Joe Calzaghe vs Chris Eubank Better Resume

Theres several clips on Youtube where there are highlight videos just showing you parts people want you to see or parts with selective commentary. Maybe you should watch the whole fight rather than bias highlight videos and selective commentary. The fact that someone has had to go to that much effort just shows a bit of being butthurt and struggling with the truth.

As for this way past best and old talk. You forget that Calzaghe was closer to the end of his career than Hopkins, also suffering with damaged hands, fighting at a new weight etc.
Whats also forgotten is that Calzaghe beat Hopkins sandwiched between Hopkins best wins of Tarver, Wright and Pavlik.
You tell me which rounds you think Hopkins won if you want

 

I've seen many of his KO's/KD's, and the many I've seen were loud, collosus, dramatic.

 

Hopkins was past his best when he lost to Taylor, no doubt about that. The only reason he has been fairly competitve is due to his cherrypicking at lhw

 

Wharton would've been in intensive care if he fought Merqui Sosa. Thornton showed great skill against him - closing the gap fast, cutting the ring well, and defensively blocking and bobbing and weaving, and offensively throwing punches less than half the length of Sosa's.


James Toney on Thornton:

"I respect Tony Thornton. He's a cagey veteran. When I was a kid I used to watch him on TV. He beat lots of great fighters before I even turned pro, so he knows his way round a ring as well as anyone. He knows all the angles, all the moves.

"He can be real slippery and I know he's tough."


Chris Eubank on Wharton:

"He's just an ordinary fighter, very one-dimensional and I'll deal with him like I would any ordinary fighter. 'Easy Lolly'."

 

Calzaghe achieved more. But I think Eubank ultimately had the better wins... Benn and Watson at the time in their primes is better than most of Calzaghe's competition. Hopkins is a good win, but he was old, and I don't want to hear no bull**** about him being prime at 43, he wasn't, he is just really crafty and still was a good. Honestly that Hopkins was probably a better fighter than both eubank and benn, even if he wsasnt prime, in terms of skills, but really Benn was a moster when Eubank fought him... likewise after the MW division Hopkins simply handpicked fighters he could expliot because they didnt have the skillset to compete with him. The other standout is kessler... I dont think Kessler is better than benn. Kessler hasnt really been impressive and hasnt achieved much honestly. He beat froch, which is a great victory, although I felt froch won (just my opinion). But Kessler has a chance to still make history in the future, but I dont see it, his style is too robotic. I think froch beats him in a rematch.

 

Kessler is quite basic!

 

Your're quoting Eubank and Toney before the respected fights and that means absolutely 0 and is irrelevant. These quotes mean little really. when did you see Wharton KOd to make these suggestions?

 

? Park and Frank Tate were streets ahead of Kessler and Calz's US '68 opp, and Lindell did a number on both

 

Come on Atberry, you are exagerating a bit overall and trying to build Holmes into a monster. Holmes was a top SMW no doubt, but I dont think he would have beaten Reid, when he fought Eubank. I admit it would have to be Reid in the mood, the type who beat Pretaurious and fought Calzaghe and who beat Nardiello, but all the same I would pick Reid to beat that version

 

Bailey,

How do you see the fight going, had Eubank and Calzaghe fought at both of their peaks?

 

That is a matter of opinion, which obviously isn't universally shared. The point wasn't that I thought he lost all of those fights, but that opinion was divided and the results can be debated. If you assume that the judges weren't biased against Eubank (a very safe assumption considering the money he brought into the WBO), by default any split decison or draw is debatable.

Sherry - fortunate to escape DQ, split decision
Watson - Majority Decision. Major controversy, majority of press and fans thought Watson won. Immediate rematch demanded.
Close - Draw and Split Decision
Malinga - Split Decision
Amaral - Close Decision. Most thought Eubank won, but hotly debated in some quarters


This isn't looking at individual fights and whether you agree with the decision. It's that Eubank was involved in several close fights that he always seemed to get the benefit of the doubt in. There could easily have been a few more blemishes on Eubank's record pre-Collins, and his resume looks better on paper than it does when you consider what happened in the ring.

Any comparison of Eubank and Calzaghe has to take into account that Calzaghe for the most part dominated his opposition, while Eubank was taken to the wire time and time again.

 

I really dont think at 31 Eubank was past his prime, though I never felt Eubank was quite the same after Watson.
I think Calzaghe would have handily won at any time

 

MMMM, Holmes at his peak lost to Irving Hines, Dwight Davison, Herol Graham, Ayub Kalule and lost his title to average Darrin Van Horn. and your actually comapring him to Calzaghe? LMAO, of all those fighters Holmes lost to which ones were good enough to beat Joe? None of them is the answer.

 

I've seen the video and the video has a point, but only up to about round 5.
The fight was a 12 rounder, not just 6 or 8, which would have given Bernard the victory, he was clearly outskilling Joe but then gassed halfway and he spoiled horribly after that, faking and clinching for air.

But you have to win the whole fight. If you arent fit enough to do that, you shouldnt be in the ring at the age of 43 (43!!!!! what was Bernard thinking????) against a guy who who has just had his best two performances and was virtually prime.

To be fair, Bernard only has himself to blame for not taking the fight on a paycut earlier when he would have been able to more easily outskill high paced Joe for not just 6 but the whole 12 rounds, despite the weight superiority, home advantage and age advantage Calzgahe would have had.

But no, Bernard had to do things the HARD WAY, the silly sausage. Its his fault he lost and sad for him since hes clearly a better fighter than the volume punching cocky Welshman who was also a clever self-manager.