Michael Spinks vs. Joe Calzaghe

Spinks is the man. Sorry Zaggy

 

A prime Spinks armed with the `Spinks jinx`... Guys if he lands one of those flush, show`s over. Come on, old and small guys like Jones and BHop hurt and dropped Calzaghe. Anyone truly think that Calzaghe`s survives Spinks TNT bombs !! Not to mention Spinks tremendous physical advantages as well...Calzaghe gets hurt in this one, bad ...

 

Spinks would destroy Calzaghe.

Joe isn't that stupid though, he would never fight Spinks.

 

How is it fair to pick Spinks when Calzaghe never lost?

 

Spinks stops him

 

Spinks never lost at 175

 

Spinks never lost at 175 either and fought much better competition, arguably the toughest era at 175 ever. Calzaghe beat an old faded Roy Jones and just barely scrapped by BHOP. I like Calzaghe at 168 but he was nowhere near as great as Spinks who was an Olympic gold medalist in a tough era, Unified lightheavyweight champ and he beat THE heavyweight champ in Holmes. Spinks at 175 would knock Calzaghe out!

 

To the general forum you go.

 

This is a bad match up for Joe, who is a fantastic fighter at 168, but still a question mark at 175. He had a very good chin but was dropped twice at 168 and twice at 175 by a Jones forearm smash and light punching lightheavy Hopkins. Joe was susceptible to right hands and Mike has one of the greatest ever at 175. And people forget Mike was never dropped at 175 and not until Tyson stopped him in one at heavyweight. Southpaw Joe is quicker and has a greater engine, but that's it. Mike is one of the few guys that matches his boxing IQ. Mike by decision or late ko

 

Calzaghe beat everyone he faced, made no mistakes, never had to 'settle the score', he deserves major credit for that, but people still pick most people to beat him, I don't know how youcan't think the same

 

I disagree. People don't pick most to beat him but in the case of Michael Spinks, he would certainly be the underdog. Calzaghe only fought twice at 175. Spinks is widely thought of as a all time great at 175 and a top three fighter in that division's history.

 

Because his opposition was so underwhelming for the most part, and he had some serious struggles with them. There's a reason it took him nearly a decade after winning his first world title to make it into anyone's pound for pound list, or get any hype in the States. A reason Ian Darke, commentating on the stinker that was Calzaghe-Starie in 2000, said that the idea of Calzaghe being a credible opponent for Roy Jones, or even giving him a decent fight, was a "ludicrous notion".

Spinks had to take care of guys such as Lopez and Marvin Johnson before he'd even fought for a world title. Once he'd won his first belt, he set his sights on unifying and did against a genuinely world class fighter less than two years later. Left the division with no notable opponents missing from his record. Basically the opposite of how Calzaghe's career went for the most part.

Calzaghe was a very good fighter and his 46-0 commands respect, but he'd be rated much higher by a lot of people, I imagine, if he'd actually fought the best in or around his weight throughout his career during their primes and returned something like a 44-2 record instead.

 

Yeah, Calzaghe didn't fight many names, but he fought everyone he could, there was no one to fight, he went in as an underdog and beat Jeff Lacy, beat Eubank but he was old, ouboxed Kessler, beat Bika they were the only names that were at super middleweight at the time, it was a dull era really

 

He did everything that he could at 168 except fight Ottke which I don't fault him for. I think he was excellent at 168 but at 175, I just can't make a case for him against Spinks.

 

He did some great things between 2006-2007 at Super-Middleweight, can't take that away from him. If he rest of his career had been anything like that I wouldn't be such a critic, or unconvinced by his claims to greatness. But the guy won his first world title in 1997 and it took him until his NINTH year as a champion to box a unification fight. In the era of four belts per weight class, I just find that unforgivable, especially when so many of his WBO defences were against journeymen. I can understand his reluctance to fight Ottke, but Ottke only held one belt right up until 2003. It gets passed off as fact these days that Calzaghe was somehow being ducked by everyone at 168 when there's zero evidence for it.

He also wound me up by complaining for years about how hard it was for him to make Super-Middleweight, how making 168 was tough on his body etc. Fine, go out and try to fight some of the best Light-Heavyweights if that's the case. During his championship career there were plenty of good Light-Heavyweights to go at, certainly more than there were good Super-Middles. Never mind Jones at the time, what about Michalczewski, Griffin, Johnson (both Reggie and Glen), Tarver etc.? You can't complain about how hard it is to make 168 and how frustrated you are at not landing the big fights, but then fight none of those guys and stay at 168 taking on the kind of opposition he did. By the time he did go up to 175, the division was much poorer.

Very good fighter and perfectly respectable career, but just way too careful with his opposition and too thin on quality to be a great, for me.