-
-
Floyd Mayweather Jr. Floyd has the better wins against the better caliber opponets!Comment
-
Let's try to introduce a bit of rationality here. I can't see how anyone can seriously argue that Floyd - a four (five?) weight world champion's resume is inferior to Joe's. Some would go so far as to say winning belts at so many divisions obviates any questions about the standard of opponent when evaluating the fighter's true worth. And they'd have something of a point. Look at how tough Ricky Hatton finds jumping ONE division - and Hatton is no bum by any stretch of the imagination. Floyd deserves all the plaudits he receives. No question. The man is a living legend and one of the greatest fighters of all time.
The above said, I can't see any justification for claiming "miles of difference" either.
Calzaghe's resume is good. Very good.
1. Hopkins. It's just ****** to claim Hopkins is nowhere near his best. Kelly Pavlik mightn't be the most gifted fighter in the world, but gifts alone have never equalled world titles in the history of sport. A wheezing, geriatric, arthritic Hopkins could not have beaten Pavlik. He's too good for that. No, Hopkins isn't the fighter he was when ... say ... Roy Jones put him away. But then that Hopkins made a lot more mistakes than the current version. Bernard is one of those rare breeds whose fighting style doesn't require a heart that can beat at 140 per minute for 12 rounds without exploding like watermelon with a dum dum shot through it. If we were living in China 1000 years ago he'd be the Kung Fu master who patiently watches the young upstart spend ten minutes trying to impress him with his moves and then drops him into an embarrassed heap with a lazy sweep of the arm. Sweet science. A win over Hopkins today - no matter how close - is a GREAT achievement. The only greater being a win over Floyd I imagine.
2. Eubank. Who said Calzaghe has no "recognisable names" on his resume prior to Lacy? What sport are you a fan of did you say? Granted, Eubank wasn't in his prime* and took the fight at short notice, but it was still an excellent win - especially when you consider how green Calzaghe was at the time. It's also worth making the oft-repeated point that Calzaghe claims this to be the hardest fight he's had. Harder than B-Hop. Harder than Kessler.
3. Reid. Anyone who claims Robin Reid was some "Eurobum" can't have watched him fight very often. The guy was a very smart technician with a rock solid chin and more than useful power (the sickening - strangles-your- heart kind as opposed to the coma-inducing type). He won an Olympic bronze medal and would - I'm sure - have been far more widely recognised had he not been robbed of a world title by Sven ****ing Ottke, or I should say those judges with their ****s in Ottke's mouth.
4. Kessler. Top fighter. P4P easily. It's a pity he's been so inactive since losing to Calzaghe because had he not been I am certain he would have justified all the praise that's been heaped on him over the years. Fearsome power. A stone for a chin. A howitzer for an uppercut.
5. Jeff Lacy. How many rediscovered threads with embarrassing claims of greatness made by knowledgeable members of this message board will it take for people to understand that the lumbering labouring journeyman we see today was MADE SO by Calzaghe? Seriously. But let's say for a moment that Lacy was a touch overrated (a touch, mind. Anything more than that and he'd never have won a belt). Calzaghe's PERFORMANCE that night ALONE is worthy of special praise. Floyd himself would have been proud of that one.
6. Jones. I'm not going to try and turn lead into gold with this one. Jones is nothing like the fighter he once was. That much is obvious. However, I don't believe he's so far gone that winning in such fashion (a drubbing after round three) is of no merit. Many a good fighter has been dazzled by the bright lights of MSG and failed to perform. Similarly, many a good fighter has held a living legend in awe and lost the fight because of it. Considering his atrocious start, Joe performed as well as he could ever have hoped.
7. Veit/Mitchell/Brewer/Woodhall/Bika - Again, I won't attempt to claim any of these guys are P4P. They aren't. What they are are good quality fighters/belt holders. The kind of hard-night's-work-for-modest-pay all long-reigning champions must face and defeat. They're included to counter the claim that Calzaghe had nothing but easy fights prior to Lacy. All these guys - and some I've not included - would rather die before they gave anyone an "easy night".
No. It's not Floyd's resume. But that doesn't mean it's a bad one, or even an average one. Over the years Calzaghe has mixed it with some rough tough characters. World champions. ATGs. HOF. P4P. In the main he's fought without the bright lights and glamour, which can make it all the more difficult to stay motivated.
As for the comment that winning past your 30s doesn't make those wins any better. I don't believe that. Yes, some fighters - like Hopkins - are capable of compensating for their declining physical abilities with experience and wisdom so to be better at 40 than they were at 30. But Joe's game has ALWAYS been built on physical ability - being fit enough to overwhelm an opponent with 100+ punches per round - every round. For Joe to STILL - at age 35(?) - be able to outwork guys ten years his younger in arguably the most physically demanding sport in the world means he is a very special fighter indeed. Certainly he's a lot better than he's given credit for by many.
Joe's resume is that of a multiple-weight and great world champion. Floyd's is that of a multiple-weight and great world champion. Floyd has the edge (mainly because he's done the business at more weights) and that's fine. I'm sure Joe would be the first to admit Floyd's position at the top of the tree. Both fighters have earned every penny and plaudit they've received. Both fighters have given the sport more than they've taken and both will be sorely missed when gone.
* Eubank wasn't past prime in the usual sense. The truth is that ever since the Watson tragedy Eubank (with the exception of the Thompson fights in which he felt justified because of the weight disadvantage) refused to a) hit full tilt and b) finish off an injured opponent. Against Steve Collins he threw away a certain victory by flat out refusing to follow up a heavy knoockdown. So, it's not a simple issue of Calzaghe rolling over a faded champ. Eubank remained highly competent in all areas other than finishing. The fact that Eubank won many fights after Watson II is testament to his abilities in other areas of his game.Comment
-
calzaghe has a resume??????????Comment
-
who did mayweather beat better than jones jr, hopkins.
no1.Comment
-
Bernard wasn't good enough to beat Taylor. That's what Calzaghe brought up prior to their fight.
Bernard had become a boring fighter for a reason; he was on the decline.
I think it says more with Kelly being overrated and should always stick to fighting at MW and never go into a fight with a crafty fighter.
Hopkins prime ended 8 years ago and ever since he was on the decline...but yes, he has always been smart enough to make up for it to a point...except when he had to go up against a young athletic type like Taylor.
He is still a "decent" fighter, but not what he once was. His biggest problem has been his stamina.
This version of Hopkins doesn't stand a better chance at beating the Roy that beat the younger more athletic Hopkins.
People act like Hopkins was so green, but the truth is, he had been fighting in prison and was the prison Champ. Roy at the time also only had 21 fights and had an injured right hand.
And Jones Jr was shot...we should just stop talking about that fight since it is an embarrassment to have him on your resume.Comment
Tweet
Comment