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

Wow...all in the same area. I would say their range is quite large. SRR @ 1...what's Hearns? Think Ring had him around 40. So at what point does A+ go to A then A- then B and so on?

Be surprised at what? And what you THINK I am? Remember when all you did was post in the lounge, you know, before you decided to become a boxing expert, you asked me to join your girls scout club. Oh, now I'm not too good? :|:|

Funny you're on me for criticisms.....read your own posts much dick head?

Hey, give me an example of one of my criticisms of issues I don't even comprehend. SHold be a lot to pick from. C'mon, something up as fact for once. I know you won't though. Not you'e thing.

I'll respond to you and anyone I please. Simply put me on ignore if you don't want to see what I say. But seriously, you really need to look at reality man. You say I'm laughable in my attempts to formulate opinions? Funny...no one seems to laugh unless I'm being funny. You say so much ****...but just like in your boxing discussions...just your 'unbiased and rational' opinion you're known for. Have a good night Diva...

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

Again, what a showing of boxing knowledge from Lance Uppercut!

The thread is about PERFORMANCE LEVEL, which has nothing to do with the Ring's all time ranking.

I stated that Leonard, Robinson, Hagler and Hearns were all in the same area in performance level, otherwise apart of skill and ability. Is Hearns not on Leonard's level?:rofl

You constantly amaze me with your stupidity and immaturity.

Hey Lance, what else do you do in responding to me but criticise and insult anything I say? And then what else do you but do the same to others and bash Floyd, which I bash Floyd to, but tend to discuss other things as well.

You criticise from an ignorant standpoint, that is all, because you can contribute nothing to a discussion about boxing, thus why you're a useless poster and a tool on top of it.

Criticising me for placing Calzaghe at a certain level and berating Ottke, failing to comprehend the difference in level's of performance and legitimacy of reign in both fighters. You simply don't get it and it's such a simple thing.

Nobody laughs because you are not paid much attention to, you contribute nothing and just act as a purposeful **** starter often and you seem to not even enjoy boxing much.

On top of it, let me state again how little you know about boxing and what you try to bring across.:good

 

All you wrote you wrote out of anger you know that? That's why you're making these ridiculous statements, HOPING people will just believe you. From what you've accused me of saying before, its like you don't even read anything I say. Why should you be taken serious at all on what you thibnk of me? Well, I sure don't. You know nothing of me. Would be like me telling you what color your car is even if I've never seen it. I mean, **** man, just reading your catty post I would guess you're a chick from first glance. Just a long winded bitchy post thats just basically your opinion on me. A guy you hate. And we all know how RATIONAL and UNBIASED towards boxers you hate. ****in ESB's little Diva.....

 

WBO is legit. Has been since early nineties

 

Kessler + Eubanks performances - A+ (got to consider circumstances)

Mitchell + Lacy - A

 

:yep

 

I thought he did best against Lacy. Against Kessler he did great but I thought much of that was just workrate, not so much skills...they seemed pretty matched technically.

 

a+ definatly.he can adapt to fight any style of boxing.and if it aint working can adapt again while fighting.
he is no1 at 168 and went straight in to fight the no1 at 175 and wins putting him no1 at 175 onfight news .com rankings.
hatton could not do it ,but joe did.a+ nothing less.

 

My point is that you don't have to be against an A opponent to give an A+ performance, normally when you have two A's giving it their all, they fight to a back and forth tactical battle, which concludes the best performance from both. Though, they can put the same level of performance against a B+ and win every single round, still performing at the A+ level, I just feel your new rating system is not covering things logically and you've become obsessed with it.

Their A+ performance gets a close win off of an A, but the same performance level gets a dominant win over lesser than A's, still can be the same performance, same level from the fighter who's getting the A+ rating.

 

I wonder how good he could have been if he had the knockout punch, which he used to have before his hand issues.

Calzaghe is the perfect example of a guy that kows how to utilize teh tools that he has.

 

With a KO punch in addition, you're dealing with lethality. He used to have good power, but not KO power, but his power before was very good and could stun the hell out of opponents, leaving them open to be finished off by combinations.

That shot he landed on Byron Mitchell in the 2nd that dropped Mitchell was very hard.

 

Eubanks or Hopkins are probably Joe's best win.



Kessler is a limited boxer, even Joe Calzaghe himself says that. As do Chris Eubanks and also Fredie Roach.