Marvin Hagler vs. Joe Calzaghe, at a catchweight of 165, who wins?

Calzaghe hands down, at least unless we speak of the 45 years old Calzaghe with the experience of a 13 year old vs. the mythical Hagler of his physically prime 20ish times with the experience of a 35 years old veteran and the skills of Ali, Duran, Leonard and Lennox Lewis added on top. Plus of course the speed of his 145lb version and the power of a 217lb Tyson.

 

at smw calzaghe.

 

ya so roy jones was ducking calzaghe in the 90's.......ya whatever.


i'm not saying anybody was ducking anybody, roy jones ducking calzaghe...come on.

 

It's very possible that Calazghe wins this fight on decision. He's adaptable and a great boxer. He's never shown any signs of fading that I can think of, and he has a great workrate.

 

Hopkins didn't have the stamina he had when he fought Tito. Do you think a prime Hopkins would fail to stop, or at least CLEARLY beat jermain Taylor twice in a row? Taylor and Calzaghe simply did the same thing. They took advantage of an old man, who was still a GREAT fighter, but who was losing one of the most important attributes in the sport....STAMINA. Hopkins came on late in the Jermain fights, but that is only because he gave away the early ones to conserve himself. He worked early in the Calzaghe fight but lost his legs for the 2nd half. Watch the first few rounds of that Calzaghe fight and then just extend it out til the end and that is what would have happened if Joe fought a PRIME BHop. He was getting schooled.

 

Calzaghe.

Bigger and a league above in terms of boxing ability.

 

It's hard for me to pick against the better boxer, when the guy is obviously a great tallent and has shown adaptability, determination, and great resolve, along with a good chin.

Honestly, I would probably put money on Calzaghe to outbox him in a close decision.

But it could go either way...

Some of ya'll are out of touch when concerning Calzaghe, he has the tools to beat Hagler. He has great stamina, great footwork, adaptability, workrate, and he can box.

The thing is, it's going to be Hagler that has to press the fight, and if he manages to do it and land effectively he wins, but it's going to be very hard against Calzaghe.

 

At the same time, Hagler did beat the **** outta Hearns, but Hearns PROBABLY could have done much better if not WON if he would have boxed more.

There is no way Hagler could keep that kind of intensity for the entire fight.

Then again Hearns didn't have a great chin...

Still though....

 

Best performance of a career and prime are not the same thing. Part of the reason it was a great performance is that it was a huge upset and that Hopkins turned back the clock some.

And no he is not in his prime at 43 ****ing years old that is obvious.

 

:thumbsup

 

i dont understand why people keep coming up with these threads asking who wins between random great fighters and arguably the best MW of all time. you know what answer you're gonna get.

 

I am gonna pick Calzaghe. He is the naturally bigger man and he was a better boxer. Plus, Hagler could be bated into fighting the wrong kind of fight. I think that he would try and box with Joe and that Joe would be too quick for him.

Calzaghe UD15 Hagler

 

This is about where I'm at. I would slightly favor Hagler, but I think Calzaghe would cause him major problems with his workrate, and that he's slick enough that he could feasibly win the fight simply by throwing a lot more punches and not getting caught by Hagler's bigger punches.

 

No disrespect to Alan Minter, who was a solid fighter, but he does not compare to Joe Calzaghe! No way!

 

atschanother stupid comment from marian