sorry calzaghe your resume is weakest ever.

Exactly. Their resumes are almost mirror image. Years of nothing with a few decent wins, then some really good scalps. H2H they match up pretty well all-time.

They are both going to go down way below Roy Jones, but him aside they are the standouts of this era in their weight range.

 

No Eubank is not a H.O.F'r .... my fault but he sure does have the credentials ... I don't know how 50 fights and a 17-5-2 record in championship fights doesn't grant the I.H.O.F

 

And in the 2 fights before he was beaten by Steve Collins. He was clearly on the way down when he fought Calzaghe. Didn't Thompson beat him twice anyway? Carl Thompson was as tough as they come, but look at his career and record, he was never top quality. The Haye result was a freak coz of Haye's complacency and lack of training- stamina. He could've went for Tarver after Tarver beat Jones.

 

Calzaghe has a decent resume ... what makes Hopkins resume any better?

 

if you get back in to the daylight instead of having your head up manny's arse you might see the light and be able to have a rational and considered debate.you are my friend a hater...and a hugger:good

 

Leave him be, he's happy up there.

A middleweight/supermiddleweight that runs a cruiserweight world champ close twice is clearly shot. Did you miss that meeting or something?

 

Yes, at cruiser weight, two weights above SM. Eubank could barely make the weight anymore; he was draining. He also took the fight at very short notice as stand in for Collins. He could do so because he was preparing for another fight at a different weight. I did read somewhere that other boxing bodies simply would have not sanctioned the fight; I'm really not sure how true that is.

Eubank was inactive at the weight for two years before facing Joe. His last fight there was a loss to Collins. In the mean time between that and the fight with Joe, he had two fights in the Middle east. These were at light Heavy weight, against total non opponents; have you seen the state of those opponents, seriously, take a look! Totally appalling.

Eubank did give a good account of himself against Thompson, but don't forget he lost both fights, and was fighting two weights above super middle. At a weight his body was now more comfortable with.

All his defeats, came in his last ever nine fights. One of those was to Joe. Eubank lost 5 of his last 9.

When he faced Joe, he wasn't totally shot, but was not the force he was, imo.

Eubanks only ever defeats all came at the end of his career, that must indicate something about his condition at this time...

 

A 17-5-2 record? Oh, that's amazing, get him into the INTERNATIONAL HALL OF FAME in between Robinson and Ali then. That isn't a particularly great championship record IMO. Eubank WAS world class when he beat Watson twice and Benn, but I was never overly impressed by him after that. And after the Collins defeats, he was obviously in decline.

I don't know why I'm bothering to debate with you Fitzgeraldz, I've never noticed anyone on here talking more rancid dog**** than you- yesterday I saw you stating that Roy Jones Jr was happy he had got knocked out by Tarver and Johnson because he saw it as helping their careers. And that's just the most recent example of your verbal diahorrea. But hey, I'm bored at work, so here goes...

What about Marciano v Louis, Trinidad v Whitaker, Holmes and Spinks v Ali, Tyson v Holmes, Foreman v Tommy Morrison & Shannon Briggs, Williams v Tyson, De La Hoya v Chavez, Camacho v Leonard, Pazienza v Duran, and on and on and on....

These are all fights where an HOFer lost when he was past his prime. Some of them were not exactly 'shot' (like Eubank and Hopkins) but definitely past their prime, such as Whitaker v Trinidad, Chavez v De La Hoya. Some were completely shot (like Jones Jr) such as Tyson v McBride and Pazienza v Duran.

But do any of these wins, although they are technically wins over HOFers, really mean anything other than names on paper? The guys who lost these fights were nowhere near what they were.

Leonard v Hearns I, Jones Jr v Toney, Barrera v Morales, Whitaker v Chavez (it was a win really), and on and on and on...

These are real wins over HOF opponents. Joe Cal has none of them, so your HOF claims about Eubank and Hopkins mean nothing to real boxing fans.

 

You are clearly some sort of simpleton.

A rational and considered debate?! I am the one who is debating the issue, you are the one dragging Manny Pacquiao into it for no reason!!

 

I saw both fights. Eubank was amazing, the way he took so much punishment and kept himself in it through sheer guts and strength of will was incredible considering how far he had declined from the young gun that beat Watson and Benn. It was a shame to see him beaten twice by Thompson as he was clearly the far greater fighter historically and in all-time p4p terms, but he was beaten by age and weight v an inferior opponent. Thompson held the WBO title for under 2 years but never had a real career at world title level. It was a sad ending for Eubank.

 

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

Better than tarver or Wright or Trinidad or De la Hoya?atsch

 

Not really...Hopkins, no matter the weight class argument, has see more world class talent acroos the ring.

 

Kessler's skill and resume > Lacy's skill and resume

 

So you'd take De La Hoya to beat Kessler at MW or SMW? The same De La Hoya who got a boxing lesson from Felix Sturm?

Easily better than Tarver in every area maybe power aside, better than Wright at the weight Hopkins fought him, and definitely better than Tito at the weight Hopkins fought him.

I'm not saying he's more accomplished than any of them, but he's certainly a better fighter at the weight they were fought at.