So who is P4P #1 now then?

TFFP don't you see that what you have said in this post is precisely my whole beef with Calzaghe??!

As you yourself state, he has never fought a great who was in his prime. It is all guesswork because he never done it.

However, any and every opinion you and I and anyone else on this forum give on any mythical match-up is guesswork.

But it is guesswork that is educated guesses based on knowledge. I have seen Calzaghe beat opponents and look excellent in doing so, but in these fights (Lacy, Mitchell) he has relied on two things - the limitations of the opponent and, more significantly, his own strengths which are not, like Jones or Hopkins, boxing skills but natural physical gifts like hand speed, freakish stamina, and a solid chin.

He can adapt like he did in the Kessler fight, but the key there was that Kessler couldn't adapt to the change. Mikkel Kessler for all the praise that gets heaped upon him on this forum is not a Roy Jones or a Bernard Hopkins. He is a very strong, big, one-dimensional fighter who was outboxed by Calzaghe.

Had that Calzaghe fought peak Jones or peak Hopkins, found himself under the cosh and changed his gameplan, do you think they would have just kept plodding on like Kessler losing each passing round? No, they would have adapted and used their superior skills base to take the fight in a direction where Calzaghe's handspeed and workrate could not have allowed him to have any success. I know you are a Calzaghe fan and thought he won the Hopkins fight handily, but surely you must have seen at points in that fight that only Hopkins's stamina at 43 was preventing him from taking control. He had nullified Calzaghe's attacks brilliantly, Cal hardly landed one clean significant punch the entire evening, at no point did he adapt and begin to get to Hopkins, it was pure workrate and activity allied to Hopkins gassing which allowed him to sneak enough points to win. He did not possess the skills to penetrate Hopkins's defence, to work out and break down Hopkins, to pull away and win more convincingly by having any real offensive success.

Against men who could match his workrate but also wield superior skills, like peak Jones and Hopkins (and Toney IMO, who would counter Calzaghe into outer space), I think Calzaghe would have been exposed as a fighter who relied heavily on physical gifts but did not have the nous or ability to compete with peak ATGs. I genuinely believe Joe Calzaghe knew this and that's why he never fought them.

Yes, this is guesswork, but on this forum what isn't? It's educated guesswork, and that it is guesswork is only because Joe never fought one peak ATG in his career.


IMO.

:bbb

 

Not at all. Only that Calzaghe's limits havn't been reached, this is common sense since he hasn't been beaten. How the hell can you be proven as limited in this scenario?

Are we supposed to say that because he loses to prime Roy Jones, hell he might lose to prime Bob Foster too, does that mean he's limited? So because he loses hypothetical matchups against ATG's he's limited? This seems to be PAC's criteria, but again I ask where when and how was he proven as limited in reality?

All I'm trying to say is against the opposition Calzaghe faced, whatever we think about it, he hasn't reached his own limit nevermind been proven as a limited boxer.

 

Pac fans are a lovely, normal, rational bunch. It's not our fault Manny would KO Cassius Clay....

 

Pacquiao

 

If Pac does get beat, why would that mean Calzaghe would jump over Marquez? atsch Try again.

 

Yes, in a much more concise and coherent manner too!

It can only be PACFAN's very opinionated analysis and guesswork that can come to the conclusion he is limited rather than what Calzaghe has actually done.

PAC, you are usually one that puts a lot of emphasis on resumes rather than the more subjective skillset/h2h criteria for ranking fighters. Perhaps in this instance you'll see, that for once, Calzaghe's resume actually strengthens my case! Look through it, and nowhere has he been shown up as limited.

 

But it is guesswork that is educated guesses based on knowledge. I have seen Calzaghe beat opponents and look excellent in doing so, but in these fights (Lacy, Mitchell) he has relied on two things - the limitations of the opponent and, more significantly, his own strengths which are not, like Jones or Hopkins, boxing skills but natural physical gifts like hand speed, freakish stamina, and a solid chin.

He can adapt like he did in the Kessler fight, but the key there was that Kessler couldn't adapt to the change. Mikkel Kessler for all the praise that gets heaped upon him on this forum is not a Roy Jones or a Bernard Hopkins. He is a very strong, big, one-dimensional fighter who was outboxed by Calzaghe.

Had that Calzaghe fought peak Jones or peak Hopkins, found himself under the cosh and changed his gameplan, do you think they would have just kept plodding on like Kessler losing each passing round? No, they would have adapted and used their superior skills base to take the fight in a direction where Calzaghe's handspeed and workrate could not have allowed him to have any success. I know you are a Calzaghe fan and thought he won the Hopkins fight handily, but surely you must have seen at points in that fight that only Hopkins's stamina at 43 was preventing him from taking control. He had nullified Calzaghe's attacks brilliantly, Cal hardly landed one clean significant punch the entire evening, at no point did he adapt and begin to get to Hopkins, it was pure workrate and activity allied to Hopkins gassing which allowed him to sneak enough points to win. He did not possess the skills to penetrate Hopkins's defence, to work out and break down Hopkins, to pull away and win more convincingly by having any real offensive success.

Against men who could match his workrate but also wield superior skills, like peak Jones and Hopkins (and Toney IMO, who would counter Calzaghe into outer space), I think Calzaghe would have been exposed as a fighter who relied heavily on physical gifts but did not have the nous or ability to compete with peak ATGs. I genuinely believe Joe Calzaghe knew this and that's why he never fought them.

 

A guy asked me to explain why I rank Pac above Calzaghe, so I did that. Yeah, the forum would be better if we all wrote snidey single sentences followed by a smiley and left it at that.