Calzaghe Deja Vu...?

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 18 Jun 2006, 11:08

lvlarc_uk wrote:We like to call it power with military precision

Of course he beat Lacy with speed & accuracy, but power comes into equation too.

Yeah, as does Calzaghe's haircut.

lvlarc · Post by **lvlarc** » 18 Jun 2006, 11:10

Power equals Force(Joe's unhuman like strength) over distance(millisecond accuracy punches)
Can't argue with that.

Of course I am kiddin'

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 18 Jun 2006, 12:12

so, when Kessler beats Beyer, will he get his props over here?

Saying Mundine could've beaten Kessler can be countered by Reid could've beaten Calzaghe if he hadn't fannied about over the first 3 rds.

ppl want to deny Kessler, but come on, he's the only natural foe for Calzaghe

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 18 Jun 2006, 12:43

lvlarc_uk wrote:Power equals Force(Joe's unhuman like strength) over distance(millisecond accuracy punches)
Can't argue with that.

Of course I am kiddin'

With "distance" very large, even good "force" translates at best into medicore "power" - according to your formula...

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 18 Jun 2006, 13:08

viciousmaussa wrote:so, when Kessler beats Beyer, will he get his props over here?

Saying Mundine could've beaten Kessler can be countered by Reid could've beaten Calzaghe if he hadn't fannied about over the first 3 rds.

ppl want to deny Kessler, but come on, he's the only natural foe for Calzaghe

Only because Kessler has the WBA belt.

He's only thought of Seriously by the more hardcore fans.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 18 Jun 2006, 13:17

Max Molyneux wrote:
viciousmaussa wrote:so, when Kessler beats Beyer, will he get his props over here?

Saying Mundine could've beaten Kessler can be countered by Reid could've beaten Calzaghe if he hadn't fannied about over the first 3 rds.

ppl want to deny Kessler, but come on, he's the only natural foe for Calzaghe
Only because Kessler has the WBA belt.

He's only thought of Seriously by the more hardcore fans.

.... which tend to be the more knowledgeable ones (i.e., the ones you can't sell Calzaghe-Lacy as the greatst 168 fight since Jones-Toney).

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 18 Jun 2006, 13:22

pundit wrote:
Max Molyneux wrote:
viciousmaussa wrote:so, when Kessler beats Beyer, will he get his props over here?

Saying Mundine could've beaten Kessler can be countered by Reid could've beaten Calzaghe if he hadn't fannied about over the first 3 rds.

ppl want to deny Kessler, but come on, he's the only natural foe for Calzaghe
Only because Kessler has the WBA belt.

He's only thought of Seriously by the more hardcore fans.

.... which tend to be the more knowledgeable ones (i.e., the ones you can't sell Calzaghe-Lacy as the greatst 168 fight since Jones-Toney).

if you're very excitable, it is. it was a highly anticipated unification. if you're less excitable, it's the biggest since Ottke-Mitchell.

being British, there was a lot of anticipation from my part for Calzaghe-Lacy. and i guess for the yanks that agreed with Iole that Lacy "could be the next de la hoya" (lol) it was a very big fight

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 18 Jun 2006, 13:24

viciousmaussa wrote:
pundit wrote:
Max Molyneux wrote: Only because Kessler has the WBA belt.

He's only thought of Seriously by the more hardcore fans.

.... which tend to be the more knowledgeable ones (i.e., the ones you can't sell Calzaghe-Lacy as the greatst 168 fight since Jones-Toney).
if you're very excitable, it is. it was a highly anticipated unification. if you're less excitable, it's the biggest since Ottke-Mitchell.

being British, there was a lot of anticipation from my part for Calzaghe-Lacy. and i guess for the yanks that agreed with Iole that Lacy "could be the next de la hoya" (lol) it was a very big fight

OK. Maybe "Lacy-Calzaghe shouldn't be mentoined in the same phrase with Jones-Toney" says it better.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 18 Jun 2006, 13:28

now that lacy's rep has hit an all time low, definitely not the value of jones-toney. but hey jones-toney was devalued by toney being too big headed to prepare properly. eerily similar in that the two major s/m fights that America were interested in saw the favored guy get humiliated

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 18 Jun 2006, 20:39

pundit wrote:
viciousmaussa wrote:
pundit wrote:
.... which tend to be the more knowledgeable ones (i.e., the ones you can't sell Calzaghe-Lacy as the greatst 168 fight since Jones-Toney).
if you're very excitable, it is. it was a highly anticipated unification. if you're less excitable, it's the biggest since Ottke-Mitchell.

being British, there was a lot of anticipation from my part for Calzaghe-Lacy. and i guess for the yanks that agreed with Iole that Lacy "could be the next de la hoya" (lol) it was a very big fight
OK. Maybe "Lacy-Calzaghe shouldn't be mentoined in the same phrase with Jones-Toney" says it better.

Toney would of been too weight drained or fat to ever beat Calzaghe. :P

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 19 Jun 2006, 00:38

I believe that Calzaghe would be right in there with a peak Toney. The guys who pressured Toney - Barkely and PC Williams - were top fighters but fought with zero intelligence. They must have figured that Toney's of f night against Tiberi meant he could really be outworked. But Toney is hard, defensively astute and can counter brilliantly. Calzaghe uses angles, closes the distance quickly, has incredible workrate/stamina (no PC Williams fade, who came DOWN from 175, and JC wouldn't be drained ala Barkley) and the punhes come from the wrong side. So Calzaghe would be big trouble for Toney. And vice versa probably, with Toney having superb boxing skills and a mean counter right (being the punch Calzaghe can be open to)