prideofwales and english titan: you are smoking too much crack. tommy would belt calzaghe. sorry u brits. i understand the need to support your own fighters but let's not lie to achieve what you want. n00bs
Same could be said for the Yanks. I mean youve got no talent anymore as your only half decent fighter retired early. So obviously you have to delve back into the past But seriously whilst both Leonard and Hearns are all time greats they where not great 168lbers.
Calzaghe by knockout. No question about it either. Certainly the early Calzaghe at the weight when he put more muster into his shots.
Going by Hearns's showings against Kinchen, Leonard, and Olajide at super-middleweight, he doesn't beat Calzaghe. All those went the distance and his punch resistance was anything but solid. Hearns' performances at the weight need to be looked at, and not what he done in other weight classes.
this thread is why i beleive calzaghe will be better regarded in 20 years than he is now. fighters lose a lot of flaws in retirement in people`s perceptions and there poor fights are forgotton , only remembered for what they once did good and not for any hiccups along the way.
:rofl:rofl You know **** all about boxing mate. What does his Roy Jones win have to do with anything? Jones is almost 40. Hearns at 168 was better than Jones of 2008. Hearns at 168 would KO Jones of 2008 absolutely no doubt, something that Calzaghe didnt do, either because he couldnt or he carried him.
Get real guys, Calzaghe isn't even in the same league as The Hitman, this is just redicilous, comparing him to the 40 year old Jones...
Calzaghe wins, and I'd have felt good enough about it to bet money on it. Hearns performances at that weight give me no reason to pick him over Calzaghe. I can't believe people actually think Hearns would knock him out, because his knockout power wasn't even there at the higher weights.