"Joe Calzaghe would beat prime Michael Spinks"- Max Kellerman

"Point Proven"?Right-the one that proves you're a liar is the only point that was proven tonight.The one that I erred on I admitted I erred on,AND YET YOU STILL TRIED TO MANIPULATE IT TOWARDS YOUR NONSENSE. The rest of all you did was repeat your nonsense which proved nothing except your lack of credibility.You didn't even attempt to respond to any of the statements I made in which I exposed your aforementioned credibility problem.The only moniker that was proven tonight as well as the last few nights is this:"LYIN' BAILEY".But what's funniest of all is that you stayed up this late just to prove that your credibility has officially arrived in the shitter.:hi:Sweet dreams.

 

JC is a great, no doubt about it, but Spinks would be too big, too strong, too good for JC. We're talking a LHW with great boxing and enough power to humble a HW. JC would be game, but Spinks breaks him down and stops him late. Spinks TKO Calzaghe. I like Kellerman, but I'm going to disagree with him bigtime here.

 

no way Calzaghe beats Spinks, i mean he would have to fight the most intelligent fight of his career but even then, an aggresive Spinks would get to Calzaghe and **** up his whole world in a minute.

Spinks is one of the greatest LHW of all time and one of the greatest punchers along with that, he gets this one by TKO.

 

Its true what people say, that JC had great conditioning, but what use is that if your opponent is conditioned to go even longer for 15 rounds? no advantage, thats a fact.

And JC had good chin, but was untested against the best punchers. Spinks was one of the best hammers in the division, that would have knocked out anyone, never mind JC. its impossible to deny that.

JC had fast hands and a knockout punch, but what use are these against a consumate boxer who knows how to make punches count, and how to escape his flurries in the way B-Hop could manage at this prime. This is the most contentious point and where the two are closer matched.

Truth is JC tended to come forward, and didnt have the style to beat Spinks by backing off and building up points. JC could change style, but sadly for him so could Spinks. He isnt a 1 dimensional Kesler.



Spinks would have taken him at least 2 times out of 3.

 

one more thing.

JC is clearly the MOST SUCCESSFUL champion at supermiddleweight ever.

But he will never be the best suppermiddleweght ever, because he never put that theory to the test. He fought B grade boxers and past it for nearly all career. Goodness, Carl Froch's resume is nearly as good as JC's now, and Carl Froch isnt anywhere near the best suppermiddleweight ever. And there are dozens of champions who were possible LHs and SM with far better resumes who could have beat Joe Calzaghe, they just never graced the supermiddleweight division (and didnt stay long).

Just adding some perspective there. Hes not 'best' ever, hes most succesful in a league that is still growing out of its small pool status.

 

Two solid posts.

"Calz beats Spinks" are very common thread types on this site.


For those of us who were watching boxing a decade before Spinks hit the public's attention in '76 ... this is a laughable matchup.


100% man.

Everything you said was quite correct.


Welcome to the minority.


This is ESB .. a land populated by idiots and the non-athletic ...

On this site ... Klitschko > Ali

... Calz > RJJ

... you can figure out the rest

 

lol thx mate.

i do like Calzaghe Eubank and the rest of our brits, but its silly to get carried away and claim they are the best super middleweight ever. by that reckoning, you could argue that eubank was the best suppermiddleweight ever in his heydey...well he was good, but he would never beat a great. so not to worry i wont get carried away.


we have had some legendary fighters like Lennox etc, but we in britain also have a smaller population, and it stands to reason that america will produce far more greats than us. Africa, Russia, China too, you cant beat a bigger base population for breadth of quality...unless ones a little 1890's englander, that is ....then you're the best at everything... becos no one else turns up!

 

You see when people cant accept that a fighter beat their heroes they have to resort to fantasy match ups and name calling.

 

i don't think Kellerman is an idiot. He can change my mind ,with this.

 

Calzaghe was much faster than Spinks........................

 

leon would beat joe, nevermind mike.

 

this means nothing, particularly so in light of my post mentioning brits as my heroes.

so the question remains, why did you make such a horribly incongruent and irrelevant post?

Did you quote the wrong person?

Or is this just the norm for you?

 

lol... Spinks would make Joe look like a bumbling buffoon.

 

FFS

Spinks was superior to Calzaghe in every possible way.