Tweet
How you can possibly know what Joe would have done in a hypothetical situation is beyond me? As for Eubank he was only 31 years old when he and Joe fought. He also lost what many of the pundits thought was a close controversial fight for a cruiserwight title in his fight with Carl Thompson. Which was his next fight after his lose to Joe. Chris was also winning the rematch when the doc stopped the fight in the 9th round because Chris eyes swelled shut. As far as Carl Thompson is concerned, he may not have been one of the best in history. But, he was ranked in Ring magazines top ten at the time he fought Chris and he was also good enough to stop David Haye a few years after his fights with Chris.
-
-
What is really laughable is what you have claimed. And why? Because it is so easy to disprove. Joe, not to include the Bhop and Jones fights, fought nine fighters that were ranked in Rings top ten in his Super middleweight title fights. That included seven former or at that time champions. As far as Jones at super middleweight he never even unified any belts. So, what makes you think he was the best? His win over a fat pudgy Vinnie Paz?Comment
-
Joe been on that white girl again, no one is stopping him from coming back and fighting, why don't he just step up and do it if he so certain?Comment
-
Not going to say why? 168 doesn't have a deep history. From your posts in this thread, your logic seems to be that unifying titles is the way to become the greatest. That one win alone is greater than anything Calzaghe has ever done at 168, and it wasn't close, controversial or a struggle for him. Froch v Kessler will be the for the WBA/IBF titles, does that make them greater than RJJ?Comment
-
I don't hate Calzaghe like a lot of people do, but I'd pick Ward. Too versatile and sharp for Calzaghe.Comment
Comment