Re: Calzaghe v Tarver - Who would have won.?

Originally Posted by
erics44

Originally Posted by
skel1983

Originally Posted by
erics44
My money would have been on calzaghi
one route to look at is calzaghi convincing beat hopkins and hopkins convincingly beat tarver
Calzaghi was extremely fit, threw too many punches for tarver and in his prime had a solid chin
First off Calzaghe didnt convincingly beat Hopkins it was a close shit fight, secondly that route of fighter a beating fighter b so he would be fighter c is flawed and quite silly really.
For my money prime for prime Calzaghe split decision.
yep you are right about the fighter a beat fighter b shit being flawed, its not silly tho you can tell a lot from it in most cases
In my opinion Calzaghi did convincinly beat hopikins,
after 4 rounds hopkins wasnt in the fight
but thats another debate
I agree with that, BUT, he was 5 points ahead after 4 round imo, so it was still close (on the cards)
God is a concept, By which we can measure, Our pain, I'll say it again, God is a concept, By which we can measure, Our pain, I don't believe in magic, I don't believe in I-ching, I don't believe in bible, I don't believe in tarot, I don't believe in Hitler, I don't believe in Jesus, I don't believe in Kennedy, I don't believe in Buddha, I don't believe in mantra, I don't believe in Gita, I don't believe in yoga, I don't believe in kings, I don't believe in Elvis, I don't believe in Zimmerman, I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me!!
Bookmarks