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

A prime Spinks would easy beat Joe

 

Bailey,again,your credibility is in the toilet.Shite.Crap.Invisible.I have written on these boards countless,countless times that Calzaghe was a great fighter.For your to say that,"You on the other hand can't admit to Calzaghe's greatness," is a simple lie.A pure lie,plain and simple.I have no idea why you wrote that when all you have to do is read any of my posts concerning Calzaghe.Any of them.I'll write it one more time just while we're on the subject so you can't lie again,and there are plenty of witnesses on these boards.Calzaghe was a great fighter.He had great stamina,terrific handspeed,underrated footwork and a hard chin.What is completely hilarious is that I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH YOU WHEN IT COMES TO CALZAGHE'S BEING A TERRIFIC FIGHTER,but yet you wrote that I "keep getting schooled on the subject",even though I agree with you on that.Funny ****.On the other hand,I also admit that JC is a lying tosser,which he is.And I'm fully aware that
JC never got beat,but Spinks,a natural lightheavy lost only once to a prime Tyson.Other than that,he beat every other fighter he ever fought including a prime Dwight Muhammed Qawi,who was a wrecking ball at 175.And no YouTube Spinks for me as when he was on the go,boxing was on regular TV frequently where I saw him live countless times.Your problem is that because JC was undefeated,you think you can make a legitimate claim to his beating better fighters,which is illogical.However,what you really need to do is stop lying,because you're looking very bad when you do:good.

 

:adminI'm still absolutely astonished that your still putting Spinks in with any of those names and are using JC's victories over those fellows as a reason he would beat Michael Spinks.But it makes you feel good,so carry on even though your credibility is gone:good.

 

This is true.

 

Max Kellerman was just joking around right?..............................plz say so

 

JC rapes Spinks.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVEjDrprcHY[/ame]

 

Michael Spinks.

4" height advantage. 4" reach advantage.

Beat Larry Holmes 2x. had the power to KO 2 guys at HW.

Only is loss to Mike Tyson..... at 220 lbs.

People like to talk about Calzaghe's moving up and winning the LHW title in his 1st fight there over 43 year old hopkins.......
Spinks moved up to HW and beat Larry Holmes(36 yrs old) in his 1st two fights at the weight....handing him his 1st career losses.

Seriously. Are you kidding?

 

In reality Calzaghe would not hold even one single advantage over Spinks.

 

Actually he's under-rated, and im not going to defend the fact that he didnt fight the best during his prime, but in terms of skill, talent, and ability to adapt to different styles, he was brilliant.

 

I checked Box Rec out and he was ranked 12th. Fact was he fought nobody at LHW with over 20 wins experience who could be considered a decent challenger, like say Kessler.

 

What!? Calzaghe hit like a ton of bricks before his hands fell apart. Don't make stuff up just because you don't like him.

 

Willie Pep could take out Marciano too.

Why was this comparison ever made?

 

Spinks by brutal knockout. Calzaghe is not as durable as he's often made out to be. Hopkins had him wobbled clearly on two occasions outside of the knockdown, and he's not even a big puncher. Spinks was a massive hitter on top of being a very clever one. I have little doubt he'd land the bomb on Calzaghe at some point in the fight, probably within a few rounds of finding his groove around the 4th or 5th. I'll give Joe 8 rounds. Sounds about right.

 

Not even competitive.

Calzaghe is a very good fighter, but he'd be giving away too much against Spinks.