Calzaghe's resume?

How was Eubank in such decline when he went on to push a CW world champ after.
Why do you think Kessler was prime after alot of inactivity and suffering double vision?
forget that one .
Look at it all again and try and make a valid argument

You are comparing old end of career Calzaghe against prime undefeated Kessler, to young Ward beating faded, unwell, rusty, double vision suffering Kessler, yet forget that Calzaghe beat Bika in better fashion than Ward beat faded rusty Bika.

Why have you not tried answering below?

So many people rate Wards win over Kessler as something special yet dont rate Calzaghes victory over Eubank. Why?

It was Wards 21st fight, Ward was 25
It was Calzaghes 23rd fight, Calzaghe was 25

Ward won at home
Calzaghe won away

When Ward beat Kessler, Kessler was 42-1-0
When Calzaghe beat Eubank, Eubank was 45-2-2

Kessler was 31
Eubank was 31

Kessler was 8-1 in world title fights
Eubank was 17-2-2 in world title fights

It was just under 3 years since Kessler beat a world rated opponent
It was just under 3 years since Eubank beat a world rated opponent

Kessler had only fought 3 completed rounds in 1 fight in a year before fighting Ward
Eubank had only fought 7 completed rounds in 2 fights in a year before fighting Calzaghe

Kesslers only loss was clear
Eubanks 2 losses - first was very close (debateable) the second was a SD, to the same fighter.

Kessler was favourite to win.
100 years of Boxing News claims Calzaghe was underdog, I have read Calzaghe was underdog but some posters claim he was betting favourite, though.

This content is protected

Notes Eubank was a strong favourite, but dont know where the site got its info.

Both Ward and Calzaghe had dominant performances with Calzaghe scoring 2 KDs.

After the loss Kessler beat undefeated WBC champ Froch
After the loss Eubank fought WBO CW champ Thompson and lost a close decision scoring a KD. Eubank fought a return with the bigger Thompson and lost on injury when ahead. Thompson was a CW and the only fighter to have beaten D Haye.

I have read how people on ESB say Eubank was shot so -
How far past prime was Eubank to you then?
Eubank had lost a close decision to Collins, that many thought he won, had a couple of tune ups and rematched Collins to a SD, had a couple of tune ups and lost clearly to underdog Calzaghe. After that loss Eubank went up to CW and challenged world champ Thompson losing a very close decision and then rematched Thompson losing on injury when ahead. Thats Thompson who years later past his best KOd D Haye.
Consider Eubank only had 2 losses to one fighter when he fought Calzaghe, the second by SD to a world champ and was 31 then went on to challenge a big CW flooring him etc, how past his prime do YOU think he was?
Remember Kessler is Wards big win and was the same age as Eubank here and had around the same amount of fights, so is Kessler shot as well, because Kessler has a serious eye problems and was an unwell double vision suffering fighter who has been inactive for a while now due to his injury


Remember when you make silly comments about losses was G Johnson considered past his prime when years ago after losing to Hopkins he went 7-9-2 including the Hopkins loss


You seem to be trying to hide from what are the facts shown above




Also you didnt note that Calzaghe may have fought Kessler with bandages wrapped a different way to how Wards team would have allowed.
Look at this link (the first minute)

This content is protected

 

You got a big lesson there?

 

the new CW wbo titlist Carl Thompson you mean, who lost his title in next fight when he fought a real CW? HAHAHAHA. His only defences WERE against SMW eubank!!

You are arguing that thompson was a challenge based on him ONLY beating little guy eubank, and that eubank was a challenge based on him pushing thompson who was only good for beating eubank!

and you seem to believe that the other person is "hiding from the facts" of your circular argument! they are probably laughing at it!

 

Yet when Thompson was very late in his career and considered faded, he became the only fighter to ever beat future unified CW champ Haye :hi:

 

haye aint much.

now about your failed circular reasoning?

 

So Thompson didnt knock Haye down either then

 

Behave

Who would beat Calzaghe today?

Ward? Nope

Froch? Nope

Abraham? LOL

Stieglitz? Yeah, right.

If Calzaghe was in his prime today he'd still be the #1 boxer in the division and undefeated.

 

.....

you did it to yourself in the 2nd last post, don't complain when your arguments destroy themselves.

 

Yep, the WBO was not a major title back then, it was the equivalent of the IBO or IBU today, you didn't need to win to become lineal, no one cared about, these are facts. Which brings us back to Calzaghe's resume, people hang their hat on his number of defences as a measure of his legacy, yet he wasn't even a real World champion for most of those defences. Would anyone care if someone today won the vacant IBO title and was making a string of defences against Branko Sobot caliber fighters? No they wouldn't and that was the position Calzaghe was in during his WBO days.

 

Its the fighter that makes a title not a belt.
below is an old post

Where you have written for the WBO vs limited competition.
I just wanted to highlight some details to you.
The SMW divisions first world champs were WBC 1988, WBA 1987, IBF 1984 & WBO 1988.
Now for a start it is a new division so no belt has any more prestige than the other as they were all started at a similar time. So the WBO SMW title has no less prestige than the others.
Consider also that the WBO at SMW has been involved in 4 unification bouts.
The IBF has been involved in 2
The WBA in 3
WBC in 4 also
This shows that the WBO has been as willing to make top fights at SMW as much as any other governing body.

Now look at the list of champs in each and who they defended against and you can see that the WBO SMW title has produced the best defences overall better than all of the other govening bodies in this particular weight division so far.
Consider how much critism Bute gets now for his IBF defences.
Consider M Beyer defending his WBC title against 26-14-5 fighter who was coming off of a win against a 0-2-0 fighter
Or that Mundine when defending the WBA title against a 24-13-5 fighter who was the same fighter that WBC champ Beyer was defending against above.

People bring up Eubank who helped mould the belt that was good enough to give T Hearns a slice of history making. Out of Eubanks 18 WBO SMW title fights 14 of those fights were against fighters who were, had been or became top 10 SMWs. One was a unification and another was against the undefeated former IBF SMW champ (relinquished his title). In fact 6 of the fighters he faced had been or became world champs
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Then look at when E Morales was WBC SFW champ and he defended against E Croft who had been inactive for 3 years and was 1-5 in his last 6 fights with his last 3 being losses inside the distance, with his win being a SD against a 7-8-0 FW

Please answer if you think that is any better?

 

What a load of rubbish. The WBO was a minor, irrelevant trinket when Calzaghe won it, THAT IS A FACT and there are no amount of lies or spin you can throw out that will change this fact.

 

Can you please answer the questions instead of ducking, and tell me what is rubbish and incorrect?
Thanks