Tommy Hearns vs Joe Calzaghe. 12 rounds.

Calzaghe would win a late TKO, behind on the cards. His size would tell.

 

this is where the misunderstanding lies. the question is, hearns vs joe at 168.

p4p, hell yeah, hearns splits joe a new *******, but tommy wasn't a powerhouse at 168. uninspired against kinchen (who he tagged with the right all night), should've won against srl (but would've got ktfo in the next round if it was a 15 rounder).

he had stamina issues and as i said earlier, taht's bad news against a guy as well-conditioned and relentless as joe.

 

Damn, Calzaghe is way the **** underrated. The man is a great boxer. Tommy at 168, who's best weight was 147, would not beat a Prime Calzaghe.

 

disagree with this. this would be sort of like joe vs bhop except srl had more power, more stamina, and that stamina would be amplified by srl's famous killer instinct. joe wouldn't be able to slap his way to victory in this one, even at 168.

 

You're speculating about Calzaghe's performance against ATGs and talking like its facts

 

By size difference I don't mean height. I mean that Hearns was a WW who had gone up through a few divisions by the time he reached SM. Calzaghe would be in his natural weight, obvious advantage.

I bring up Hearns achievements, because based on what each accomplished, Hearns is miles in front. I think its relevant because its very easy to see how Hearns did against world class opposition in their prime. Its more difficult to judge Calzaghe due to his lack-luster resume.

 

Iran Barkley beat him twice,once by KO and once by SD :good

 

Hearns would wipe the floor with him at anyweight Joe wanted to make. He's a fraud !! Spent 10 years defending the shittest belt in the world in the poorest division. Could have moved up earlier and (As we all know) could have got on a plane. Mans a Fraud and his Dad's mouth is too big. Shame Calzaghe wasn't as confident in himself as his dad was !!!

 

?????atsch?????atsch??????

 

Are you an out of work comedian?

Calzaghe could not starch one of his own shirts.

 

Why is it when great fighters of the past, like Hearns and Leonard, are mythically matched up with lesser, but bigger fighters, people start talking like it's so insulting to match them up and the older fighter would blow the modern fighter away and it wouldn't be competitive?

It's like that "Hearns-Kessler at 168" thread. People saying "how ridiculous" and "Hearns inside 3 rounds". Hearns peaked at 147-154. He was past his prime by the time he fought above 160. Every contender/champ he faced at 168 and 175, he went the distance with, except Andries who went 10. He was given all sorts of problems by Kinchen at 168, who dropped and hurt Hearns.

Oh yeah, it was 20 years ago. To a lot of people here, that's ancient history.

 

what exactly don't you agree with? and tell me how you think calzaghe beats ray.

 

You forget that Barkley was also the first man to outbox Hearns by SD in the rematch but you Calzaghe fans don't forget that Hearns defeated long time reigning champ Virgil Hill at 175. That would be a very tough match whether it was at 168 or 175.