How come you do no research and are prejudiced to fighters from the past. I never offer anything other than evidence to back my claims up. If I am indeed biased (God knows why I would be) I'd genuinely love to here you theories as to why I am? You should check out some of my posts from a few years back. I was far, far harsher on 'old timers' than you are.
Why not as good? Any of these. Matthew Sadd Muhammad Victor Galindez Dick Tiger For someone in the 11-20 bracket, Willie Pastrano? Marvin Johnson (outside top 20 IMO) Also, boxrec doesn;t suffice as an argument, 'Well, he lost to Lotti Mwale' means nothing without circumstance :good
Eubank was better than all of those light-heavies, when you look at the way he dominated Rocchigiani and the way Rocchigiani got the better of Maske and Michalczewski (robbed in both). He definitely should've moved up after the Collins loss (was offered Maske, Michalczewski and Hill fights).
I actually left you a vid', but I will admit this Valero stalking is pissing me off, makes me feel like I'm an idiot to be honest. Atberry, I never rated Dariusz too much myself (always think he gets overrated due to people thinking Jones should've fought/toyed with him.) Admittedly, have only seen the Eubank fight out of all three of those mentioned :good Will seek out the other two so I can get a better perspective :thumbsup But fact is, MY point is, is that Calzaghe did very little throughout his career. Just beating Eubank, Kessler, Reid, B-Hop and Lacy is not enough to justify a top 100 ranking. Bar Hill and Prime Jones, beating one more out of those guys Beeston listed probably wouldn't do it either.
Maske would give Calzaghe a hard time. His jab was excellent. Maybe though his lack of power would count against him.....
Quality scrap. Might watch the first fight later. :good What was with that incredibly homo advert between the rounds? Makes you feel like an idiot? :huh