160, 168 and 175 pounders you'd pick to beat Sloppy Joe....

Name fighters who in their primes you think would've beaten Sloppy Joe. And feel free to assume the fights take place in the venue of your choosing.

Here's my list:

1. Toney
2. RJJ
3. Nunn
4. Liles
5. Tarver
6. Dawson
7. G. Johnson
8. Hopkins
9. Hagler
10. SRL
11. Hearns
12. McCallum
13. Wright

 

What is the point?

 

To bash Calslappy. Isn't that obvious?

 

Ok then. I pick Jeff Lacy over him

 

what is the point? the point is to put in perspective Sloppy Joe's alleged supremacy in the sport. and the best way to do so is to acknowledge all of the fighters who came before him who would've whipped his azz.

 

I would like to have seen Calzaghe at 175 and fight Michael Spinks and Dwight Qawi in Wales.

Oh and Bob Foster too.

 

no.

 

why have you picked the "one" (and I mean 1) guy who Sloppy has actually fought?

 

I think Lacy will beat him because Calslappy sucks. Wasn't that the point of the thread?

 

double l, what will you do if both calzaghe and hatton beat their prospectus foes later this year?

 

i'd pick calzaghe over toney, leonard, hearns, wright, johnson, liles, and tarver, and mccallum.

not sure how hagler would do at 168.

i'd pick jones, hopkins and maybe nunn, but those two are about it.

double l's hate is unreal.

 

I'd pick Roy, and McCallum ^ from that list, but all the rest seem a bit small, or in the case of Dawson, still have a little bit to prove yet. I think he beats Hopkins, and definitely Winky, - James Toney I'm not quite sure about, he would've had weight troubles but besides which, anyone who twists thier back to defend themselves is a cheating Fraud that should be banned from boxing. Hopkins had an overrated middleweight reign, much like Calzaghe's Super-middleweight reign infact, Hopkins best wins are against big-name fighters who were up 4 divisions too high, to face a blue whale of a "middleweight" who's ACTUALLY a natural Light-heavyweight, :nono: and he always has been.

 

well, hatton wins it won't be "so" bad, since i hate PBF too. ::

if Sloppy wins? i'll probably just claim that Kessler was over-rated and that Joe deserves no credit for the win. :laughing: Seriously, though. I'll give Joe credit if he beats Kessler. But win or lose it should be clarified that taking on Kessler in no way makes up for all those years Joe spent fighting nobodies.

 

what if hopkins retired after beating tito? would he have been as highly regarded as he is now?

if calzaghe convincingly beats kessler without any controversy, then that would surpass anything that oscar or castillo has done in their career.

 

i was about to type a similar post.

Leonard, Hearns, Wright and McCallum were all past their primes when fighting at 168 or higher. Hell, all were past their primes once they hit 160 (though McCallum was still good enough to consistently stay with the best). I'd pick Joe over any version of Winky moving up from 160 (meaning, even if they fought a few months after the Tito fight or Taylor fight, not the flabby shell that showed up for Hopkins)

I go back and forth on a Toney-Calzaghe fight. Sometimes I believe Joe would outwork him enough to possibly steal one. Other times, I think Toney has too many tricks.

agREED on Roy and Hopkins, they're the only two on the list I'd pick to beat Joe without having to stress over it.

 

IMO Slappy would beat Tarver easily , Glenn Johnson , Hearns , & Wright.
I'm not familiar enough with the following to make a call - Nunn , Liles , Dawson .
Honestly Joe at his best on a good day can give the remaining a good scrap and may be even pull a win or two.
SRR wasn't all that at 168 - and Hagler might get outboxed. Hopkins might not thrown enough - Toney , well who knows.
McCallum was aged at that weight.
Its entirely possible Slappy could beat almost everyone except Jones on that list at 168.

 

what? :dunno: what is your point here?

yeah right. this is pure B.S.

 

hopkins beat a great jr middleweight in tito to prove that he is what he's always said he's been. a great middleweight champion.

calzaghe will beat kessler to prove that he's what he says he's been. a great super middleweight champion (if his fight vs. lacy didnt prove that already)

what's more impressive? calzaghe unifying the division against another partially unified young unbeaten champ or castillo squeeking by lil stevie johnston and cheating his way to victory against corrales?

oscar never beat a great fighter who's in his prime. his so called wins against quartey, faded whitaker were highly questionable. his lone impressive win was vs. Vargas who was damaged goods.

 

Yeah, but what makes Kessler great, rather than just being a very good fighter? Actually the same goes for Quartey. They're both pretty skilled guys but it's a real judgement call based on their resumes on whether or not they were great fighters, as opposed to some of the obvious aging greats that De La Hoya faced.

 

i didnt say kessler was great. but he's very very good. who's beaten mundine as thoroughly as he did?

danny green couldnt stop beyer and he lost to rematch clearly. kessler stopped him with ease.

andrade is a solid fighter and kessler beat the shit outta him. hard not be impressed by that.

his physique and skills are hard to overcome for anyone from 160 to 175 and it would certainly be a great legacy solidifying victory should calzaghe emerge victorious.

 

so what happens if Sloppy loses then?

 

he'll still be remembered as one of the best 168 pounders of all time. he's been a champ for a decade and won the biggest match of the division has seen (vs. lacy) since jones/toney.

kessler is a damn good fighter and many are expecting him to win. regardless of the outcome (unless it ends in a draw or some controverial fashion) i think we're gonna see a real great fighter emerge either it be kessler or calzaghe.

 

It'll be Kessler

 

that remains to be seen

 

After November 4, it will be gospel.

 

nothing. He'll still be remembered as one of the best super middleweights of all time. I mean damn, 35 years old and 14 years as a pro fighter - isn't there a statute of limitation for classifying a loss (or even poor performance) as being "exposed"? ::

On paper, Kessler appears to be the best fighter Joe's ever fought. Calzaghe is undoubtedly the best Kessler fought to date. So a dominant performance either way could somewhat detract from what was previously suggested of the losing fighter. But I don't see how a closs loss either way effects either fighter one bit.

If Kessler wins, it's confirmation of what's been suggested of him - that's he's the best 168 lber in the world, and just needed the opportunity to prove it. If Calzaghe wins, then it's an uphill battle to argue that he's NOT the greatest super middleweight of all time.

And though just three weeks away, I'm STILL undecided on who I believe will win.

 

calzaghe will break out his second best performance of his career. i dont think he can really top the lacy win, mostly because that was damn near flawless, that and kessler is better and more versatile than lacy.

 

Calzaghe could still walk away with the title of being the best 168lber of all-time: "however" it simply means that he hid out in an in-between weight class during the best years of Jones and Hopkins.

It doesn't say much (if anything) about his reign.

When people look back at this timeframe (1997-2007) the big names thought of will be:

Jones
Hopkins
DLH
Trinidad
Mayweather
MAB
Morales
Pacquiao
Lemmon

Calzaghe is an afterthought at best (kinda like Sven Ottke or Dariuz Michelnobody)...unless you're sitting in Wales or Europe and you're looking to dote on someone with the right complexion.

 

my guess is, if Sloppy loses, depending on how hopeless he is against Kessler, he could walk away with a very tarnished reputation - so much so, that his status is recallibrated drastically.

likewise, if Sloppy manages to win "too" easily, right or wrong, it will hurt his cause.

 

i think it's unfair, though I don't necessarily disagree that such will be the reaction

huh?! ::