Joe Calzaghe or Floyd Mayweather who is the higher ranked ATG???

Corrales beat Castillo who was better than both Pavlik and Pascal.

Pascal is not very good. The man throws 8 punches a round and gasses. He's made for an old fighter. Pavlik is not technically sound and was not in prime fighting shape.

Name one of Hopkins over age 40 victories that approach the level of Corrales over Castillo and I might reconsider.

 

I would usually say he is a wind up merchant, but he's been spouting the same bull**** for years. No troll is that dedicated.

 

Floyd

to me a much better fighter

Joe stepped up but it was way too late when he fought the greats

 

You think Calzaghe would have butchered Ezzard Charles?You're ****ing joking,right?Based on what-his victories over Robin Reid,Veit,Kessler and the like?Calzaghe was a terrific fighter,but you're talking about one of the top 3 greatest lightheavyweights in the history of the sport in Charles.Calzaghe's 175 pound resume consists of decisioning shot to **** Roy Jones as well as Bernard Hopkins,who had lost 2 decisions to Jermaine Taylor at 160 years before he fought Joe.Greater than Ezzard Charles????And you say you rate one fighter over another because fighter one HELD HIS TITLE LONGER?You're joking,right?

 

First of all keep focusing on his 0 well, Muhammad Ali has losses but is far greater than Calzaghe you know why?? because he fought PRIME fighters even when he wasnt prime and beat them, for me Joes greatest victory is Hopkins after that Kessler, same wins get more respect after some time like Hopkins but some became nothing special like hype job Lacy, his win over a name Roy Jones means nothing, he was shot years before Joe faced him its like Wlad beating Holyfield now NO POINT doing so!!!
Joe fans here stated he was undefeated pro and three years amateur, and then it turns out that he fought only in britain which means nothing(politics or not) so basing his greatness on his 0 means nothing, Roy jones faced Toney and Hopkins when they were undeniable prime, while Calzaghe has only truly prime win over Kessler and good version of Hopkins. He was good fighter great carrier but dont try to make him one of the best ever.

 

I remember Castillo leading on points until the 9th in a close fight. After scoring two knockdowns, Diego hit him with a hail Mary shot to knock him out. It was an extraordinary fight don't get me wrong, but Corales was way behind on the cards (including the KDs he suffered). He didn't doninate Castillo the way Hopkins dominated Pavlik (who was undefeated and the huge betting favourite) and Pascal (who again was the favourite going in).

 

Cheers. I won't bother trying to get any sense out of him. I actually almost pissed myself when he said Calzaghe would have butchered Charles. And I'm a massive Calzaghe fan

 

1. In Marciano's day fighters fought several times a year. Longevity is a pretty new thing in boxing.

2. Slappy had next to no impact on the sport. He fought a couple of has beens that belong on the ATG list well after their primes. He fought two legitimate contenders other than those two, no more, no less.

3. Slappy, however, does not get enough credit for beating Kessler. Yes, the fight was boring as hell and it was a horrible introduction to American audiences (it would be a couple of years before he was on our air again) but it was a good win.

4. Tyson had a much larger impact on boxing than Slappy. By your own logic, you should rate him. After all, Mike Tyson's PunchOut is one of the largest selling video game titles in history, he made the cover of multiple SportsIllustrated issues, has cameos in movies and knock the living **** out of people and generated PPV buys beyond Slappy's wildest dreams.

5. Betting lines are crap. Slappy was the underdog against Lacy because 90+% of the American viewers had no idea who he was and were sold a bunch of hype on Lacy.

 

He probably think Calzaghe butchers Spinks, too. :nut

 

What best wins of his career(over 40)-PASCAL?TARVER?

 

Corrales won the fight, right? The cards were extremely close going into the last round, but the beauty of boxing is that the man unconcious is the loser.

This argument is pathetic and used by Klit fans almost exclusively. You might as well say Moorer beat Foreman because he was up on the cards when he got KTFO.

 

I don't think that's quite the point he was making, Jeff.

 

It seems like it is. Since Corrales victory over Castillo was close, it's not as good as Hopkins close victory over Pascal is what he's saying.

He is actually making the argument that Hopkins, over the age of 40, has a victory on par with Corrales's victory over Castillo.

 

1) I'm not a Klit fan

2) I was merely pointing out that Corales wasn't as dominate in his fight with Castillo than Hopkins was against Pavlik and Pascal.

I could just as easily point out that Floyd 'beat' Castillo in 2002, while Corrales knocked him out 3 years later which may indicate he wasn't the same fighter :good

 

Hopkin's victory over Pascal was better IMO. His win over Pavlik was certainly better. They may not have been better fights, but it was a better victory. and the hopkins - Pascal fight wasn't close!