Joe Calzaghe vs Marvin Hagler 160lbs

Yep. Calzaghe was never close to being a middleweight. Trying to get there would most likely negatively impact his performance. But let's just ignore that for the sake of trying to make a case for picking him over Hagler at 160.

 

Style-wise, I don't get why Calzaghe beating Hagler is so farfetched. Doesn't make him greater in an all-time sense. Just means that he matches up well here. Calzaghe had an amazing knack for never getting caught with the same punch twice. If something worked, you better get it done right then and there, because he's making the necessary adjustment by the next round.

I wouldn't pick Calzaghe outright, but make him a very live dog in such a fight. Even more so if we ignore 160 and have Hagler move up to 168.

 

Outworking means FUCK ALL if the guy you are "outworking" is landing with far more accuracy and quality than you are

Anybody who thinks Calzaghe is not getting hit repeatedly with more clean shots in this fight than in the previous 15 combined is delusional

Hagler was a great boxer

 

Hagler was a great boxer, but relatively slower and more hittable. This is the point that you're missing.

Also Calzaghe "slaps" with good quality and accuracy. Ask Lacy.

 

Lacy... LOL

Lacy is a "Caveman" Lee level fighter

That's like me saying "Henry Akinwande was a HUGE puncher... Ask Peter McNeely"

 

::

fair point.

Let's not act, though, like Lacy is teh only guy that Calzaghe has managed to hit accurately. Kessler was a decent fighter for example.

 

sure, he was decent, so was Juan Roldan

 

Kessler was better than Roldan. This is moot though.

Calzaghe has more tools than Hagler. You may not like Calzaghe's showboatinig slapping style and white welsh/italian face, but he was a more gifted fighter than Hagler.

 

why was he any better?

Calzaghe does not have more tools than Hagler

you are joking, right?

 

Well said Jake. Deep down I think cdogg knows this, I can read between his lines, he just can't bring himself to say it.

 

I dont think it is at all. In fact it'll inform your whole take on a match up like this.

I agree with cdogg, they're on about the same level. Solid B grade pros. Once you can recognize that you can start summing the real figures.

 

Don't hold your breath.

 

I'd love to hear the argument for how Roldan and Kessler are equals.

Kessler's one bad night in the office so far was the Ward fight. He was competitive against Calzaghe, among the best SMW's in history. Prior to that, he barely lost rounds, never mind fights.

 

Bingo

There are vastly more things involved in boxing matches than just "styles"

"Styles" would seem to dictate that Zora Folley, a brillaintly schooled technician with pristine technique, should be able to completely school a comparatively crude Rocky Marciano who makes plenty of defensive mistakes and telegraphs the odd punch...

Anybody got money on Folley in that fight? I sure as fuck don't

 

Who'd he fight?

Roldan didn't lose either until he was up against the Haglers and Hearns of the world

 

Roland was shit.

 

who's Roland

 

Kessler didn't fight anybody. He's a 21st Century fighter, none of them measure up to the Frank Fletchers and James Kinchens of the world.

Happy?

 

Sly's lack of boxing knowledge has really been exposed lately.

But no, Roldan was NOT as good as Kessler.

 

I think Kessler was better but not by very much at all

 

I can't see Calzaghe losing to a welterweight at middleweight. Calzaghe UD.

 

You're on crack, bro.

Hagler >>>>> Calzaghe

Will further clarify when I'm not on my iPhone

 

kessler would have beat the shit out of roldan

 

They woulda fought at 175 in 84. So yeah, you're right

 

Aside from the fact that he was past his prime, Hagler didn't lose to any welterweight either

 

The issue is that Calzaghe is shit. Simple as that. Anyone he beat is, by default, completely shit,. Near fifty of them. Hut doesn't like him. Nor does doggie-dog. So he is shit. That Kessler was a unified, undefeated champ when Calzaghe beat him matters not. He's shit. Hopkins, who is old but has won all his last fights in six years, is brilliant. But he lost to Calzaghe, who is shit, because he was old and Calzaghe wasn't. Hopkins is brilliant and lost because of athelticism. That is all. Though Calzaghe retired a fight later. That's irrelevent. Because Calzaghe is shit.

MTF

 

I used to hate Calzaghe, him, everything about him, and his reluctance to fight people.

I even rooted for Mario Veit, a German, to beat him.

But towards the end of his career I put my hate aside and realised he is incredibly difficult to beat, more than a lot of people admit.

Brilliant footwork, spacing, timing, chin, workrate, speed, adaptability etc etc.

Very, very difficult to beat. Like a fast, mobile, 168 pound version of Vitali but better.

At 168 I would pick Calzaghe over Hagler, and over every other 168 pounder ever apart from Roy obviously.

 

My feelings exactly. I was at the Metro arena when he fought Pudwill. Fucking Pigswill. I hated paying for that and wanted him to die. I picked Lacy against him because I prayed for his beating. Horrible welsh cunt. But he schooled Lacy, and Kessler. And I came around. I'm not blind.

MTF

 

true but kessler was simply better and more talented than roldan.

 

Even tought I despise calzaghe, and don't rate him too highly, I think he could pose a lot of problem to hagler. Especially if hagler tries to jab and move and he mostly do. He'll have to be agressive, and put pressure on Joe, beat him up on the inside. Like he was in the Hearns fight. Maybe a little bit less reckless, since I don't think Joe would fold as early.