Battle of the Middle/Super middleweights

[p4pking]

I think the idea of Pavlik beating Hearns, or Calzaghe beating Toney, if we are talking PRIME fighters here, is ludicrous. Hearns would KTFO Pavlik about 9 out of 10 times imo, Pavlik would have a punchers chance nothing more, he couldn't box with Thommy and Hearns could easily KO him with one punch. Anythone who think any Joe Calzaghe that has ever lived could beat the Toney that fought Barkley, is simply saying so because they are from the UK. I see NO possible way Calzaghe could beat Toney, just no freaking way. He couldn't dream of as much as bothering James with his power, and his style would allow James to land those sneaky right counters all day.

[Deanrw]

I though you were breaking divisions down individually not mixing them up..

Benn beats Kessler

Pavlik and Hearns is a toss up because of Tommy's chin ONLY

RJJ beats Hagler and could possibly run the table, I give him more of a chance than anyone to do it


Leonard was great but thats a pretty tough gauntlet to put anybody through... I can guarantee you this, if all those guys fought in the same era, there be no undefeated fighter amoungst them

Agreed....on Pavlik/Hearns...Only like you stated ...because of Tommy's chin....Hearns was a better boxer then Kelly hands down...and if Taylor dropped Pavlik...a straight ringt on the button from Hearns would starch him

You cannot always go by that though. Pavlik took Miranda's shots without much issue. I think Tommy could take it early, but if he didn't and gets wild, Pavlik could very well pull a Barkley on him.

[Master]

I think the idea of Pavlik beating Hearns, or Calzaghe beating Toney, if we are talking PRIME fighters here, is ludicrous. Hearns would KTFO Pavlik about 9 out of 10 times imo, Pavlik would have a punchers chance nothing more, he couldn't box with Thommy and Hearns could easily KO him with one punch. Anythone who think any Joe Calzaghe that has ever lived could beat the Toney that fought Barkley, is simply saying so because they are from the UK. I see NO possible way Calzaghe could beat Toney, just no freaking way. He couldn't dream of as much as bothering James with his power, and his style would allow James to land those sneaky right counters all day.

I agree the Barkley performance was perfect but if you had to choose an ideal opponent for Toney that would be it. Galzaghe would just outbox him but eat some big right hands in the process.

[GAME]

Lots of different debates going on here . Is it not the consensus that Roy Jones Junior was the best cuz I thought it was.

[Spicoli]

I think the idea of Pavlik beating Hearns, or Calzaghe beating Toney, if we are talking PRIME fighters here, is ludicrous. Hearns would KTFO Pavlik about 9 out of 10 times imo, Pavlik would have a punchers chance nothing more, he couldn't box with Thommy and Hearns could easily KO him with one punch. Anythone who think any Joe Calzaghe that has ever lived could beat the Toney that fought Barkley, is simply saying so because they are from the UK. I see NO possible way Calzaghe could beat Toney, just no freaking way. He couldn't dream of as much as bothering James with his power, and his style would allow James to land those sneaky right counters all day.

Have to agree here,Hearns had far too many tools in the arsenal for oncoming Pavlik who at times has a leaky defense,And yes Hearns chin would be in jeporday But Pavlik is not exactley Will o' The wisp him self.

A tip top Toney and Calzaghe would be great.Calzaghe could exploit Toneys habit of "timing" out some rounds.....Constant pressure but I just see Toneys vast array of Punches picking holes in Calzaghe over 12 or less.That short Inside Right off the shoulder roll Of Toney would cause Joe fits.

[Master]

Lots of different debates going on here . Is it not the consensus that Roy Jones Junior was the best cuz I thought it was.

Jones could have won the tournament but never Leonard.

[DaxxKahn]

I though you were breaking divisions down individually not mixing them up..

Benn beats Kessler

Pavlik and Hearns is a toss up because of Tommy's chin ONLY

RJJ beats Hagler and could possibly run the table, I give him more of a chance than anyone to do it


Leonard was great but thats a pretty tough gauntlet to put anybody through... I can guarantee you this, if all those guys fought in the same era, there be no undefeated fighter amoungst them

Agreed....on Pavlik/Hearns...Only like you stated ...because of Tommy's chin....Hearns was a better boxer then Kelly hands down...and if Taylor dropped Pavlik...a straight ringt on the button from Hearns would starch him

You cannot always go by that though. Pavlik took Miranda's shots without much issue. I think Tommy could take it early, but if he didn't and gets wild, Pavlik could very well pull a Barkley on him.

Hearns was not the type of fighter that got swinging wild to often....Tommy's straight right was harder then anything Miranda throws...Hearns could also box...he did not need to rely on his power...it just happened to be something he had plenty of...

[LondonBB]

Well, if we take fighters as people love to say on this forum 'in their prime'...im gonna pick roy jones that was against james toney.

Im gonna pick calzaghe that was against lacy.

I think it would be between calzaghe and jones.

Dont know who would win that.

The 'prime' calzaghe i saw against jeff lacy was totally unstoppable.

But personally i hate this whole p4p list thing and 'in their prime' rhetoric. The fact is that fighters face each other at various points in their career, they cant help that, they are often avoided or whatever and have to fight when they are offered the fight.

I dont buy the whole 'in their prime' game. A fighter is as good as what his achievements are, end of story.

Who he fought, what he achieved and how long he was champ for. Nothing else in my opinion.

When you look back in history, you look back at records and facts. I know people love to ignore the facts on this forum and would rather allow their hatred/prejudice to blinker and shroud their judgement, but in the end it is history that dictates how good a fighter was by looking at what they achieved.

[boozeboxer]

Well, if we take fighters as people love to say on this forum 'in their prime'...im gonna pick roy jones that was against james toney.

Im gonna pick calzaghe that was against lacy.

I think it would be between calzaghe and jones.

Dont know who would win that.

The 'prime' calzaghe i saw against jeff lacy was totally unstoppable.

But personally i hate this whole p4p list thing and 'in their prime' rhetoric. The fact is that fighters face each other at various points in their career, they cant help that, they are often avoided or whatever and have to fight when they are offered the fight.

I dont buy the whole 'in their prime' game. A fighter is as good as what his achievements are, end of story.

Who he fought, what he achieved and how long he was champ for. Nothing else in my opinion.

When you look back in history, you look back at records and facts. I know people love to ignore the facts on this forum and would rather allow their hatred/prejudice to blinker and shroud their judgement, but in the end it is history that dictates how good a fighter was by looking at what they achieved.

So you are saying that Winky would have won?

[southakron314]

Well I think you have a very valid point cat-newpaper-man. I just think that Pavlik is really over-rated right now and that Hearns was a Great.

How great was he agianst Hagler? Pavlik beats Hearns and Toney beats Calzaghe. RJJ wins every thing over Harry Greb.

[Master]

No way Pavlik beats Hearns. The Hitman only lost to the best in his prime and he would pick Kelly apart with his jab and left hook and KO with the right. Pavlik has still too many flaws.