Joe Calzaghe's Greatness?

[GoogleMe]

How'd you said Chris Eubanks physical level was at the time Calzaghe beat him? Cause Eubank was a monster.

[r.burgundy]

[QUOTE=JAB5239;8184117]

You tell me. What fights have you watched of these guys to say they weren't great fighters? Seems to me you're coming to conclusions based on a predetermined bias. By the way, all those fighters are in the IBHOF. I'll bet you cash money Antonio Tarver doesn't get that Honor anytime soon after his retirement if ever.

ive seen yarosz fight vince dundee,and apostoli fight freddie steele.these dudes were bums man.i dont have any bias.if somebody got skill,i give them props.flash ellorde was the truth,but many others werent.i find race plays a huge part in pereserving these guys "greatness".

[StarshipTrooper]

You tell me. What fights have you watched of these guys to say they weren't great fighters? Seems to me you're coming to conclusions based on a predetermined bias. By the way, all those fighters are in the IBHOF. I'll bet you cash money Antonio Tarver doesn't get that Honor anytime soon after his retirement if ever.

When you're dealing with someone who starts with a premise such as "all fighters prior to 1960 suck until proven otherwise" there's no point in talking to them as you won't have ANY common point of reference with them. No matter what evidence you bring that someone is a quality fighter the argument will always return to "he only fought bums". No logic or evidence will EVER do any good because the person's starting premise is skewed. They will always wind up arguing in a circle because every argument will always return to their initial premise. It's the lense that they see everything through. It may very well be that it has some sort of foundation in their overall world-view which is something they will cling to with something akin to religious faith. A good example of this is trying to have any sort of rational discussion with someone who believes that every generation is superior to the prior: You're up against someone who has the most fervent faith in the cult of "progress" and no argument no matter how rational will shake it. In my experience it's pointless to try and have any intellectual discussion with people who have a radically different world-view or basic premises from you as the lack of a common frame of reference creates something akin to two people who speak completely different languages trying to speak to one another. It simply results in two people talking past one another.

Poet

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE=r.burgundy;8186112]

ive seen yarosz fight vince dundee,and apostoli fight freddie steele.these dudes were bums man.i dont have any bias.if somebody got skill,i give them props.flash ellorde was the truth,but many others werent.i find race plays a huge part in pereserving these guys "greatness".

This is a crappy picture, but if you can't see the skills both these guys have than you don't know what you're looking for or talking about. And what the hell would race have to do with anything?

[JAB5239]

When you're dealing with someone who starts with a premise such as "all fighters prior to 1960 suck until proven otherwise" there's no point in talking to them as you won't have ANY common point of reference with them. No matter what evidence you bring that someone is a quality fighter the argument will always return to "he only fought bums". No logic or evidence will EVER do any good because the person's starting premise is skewed. They will always wind up arguing in a circle because every argument will always return to their initial premise. It's the lense that they see everything through. It may very well be that it has some sort of foundation in their overall world-view which is something they will cling to with something akin to religious faith. A good example of this is trying to have any sort of rational discussion with someone who believes that every generation is superior to the prior: You're up against someone who has the most fervent faith in the cult of "progress" and no argument no matter how rational will shake it. In my experience it's pointless to try and have any intellectual discussion with people who have a radically different world-view or basic premises from you as the lack of a common frame of reference creates something akin to two people who speak completely different languages trying to speak to one another. It simply results in two people talking past one another.

Poet

You're 100% right, but Im just thick headed like that.

[r.burgundy]

[QUOTE=JAB5239;8186417]

This is a crappy picture, but if you can't see the skills both these guys have than you don't know what you're looking for or talking about. And what the hell would race have to do with anything?

i guess your easily impressed.please tell me whats so skillful.they way he misses every jab,they way they both protect themselves,or maybe those wild ass lunges.you mean to sit there and tell me you cant see a difference between the skill and technique of those 2 as oppose to these 2.



you think either 1 of those guys would have a chance with these 2?

[r.burgundy]

Re what Ali said I'm sure someone with more patience than me could probably find a video of him praising the same guys,Ali never let opinion even his own get in the way of a good line. A more modern fighter, Tyson, is very complimentary on the old school fighters. No not every fighter Greb fought was a world beater he had a lot of club fighters in the 300 but an awful lot of great fighters too, you have more fights you fight more rubbish and more quality thats maths. Tunney was a very good fighter, very clever at studying his opponents and nullyfying them, bit like Hopkins?



Tito and Oscar were Welters the other fighters wern't at MW

You would probably find it hard to find many fighters who actually beat a prime atg at their weight, those fights are as rare as hens teeth. As for HW's no Louis didn't but nor did Tyson, Holmes, the Klits, Lewis etc etc. In fact the only one that comes to mind is Ali beating Foreman.

Hopkins resume is similar to Haglers in that his best wins at MW are against fighters moving up in weight. Monzon had Griffith and Napoles but Valdez, Briscoe and Benvenuti were all solid MW's. Personally I rate Hagler and Monzon over Hopkins.

ali didnt like joe louis,tho he attended his funeral.he didnt like him as a fighter but he respected him as a man.ali has my opinion.he says white america preserves their champions.these guys dont have skills.i think they had skills,but only for the time they fought in.

greb himself couldve been a club fighter.if we didnt have video of mayorga,and he retired after beating forrest,we might think he was a great boxer.but we know otherwise.

hopkins fought better mw's than hagler fought.i would pick sosa,mercado and johnson to beat any mw hagler fought.hopkins also won the linear light h.w title.hagler wanted no parts of spinks or quawi.he played his career very safe

[r.burgundy]

Yeah, Hearns was a WW, but he was also naturally a LMW and MW and when he fought Hagler he was a MW, not a WW. He was never smaller than Hagler. At the time they fought Hearns was a genuine 160 pounder. In fact he was better as a 154 pounder than a WW and was not naturally smaller than Hagler. Hearns was perfectly fine at MW and was bigger than Hagler.

I mean, Hearns is rated higher as a JMW than as a WW. Does that mean he is a WW or JMW from your point of view? Was he a small JMW now because you say he was a WW?

Hearns is one of the few guys that was definitely not smaller, naturally or otherwise, than anyone he faced from 147 to 160.

Was Williams the smaller man against Martinez just because he started at 147 and was there longer? No. HIs size was his bioggest advantage ion that fight. Without he would lost quite badly. Hearns is one of the few guys who was a genuine 147 through 160 pounder. He wasn't naturally smaller than Hagler. Even against guys at LHW through to CW he wasn't small. He was perfectly suited to fighting a prime Virgil Hill at 175, along with Dennis Andries whom he brutally KO'd. None of these guys were bigger than him and not one of them was able to impose what you would call their massive natural size advantage being that he was a WW and they LHW's. You wanna know why? Because they weren't bigger than him. Hearns was a natural at nearly every weight he was at because in terms of size he was one of those rare freaks that could fight just as easily at 160 as at 147.

He was still bigger at 160 than everyone he fought. Even Barkley couldn;t impose his size on Hearns and Barkley was a monstrous MW. He was just lucky he was able to catch him with that shot.

He also knocked out everyone he faced at 160 apart from the iron chinned Doug DeWitt. I'd call that a pretty good KO record at 160.

In fact, his KO record above 147 is astonishing. That's why he is called one of the greatest single punch KO artists of all time. How many fights did he have above 147? About 35 or so? He knocked out all but about ten and that's across weights from JMW to CW including some of his best one punch highlight reel KO's. He knocked out all but two of his opponents above LHW, which was probably about fifteen fights. Not bad for a past it WW.

Anyway, saying Hagler couldn't take a shot based on your theory of him never fighting a guy that was as big as him is absurd. Face it, Hopkins would never hurt Hagler. He just wouldn't. He's not one of those guys that could and whatever you're basing it off is wrong. He wouldn't even try to. He didn't even try to finish his opponents until he knew they were badly hurt and couldn't do anything back.

Was Mugabi not a big enough puncher and size for you? Hearns? Bennie Briscoe? Come on, of all people, to say Hagler couldn't take a shot from Hopkins, of all people. That's just funny.

Not only that, but if we use your great theory, that means Hagler would have an easy time hurting Hopkins since Hopkins was dropped twice and hurt badly against Mercano in that draw he got against him, who only had ten knockouts in twenty wins and was knocked out in every one of his losses and those KO wins were against absolute bums. Accordingly, that would mean Hagler would knock out Hopkins yes?

I don't get you mate.

come on man.to say their the same size is silly.thats like saying duran was naturally bigger than hagler cause he fought at 175.hearns was 1 of the guys who let the sport retire him.you talk about his big punch but he k.o'd absolutely nobody of note above 160.yory campus almost k.o'd john duddy.thats what happens when you fight bums.

barkley couldnt impose his size lol.he knocked hearns smoove out.he walked through hearns shots.hearns was a great boxer as well as a big punch and anybody of not that hearns k.od was below 160.even if you want say he was a natural at 154,that would still put him 6lbs short of hagler,who was considered big for mw.big difference between hearns and williams is that williams walks into the ring around 170,at whatever weight.when hearns fought at 175 he came into most fights well under the limit.

i didnt say hagler couldnt take a shot.but stop actin like he isnt human.he can be broken down like anybody else.as far as mercado,that was early in hopkins career and hopkins wasnt badly hurt and hopkins chopped him up in the rematch.mercado was also around 6'3 and had advantages hagler wouldnt have

[StarshipTrooper]

Yawn.....height is the most meaningless physical attribute in boxing. Check a fighter's reach not his height

Poet

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE=r.burgundy;8186566]

i guess your easily impressed.please tell me whats so skillful.they way he misses every jab,they way they both protect themselves,or maybe those wild ass lunges.you mean to sit there and tell me you cant see a difference between the skill and technique of those 2 as oppose to these 2.



you think either 1 of those guys would have a chance with these 2?

Put the Apostoli fight in color and at the same speed as the Toney-McCallum fight and you wouldn't have a question about their skills. You simply lack the understanding or objectivity to see past this black and white bias you have. Apostoli in my opinion fights similar to an orthodox Marvin Hagler the way he uses his jab and two fisted attack while pressuring most of the time. He's also very good at slipping punches and countering. I have no doubt he would have been a top fighter in any era.