Limey Lang

[Left Hook Tua]

I warned you Tua that if you tried to prove me wrong I'd only make you look stupid. Now you're resorting to silly and childish tactics by proclaiming random fighters to be ATGs.

tell me again how the hearns barkley beat for the title was shot.

also tell me how the tko win was lucky.

[Left Hook Tua]

Mentioning Barkley-Hearns II is like talking about Fenech-Nelson III.

Totally irrelevant.

Roldan was clearly different after Hagler had beaten him and the Hearns loss was one of his last fights before he retired a year later.

i'm not gullible demise. pretend to know stuff against someone else. you're not fooling anyone here.

Who the fuck is Iran Barkley?

Seriously.

Before you ever say ' he beat Hearns ' it was bullshit. He got a lucky win over a shot Hearns and that showed in the years after.

Nigel Benn destroyed Barkey in 1 round, but do I go around saying Benn's better than Hearns? No, because that's idiotic.

[D-MiZe]

I admit, using the word ' shot ' is a little too strong. Every dog has his day and Hearns, hardly known for a strong chin, was mauled by Barkley.

I don't even know why we're on about Barkley-Hearns now. My original point was on about Calzaghe and you've dragged me into this mess. I've got bad memory, give me a few hours and it'll come back to me.

[Left Hook Tua]

I admit, using the word ' shot ' is a little too strong. Every dog has his day and Hearns, hardly known for a strong chin, was mauled by Barkley.

I don't even know why we're on about Barkley-Hearns now. My original point was on about Calzaghe and you've dragged me into this mess. I've got bad memory, give me a few hours and it'll come back to me.

i don't think you have bad memory.

i honestly think you were trying to talk about something you didn't know about through boxrec.

you saw the "SD WIN" and saw it was 1992 , made your assumptions and posted what you did not knowing any better.


only explanation for calling hearns "shot" and calling it a ko win a "lucky" win.


before the barkley fight , hearns knocked out a bunch of top 10 fighters from 154-175 claiming 3 belts along the way.

hearns was not shot.

hence why barkley winning was "UPSET OF THE YEAR" by ring magazine.

[Left Hook Tua]

between not knowing who vic darchinyan was and this......

don't ever talk to me about boxing again , demise.



it's okay not to know things. boxing is an old sport with a lot of history.

no one is gonna be knowledgable about every fight and every fighter.

that's why you ask questions and talk about it so you do know and learn.


arguing about a subject you don't know about is just a waste of time. yours and whoever you're talking to.

[Clegg]

Don't be so stupid, Tua.

I'm trying to say that like Hagler, Calzaghe dominated a division. He wiped out all competition, from gatekeeper to top challengers. Then stepped up and beats Hopkins who is still going strong.

Hearns - Hopkins
Duran - Roy Jones Jr

So apart from Hearns & Duran, who else does Hagler have?

Duran is a blown up lightweight too, at least Calzaghe fought Hopkins and RJJ at their weights.

I think the win over Hopkins does a lot for Calzaghe, but I wouldn't rate it as high as Hagler's win over Hearns, especially considering how close it was.

Another thing you have to take into account is that Hagler actually beat top 10 contenders on the way up, so it's not just his title reign to consider. Also, I can't say I was watching boxing in the 80s but AFAIK Hagler beat virtually everybody worth facing and lost about 1-2 rounds in his entire title reign, whereas Calzaghe didn't face Ottke and a few others who were top 5 at various points in time. From Eubank to Lacy is something like 7 years without facing the top challenge in the division.

[D-MiZe]

A waste of time it is indeed, didn't think you'd bite so hard though Tua.

No one ever wants to talk a real conversation with me, the only way is to chat shit.

[D-MiZe]

On a serious note, has anyone watched Leo Santa Cruz?

I think the guy is going to go onto big things, I love watching him. Need to download more of his fights but I'm banned from the trading block.

[Left Hook Tua]

I think the win over Hopkins does a lot for Calzaghe, but I wouldn't rate it as high as Hagler's win over Hearns, especially considering how close it was.

Another thing you have to take into account is that Hagler actually beat top 10 contenders on the way up, so it's not just his title reign to consider. Also, I can't say I was watching boxing in the 80s but AFAIK Hagler beat virtually everybody worth facing and lost about 1-2 rounds in his entire title reign, whereas Calzaghe didn't face Ottke and a few others who were top 5 at various points in time. From Eubank to Lacy is something like 7 years without facing the top challenge in the division.

their reigns were a bit different.

as you said hagler was seen as the top dog while calzaghe (until the later years) was not a unified or undisputed champion and others were seen as better or equal. (sven ottke for a couple years was ranked higher for example)


but i think the main difference is their defenses.

with hagler being the top guy , a lot of his top defenses were from guys who won 1 , 2 , 3 good fights and on a little run who now earned a shot at the champion.

whereas calzaghe's top defenses were the opposite.

byron mitchell , charles brewer , robin reid.....all champions at one time.

calzaghe fought them not to unify when they were champions but after they have already lost their belt , hence had recent losses , also meaning their stock was lower than it would have been had they fought earlier.

[D-MiZe]

Pirog should fight Rubio next.

I can't believe Pirog was going to be a Macklin opponent at one point, what a shame that never happened.