Eubank vs Calzaghe 1997 revisted

Tony Thompson aint on Lennox's level man

Thompson lost his title the following fight and never won a major title again. Eubank in his prime would most probably boxed smartly and not get a big black eye.

The Eubank that finished off Watson, or the Eubank that fought Benn twice wasnt as easy to hit as the Eubank that fought Thompson.

Also Eubank was more comfortable at CW than he was at SMW, but had been through too many battles by that point in time.

And stop bigging up Thompson as if Thompson was on the level of Lennox.

is that how you judged RJJ when he won the majority of the rounds against Trinidad.

Maybe thats why many Calzaghe fans thought RJJ wasnt shot, because RJJ won the majority of the rounds against Prince Badi, and Anthony Hanshaw.

An indication how shot a fighter is when you compare his greatest or his last great performances against good opposition to his most recent fight.

So compare Eubank of Benn 2 or Watson 2 to Eubank of Thompson 1 and 2, and then talk about Eubank being in his prime or not.

 

agree

 

Before I get into this, what are you trying to say that Carl Thompson is a great, or a HOF or a legend or what?

Because you making an emphasis on the fact that he lost to someone who made 13 defenses so he must be a great/good/decent fighter.

Lacy lost to Calzaghe who became the main man in SMW at the time, so Lacy automatically becomes great?

Doug DeWitt lost his WBO MW title to Nigel benn, so Dough DeWitt automatically becomes great?

Alan Minter lost his WBC title to Marvin Hagler who then only lost them SRL so does that make Alan Minter look great?

Dont try and make Carl Thompson look great by saying:

Because that is not something to be proud of, by losing your title and never regaining it.

Thats the thing with Calzaghe nutthuggers you have to big up guys like Johnny Nelson (who was a good fighter), so Carl Thompson looks good, so Eubank looks good, so eventually Calzaghe looks good.

Possible, but his performance against Thompson he looked less tense than when he fought Calzaghe. Also he took long to get into the fight with Calzaghe but looked settled when he fought Thompson. I think it was just easier for him to fight at CW so he didnt need to cut down too many pounds that made him weaker.

Thats based on your logic, you said

And I said this logic is flawed, because if you gone by this logic then RJJ wasnt shot when he fought Trinidad because he won the majority of the rounds.

So I corrected your illogical ideology by stating

So when you compare Eubank of Watson or Benn, to the Calzaghe fight, and you still think Eubank was in his prime when he fought Calzaghe then obviously then there is no point discussing the matter because I think there is a clear difference in the Eubank of Benn fight, and Eubank of Calzaghe fight.

1995: Lost to Collins 1
1995: Knocked out two nobodies while weighing above 170
1995: Lost to Collins 2, closer fight
1995: Retired
1996: Comeback
1996: Fights 2 guys while weighing above LHW
1997: Drops back down to SMW to fight Calzaghe and loses widely
1998: Moves up 2 whole weight divisions and loses to Carl Thompson
1998: Loses rematch on TKO when he was ahead
1998: Retires for good

And Carl Thompson aint in the leauge of a Prime Eubank man. Like I said before

You have to big up Nelson so Thompson looks good, so Eubank looks good so Calzaghe looks good.

That aint the case, if Carl Thompson was so great then why did he lose his title and never regained it?

Eubank was more comfortable at CW than he was at SMW when he fought Thompson, he was weight drained and way past it when he fought Calzaghe like BBC Sport and others have said in the past.

If you dont agree with BBC sport and others who seemed to think Eubank was weight drained when he fought Calzaghe then you aint gonna agree with me.

 

Thank you for your insightful contribution, I learnt that Carl Thompson and Tony Thompson are 2 different people thanks to Assasin. May God reward you, and give you tranquility. Take Care and **** off.