stujones wrote:viciousmaussa wrote:stujones wrote:
Agree for Lewis, but Joe?
Eubank victories over Benn, Watson, Malinga (peak), Rochigiani in Germany IS better than ANYTHING Joe has achieved.
I think it all goes down to who do you think would win prime for prime. I know lots say Joe, but I still maintain Eubank.
Naz's achievement FAR outweighs Joe's at the moment IMO. A faded Boom Boom Johnson is the equivalent of the over hyped Lacy, a Faded Kevin kelley is the equivalent of a faded Eubank..... Plus there is Vasquez, Medina, Ingle, Soto, McCullough, Robinson, Bungu etc.
Now, I know most were not at their prime when Naz fought them.... but then how many of Joe's opponents where at their prime? And Lewis' for that matter, Holyfield and Tyson were both in decline when he met them.
In terms of achievement.... Hamed had GOT to be in the top 2 - no question.... and Eubank also ahead of Joe.
With Lewis, all the big names put off fights with him or blatantly ducked him. Not Lewis' fault & he beat every man he faced.
Naz lost and did nothing of worth afterward. At least Calzaghe has longevity AND is still active, with a potentially major unification ahead of him. That's one crucial point, as at 34 Lewis wouldn't have been rated the #1 Brit in the last 20 years indefinately.
As to Calzaghe, in prime for prime matches he's way too busy for the lazy Eubank. E's only hope is to score a desperation KO. Furthermore, Eubank has benefited many controversial decisions, including Rocchigiani, Malinga & Thornton - as well as some lesser fighters I hear.
Lacy was well regarded & in his prime, and it was Calzaghe's dominance that ruined Lacy's reputation, no one though he was crap before. It was also a unification with a young fresh fighters whose career carried serious momentum - none of Naz's victims except Ingle & Robinson could be said to be improving. Best Naz win was the superb tactician Bungu, a tiny super bantam (doing your work here for you shootout!) who was around 38 & unable to fight at a pace for probably 2 or 3 years pre Naz.
Don't get me wrong, Naz has a lot of very impressive names, but the MAB loss and the Marquez ducking do carry some weight.
Calzaghe was never going to get the credit for beating Lacy. If it was close, it means it's because he won in England. if it's wide, it's because Lacy is nothing.
Well, Eubank vs Joe prime for prime is a matter of debate and one were there is no truth. My belief is that Eubank would have got through with enough right hands to take a decision. There was no signs of stamina problems vs Benn (which was Eubank's peak).
As for dodgy decision.... well, those three you mention Malinga and Rochigiani certainly were not dodgy (far from it), I have seen those recently. Cannot really remember the Thorton fight. Watson 1 was definately dodgy and most say (not me) that he was lucky to have the draw vs Benn in the rematch. However, Calzaghe was also lucky to beat Reid.
I give Joe all the credit in the world for beating Lacy, I said that in another thread. It was a masterful display against a good fighter who I am sure will be a champion again. However, is it up there with Eubank beating Benn, not quite in my opinion.
Yes, Joe has time to put things right and I agree, had Lewis retired at 34, his resume wouldn't guarentee him the #1 birth (still would be IMO though). I have said its very close between Joe and Eubank - and a win over Kessler and Woods would tip the balance.
I have been critical of Naz's opponents in arguments over whether he is H.O.F bound. All you need to do is check out my archive and see I can rattle off reasons why Hamed had an "edge" going into all of his title fights (even Barrera's). However, cannot the same be said for Joe. Only two undefeated fighter Joe has ever faced as champion, Lacy (inexperienced) and Mario "over hyped" Shite.
Manuel Medina was clearly Hamed best win, and I would consider many of his wins better than the Bungu one (Tom Johnson, Paul Ingle especially).
Joe has time, but AT THE MOMENT (which is how I am judging it) I cannot have him above Naz.
Sometimes Eubank would turn up for fights and not do any proper fighting, but still get the decision. I know my memory must be clouded from being a long time ago (I'm 25 now). But I do have DVDs of some of his fights, such as Thornton and Rocchi & I felt that, if they weren't controversies, they could have gone the other way. Rocchi was hard to score. Don McRae had Rocchi an easy winner, interestingly.
As to calzaghe, yes he has the time. That's one area that makes him harder to judge. He probably has the closest he'll ever ocme to a peer in Kessler/Beyer.
I just think he's a level above most fighters who've come out of Britain, & that includes Eubank, Minter, McGuigan...The talent is exceptional, the opposition hasn't been. However, one thing worth pointing out is that super middle isn't glamorous, and even though important fights have been there, perhaps there hasn't been that demand. I think it's sad that the 3 most mouth watering fights were off due to external reasons: Francis (injury), Hopkins (pull out), Collins (something wrong with him, pull out)
That said, if he doesn't fully unify, or at least win a light heavy belt or two, then he will always have detractors.
One way I like to look at it, is that now we have more fighters on actually pound for pound lists than before. Calzaghe & Hatton. (Lewis obviously being THE MAN at heavy is just as good as being p4p). Should Hatton take down another HOF worthy (in this case borderline) Castillo, Hatton should go down as one of the best.
IMO Witter is going to go on to do good things as well, & I can see him still champ in 3 years time. IMo British fighters are believing in themselves mroe, and the talent is coming through. I'm curious to see how Khan and Woodhouse turn out.
