Eubank-Calzaghe who wins prime for prime?

Sure he would, but ultimately he wasn't a good enough ring general, despite his movement and slipperiness, or especially in-fighter to keep Calzaghe off of him or do the more effective work once the fight got within range. Joe also has the better jab.

 

Id pick Eubank. Calzaghes workrate would go against him when fighting a prime Eubank. In terms of combination punching, Eubank was much better and much more powerful and possibly just as fast.

 

That again I can't argue with that but as we have seen in his last two fights he as be prone to that short right hand and eubank was a very clever exponent of that shot.

 

Calzaghe still too fast, too much workrate.

 

You've just demonstrated you actually have no idea what your talking about. You dumb ****.

 

I'd slightly favour Joe as I have said, but I voted Eubank in the end because I used to like him back in the day.

 

So that translates as; I dont like joe.

 

are you ****ing stupid..

calzaghe was fairly GREEN and far off his peak years when he embarrassed eubank..

chris wasnt that far gone anyway,he took the fight but was in training for a light heavyweight bout and shed a few pounds for it,the way calzaghe beat him...


joe everytime baby.

 

Err no, If you do a search on me you will find I used to be a fairly big fan of Eubank back in the day (I've posted about it in some threads) - more so then Benn, though in hindsight Benn has grown on me. Back in the day you loved one or the other.

By the way Calzaghe doesn't rank anywhere near where you placed him in all time lists - I think you overate him just a little.

 

Are you serious 95%?:-(

 

Yeah, last night it was Glen Johnson.

Tonight, Eubank.


BTW, you never responded last night to

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2842759#post2842759

 

When Eubank met Joe he was a stand in who took the fight at a few weeks notice and wasn't even champ. He was also weight draining. All his defeats (five) came in his last nine fights, one of those to Joe; that indicates his state and level of decline at the time. He was also inactive for two years at the weight, and his only fights during that time were two matches against absolutely diabolical opponents (check them out, they really are truly terrible - more sort of exhibition fights) in the middle east, and at Light Heavy. That depleted version of Eubank gave what Joe says is his hardest fight ever. I understand that Joe was a lot greener then, but he'd still had over 20 pro fights; he'd had as many fights as David Haye has had now in fact.

Eubank wasn't even considered worthy of a top ten super-middle rating by Ring magazine at the time he fought Joe. In fact he hadn't been thought of by Ring as a top ten SMW or any weight boxer for 3 years prior to facing Joe. Eubank in his prime rode high in the list for years, sitting only behind the likes of Toney, and RJJ. They simply believed that he had deteriorated to such a degree that they no longer thought him good enough to warrant an inclusion.

When you consider the limited names that made the Ring magazine ten at the time Eubank fought Joe - the likes of Henry Wharton, Joseph Kiwanuka, Vincenzo Nardiello; it really highlights how far removed from his best Ring magazine believed Eubank to be. Even Jones at this moment in time, who is absolutely shot to pieces, makes todays LH top ten.

 

this is all very true.
as far as eubank calzaghe goes im going with joe which from me says alot, i grew up in the benn eubank watson era for british boxing and look through that time with giant rose tinted testicles ( or is it glasses ? ). if i say someone beats eubank it means they are a very special fighter indeed.