Eubank was thirty one years old when Calzaghe beat him. He was not shot. The Americans were claiming Lacy to be a super middleweight Mike Tyson at the time. Funny how people who know nothing about boxing forget that. Bernard Hopkins was in the P4P top ten at the time.
lmfao you don't know who chris eubank is do you? yeah so because lacy was hyped up that boosts up the quality of the win? lacy was not good. period. it doesn't matter if people thought he was gonna be. he wasn't. so beating bernard hopkins means atg? welcome to canastota , bad intentions taylor.
Strange thread, both are great fighters and future hall of famers. Both men were winners, and found a way to win everytime, proved they could dig deep and fight through adversity. I'm a fan of both. But it's clearly Money Mayweather.
You do realise how stupid you sound. Mayweather cleaning out 130 > Calzaghe 168 campaign And I haven't even touched on what Mayweather has achieved at 135, 140, 147 and 154 Save yourself the embarrassment and don't post in this thread again.
calzaghe is not an atg. 20 years from now his name will not be mentioned when talking about the best fighters. mayweather will.
Come on now Chairman Mao, I cant be expected to know every boxer, especially if this guy wasn't big in the US. Ill watch some tape on him and get back to you.
mayweather was ranked #1 by the ring. joe hid at 168 avoiding any real competition until those fighters were old. joe was an excellent fighter but his goal was to stay undefeated, not to be great. at least hatton and froch tried to achieve greatness. that's why those fighters will be more respected in the long run.