Who do you rate higher McCallum or Calzaghe ?

McCallum no question

 

Understandable, and not the robbery it was made out to be. Without going too deeply into it, if you scored the fight as one 36 minute fight, Whitaker won by a a good margin. If you scored it as 12 3 minutes fights, it's a bit hazier. Though the rounds Whitaker won were much more emphatic, they were not 10-8 rounds. And there were still a few that Chavez won outright, and enough that were close enough to make the decision within the realm of reason. I have had it both 1 and 2 rounds for Whitaker when scoring the battles, though obviously Whitaker won the war. This stance is more a condemnation of the 12-round must system than it is arguing that Chavez did better than he did.

I think Calzaghe is underrated. He beat versions of all-time greats that were no more faded than those Marciano gets drooling adoration for... yet, due to his personality or style, Calzaghe gets endless **** for what essentially was a perfect career.

 

you really believe that ****

 

It's not important if I believe it.

 

Resume wise:

43yo Hopkins<Prime Toney
Old Eubank<Kalambay
Kessler<Watson
Old Jones<Herol Graham
Lacy<Julian Jackson
Mitchell<Curry
Reid<Collins
Richie Woodall=McCrory
Charles Brewer=Jeff Harding
Bika=Minchillo

So from those comparisons I'd say McCallum's competition was that level above on Calzaghe's although you can see Calzaghe's isn't quite as bad as it's made out to be. He certainly has a decent list of scalps, all those men on his list bar Bika were world champions. You could argue neither Toney fight was a win, but about the same number of boxing fans will give McCallum 1 of those fights as will give Joe the Hopkins fight, both close and controversial

Hopkins and Jones Jr were older than any of Marciano's opponents. Moore and Walcott were 38 and 39 but near their best, maybe somewhat faded. Charles was only 32/33 but not as good as he was, his form coming into those fights was good. Marciano did not have a controversial fight like Calzaghe-Hopkins. Calzage was on record 2 years prior to fighting Jones saying he'd never face anyone as past it as Jones - actually that maybe in his biography

On the balance though, I agree somewhat, Calzaghe is underrated, maybe comparable to Monzon resume wise in some wise - older greats (Monzon's were younger but smaller) and some other good but not spectacular opposition

 

I love how PP nowadays just puts out random comparisons between opponents of fighters in question. Hilarious.

 

I was doing it as a top wins list while shifting them around a little to try and keep the styles similar. IE Watson-Kessler - high guards, excellent jabs, technically solid boxers, Watson has more variety and is less stiff though.

 

I like Calzage of the 2 but both were good fighters who I enjoyed, McCallum with his body work and Calzage with his hand speed and movement

 

Calzaghe and Monzon's resumes are not comparable PP!

 

Going by the numbers B-Hop was older but I would argue was closer to a prime version than Charles. He just came off victories over Tarver and Wright and still have a defeat of Pavlik after. And I, like Steward and Hop-lover Kellerman, saw that fight as a conclusive victory for Calzaghe.

It's funny, I was only recently shot down for being a McCallum nuthugger!

 

I had hopkins beating joe.

I also don't think joe was as dominant as some make out. Least not in my opinion.
It's easy to forget he was a big underdog against lacy because he was seen as a total paper champion who was completely protected. From lacy's battering till moving up i'd call him dominant but that's more retrospect because he beat kessler. Had mikel beat joe we'd be saying the opposite today.

That being said I rate calzaghe's h2h skills quite highly. He punches from awkward angles, is pretty quick, great conditioning, good footwork, and an iron chin. He'd be a nightmare for most guys who could make the 168 weight.

Infact if you had to write up in detail a summary of his skills on his best night it'd probably read summary to accounts we have of greb's style.

 

Lacy really hadn't beaten anyone that amazingly to be that highly regarded either IMO. Great showing from Joe C nonetheless.

 

That's kinda my point. Joe had set the bar really really low that last couple of years.

Maybe kessler was the top active smw up until joe beat lacy, but the point is more about joe's shortcomings than lacy's longcomings.

Awesome performance though. One of the best in filmed history imo.

Same category as floyd v corrales in that it looks as good as any other but it isn't against an atg opponent.

 

Plenty of fans who know their boxing had Hopkins beating Calzaghe, it was a none event with Calzaghe punching air 100 times a round and Hopkins landing about 5 punches a round between dry humps and cheating to catch a breath

Charles-Marciano is a far better fight, Charles performance against Marciano are excellent ones, his performance against Harold Johnson excellent. All those men were a higher echelon of opponent than Hopkins was getting in with. And most of his losses between Walcott 3 and Marciano were robberies

 

I had charles losing to johnson.

The 4th walcott and valdes losses seem legitimate.