BoxRec

The shot Castillo was better than the shot Jones.

He still had most of the attributes that made him so good, they just weren't what they were back in the day.

Jones was utterly shot, couldn't throw hard shots anymore, his legs and head movement pretty much gone.... Calzaghe was past his best himself and slapped (literally) the shit out of Roy. It was embarrassing.

Like Froch said at the time, Joe ought to have taken more pride out of ducking/refusing a fight with Jones, or at the very least got him out of there at some point.

Instead he let Hopkins take the plaudits for beating Pavlik.

dempseyfire wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: You criticise Hatton for besting a past-it 35-year-old, yet the highlight of Calzaghe's career is a victory over a past-it 43-year-old? The fact Hopkins is a greater boxer than Tszyu is evened out by the near-decade advantage in age .

Are you kidding? That logic makes no sense. If Tszyu had fought into his 40s he'd be losing to journeyman on Bob Arum cards in Mexico. Hopkins is simply far ahead of Tszyu as a fighter in any ranking.

So equate a shot Castillo to a shot Jones Jr. Fine. Kessler, Lacy, Eubank and Mitchell are still better than Mag, Maussa and Urango. Those lists aren't even close . . .

I don't know if i should laugh or not. Hatton and Joe Fanboys arguing the better victories in Mag, Maussa, the over-rated Lacy and shot to bits Eubank.

British boxing at it's finest.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

observer1 wrote:

dempseyfire wrote: Are you kidding? That logic makes no sense. If Tszyu had fought into his 40s he'd be losing to journeyman on Bob Arum cards in Mexico. Hopkins is simply far ahead of Tszyu as a fighter in any ranking.

So equate a shot Castillo to a shot Jones Jr. Fine. Kessler, Lacy, Eubank and Mitchell are still better than Mag, Maussa and Urango. Those lists aren't even close . . .

I don't know if i should laugh or not. Hatton and Joe Fanboys arguing the better victories in Mag, Maussa, the over-rated Lacy and sht to bits Eubank.
British boxing at it's finest.

If you think the topic is boring why are you still here? I don't think your very insightful posts would be missed.

Because comparing which paper champion or shot-to-bits ex champion is a more significant win is something i don't want to miss....

I wouldn't call Eubank shot. He probably struggled to make weight and obviously wasn't in his prime. But he could still fight.

Eubank could definitely still bang and in the last 10 seconds of the fight with Calzaghe, he landed 2 consecutive, powerful right hands that visibly shook Calzaghe to his boots.

To this day, Calzaghe says that that was his toughest fight. Eubank could really crack, when he wanted to.

Whatever you want to call it, he had seen better days.

The Steve Collins bouts showed that Eubank was not the same after his Benn-Watson days.

He was served nicely do Joe, and their bout was nothing more of passing the guard. An Old-Timer looking for one last crack at the title/s that faced the next young champion. Something that has become staple in British Boxing.

It was indeed an impressive win for Joe, but it should have been no less than a stepping stone to bigger and better things. Joe instead sat on that win for nearly a whole decade before facing an over-hyped Lacy.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Of course it's all a matter of opinion, but certainly looked to me Kessler performed much better against Calzaghe than Kosta did against Hatton.

The cards dont support that. Tszyu was only about two points down against Hatton, maybe one, at the time it ended and he fought on even terms throughout most of that fight.

In contrast, Kessler won a maximum of four rounds and was borderline shut out the entire second-half of the bout.

You just made a point in favor of Calzaghe and against Hatton. Yes, Calzaghe won more convincingly.
The scoring just further supports the argument that Calzaghe was a lot better than Hatton.

Kessler was fighting well; he was just up against a much better opponent. Calzaghe won convincingly against a very good fighter who was in his prime.
Hatton struggled a lot against a past his best 35 year old.

I'd take that Tszyu over a one armed Kessler. I'm not sure why you don't care about that. But it's relevant. Not that I think it would change the outcome. But acting like it was a peak Kessler is plain wrong.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. As I have said, I completely disagree with that kind of thinking. I believe that Kessler in his prime was certainly better than a 35 year old Tszyu.

I know, you've said it several times. The injury isn't an opinion, it was real. I don't consider any fighter in peak form when they are hurt. But that would diminish your assertion and I don't ever expect any acknowledgement of counter points from you.

That was one hell of fight for a guy with an injury.

What? Losing nine rounds?