Calzaghe is overrated

[-Swizzy-]

Hey KSwizzy, I addressed a post to you a few pages back and you ignored it. Maybe I shouldn't bring this up, as your debating style seems to be to mention something irrelevant, and then when proven wrong accuse people of being nuthuggers, but I'd still like to hear your response.

Here my post is once more for you:



So, do you only rate fighters highly if they have fought great opposition or not? Simple question.

I never saw that post.

to answer your question, I rate fighters based on accomplishments and skill. mike tyson beat some really good heavyweights and the only reason for his down fall is the change of his training regimen and his mental downfall. I rate him in the top 15 but he could've easily been #1 all-time had he never gone to jail and his conditioning/training remained as it was in the 80's.

[Clegg]

I never saw that post.

to answer your question, I rate fighters based on accomplishments and skill. mike tyson beat some really good heavyweights and the only reason for his down fall is the change of his training regimen and his mental downfall. I rate him in the top 10 but he could've easily been #1 all-time had he never gone to jail and his conditioning/training remained as it was in the 80's.

No doubt Tyson's jail time and personal problems seriously affected his career, but the fact is that he never beat a great fighter.

You rate Tyson in the top 10 heavyweights ever despite him never beating an ATG who was anywhere near their prime. But yet Calzaghe isn't in the top 10 p4p because he never beat a great fighter?

One rule for Calzaghe, another for everyone else.

[-Swizzy-]

No doubt Tyson's jail time and personal problems seriously affected his career, but the fact is that he never beat a great fighter.

You rate Tyson in the top 10 heavyweights ever despite him never beating an ATG who was anywhere near their prime. But yet Calzaghe isn't in the top 10 p4p because he never beat a great fighter?

One rule for Calzaghe, another for everyone else.

tyson ko'd spinks who ruled the divison for 3 years. and he ko'd holmes who ruled the division for half a decade. he also beat about 15 other fighters who were ranked in the top 5 of that division at one point or another and he did it in dominating fashion. and when I wrote top 10 I was thinking top 15, I made a typo. I've edited it now. I've said many times before that I think tyson is a top 15 hw all-time.

[Clegg]

tyson ko'd spinks who ruled the divison for 3 years..

So? Calzaghe has ruled a division for 10 years and you don't seem to consider that enough to put him in the top 10 p4p, so why does Spinks get so much credit for having done the same thing for seven years less?

and he ko'd holmes who ruled the division for half a decade..

Holmes was coming off of two years of inactivity and had lost his last two fights. Beating a great fighter who is years past his best and a shadow of his former self isn't the same thing as beating him when he still has his skills intact.

he also beat about 15 other fighters who were ranked in the top 5 of that division at one point or another and he did it in dominating fashion..

And again, so what? Were they great fighters? No.

[-Swizzy-]

So? Calzaghe has ruled a division for 10 years and you don't seem to consider that enough to put him in the top 10 p4p, so why does Spinks get so much credit for having done the same thing for seven years less?

and he ko'd holmes who ruled the division for half a decade..

Holmes was coming off of two years of inactivity and had lost his last two fights. Beating a great fighter who is years past his best and a shadow of his former self isn't the same thing as beating him when he still has his skills intact.

he also beat about 15 other fighters who were ranked in the top 5 of that division at one point or another and he did it in dominating fashion..

And again, so what? Were they great fighters? No.

you are comparing the smw division to the heavyweight division? the heavyweight division is a vast weight class where anyone that weights 200 pounds+ can fight in and thus it is the most flooded division. the smw division has not had a single great fighter to name other than calzaghe who is only great cuz he is unbeaten and he ruled a division with no other great fighter. agreed, holmes came off of 2 losses and a period of inactivity, but that ko victory is still better than calzaghe's best victory which was a UD over kessler. You cannot compare the smw divison of the last 10 years to the hw division of the 80's even though it might not have been the hayday of the hw division, it was surely a much better division than the smw division ever was.

[Clegg]

you are comparing the smw division to the heavyweight division? the heavyweight division is a vast weight class where anyone that weights 200 pounds+ can fight in and thus it is the most flooded division. the smw division has not had a single great fighter to name other than calzaghe who is only great cuz he is unbeaten and he ruled a division with no other great fighter..

This is all meaningless. It doesn't matter how many heavyweights there are, if there aren't great fighters then...they aren't great fighters.

agreed, holmes came off of 2 losses and a period of inactivity, but that ko victory is still better than calzaghe's best victory which was a UD over kessler..

Although he had a one-dimensional style, Kessler was strong, fast and punched hard. Holmes was old, slow, and didn't throw a meaningful punch or do anything impressive or notable at all in the fight. The Kessler that Joe beat isn't as good as prime Holmes, but he's better than the version that fought Tyson.

Again though this is meaningless, because Holmes was nowhere near his peak when he fought Tyson, and therefore doesn't qualify for your "you have to beat a great fighter to be a great fighter", unless beating a great fighter when he is far past his best and coming off two years of inactivity counts, in which case Berbick's win over Ali is worth a lot more than I thought...

You cannot compare the smw divison of the last 10 years to the hw division of the 80's even though it might not have been the hayday of the hw division, it was surely a much better division than the smw division ever was.

Great fighters? Did you say something about great fighters? No? Oh, well then I guess this is meaningless too.

[-Swizzy-]

This is all meaningless. It doesn't matter how many heavyweights there are, if there aren't great fighters then...they aren't great fighters.

Although he had a one-dimensional style, Kessler was strong, fast and punched hard. Holmes was old, slow, and didn't throw a meaningful punch or do anything impressive or notable at all in the fight. The Kessler that Joe beat isn't as good as prime Holmes, but he's better than the version that fought Tyson.

Again though this is meaningless, because Holmes was nowhere near his peak when he fought Tyson, and therefore doesn't qualify for your "you have to beat a great fighter to be a great fighter", unless beating a great fighter when he is far past his best and coming off two years of inactivity counts, in which case Berbick's win over Ali is worth a lot more than I thought...



Great fighters? Did you say something about great fighters? No? Oh, well then I guess this is meaningless too.

I was comparing the tyson's fight with holmes to calzaghe's fight with kessler but in no way do I think thats tyson's best win. I think his quick ko's of berbick, thomas and spinks were his better wins but I still think his holmes ko win is better than calzaghe's kessler UD win. cuz remember, after the tyson fight holmes' record was 21-3 with one of those victories being ray mercer. also, tyson is the only one to ko holmes in his 75 career fights.

[Addison]

Damn, this thread is ballin..

[Mech.]

Floyd Mayweather
Manny Pacquiao
Juan Manuel Marquez
Israel Vazquez
Kelly Pavlik
Bernard Hopkins
Juan Diaz
Miguel Cotto
Rafael Marquez
Paul Williams

Classic..............

[robjr]

forgot about this thread... funny ****