How good was Calzaghe's best performance? (How good was Calzaghe at his very best?)

Regardless of what the opponent has done since. Vs Lacy......THAT was an A+ performance. No idea how anyone could think differently.

(and there are a couple others you could argue are in the A range)

 

So it has to be two ATG's to be an A+ performance and several of these were wards, especially Morales and Barrera, whom I never felt were A+ fighters, but rather hard working A level elite's.

Leonard and Hearns are obviously but high ranking A+'s though, no doubt, performance and overall.

 

No ****, fight doesn't have to be against another A+ opponent to be an A+ level performance, that was the absolute most one sided fight in recent times and a unification bout at that between two titlists, rarely does anybody shut out even an overrated titlist that bad and Lacy was a solid B+ fighter to begin with.

 

Solid B+??? That may be a stretch...but I do agree with your overall point.

 

I consider Pavlik a B, Lacy was better than him and would have crushed him. I consider Taylor at his best a B+ maybe, I consider Lacy right in the same area with him, considering different styles.

Lacy vs. Taylor would have been a toss up, I'd have favoured Lacy in a late rally as Taylor fades and for him to get the stoppage.

B+ would classify what Lacy was pre-Calzaghe. Great performance over Reid, even better than Froch's.

 

I think that fact that so many Americans thought Lacy was going to **** Calzaghe has made people overrate that win. There are a couple of great fighters who would have not only dominated Lacy but also truly hurt him and knocked him out as well. I wince when i think of what Roy Jones at 168 would have done to Jeff Lacy.

I was more sold on Calzaghe as the truth when he beat Kessler than Lacy, and not just cause Kessler is the better fighter, but also because Calzaghe fought a better fight.

 

If A+ is reserved for the highest peak reached by the greatest of great fighters (or even good ones who had great talent but not great longevity or consistancy), then his best performance was an A IMO.

 

It's not reserved for only high ATG's, these would be 'ATG performances', not A+ performances, I'm trying to clarify this so we get an accurate rating system.

 

Well the thread asks two seperate questions. It asks how great his best performance was AND how good was Calzaghe at his best.

I answered the 2nd question.

The first question will take me some time. It is still relative to how I rate great performances and must take into account who he fought in that performance.

 

You're grading system is as much a joke as you...atsch

 

Agreed with for the most part ,as far as Hopkins its hard for anyone to look good against him because of his one punch one head butt and hold style....

 

The LAcy fight was the best of his career hands down:deal no matter what he does from here on out he can NEVER TOP THAT:-(

 

**** off idiot, if Hearns is an A+, it's rather uncouth to put Morales as the exact same rating.

 

If Hearns is A+, what is Leonard or Hagler. What's Robinson for that matter. A+er? Or maybe A+++?

Chump....atsch

 

Hearns is right in the same area as all of those guys. You want to say otherwise?

I really wouldn't be surprised you ****ing piece of garbage, you know little to nothing in your endless moronic criticisms of issue's you don't even comprehend.

Again, **** off, stop responding to me, find something better to discuss or something better to do. You really are an idiot, you're laughable in your attempts to formulate opinions that aren't even in knowledgable context.