H2H: Peak James Toney v Peak Joe Calzaghe

No offence mate, but that's an idiotic comparison.

Pavlik is 26, undefeated, top 10 p4p, and had to make a mandatory defence as he was forced to.

Eubank was 32, no longer in the supermiddlweight top 10, had just had his 2nd defeat to Collins, and had basically descended to boxing exhibition bouts in Africa and Asia.

Oh, and Lockett's record was far superior to the two club fighters Eubank fought, so it really is a **** **** comparison.

I watch Calzaghe v Eubank and see an exciting fight because you have a talented but green young guy fighting a well past prime older guy who has hung on to some of his old skills. Both were deeply flawed on the night, hence why it was so exciting.

That fight was a long, long way off from the quality level of Calzaghe v Kessler.

 

You seem to have a stylistic issue with naturally defensive fighters. Am I wrong there?

I have difficulty in feeling confident in saying that fighter A could beat fighter B in a hypothetical match-up, if fighter A never faced anyone as good as fighter B in his actual career. There are exceptions to that rule of course, as I think Floyd Mayweather is definitely better H2H at lower weights than his resume suggests, but I don't believe Calzaghe was ever in with anyone as good as the young Toney (43-year-old Hopkins was nothing like prime Hopkins obv) and I don't think Calzaghe is a special talent like lower-weight Mayweather, so I struggle for reasons to think Calzaghe could do it.

Look at the guys Toney beat in that brief period listed at the start of the thread- Toney beat better fighters in that 3 year period than Calzaghe has in his entire 15 year pro career, including 11 years (and counting) as a world champion.

I think Toney would rise to the occasion, and in his younger fresher fitter days, be far too much for Calzaghe.

 

If you stop being a baby and look at what I wrote, I said it is an idiotic comparison. If after reading my explanation for saying this, if you still think it is a valid comparison, only then would my implication cause offence to you personally.

The two things you are comparing are completely different, it makes no sense at all nor means anything to compare them. A young top 10 p4p guy being forced into a mandatory defence, and a 32-year-old guy who had been beaten out of the top 10 in his weight division touring the world fighting exhibitions against nobodies. If you think there is any value whatsoever in that comparison, that's up to you.

It was Calzaghe's hardest fight only because he was young and green. If the Calzaghe who fought Lacy had fought the Eubank of that night, it would have been utter domination. Eubank was a tremendous middleweight in the early 1990s, but despite his incredibly valiant last stand, he was simply not that fighter by 1997. Oh, and his last fight against world-ranked opposition before Calzaghe was TWO YEARS previous. The evidence is concrete.