Which was the better win: Hagler-Hearns or Calzaghe-Kessler?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by horst, Jan 23, 2011.


Page 4 of 4
  1. dubace

    dubace Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,807
    2
    Oct 21, 2009
    it's not bailey. he can be horribly biased at times, but he's not that stupid. it's probably headbanger, pugilist64, and 46-0. it's some dumb mother****ers on this website, but bailey just very biased, not very stupid.
     
    dubace, Jan 23, 2011
    dubace, Jan 23, 2011
    #46
  2. dubace

    dubace Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,807
    2
    Oct 21, 2009
    thank you. calzaghe doesn't know how he won the first match, and knows he wouldn't win a rematch. he's a coward and a fraud. good, close to great, but voluntarily sold himself short. doesn't merrit much respect in my eyes.
     
    dubace, Jan 23, 2011
    dubace, Jan 23, 2011
    #47
  3. dubace

    dubace Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,807
    2
    Oct 21, 2009
    he's a dumb newbie for a reason
     
    dubace, Jan 23, 2011
    dubace, Jan 23, 2011
    #48
  4. Beatle

    Beatle Sheer Analysis Full Member

    9,270
    269
    Apr 12, 2009
    Not even close. Hearns was better than Kessler.
     
    Beatle, Jan 23, 2011
    Beatle, Jan 23, 2011
    #49
  5. BlackBrenny

    BlackBrenny Guest

    popkins hates calzaghe..hence the thread
     
    BlackBrenny, Jan 23, 2011
    BlackBrenny, Jan 23, 2011
    #50
  6. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace

    82,092
    22,242
    Sep 15, 2009
    hagler over hearns. hell hearns went on to defeat a prime virgil hill! at light heavyweight!
     
    lufcrazy, Jan 23, 2011
    lufcrazy, Jan 23, 2011
    #51
  7. klion22

    klion22 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,781
    360
    Aug 4, 2007
    5 Calzaghe fans have chimed in this thread.
     
    klion22, Apr 12, 2011
    klion22, Apr 12, 2011
    #52
  8. Chucky

    Chucky BDJ Full Member

    715
    0
    Feb 1, 2005
    Dumb question. RDJ should ban you
     
    Chucky, Apr 12, 2011
    Chucky, Apr 12, 2011
    #53
  9. KillSomething

    KillSomething Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,126
    57
    Dec 1, 2009
    Better win, or better fight?

    Calzaghe-Kessler was basically for all the marbles in the division. The two best guys in the division.

    Hagler-Hearns was obviously an epic fight between two great fighters. Hearns hadn't earned a title shot at 160, which isn't to say he didn't deserve one. He had great wins at 154 and was a champ there, so he had every right to challenge the middleweight champ. But it was his first fight at the weight.

    Hearns differs from Trinidad in that he not only performed well at middleweight, he continued to perform at a high level for years and even did damage at 175. Trinidad never accomplished a damn thing once he moved up, and just like that his career was over. Hearns had the body to move up, Tito didn't.

    Hagler-Hearns is better because it was a hell of a fight between two great fighters. Hopkins-Trinidad was not as good because it was one-sided and one of the fighters could be regarded as shot at that weight. Calzaghe-Kessler was a significant win and a good fight, but it wasn't epic and Kessler is a good but not great fighter.

    So Popkins, which is better, Hopkins/Trinidad or Hagler/Hearns?
     
    KillSomething, Apr 12, 2011
    KillSomething, Apr 12, 2011
    #54
  10. Shogun Assassin

    Shogun Assassin Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,843
    3
    Oct 22, 2010
    Hagler-Hearns is the better win, they were pretty much the P4P no.1 & 2 at the time.


    Hearns had already fought at 160 once before against Jeff McCracken, just thought I'd point it out.
     
    Shogun Assassin, Apr 12, 2011
    Shogun Assassin, Apr 12, 2011
    #55
  11. RobertV77

    RobertV77 Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,001
    4
    Apr 7, 2010

    Hiding under a new alt?
     
    RobertV77, Apr 12, 2011
    RobertV77, Apr 12, 2011
    #56
Page 4 of 4