that that many defenses, even given the circumstances, cannot be disregarded.

But that's the problem with modern boxing. Too many belts, too many get them, use them, hold them hostage, and it's getting harder and harder to unify.

 

We have been over this already

Sheika was a journeyman. Beating him means nothing

No one claims that the Taylor win is a great win for Froch, so I dont know why you are bringing it up.
Pemberton=journeymen
Sheika=journeyman

Glen Johnson had a bad run at smw, but he found his form at lhw

None of the above wins mean anything

Triangle theory?

Froch has wins over guys who are above journeymen level and he has not lost to journeymen.

Froch:
Best wins:
Dirrell(b+)
Pascal(b)

Losses:
Ward (a)
Kessler(b+)

Lacy:
Best wins:
Sheika(b-)
Reid(b-)

Losses:
Calzaghe(a)
Taylor(b-)
Shot Jones(b-)

He only beat journeyman and lost to journeymen. What part of that is so hard for you to understand?

He has not been in any wars. What part of that is so hard for you to understand?

Your problem is that you dont know anything about Eubanks career.

Eubank wasn't fatigued during his World Tour because he was fighting monthly, he was fatigued because he was crash training for most of those fights. For the Schommer fight he trained for one week. He went on a three day fast to make the weight. It's the reason why his workrate was so abysmal and the bbbc decided to monitor his next fight, which was against Wharton. And that is the reason he looked so much better in that fight, because he had no choice but to train properly.
sources:
Eubank-Schommer fight pre fight talk
Eubank-Wharton fight pre fight talk

Eubank basically struggled with most of his opponents post Watson II.
When you need gift decisions to get past Schommer(c+), Costa(b-) and Close(b-) then you are in trouble. When you lose twice to b level fighters like Collins and Thompson then its game over.

His eye problems could not of been that bad otherwise he would of failed the pre fight examinations.

When he says he had a hand injury going into the Calzaghe fight you dont believe him, but when he says he has a problem going into his fights with Ward and Froch you believe him.
No double standards there.

 

What does Calzaghe's 20 title defenses mean to you?
He ranks high for consistency because he always found a way to win

I agree.
I tried to explain to a non boxing fan that you can have 5 world champions in a division and he looked at me like I was mad, lol.

 

Try explaining that there are interim, diamond, emeritus, regular, silver champs for 72 weight classes to someone who doesn't know boxing.


As for the 20+ defenses, they mean he was better than the guys he fought. And it takes consistency to win all those fights and all, but the general level of competition was not good. He was never really tested during those years, 97-06. But that was largely due to the level of the guy in the other corner as opposed to being a dominant force laying waste to all who opposed.

I've said that there are plenty of fighters, past and present, who could have remained undefeated for that stretch of fights. But he is the one who actually did it, and in fairness, I can imagine it is easier said than done.

After he unified, I give him credit for stepping up the comp for a time.

 

I thought the eye problems were the result of the headbutts from Ward, no?

 

Calzaghe
Jones
Ward

For now.