James Toney v Joe Calzaghe: The Resume

I just do not understand why anyone ever mentions amateur achievements when discussing the merits of a professional boxer. They are far so removed they may as well be different sports, in my opinion amateur achievements mean nothing 10 years later after a pro career.

Having actually seen Tim Littles and Richie Woodhall fight a few times, I am sure Littles was the better fighter. I am basing that decision on the evidence I saw in the ring, not a list of paper reasons.

But since you are going down the paper reasons route, I think Richie Woodhall was a decent domestic/European level fighter who was out of his depth at world level for the following reasons:

The general standard of opposition Woodhall fought in his career was poor.

- He won the Commonwealth title by beating a guy who had lost his last FIVE fights in a row.

- He lost the 1st time he stepped up in opposition, in a world title challenge to the decent Keith Holmes.

- He won his world title by outpointing a 43-year-old man with 10 losses on his record.

- The only 2 defences he made was against Glenn Catley and Vincenzo Nardiello- pretty poor world title challengers if you know of the guys.

- Again, he lost when he fought good opposition, this time to Markus Beyer.

- His only fight in between Beyer and Calzaghe was him back to his usual standard of opposition, beating Errol McDonald (29-9, had lost his last 3 in a row).

- Then Joe. So Woodhall was a domestic level fighter who had clearly failed at carving out a lasting world title level career, and was on the way back down when he got the shot at Joe. The fact that he retired immediately after should support this.

If you list paper reasons, Woodhall seems like good opposition, but having seen him a few times I though differently, so looked into it. It tells another story.

Having seen Tim Littles fight future world champion Frankie Liles (21-0), and Antoine Byrd, I am sure he was a better fighter at the time, a real up n comer, than Woodhall ever was, or most certainly was at the stage Calzaghe fought him.
Littles never had the paper achievements to back up how good he was, and his career never really got back on track after Toney, but that doesn't tell the story of how highly rated he was at the time (Jeff Lacy anyone??).


I hope we can agree to disagree without any more bile.

 

You are constantly questioning peoples objectivity and ability to reason, and are quite forthright with it yet when a respected poster like sean sets out clearly why Woodhall is comparable to Littles you have little but "Ive seen differently with my own eyes, depsite all the cold hard facts you've just presented"

Actually quite laughable. Can we do that with Kessler? Kessler is better than any of Toney's wins from what I've seen. Just because he doesn't have the paper achievements I don't care

Infact, why should we even care about Calzaghe's resume? We've seen him with our own eyes, just like you. Infact, that assumed resume is starting to sound more and more feasible looking at the drivel you come out with.

 

Of course you can do that! It's called an opinion. But then it's fine for me to say I disagree too.

Because the thread is about resume. Check the title.

 

I am merely stating my opinion that at the time Toney fought Littles, Littles was a more dangerous opponent than Woodhall, at the time Calzaghe fought Woodhall. I have already stated my reasons for this. I saw Richie Woodhall fight often, and I thought he was very overrated and a poor world champion.

Angel Manfredy never won a world title, but I think he was a better superfeatherweight than WBO champion Alex Arthur is now. Obviously to hold a world title is better than to not hold one, but it doesn't prove anything.

We could go over the same ground and argue all day over this one point- but the debate is on Toney's resume v Calzaghe's resume, and I am very happy to concur with the other 70+ voters that Toney's was better.:good

 

Well looking at some of your posts where you shoot guys down and criticise all Calzaghe fans if they hold such opinions I find this amusing to say the least

A needed change of approach from you though. I've seen starting to think you've been driven insane by CHJ.

 

Again, we simply disagree. I don't think he 'walked the walk' at all. He won a world title v an ancient man with 10 losses, defended it twice against two barely adequate challengers, then lost it again. I don't think that is walking the walk at world title level. I wish people on here would stop assuming that anyone who has held an alphabet title for any length of time is somehow world class. The nature of having 4 major titles mean many guys who would never have a prayer of winning 1 title at 1 weight, can be world champions, but it doesn't mean they are all world class, or even very good. We should judge them on the evidence we see in the ring, considering the opposition. As I said about Manfredy and Arthur, an alphabet title does not mean one is automatically better than the other.

Bear in mind though, Littles was up against a superior opponent

 

The nature of the beast is: Opinion. Counter-opinion. Opinion. Counter-opinion. I'm fine with that, even if you aren't.

CHJ is a pitiful idiot I've proved wrong so many times it's become tiresome. He has no knowledge to come back with except little short sentences of shoddy shite followed by a smiley. He is an embarrassment to this forum.

 

Pac even though you and I reside on different sides of the Calzaghe debate, don't let these trolls **** you off. I am a HUGE Calzaghe fan, but I also pride myself on being objective too, and I know too much and care too much about boxing to be a fanboy like sean and tffp and just say Calzaghe's is better, when it clearly isn't. I think Calzaghe is better h2h and p4p than Toney, and I like him whereas I do not like Toney, but I am an adult and won't sit and argue that white is black.

Me and others think your threads and posts are usually some much-needed quality on the General, and even if I do think you are a bit OTT at times, keep on truckin :good

ps: woodhall was overrated and not world level, but he was still better, or at least as good as, Tim Littles I think

 

Cheers for the support in my eternal battle with the BFTs (biased fanboy trolls), but we shall never be allies as I have often read your passionate praising of the glorious Welsh Dragon, and I could not disagree more!!

 

You are one stubborn **** yourself . Enemies we are then...






ps: Toney's fat.