Would Calzaghe have done a better job on Eastman?

Have I ever suggested that prime to prime, Hopkins-Calzaghe would not be a very closely contested, competitive bout?

You can't imagine though that Hopkins is lesser now than he was prime.

 

Easier than that, Woodhall was a bit better than Eastman IMO.

Eastman would have taken a bad beating. I mean, say he fought a prime Hopkins who threw at a high, nasty workrate, it wouldn't have lasted but 6-7 rounds and he'd have been throughly annihilated...

LACYED, if you will.:yep

In fact, Calzaghe in the early 2000's with that lethal left hook could have just sparked him out anyway when you consider the weight jump.

 

As is Calzaghe....but I digress.

This version of Hopkins is still leaps and bounds better than a Prime version of Eastman. And stylistically, he is STILL AT THIS VERY MOMENT an entirely different fighter than the one that you yourself said is the type that Calzaghe "eats alive".

 

Calzaghe is a "****"? I'd guess you're not the best person to offer a decent opinion on this subject then? Eastman was never a danger to Calzaghe, niether was there ever any real interest in the fight outside Eastmans camp.

 

Woodhall was nowhere near better than Eastman. Cant agree with you there.

Tho I agree Joe would have beaten Eastman by a wide margin...just not sure if it would have been more impressive than Bernard.

More exciting, in all likelyhood, yes...but as I said, Bernard arguably shut Eastman out, so you cant get much more impressive. BUT, I could see Joe doing the same....

 

And there was real interest in Will McIntyre, Tocker Podwill, Mario Veit 1 and 2, Peter Mandredo and Beka?

Please......just stop.

 

I would have picked Joe C by clear UD. Eastman was solid, but nothing special. I thought the Joppy win was deserving.

 

Maybe he could have tried forcing the fight and beating a few guys at 168? He was never even that good at 160 beyond a certain level, he looked great against poor fighters but always managed to lose or struggle when he stepped up.

 

You'd be putting Eastman in with those names of poor challengers if Calzaghe had defended against Eastman. You just don't like the "****":-(

BTW Sues, Woodhall was a FAR better boxer than Eastman.

 

He TKO'd McCracken who was at least as good as Woodhall who Calzaghe fought, and struggled with. He also took Joppy to the limit regardless of the judges scoring. Back in the day Eastman was a serious threat to Calzaghe but Calzaghe ducked him for more 'meaningful' fights against erm......who exactly? Who did Calzaghe fight back then that was more dangerous than Eastman, name them?

 

How do you figure that? Did Eastman ever win a belt or defeat a good opponent? Joppy he arguably won, but was that a really good version of Joppy?

Okay, let's say Joe is at his best for the fight, how's Eastman going to take more than 1-2 rounds? Not a halfass Joe, but at his best.

Eastman's going to absorb a ridiculous amount of punishment here and he wasn't accurate enough to really do anything to Joe.

Bernard allowed Eastman to edge a few early rounds for starting slow, Calzaghe would just jump on Eastman and Eastman doesn't have the ability to amount much here.

Different styles, Hopkins nearly shut him out and definitively made him look like an amatuer, Calzaghe would have brutalised him consistently, so equally impressive.

You're just talking up Bernard if you think Calzaghe does less against Howard Eastman and please let me restate that a pre-2000's Hopkins would have beaten Eastman silly with a workrate and stopped him in 6-7. The Hopkins that fought Johnson.... christ Eastman would be messed up.

 

Howard Eastman was a very underrated fighter in his prime. He wasn't quick with his hands or fast on his feet but he was very heavy handed, had an iron chin and was an exceptionally clever technician. He took apart a lot of good fighters.

It makes me laugh to see people comparing him to Joppy, because even though he lost there was no doubt in my who the better fighter was that night. Eastman was unlucky to get that decision, I thought he he did enough to win, but it served him right because he let Joppy back into it. Every time Eastman pressed the action he had Joppy hanging on for dear life, but he never followed it up and took Joppy out and paid the price for it.

I've also heard, although I haven't seen it for myself, that Eastman got robbed by Arthur Abraham too. Can anyone verify this? He also gave Edison Miranda a very hard fight, that was a great brawl, he hurt Miranda often and had he been 3 or 4 years closer to his prime might've won.

Bernard Hopkins knew how good Eastman was too. I've never seen Hopkins fight as negatively as that before in my life. He wanted nothing to do with Eastman. Hopkins stank the joint out that night. I really respect Hopkins but he ran like a ***** all night long scared of Eastman's power.

Eastman's unlucky coz he wasted the best years of his career waiting for his shot at Bernard Hopkins. He was at his prime around the Joppy fight, but he didn't get his shot at Hopkins until around 4 years later when he was 35 and faded.

I dont think any version of Eastman ever beats Calzaghe, but you can guarentee that Joe fights safety first all night long against him. There'd be no Jeff Lacy style beatdown, more a cautious Mikkel Kessler style UD. Even though he got beat a few times in his career, he only ever lost to classy fighters with a lot of skill. Apart from Wayne Elcock, who he would've annhilated in his prime like he did Scott Dann and Hassine Cherifi.

 

McCracken was as good as Woodhall? Not even close. As for Eastman being serious about fighting Calzaghe, he could have just taken one fight at 168 to prove it. As I said, the poor Calazghe defences you listed would have contained Eastman if that fight had of been made.

 

Amsterdam...bro...go back and read my post.

Especially the end when I said, Bernard arguably shut Eastman out...AND I COULD SEE JOE DOING THE SAME THING!!!! Which to me wouldnt be MORE impressive, just he would do it in a more exciting manner.

Totally took what I posted out of context there as I pretty much agreed with you on everything you just said.

But the Woodhall thing....plenty of lesser fighters have held major titles over some that didnt. You know that as well as I did.