Calzaghe is overrated

[Chunk..]

]So the opponent has to be prime for a fighter to get any credit?[/B]

Mike Tyson is in trouble, he never beat a single live body then.

I didn't say that did i !!!

Prime Eubank vs prime Calazghe ain't a for gone conclusion. Calazghe milked that win like he just beaten a prime Eubank, which is bull****!

Carry on whinging.

[Clegg]

It's a bit annoying when people keep bring up that Eubank fight

* Eubank took that fight on short notice.

* It wasn't a prime Eubank.

Carry on.

The loser always has an excuse. Tarver was weight drained. Wright isn't a natural light-heavy. De la Hoya and Trinidad were too small for middleweight. You can go on and on, the fact is that after someone loses, people look around for an excuse. If you look hard enough you'll find one.

The facts are that Calzaghe is 5 years older now than Eubank was when they fought. Eubank did not fight particularly well against Steve Collins, despite being young enough and having enough notice. Eubank was a very good fighter but he had problems with certain styles. Calzaghe was the better fighter on the night and peak vs peak was better than Eubank. Maybe Eubank was a year or two past his best when they fought, but Calzaghe was several years away from his best, so it's evened out in my opinion.

[Kilrain]

For anyone to even bring up the Eubank win as anything credible is poor. Eubank came in at 2 weeks notice, he was completely over-the-hill, and even in his prime he got a bunch of bull**** decisions over guys like Tony Thornton anyway, Christ.

[Chunk..]

The loser always has an excuse. Tarver was weight drained. Wright isn't a natural light-heavy. De la Hoya and Trinidad were too small for middleweight. You can go on and on, the fact is that after someone loses, people look around for an excuse. If you look hard enough you'll find one.

The facts are that Calzaghe is 5 years older now than Eubank was when they fought. Eubank did not fight particularly well against Steve Collins, despite being young enough and having enough notice. Eubank was a very good fighter but he had problems with certain styles. Calzaghe was the better fighter on the night and peak vs peak was better than Eubank. Maybe Eubank was a year or two past his best when they fought, but Calzaghe was several years away from his best, so it's evened out in my opinion.

Very debatable.

Excuses??? What excuses???

He took that fight on short notice. That ain't an excuse, that's fact! and it was always going to be a telling factor in that fight.

[Clegg]

Very debatable.

Excuses??? What excuses???

He took that fight on short notice. That ain't an excuse, that's fact! and it was always going to be a telling factor in that fight.

All the other things I listed were facts as well. There are several fights where the guy who lost can name reasons for why his performance wasn't what it could've been. In my opinion the winner should be given the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not saying Eubank was in perfect condition, but his conditioning on the night looked to be as good as it had been in previous fights, and while he may have underestimated Calzaghe, I don't think that he would've taken the fight if he was unable to get into fighting shape for it. As I said, to me he looked to be in good shape.

[Clegg]

As I said, I do consider Calzaghe to be a great fighter. But if you're talking about, you know, inarguable greatness, I think that has to come by beating other great fighters. Thats the only watermark. Otherwise it's all subjective. That's like me seeing a 9-0 prospect no one has ever seen and saying, This guy is a great fighter. How does he prove it? He beats a great fighter. It's not rocket science. It's a universal language. You can't beat up chumps all your life and be considered a great fighter.

No, it's not rocket science, but you seemed to contradict yourself. Either you can be great despite not beating great fighters or you can't. No exceptions.

With regards to Tyson, he fought in a piss-poor era of HW's, though his greatness was plain to see

No it wasn't. Tyson never had to face top quality opposition who would've tested his ability. At their peak, Lewis, Ali, Frazier, Holmes, Louis, Marciano, Norton, Wlad, Johnson and several others would've tested Tyson's abilities in a way that would allow us to better judge just how good he was. But that test was never there for a young Tyson and so we cannot say for certain in the way that we can for other ATG fighters.

Calzaghe fought in a poor era of SMWs. Tyson's style was more impressive at first glance because it was exciting, but the guy who wins on points isn't necessarily inferior to the guy who wins by first round KO.

and in reality the subjectiveness was fairly negated by the fact that EVERYONE attested to his skill. In any case he proved it by beating Razor Ruddock...twice.

People in previous centuries who belonged to different cultures held views that we today would consider to be incorrect. The vast majority of people believing something does not make that belief any less subjective.

Ruddock wasn't a great fighter. Beating him is a less impressive fashion than Lennox Lewis wasn't anything to boast about, and certainly doesn't prove greatness.

[Kilrain]

I stopped reading when you claimed china-chin Wlad would have tested a prime Tyson.

[Clegg]

I stopped reading when you claimed china-chin Wlad would have tested a prime Tyson.

Moorer had a glass jaw too, but he beat Holyfield. Wlad has a longer reach, a better jab and a better defence than Moorer. He also hits a lot harder.

[Kilrain]

Holyfield wasn't a puncher like Tyson was. Wlad doesn't last 2 rounds with a prime Tyson, are you kidding? That chin-in-the-air Eastern-European style? Against Mike's constant aggression, bobbing and weaving, combination punching, strength?

[Clegg]

Holyfield wasn't a puncher like Tyson was. Wlad doesn't last 2 rounds with a prime Tyson, are you kidding? That chin-in-the-air Eastern-European style? Against Mike's constant aggression, bobbing and weaving, combination punching, strength?

I don't think that having your chin in the air is the Eastern-European style. If you watch more of the fighters from that region you'll see that.

Wlad made mistakes in previous fights but Steward seems to be the right trainer for him and I think he's improved a lot since his earlier defeats. It's not as if Tyson never went the distance in his prime, and he did so against lesser opponents than Wlad.