Joe Calzaghe vs Ezzard Charles at lightheavyweight

Calzaghe outworks, outpeeds and outhustles that overrated black ass!















in all seriousness....it's a pick'em.

 

Why are you doing this?

 

:: Seriously, Charles KO 11.

 

Why not? Joe has never been beat. Ezzard has been prolifically beat!

 

Again.....he lost 5 of his first 75 fights and one of those was a legendary screw job of a decision. 4 of those losses he avenged by KO. And that was fighting one of the greatest resumes in boxing history and fighting the best guys 3,4,5 times. Conversely, the only guy Calzaghe ever fought with the remotest claim to being A class was a 43 year old & he got away with a contested decision pretty much purely because his old opponent couldn't hack the pace he set. Charles would dissect Calzaghe and eventually bury him.

 

Charles was also a bigger man by some measure, but I don't consider that a relevant factor, such is the divide between them in other areas. I don't mean to be rude to Calzaghe, because he was a very, very good, possibly great, fighter. It is no knock against any man to say they were not Ezzard Charles' equal. I rank him #2 on the all-time LHW's list, a weightclass Calzaghe is not even considered a natural of, & Charles became a (under-rated) Heavyweight, to boot.

Calzaghe was an excellent fighter, but so was Shane Mosley as a Lightweight. That doesn't mean you compare him to Benny Leonard.

 

Considering Charles spent much of his career at legit middle and Joe boiled down to 168 with day before weigh ins then refed I'd say the size difference is negligible or even slightly in Joe's favour. But as you say, it's not even relevant.....Winky Wright was naturally bigger than Ray Robinson too but it sure as hell wouldn't make any difference either.

 

Calzaghe could never have built upto Heavy while maintaining Charle's' lean physique, though --- & I'll say that's true even if he were fighting in the 50's, when the Heavies (at least, the best of them) were considerably smaller than today's top-ten or fifteen HW's. Could Calzaghe go fifteen with Marciano? Beat Walcott twice (possible three times)? Talent is a huge issue on that subject, but size is, too.

In any case, I do not know you (or anyone here) well Slystaff, but it feels like you're trying to rile the people. Is this your honest pick for the Charles-Calzaghe bout?

 

Id wager that at Light heavyweight Calzaghe came in north of 180, and thats after training to lose weight. Also I don't think he could ever have fought at 160 in the ring in his 20s, which is the equivalent of light middleweight today. So I really don't think Charles was much bigger if at all.

 

Dude, I disagree with you something like 99.999999999 percent of the time, mostly because you talk out of your ass and make things up as you go, but I never thought of you as a troll before until now.

I think everyone gets it now,...you think every fighter who fought prior to 1990 is overrated or a bum...except of course for Ali, who you adore.

 

Because he's a troll.

 

Calslappy would be in for trouble against Charles. His slappy punches won't save the day here. Charles dissects him.

 

while i agree with the first paragraph i definitely disagree with the second.

mosely buries benny leonard.

 

Without any doubt. Leonard is one of those fighters that if you read what the newspapers wrote about him at the fight time, he should still be the world champion, but when you look him at the video you see that his techniques were revolutionary for his time but now it is just impossible to see him being a contender

 

Just be duly prepared for the day when they say the same thing about Roberto Duran, in regards to a Mosley-level fighter. It'll happen.

 

I dunno about that....Leonard was from the black and white era of fighting and Mosley is still active.... ::

 

Please...

But I've worked YOU out..

You're just a nonconformtoslystaffist. In other words you go OUT OF YOUR WAY to disagree with me, or to simply not agree just because of my so-called e-arrogance.

Even if you agree with me on a topic you wont say so but rather would quote the post of someone else who agrees with me and then say "agREED" or some shit. Whatever I say...UNLESS cdogg agrees with it ::.....you would conveniently see it the other way or if you DO agree...you'll simply not answer it and say something to divert the conversation elsewhere.

I've noticed this time and time again and it's amusing and tels me alot about your character. You're naturally insecure... among other things...but it's all good fat joe.:kidcool:

 

Geez. Talk in circles much? Ugh. Spare me...this is just another of your patented "say anything just to have a reponse posts".:shit:

And I can't wait for your next MM in which you tell us how much of a bum Ezzard Charles was because he had to continue fighting way past the point where he could do so a high level and suffered a bunch of losses and also how he would lose to Antonio Tarver.

Can't wait! Share the knowledge Stafford!

 

The counter-claim to that being how glorious one can look on hi-def TV network, as opposed to hand-cranked, early 20th-Century filming.

 

Charles would beat Calzaghe by quite a lot... he does everything better

 

i guess Im the only one that thinks this will be close until Charles gets the stoppage eh?
Sorry i think joe has all the skills in the world...he would keep it close and give Charles a hell of a fight, but Ezzard is just better and eventually will stop him late. But I agree with everyone that Joe would lose but not get dissected.

 

Be careful now, you may get executed for heresy.

 

Charles could have a case made in his name for being in the top-ten pound-for-pound of all-time. He is a shoo-in for the top-twenty. How many giving Calzaghe a realistic chance would place the Welshman in that sort of company?

 

You really never did enter into my p4p thread, did you? :: Of the 15 that voted on the top 20 since 1940, Charles made 11 lists; Calzaghe 3. Calzaghe ranked higher in 2.

FWIW I had Charles No5 and Calzaghe wouldn't have made my top 30. MIGHT have made my top 40. Sly had Joe at 15 with Charles failing to register. So his opinions are respectably consistent.opcorn:

 

Sounds like an interesting read. Still around?

 

The thread where I tote up the final results is on page 1 somewhere, the original thread is page 5 I think. Feel free to submit your list to either one and I'll add it to the total, or at least be very intrigued to read it.

 

Done! (though you never feel especially comfortable with these lists).

 

It's something I'd love to spend a whole day really thinking about, it'd be an educational process. I think there's quite allot of value in the thought experiments you have to go through in comparing X accomplishment to Y; helps enrich your perspective & sense of context on allot of things, past & present. Unfortunately I never seem to have the time or commitment to sit down and actually do it.

But purely to satisfy my personal curiosity (and to amuse Sly! ;) ::) Im also gonna tote up yours, cdogg's & BWJs lists separately tomorrow since it seems obvious that three of you are the 3 most versed in boxing history and it'll be interesting to see what that throws up, too.

 

Very kind words, Sir. By toting up the polls, I assume that means collating everyone's list, which then collectively determines who places where?

It's always a fascinating list.

 

How does Ramonza fit that league? I am not saying he doesn't and I do respect his output but apart from picking old-timers over modern guys I haven't seen much insight from him. While BWJ does that too (more than me, anyways ::) it has indeed become obvious he knows shitload of historics