F***-off

No offense PP, but that stat kind of needs to be viewed in context.

 

:rofl:rofl

 

Sure it does, just like the context of a win against Glen Johnson needs to be considered for Hopkins.

But context isn't something these guys do well. "I HAVENT HEARD OF THE GUY CALZAGHE FOUGHT, HE MUST BE BAD"

 

Nonsense, Eubank was the same busy fighter that threw punches in bunches and even stretched Calzaghe late in the fight. We know with Calzaghe's stamina that he's not the type of guy that often had any issues there, Eubank showing that he had enough in the tank to do just that shows you something about the physical shape he was in at the time.

Eubank was ALWAYS in shape.

 

I'm not going throught the whole thread but i will point out a couple glaring absurdities.

 

PS.

When considering someones resume - why do people persist in giving people credit for losing a fight? You've got him including Dawson, Hopkins and Johnson in the list for Tarver yet he lost to all those fighters.

You've got Clinton Woods losing every single fight in that list.
You've got Jermain Taylor losing to most of the fighters on his list

And he calls those good resumes? In that case, Oscar De La Hoya = #1 ATG.

 

Yeah, many people do give Calzaghe too much ****...

He really had a decent resume in my eyes, and it is cool that some of his best wins came when he started to age.

He was ATG, he wasn't a Jones or Pac in my eyes, but I do give him the ATG stamp.:yep

 

I think his resume stands up to near anyones in his time for two reasons - longevity and never being defeated. He has a lot of B class opposition to be sure, a few B+ and a very few A fighters.

But, look across the world and find any other boxer who would survive Joe Calzaghe's career (including the ages at which he fought his opponents) without a loss and you start to realise how good the resume is.

Other thing to keep in mind is, most people discredit Hopkins as a win because of how old Hopkins was - yet Calzaghe was 37 - shows a bit of bias there.

 

Look Eubank's outside game in Benn 1, and his inside game in Benn 2, he had sharper reflexes and brawled when he needed to. If you think Calzaghe beat a prime Eubank your deluded or just a crazed Calzaghe nutthugger.

His counter punching, reflexes, footwork were not what it used to be.

Eubank was on the decline when Calzaghe beat him, he was at the tail end of his career.

Tarver was in his prime when RJJ UD him.

RJJ UD Tarver > Calzaghe UD Eubank

 

Eubank's outside game against a notorious inside fighter who rallies late and uses his hard chin, power punching and ability to grind down his opponents as his key to victory? Benn was NEVER an outside boxer.

Calzaghe proved against Reid (very skilled boxer) and Kessler that he could beat outside boxers on the outside, he did the same to Eubank.

The Tarver that Jones Jr beat would have lost to the Eubank that Calzaghe fought. No question about it in my mind. That's the same Tarver that absolutely struggled with Glen Johnson who is a clone in a way of Eubank without the power or class.

RJJ being at that point the greatest boxer in the world, vs Calzaghe being a green fighter who was an under dog at the bookies needs to be taken into context as well

Ah yes, context - what you don't have.

 

Cut the bull****, are you saying Calzaghe beat a prime Eubank?

I watched Eubank - Benn 1, Eubank - Benn 2, and Eubank - Calzaghe recently, and Eubank didnt look as good as he did in the first fight. He was faded and on the decline when Calzaghe beat him.

and the following is just pure bull**** man:

Many argue Tarver was robbed.

 

I have always thought that the Tarver that lost to and beat Jones was better than any other version of Tarver... There was something about Roy Jones that made Tarver fight more ruthless. The inspiration of Tarver's pro boxing career came from him laying on the couch cracked out, watching Roy win the Olympics. That is what inspired him from day one, He had it out for Roy.

Yeah, Calzaghe was an underdog against Eubank, even though Eubank was past his best in my opinion. But it still was a great win....

Roy had the odds against Tarver, just winning a HW belt, but taking into context and hindsight the great fighters in the past that have dropped from HW to beat the best LHW in the world in their very next fight, it outweighs Calzaghe's victory over Eubank in my opinion....

It was just hard to bet against Roy at that time, he could have retired as one of the greatest ever at that point, but chose to take a huge risk, and accomplished what only hall of fame fighters have done, which is underrated because Roy looked human for the first time, and getting knocked out right after..... While countless young underdogs, have beaten aging champions.

 

That was mostly because Roy looked human for the first time... Robbed??? Nah, Roy won the fight with power shots, which he landed almost 20 more than Tarver, and they were mostly crushing body shots. That had Tarver backing up much of the time wincing in pain, or standing in the center of the ring unsure of himself...

They say a great fighter has one great fight left.... That was Roy's, just no one expected he was done that quick.

 

Eubank was a physical specimen and he was only 31. Hardly a pushover. But he was past it, nearing the end and hadn't fought a quality opponent in a while when he took the Calzaghe fight. Credit goes to Joe for beating an experienced warrior, but the guy was at the end of a good career. He certainly wasn't shot, but he was clearly in decline.

Calzaghe's longevity is certainly impressive.

The undefeated thing in my eyes is the most overrated thing in modern boxing. And its not just Calzaghe...its Mayweather, Ottke, Valuev,(until a few years ago) JCC jr. Etc. The whole thing is, if you don't fight a high quality of opposition, especially in your prime years, how much value does that 0 really have?

 

Ottke never fought high level competition and had questionable decisions all over his career.

Valuev lost to the high level competition he fought

Floyd and Calzaghe beat high level competition.