Nigel Benn: "Calzaghe Beats Me, Hagler, Hearns, Sugar"

[znarfv_y2k8]

Maybe u have to open ur eyes wide open...

So you think Calzaghe has a "very good chance" against a prime Michael Spinks? Bob Foster? Dwight Muhammad Qawi?

Light-heavyweights are whom he should be matched up with anyway, rather than smaller guys like Leonard and Hagler, and Duran who peaked at friggin 135 for crying out loud.

175 is where Calzaghe would most likely be fighting under the old weigh-in rules anyway (even if 168 did exist before the mid 80s).

Maybe u have to open ur eyes wide open & read w/ understanding....i'm not protecting Joe here or a Joe fan either, don't be too biased considers Joe's standing not that his great, who r u to say to not even give a very good fighter like Joe a chance...ur not a boxing fan, u don't even how to weigh up things....

I'm talking here of facts, in response to Nigel Benn's comments about the best MW not LHW...ur out of ur way/mind talking about Michael Spinks, etc...

[znarfv_y2k8]

Study ur lesson...

Calzaghe is a light-heavyweight back in the same-day weigh-in era. That's a four-division difference between Leonard's prime weight. That's a three to four division difference between Hearns's best weight (pick 147 or 154). That's two divisions above Hagler, who never cared much to venture above middleweight.

There's height and reach, but there's also frame. Leonard in his prime in the early 80s would be bloated if he tried to move up to face a light-heavyweight, or would be at a huge weight disadvantage if he chose to remain light. Same with Hearns. We've seen how Leonard looked when he ventured above 160 in the late 80s. He didn't look good, and that was against a shrunk down Lalonde and a Hearns whom many (including Leonard) thought was shot after the Barkley KO and struggle with Kinchen.

U have to study ur resources first about Leonard, Hearns, Hagler, Duran, find out by urself how many times they've fight at LMW, MW, SMW....watch it by urself their performances before u laid ur observations...& don't even deny them chances as what u've think of Calzaghe...

[Dave Rado]

Maybe u have to open ur eyes wide open & read w/ understanding....i'm not protecting Joe here or a Joe fan either, don't be too biased considers Joe's standing not that his great, who r u to say to not even give a very good fighter like Joe a chance...ur not a boxing fan, u don't even how to weigh up things....

I'm talking here of facts, in response to Nigel Benn's comments about the best MW not LHW...ur out of ur way/mind talking about Michael Spinks, etc...

Thread Stealer knows more about boxing than you'll ever know, as his rep power shows. You've completely misunderstood both his posts - try reading them more carefully before replying to them.

[Thread Stealer]

Maybe u have to open ur eyes wide open & read w/ understanding....i'm not protecting Joe here or a Joe fan either, don't be too biased considers Joe's standing not that his great, who r u to say to not even give a very good fighter like Joe a chance...ur not a boxing fan, u don't even how to weigh up things....

I'm talking here of facts, in response to Nigel Benn's comments about the best MW not LHW...ur out of ur way/mind talking about Michael Spinks, etc...

What are you talking about? You claimed that Calzaghe has a "very good chance" against the "great LHWs".

Spinks= top 5 LHW all-time.
Foster= top 5 LHW all-time
Qawi= top 15 or so LHW all-time

I have less of a problem with a very good fighter in Calzaghe beating great middleweights, where he'd have a size advantage.

When you say someone has a "very good chance", it implies, at least IMO, that he'd be a favorite.

Against those LHWs, Calzaghe would be an underdog. He wouldn't be a hopeless underdog, or a huge 10-1 or so, but he'd be a solid underdog of say, 3 to 1.

U have to study ur resources first about Leonard, Hearns, Hagler, Duran, find out by urself how many times they've fight at LMW, MW, SMW....watch it by urself their performances before u laid ur observations...& don't even deny them chances as what u've think of Calzaghe...

Please. I've seen them.

Leonard looked poor against Lalonde when he fought above 160. He was past his prime by then, after the inactivity, drug problems, and retina. He struggled for 8 rounds against Lalonde, and Lalonde had to shrink down a weight division to fight Leonard so the World Boxing Crooks could award SRL 2 divisional titles. He also looked poor and was lucky to receive a draw in his next fight against another fading fighter, in Hearns, whom was viewed as shot due to his loss to Barkley and struggle with Kinchen.

Duran was up and down above 147. And above 160? What fights did he look good there? He was old for most of them, or if not old, simply bloated from partying too much. Hell, he peaked at 135 in the Dejesus rematch in 1978 for crying out loud. That's 5 weight divisions below Calzaghe's best weight. And Duran was weighing in on the DAY OF THE FIGHT, not 30 hours before.

[znarfv_y2k8]

Check this out...

Calzaghe is a light-heavyweight back in the same-day weigh-in era. That's a four-division difference between Leonard's prime weight. That's a three to four division difference between Hearns's best weight (pick 147 or 154). That's two divisions above Hagler, who never cared much to venture above middleweight.

There's height and reach, but there's also frame. Leonard in his prime in the early 80s would be bloated if he tried to move up to face a light-heavyweight, or would be at a huge weight disadvantage if he chose to remain light. Same with Hearns. We've seen how Leonard looked when he ventured above 160 in the late 80s. He didn't look good, and that was against a shrunk down Lalonde and a Hearns whom many (including Leonard) thought was shot after the Barkley KO and struggle with Kinchen.

Baby feed u... For your info check this out....All of them have been fighting in the middleweight champioships in the later part & displayed excellent performances...Leonard/Duran 3 is in the WBC SMW Championship, Leonard/Hearns 2 WBC & WBO SMW Championship, Leonard/Hagler WBC MW Championship, Hagler/Hearns WBC/WBA/IBF MW Championship, Hearns/Duran WBC LMW Championship, Hagler/Duran WBC/WBA/IBF MW Championship...

[znarfv_y2k8]

U have to check ur dictionary...

What are you talking about? You claimed that Calzaghe has a "very good chance" against the "great LHWs".

Spinks= top 5 LHW all-time.
Foster= top 5 LHW all-time
Qawi= top 15 or so LHW all-time

I have less of a problem with a very good fighter in Calzaghe beating great middleweights, where he'd have a size advantage.

When you say someone has a "very good chance", it implies, at least IMO, that he'd be a favorite.

Against those LHWs, Calzaghe would be an underdog. He wouldn't be a hopeless underdog, or a huge 10-1 or so, but he'd be a solid underdog of say, 3 to 1.



Please. I've seen them.

Leonard looked poor against Lalonde when he fought above 160. He was past his prime by then, after the inactivity, drug problems, and retina. He struggled for 8 rounds against Lalonde, and Lalonde had to shrink down a weight division to fight Leonard so the World Boxing Crooks could award SRL 2 divisional titles. He also looked poor and was lucky to receive a draw in his next fight against another fading fighter, in Hearns, whom was viewed as shot due to his loss to Barkley and struggle with Kinchen.

Duran was up and down above 147. And above 160? What fights did he look good there? He was old for most of them, or if not old, simply bloated from partying too much. Hell, he peaked at 135 in the Dejesus rematch in 1978 for crying out loud. That's 5 weight divisions below Calzaghe's best weight. And Duran was weighing in on the DAY OF THE FIGHT, not 30 hours before.

if u say very good chance it doesn't sounds conclusive...considering Joe's unbeaten record & 2nd P4P today not necessarily as a fan but to lay down reasonable basis...don't be to die hard fanatic w/ these lightheavyweights they are not worth to talk about...ur out of ur way...

[znarfv_y2k8]

Ha..ha..

Thread Stealer knows more about boxing than you'll ever know, as his rep power shows. You've completely misunderstood both his posts - try reading them more carefully before replying to them.

It's not about quantity, it's all about quality...the quality of information being laid down...we're now in latest technology & every important information were accessible in every corners of the world, u don't own all the information necessary as if ur only the right to discuss things...u don't even know me to judge like that...and i don't even know u...we're here to share information as accurate as possible...

[znarfv_y2k8]

What are you talking about? You claimed that Calzaghe has a "very good chance" against the "great LHWs".

Spinks= top 5 LHW all-time.
Foster= top 5 LHW all-time
Qawi= top 15 or so LHW all-time

I have less of a problem with a very good fighter in Calzaghe beating great middleweights, where he'd have a size advantage.

When you say someone has a "very good chance", it implies, at least IMO, that he'd be a favorite.

Against those LHWs, Calzaghe would be an underdog. He wouldn't be a hopeless underdog, or a huge 10-1 or so, but he'd be a solid underdog of say, 3 to 1.



Please. I've seen them.

Leonard looked poor against Lalonde when he fought above 160. He was past his prime by then, after the inactivity, drug problems, and retina. He struggled for 8 rounds against Lalonde, and Lalonde had to shrink down a weight division to fight Leonard so the World Boxing Crooks could award SRL 2 divisional titles. He also looked poor and was lucky to receive a draw in his next fight against another fading fighter, in Hearns, whom was viewed as shot due to his loss to Barkley and struggle with Kinchen.

Duran was up and down above 147. And above 160? What fights did he look good there? He was old for most of them, or if not old, simply bloated from partying too much. Hell, he peaked at 135 in the Dejesus rematch in 1978 for crying out loud. That's 5 weight divisions below Calzaghe's best weight. And Duran was weighing in on the DAY OF THE FIGHT, not 30 hours before.

The growing interest that people showed here it's because of the Nigel Benn's comments about the Great Middleweights linked to Joe Calzaghe...not of Michael Spinks or any other boxers u mentioned...if that is the case i don't give any interrst on it....my quote here about the chances of Joe against other best LMW, MW & SMW was a response to one who commented..."Originally Posted by theghost#1
I think Calzaghe stands a very good chance against all the great middleweights, super middleweights, and Light HW, in any era. It would be incredibly naive to think otherwise giving the fact that Joe has never lost."

[znarfv_y2k8]

Quality not quanty...

[QUOTE=Dave Rado;4713746]Thread Stealer knows more about boxing than you'll ever know, as his rep power shows. You've completely misunderstood both his posts - try reading them more carefully before replying to them.[/QUOTE]

It has backfired to you, i think u have to read & analyse things carefully before u give any judgment..try reading more of my quotes than relying on ur Godmind...

[cush3]

I really don't think so remember Calzaghe is a 12 round fighter and Hagler,Hearns,and Leonard were 15 round fighters,plus none of them are slappers like Calzaghe.They were real fighters and fought real fighters not people past their prime.