So who is P4P #1 now then?

Invitation accepted. Can't wait, it's a date. :nono

Are you hoping your boy quits on 46-0 or would you like to see him fight again?

 

Then why are you always talking about it then? Are you the dumbest **** in the world?

Marquez may have lost, but he IS #2 right now so even if Pac does get demoted when he loses to Oscar (he won't get demoted but even if he does) then why would Calzaghe jump over JMM?

Think before you answer...

 

Okay, I'll go down the subjective route too. Even though the very simple logic is he has never been beaten or pushed to the limit in reality. It's the old real world resume against assumed resume

What if I say that Roy Jones is a limited fighter too? Infact, I'll say he is a more limited fighter than Joe Calzaghe ever was. When he got old, and lost some of his speed, his reflexes and his stamina (in other words the physical elements that were so special) he got KO'd several times and looked generally unimpressive as we know. Wasn't he always limited in the sense his technical skills were fundamentally flawed, and he was overreliant on physical gifts? Was his resistance always slightly limited, did the weight loss just contribute further and he got hit by cleaner shots? Havn't his limits ultimately been proven in the long run?

James Toney is another case. Look at his foot-work. He is glued to the canvas, even in his younger and lighter days. He is not a mobile fighter. Nor is he a good fighter from range. He is an excellent mid range counterpuncher and inside fighter, but was he well rounded overall? I don't believe so. I think these flaws were shown up in his inconsistencies, check back through his earlier career aside from his most notable performances and you might see what I mean.

Hopkins was more well rounded than both in my opinion. As good as he was in his prime, he's maintained that into his 40's by developing in other areas. Surely that is the ultimate testament to his being well rounded.

What I'm ultimately trying to say is there has never been a perfect fighter to my knowledge. Nobody can be 10/10 in every area. I don't think there is a direct correlation between limits and effectiveness. I would put it to you that Roy Jones was just as limited in similar ways to Calzaghe, yet his strengths were obviously at a higher level in his prime. Yet you probably find him much higher up your lists. So overall, when you say he is limited does it even matter or have any great meaning?

 

I'd love to see a rematch with Hopkins but I realize I'm probably in the minority as the first one was not pretty. A fight with Dawson would be great as well though. It's a waste to retire when you're not showing any real signs of decline. Calzaghe isn't IMO. I'd fancy him to beat Kessler in a rematch anytime.

 

I don't understand why you constantly make references to me being opinionated and subjective, it doesn't make any sense. This is a boxing forum where every statement you or I or anyone make is purely opinion and subjective speculation, that's the whole point here.

We are getting into a pretty pedantic conversation here, aren't we? As I would say in response, Jones may indeed have been limited from a technical standpoint, but that is of minor importance unless we are having a purely technical discussion, as I think Jones was one of the greatest fighters ever h2h, and I don't think Calzaghe was, which is the crux of the whole argument really.

Put 1994-96 Jones in with any sort of opponent at 168, anyone who fought at that weight in history, and I think he would have the ability to win. I don't think Calzaghe could, therefore his ability is more limited than Jones.

Toney was indeed also limited, I would never suggest otherwise.

 

We are certainly getting into pedantry, but I think your initial point that Calzaghe is limited is proving to be exactly that under scrutiny.

You've just agreed that Jones was limited. Basically, he was very limited in terms of being well rounded but his strengths were phenomenal.

Toney is obviously limited as a fighter.

Perhaps Calzaghe is limited too, but so are the above, I mean...so what? What was the point you were trying to make when you said Calzaghe was limited, other than to score a point? All you said was he is limited, it was a very wooly statement.

If all these fighters are limited your initial statement is just hot air, in truth, a point scoring exercise.

 

Again, I don't understand why you are always on a boxing forum if every opinion can be devalued as 'subjective' and every statement is 'point-scoring'. My statement is what it is, a criticism I believe is valid and relevant when discussing the p4p merits of a fighter. IMO, Calzaghe is a fighter of limited ability because he relies too heavily on physical tools and does not have excellent skills. I have already stated the reasons for this - the only times he has looked exceptional was beating opposition that was not from the top drawer. The only time he has faced a top level opponent, he was ineffective and won very narrowly purely on workrate against a man with more skill but less stamina due to age. Had said fighter been a few years younger, I cannot see how Calzaghe's ineffective flurrying would have saw him win the fight.

My point remains as it was when I first said it, backed up with what I believe is sound reasoning and I think a fair number of objective boxing fans would agree.

 

I feel very confident Hopkins would win a rematch convincingly. I hope we get the chance to see.