Calzaghe vs Ward break down of strengths? Very even across board

it does, theres 2 of those films you know, 2 being greater than 1.

 

Again says more about you than me.

 

hahaha you did claim hopkins was on a good run at 43.

fantastic! thanks for cheering me up some more.

 

hahahah!

yes because I indeed do think 2 is greater than 1, unlike you think its the other way round.

hahaha! brilliant man, you destory your own post again.

ok, gonna leave u with your theory than 1>2. good luck with it.

 

So are you saying that beating a 49yo is better than that of a 43yo....I cannot believe you are trying to run this as something great.....LMFAO went a twat you are.....another fail there Gump.

 

Do you actually know what you are talking about or does shyte just spill out?

 

Yes, it's superior.

2 victories over Kovalev and 1 over Barrera is better than wins over Bernard and Roy.

 

Why?

You keep saying it is but based on what?

Kovalevs best wins was over Hopkins (6 years after JC) and a Pascal Hopkins at 47 already beat. Chilemba as Well had been beaten by Bellew...

Barrerra had 2 notable wins at the time, 1 a shot Lacy (Calzaghe ruined him) and Murat (another Hopkins 47yo victim).

Then we have Hopkins who was coming off the Tarver victory, he was lineal, and P4P top 3....top 2 if you were American as they generally had Tszyu at number 3.

Hopkins was the better win which ever way you want to spin it. Kovalev next then it's a toss up between old RJJ and Barrerra who has never had a top 5 victory, his best win was Murat or Joe Smith jr. Not exactly stimulating is it.

He also lost to Kovalev and got a gift.

 

Many people think that Joe got a gift over Bernard.

Andre needed tune ups, because he'd been inactive over the previous year's, due to injuries and contractual disputes.

And let's not kid ourselves here, there's no way in the world that Joe would have fought Kovalev at LHW. None.

 

why you lying about so much stuff. hopkins wasnt lineal and thats just the start of you fibbing, you old trickster, what a nice guy you are.

hahahaha nice one pal, 10/10 for trying it on. no worries, I'd have to lie too if I was defending calzaghe here.

 

Paul Smith was the tune up, the fact he dragged up a fat middleweight straight to light heavyweight, a fat middleweight who wasn't even top 5 in Britain....that's a tune up.

Then in '16 he fought Barrerra (solid opponent) and Brand (another top 100 168lb opponent who Gvozdyk iced in sparring) then he had Kovalev and got a gift.

Also who's to say JC doesn't fight Kovalev, all Kovalev has is power over Calzaghe, Calzaghe out points him if they'd of fought.

 

I don't think there was much of a difference between the versions of Bernard who fought Murat and Shuminov etc, to the version who fought Kovalev. And you've just listed his victories over Shuminov etc to try and argue that he wasn't shot at that point.

 

becos he chose 40somethings, but not primes froch, dawson and pavlik. calzaghe it is who says calzaghe doesnt face kovalev.


hahaha your own hero disproves you again! nice onepal.

 

No I listed them to prove he wasn't shot when he faced Calzaghe hence he went on for another 5/6 years beating top 10 opponents.

But again you wa t to give Kovalev the props for beating a 49yo Hopkins then I'm all down with that but at the same time you have to give Calzaghe the same for beating a much younger version.

 

How's he my hero?

And he moved up to fight Hopkins who was number 1 in the division whilst Froch went on to fight a Polish plumber as for Pavlik....erm who did Hopkins school straight after JC?

Just owned yourself Gump.