Tweet
well eubank hadn't been champ for years. jones was totally shot. hopkins was a champ but he was still 43 and well past his best and it was a controversial decision that hopkins should have won if you use the official scoring criteria to score fights and not just workrate which means nothing when officially scoring. which category does flapping your arms around and wildly missing go under? ring generalship maybe?
-
-
The first fight was controversial, I had Collins winning by 1 point but you could easily have gone the other way. The 2nd fight was very close too, However Collins won so lets not debate, Its pointless.
My question to you is what makes Calzaghe's resume better than Eubank's? He did beat him and some good fighters (Although the Reid fight is controversial aswell as the Hopkins one). Calzaghe did beat Kessler and Lacy too but I think Eubank fought and beat better opposition to be honest.Comment
-
Whos Joe beat apart from Kessler and Lacy, Roy jones? who he stated in his 2005 book that "he would never jones face due to him being nothing but a shadow of his former self and that he would gain nothing by knocking him out for a 3rd time" wich he didnt even do he was the one who got dropped and hurt in the first round. His best win is Hopkins whos prehistoric anyway and was robbed in the eyes of many.
He didnt even have the balls to fight Glen Johnson who was too much of a risk he pulled out of fights with him a couple of times saying his hand was hurt then fought some no mark **** a few weeks later lmaoComment
-
Eubank was not champion when Calzaghe beat him. He had just lost the 2nd fight to Collins and was fighting for the vacant belt (That Collins won from him). So he wasnt the recognized champion at the time.
Hopkins had won the title from Tarver, But like I said before. That fight is very debatable. One thing that I think hurts Calzaghe's resume is that he went over the U.S to fight two old "legends" in Hopkins and Jones then refuses to give Carl Froch the oppurtunity that Eubank gave him. Calzaghe is regarded very highly but U.K fans but he really should have taken that fight.Comment
-
Ricky Hatton best fighter !!Comment
-
Funny that nobody ever mentions Glen Johnson when talking about Calzaghe, Calzaghe should have fought him after he beat Jones and Tarver because he was recognized as the no1 LHW at that time. However Johnson lost the rematch to Tarver who then lost to Hopkins. So I can see why he fought B-Hop instead.Comment
-
I think Hopkins, even in his 40s and at LHW, was a better boxer than anyone Eubank beat. As for the rest of their resumes, it's a tough one. I'd say that Benn and Watson were probably better than Kessler and Lacy, though Kessler may win in a few weeks time and change that viewpoint. If you are considering belts won and defended that Calzaghe is ahead in that respect as well.
The Reid fight was close, but you could say the same thing about several Eubank wins where he was given decisions that many disagreed with, and against far lesser fighters than Robin Reid.
In a head to head I think Calzaghe's speed and workrate would always give Eubank problems. Chris liked to control the tempo and fight at his own pace, and so even at his best he would have problems with Calzaghe, Collins and Watson, though I agree that he was past-prime by the time he lost to Collins and Calzaghe.Comment
-
Id proberbly have
1. Lewis
2. Eubank
3. Calzaghe
4. Hamed
5. Hatton
Have I missed anyone?Comment
Comment