Is Calzaghe the best white boxer since 1990?

[handsofstone]

Saul Alvarez has to be up there

[crusader]

Best white boxer since 1990 - Henry Maske - he fought a better class of opposition than Calzaghe.

Can you elaborate on why you believe that with reference to specific opponents, like Kessler, Hopkins, Charles Williams, Hill, etc.? Looking through Maske's record and the records of his opponents, it doesn't seem to me like his resume is more impressive, but admittedly I'm not an expert on the division as it was during his reign.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Best white boxer since 1990 - Henry Maske - he fought a better class of opposition than Calzaghe.

Maske isnt considered "the best" of his division's history though, unlike the consensus that Calzaghe was.

We are talking since 1990 and Maske's division had more depth than what Calazghe was fighting around the time - fighting Billy Bob Bailey the mental midget in a world title defence or making a mandatory against a man who knocked out in a round in an earlier title fight is not an impressive resume.

Then if that is the criteria... then the best "white" fighter sinve 1990... Kostya Tszyu... followed by Vladimir Klitschko[/quote]

Kostya Tsyzu is of Korean descent.

[HomicideHenry]

Then it's Klitschko...

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Best white boxer since 1990 - Henry Maske - he fought a better class of opposition than Calzaghe.

Can you elaborate on why you believe that with reference to specific opponents, like Kessler, Hopkins, Charles Williams, Hill, etc.? Looking through Maske's record and the records of his opponents, it doesn't seem to me like his resume is more impressive, but admittedly I'm not an expert on the division as it was during his reign.

This is all a matter of opinion of course but the bulk of Calazghe's title reign was massively unimpressive that made Joe Louis's 'bum of the month' club look like world beaters. He won his title over a man who had to make weight from cruiserweight with something like a week to do it in, fought lots of good names past the prime, the only 'real' live opponent was Kessler and Jones and Hopkins were over the hill. If you notice, a lot of his title defences were set up after his opponent was recently beaten, sometimes in the fight before.

Maske beat a good, tough reigning world light heavyweight champion, beat fighters with better form and for me - Graciagno Rocchigiani is better than anything on Calazghes resume outside of a shot Jones and Hopkins (and I am including Kessler - yes).

[Ian1973]

Best white boxer since 1990 - Henry Maske - he fought a better class of opposition than Calzaghe.

Can you elaborate on why you believe that with reference to specific opponents, like Kessler, Hopkins, Charles Williams, Hill, etc.? Looking through Maske's record and the records of his opponents, it doesn't seem to me like his resume is more impressive, but admittedly I'm not an expert on the division as it was during his reign.

This is all a matter of opinion of course but the bulk of Calazghe's title reign was massively unimpressive that made Joe Louis's 'bum of the month' club look like world beaters. He won his title over a man who had to make weight from cruiserweight with something like a week to do it in, fought lots of good names past the prime, the only 'real' live opponent was Kessler and Jones and Hopkins were over the hill. If you notice, a lot of his title defences were set up after his opponent was recently beaten, sometimes in the fight before.

Maske beat a good, tough reigning world light heavyweight champion, beat fighters with better form and for me - Graciagno Rocchigiani is better than anything on Calazghes resume outside of a shot Jones and Hopkins (and I am including Kessler - yes).

Hopkins was "over the hill". Done nothing since has he?

[stevedoc]

maybe joe i'd go wlad klit i think

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Best white boxer since 1990 - Henry Maske - he fought a better class of opposition than Calzaghe.

Can you elaborate on why you believe that with reference to specific opponents, like Kessler, Hopkins, Charles Williams, Hill, etc.? Looking through Maske's record and the records of his opponents, it doesn't seem to me like his resume is more impressive, but admittedly I'm not an expert on the division as it was during his reign.

This is all a matter of opinion of course but the bulk of Calazghe's title reign was massively unimpressive that made Joe Louis's 'bum of the month' club look like world beaters. He won his title over a man who had to make weight from cruiserweight with something like a week to do it in, fought lots of good names past the prime, the only 'real' live opponent was Kessler and Jones and Hopkins were over the hill. If you notice, a lot of his title defences were set up after his opponent was recently beaten, sometimes in the fight before.

Maske beat a good, tough reigning world light heavyweight champion, beat fighters with better form and for me - Graciagno Rocchigiani is better than anything on Calazghes resume outside of a shot Jones and Hopkins (and I am including Kessler - yes).

Hopkins was "over the hill". Done nothing since has he? [/quote]

Not the point, he is still past his prime, it is a simple mathematical equasion if you will.

George Foreman KO'ing Michael Moorer was a great achievement - but he was still past his prime when he did it.

And here is another eye roll for ya Einstein.

[Ian1973]

Hopkins was "over the hill". Done nothing since has he?

Not the point, he is still past his prime, it is a simple mathematical equasion if you will.

George Foreman KO'ing Michael Moorer was a great achievement - but he was still past his prime when he did it.

And here is another eye roll for ya Einstein. [/quote]


What on earth are you talking about?

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Hopkins was "over the hill". Done nothing since has he?

Not the point, he is still past his prime, it is a simple mathematical equasion if you will.

George Foreman KO'ing Michael Moorer was a great achievement - but he was still past his prime when he did it.

And here is another eye roll for ya Einstein.

What on earth are you talking about?[/quote]

Well, if you can't decipher what my point is then there is nothing I can do to help you.

This forum is really going downhill.

[Ian1973]

Hopkins was "over the hill". Done nothing since has he?

Not the point, he is still past his prime, it is a simple mathematical equasion if you will.

George Foreman KO'ing Michael Moorer was a great achievement - but he was still past his prime when he did it.

And here is another eye roll for ya Einstein.

What on earth are you talking about?

Well, if you can't decipher what my point is then there is nothing I can do to help you.

This forum is really going downhill.[/quote]


I'm just trying to make sense of it but struggling. I presume you mean Hopkins was past his best because of his age? Yes / No? Well, everybody is different and not every person is at their peak between a certain age range. Six years on Hopkins is still winning world title fights, if he is past his best it's not by much.

You are talking boxing by numbers, life isn't as straightforward as that.

Also using one fighter to prove a point parallel to another boxer doesn't work either for the same reason = not everyone is the same.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

quote]


Hopkins was "over the hill". Done nothing since has he?

Not the point, he is still past his prime, it is a simple mathematical equasion if you will.

George Foreman KO'ing Michael Moorer was a great achievement - but he was still past his prime when he did it.

And here is another eye roll for ya Einstein.

What on earth are you talking about?[/quote]

Well, if you can't decipher what my point is then there is nothing I can do to help you.

This forum is really going downhill.[/quote]


I'm just trying to make sense of it but struggling. I presume you mean Hopkins was past his best because of his age? Yes / No? Well, everybody is different and not every person is at their peak between a certain age range. Six years on Hopkins is still winning world title fights, if he is past his best it's not by much.

You are talking boxing by numbers, life isn't as straightforward as that.

Also using one fighter to prove a point parallel to another boxer doesn't work either for the same reason = not everyone is the same.[/quote]

Yes, when it comes to physical performance, everyone is more or less the same I am afraid, because someone is still achieving things - doesn't mean they aren't over the hill. George Foreman is a case in point - there might be other factors involved such as the fighters they are facing not being that good. It is funny we have a near 50 year old boxer fighting and beating younger (albeit less impressive) fighters but we don't see near 50 year old football, rugby or ice hokey players in the absolute top flight - nor do we see anyone nearly 50 in the 100 meters of any olympic final you care to mention.

Archie Moore and Jersey Joe Walcott won titles and fought on until their dotage, even winning but they were still over the hill when they did it. They even admit it themselves, Paul Pender said it also about when he won the world middleweight title and he was something like 32!

[Ian1973]

quote]


Hopkins was "over the hill". Done nothing since has he?

Not the point, he is still past his prime, it is a simple mathematical equasion if you will.

George Foreman KO'ing Michael Moorer was a great achievement - but he was still past his prime when he did it.

And here is another eye roll for ya Einstein.

What on earth are you talking about?

Well, if you can't decipher what my point is then there is nothing I can do to help you.

This forum is really going downhill.[/quote]


I'm just trying to make sense of it but struggling. I presume you mean Hopkins was past his best because of his age? Yes / No? Well, everybody is different and not every person is at their peak between a certain age range. Six years on Hopkins is still winning world title fights, if he is past his best it's not by much.

You are talking boxing by numbers, life isn't as straightforward as that.

Also using one fighter to prove a point parallel to another boxer doesn't work either for the same reason = not everyone is the same.[/quote]

Yes, when it comes to physical performance, everyone is more or less the same I am afraid, because someone is still achieving things - doesn't mean they aren't over the hill. George Foreman is a case in point - there might be other factors involved such as the fighters they are facing not being that good. It is funny we have a near 50 year old boxer fighting and beating younger (albeit less impressive) fighters but we don't see near 50 year old football, rugby or ice hokey players in the absolute top flight - nor do we see anyone nearly 50 in the 100 meters of any olympic final you care to mention.

Archie Moore and Jersey Joe Walcott won titles and fought on until their dotage, even winning but they were still over the hill when they did it. They even admit it themselves, Paul Pender said it also about when he won the world middleweight title and he was something like 32![/quote]


You're talking different eras though mate. Footballers are playing on longer these days, being in your 40's now is not the same as a 40 year old decades ago. Hopkins now at 49 probably isn't quite as good as he was but six years ago when he dismantled Pavlik (after the Calzaghe defeat) he was pretty damn near his peak.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

You're talking different eras though mate. Footballers are playing on longer these days, being in your 40's now is not the same as a 40 year old decades ago. Hopkins now at 49 probably isn't quite as good as he was but six years ago when he dismantled Pavlik (after the Calzaghe defeat) he was pretty damn near his peak.

OK, name me some top flight players in their 40's? Is Javier Zanetti still playing? Apart from him it will amount to handful worldwide but I think.

Players still play at 40 - Stanley Matthews did but he wasn't in his prime, boxers still win world titles at 40 - Dado Marino was a grandfather when he won the world flyweight title but he wasn't in his prime - some fighters may have a longer shelf life than others depending on many factors including lifestyle choice, style of fighting and pure luck but fighters fighting and winning in their 40's are not at their peak - or even reaching it, they have gone well past it.

[banjo]

You're talking different eras though mate. Footballers are playing on longer these days, being in your 40's now is not the same as a 40 year old decades ago. Hopkins now at 49 probably isn't quite as good as he was but six years ago when he dismantled Pavlik (after the Calzaghe defeat) he was pretty damn near his peak.

OK, name me some top flight players in their 40's? Is Javier Zanetti still playing? Apart from him it will amount to handful worldwide but I think.

Players still play at 40 - Stanley Matthews did but he wasn't in his prime, boxers still win world titles at 40 - Dado Marino was a grandfather when he won the world flyweight title but he wasn't in his prime - some fighters may have a longer shelf life than others depending on many factors including lifestyle choice, style of fighting and pure luck but fighters fighting and winning in their 40's are not at their peak - or even reaching it, they have gone well past it.

Zanetti retired this year at 40.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

You're talking different eras though mate. Footballers are playing on longer these days, being in your 40's now is not the same as a 40 year old decades ago. Hopkins now at 49 probably isn't quite as good as he was but six years ago when he dismantled Pavlik (after the Calzaghe defeat) he was pretty damn near his peak.

OK, name me some top flight players in their 40's? Is Javier Zanetti still playing? Apart from him it will amount to handful worldwide but I think.

Players still play at 40 - Stanley Matthews did but he wasn't in his prime, boxers still win world titles at 40 - Dado Marino was a grandfather when he won the world flyweight title but he wasn't in his prime - some fighters may have a longer shelf life than others depending on many factors including lifestyle choice, style of fighting and pure luck but fighters fighting and winning in their 40's are not at their peak - or even reaching it, they have gone well past it.

Zanetti retired this year at 40.

Thanks Banj.. just found this from Hopkins doctor... let me cut and paste this interesting tidbit..


hough Hopkins has fought professionally since 1988, Pasternack said the body of the future International Boxing Hall of Famer's more closely resembles a 20-year-old.

"He has the endurance. He has the strength," Pasternack said. "When you're younger, usually you're thinner and at your peak. He's at his peak. I mean, obviously he's not at his boxing peak. But for a 50-year-old, it's almost like he's at his peak. It's not possible for him to truly be like a 20-year-old in the ring, because it's not physiologically possible, but he's as close to it as it gets."


Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/201 ... zqrmrBA.99

[lefty]

You're talking different eras though mate. Footballers are playing on longer these days, being in your 40's now is not the same as a 40 year old decades ago. Hopkins now at 49 probably isn't quite as good as he was but six years ago when he dismantled Pavlik (after the Calzaghe defeat) he was pretty damn near his peak.

OK, name me some top flight players in their 40's? Is Javier Zanetti still playing? Apart from him it will amount to handful worldwide but I think.

Players still play at 40 - Stanley Matthews did but he wasn't in his prime, boxers still win world titles at 40 - Dado Marino was a grandfather when he won the world flyweight title but he wasn't in his prime - some fighters may have a longer shelf life than others depending on many factors including lifestyle choice, style of fighting and pure luck but fighters fighting and winning in their 40's are not at their peak - or even reaching it, they have gone well past it.

Yeah. It could be argued that it's a sign of how good Hopkins is and particularily was in his prime. If he's able to beat the guys he does now who are top level fighters themselves. Imagine how he would of dealt with them even when they were in their 30's say.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

You're talking different eras though mate. Footballers are playing on longer these days, being in your 40's now is not the same as a 40 year old decades ago. Hopkins now at 49 probably isn't quite as good as he was but six years ago when he dismantled Pavlik (after the Calzaghe defeat) he was pretty damn near his peak.

OK, name me some top flight players in their 40's? Is Javier Zanetti still playing? Apart from him it will amount to handful worldwide but I think.

Players still play at 40 - Stanley Matthews did but he wasn't in his prime, boxers still win world titles at 40 - Dado Marino was a grandfather when he won the world flyweight title but he wasn't in his prime - some fighters may have a longer shelf life than others depending on many factors including lifestyle choice, style of fighting and pure luck but fighters fighting and winning in their 40's are not at their peak - or even reaching it, they have gone well past it.

Yeah. It could be argued that it's a sign of how good Hopkins is and particularily was in his prime. If he's able to beat the guys he does now who are top level fighters themselves. Imagine how he would of dealt with them even when they were in their 30's say.

Indeed, he would have dealt with them far better in his younger days for sure, with say the 100 meters (for example) in the olympics - you have the fastest eight men on the planet, no-one is missing who shouldn't be there and there are very few of them that are over the hill age wise. Boxing is a bit different in that regard where fighters can gerrymander until they are past their prime and still win fights.

Hopkins is a phenomenon - no doubt about it, but my money would have been on him smashing up Calazghe if they had both fought at the same stages of their physical primes.

[lefty]

OK, name me some top flight players in their 40's? Is Javier Zanetti still playing? Apart from him it will amount to handful worldwide but I think.

Players still play at 40 - Stanley Matthews did but he wasn't in his prime, boxers still win world titles at 40 - Dado Marino was a grandfather when he won the world flyweight title but he wasn't in his prime - some fighters may have a longer shelf life than others depending on many factors including lifestyle choice, style of fighting and pure luck but fighters fighting and winning in their 40's are not at their peak - or even reaching it, they have gone well past it.

Yeah. It could be argued that it's a sign of how good Hopkins is and particularily was in his prime. If he's able to beat the guys he does now who are top level fighters themselves. Imagine how he would of dealt with them even when they were in their 30's say.

Indeed, he would have dealt with them far better in his younger days for sure, with say the 100 meters (for example) in the olympics - you have the fastest eight men on the planet, no-one is missing who shouldn't be there and there are very few of them that are over the hill age wise. Boxing is a bit different in that regard where fighters can gerrymander until they are past their prime and still win fights.

Hopkins is a phenomenon - no doubt about it, but my money would have been on him smashing up Calazghe if they had both fought at the same stages of their physical primes.

Yeah that should of said in his 30's obviously but I think you picked up on that anyway

[reggaereggae]

slightly odd question... but I don't find it controversial or a subject that should be beyond discussion.

But it's funny that 'white' seems the only race that is so tightly defined. Anyone mixed black/white is said to be black; even though they're actually mixed.

Not that bothered either way. I'm not saying race or skin is irrelevant to many people, but its a complex question....

I think nationality will ultimately take over from race; if it hasn't already.

I like redhead fighters.... Billy Hardy is my hero

[Taansend]

Sorry dude but he is white hispanic. Which is his race and ethnic group.

He isn't, he is of mixed heritage, his father is definitely of an Aztec bloodline. [/quote]

How do you know his dad is of an Aztec bloodline? There were many tribes in what is now Mexico in pre Colombian days. Aztecs were just the dominant ones..

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Sorry dude but he is white hispanic. Which is his race and ethnic group.

He isn't, he is of mixed heritage, his father is definitely of an Aztec bloodline.

How do you know his dad is of an Aztec bloodline? There were many tribes in what is now Mexico in pre Colombian days. Aztecs were just the dominant ones..[/quote]

I read it somewhere, no matter - he isn't white.

[brilo33]

sorry new boxer brother goes by the name of kovalev

[observer1]

No.

Beating Kessler and taking a close and contested SD against Old man Popkins is not the same as what the Klitscko's have done.

If you're going to count mixed fighters like DLH etc. in that bracket, then Joe does not come close.

[Ian1973]

Vitali or Calzaghe number one white man.

Not sure why we have to bring colour into it but hey ho, i've answered the question.