Thread: Calzaghe's legacy.

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Originally Posted by ICB

Originally Posted by Fenster

I don't understand why you rate Kessler as a "good" win? Who did he ever beat?

Mikkel Kessler i rate as a good win because i think he is one of the best technical fighters out there. He had some solid wins against Librado Andrade, Craig Cummings, Anthony Mundine, he may not have the best wins in the world.

But he is a much better fighter than Jeff Lacy ever was, and it was between the two best Super Middleweights in the world and people were demanding the fight. I rated Mikkel Kessler as a good fighter before and after the Joe Calzaghe fight. And i give Joe Calzaghe alot of props for winning the fight.

I agree. I still think Kessler needs to prove himself. He has wins over Andrade and Mundine. I want to see wins over fighters like Bute, Froch, Taylor, and Inkin. He beats two of those four and he'll have gained a lot of respect in my eyes.

Andrade, Beyer, Mundine WBC, WBA champion but WHY NOT PROVE HIMSELF!! Just like Oscar and Tito did at 160 before Hopkins got them!! He wasnt the bigger man and they were double world champions!

This crap is 4REAL!

Originally Posted by Markusdarkus

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

Originally Posted by ICB

James Toney = was a top 3 P4P fighther he always had weight problems, too much was made out of it. And James Toney in an interview said before the fight he didn't want any excuses regarding his weight. A little bit different to Chris Eubank who was pulled on late notice and only had 1 week to lose 20+ pounds.

RJJ = was just as green as Bernard Hopkins at the pro level, why do people keep using this ridiculous excuse ? RJJ had less fights than Bernard Hopkins.

Antonio Tarver = win was disuputed ? uhh yea whatever people wern't used to seeing RJJ in a close fight, thats why it was disputed at that time. I didn't think it was close at all the rounds were easy to score, and i had RJJ a clear winner by 3 rounds.

ODLH = Legit excuse.

Tito = Well the difference is Bernard Hopkins was a big underdog, Tito was high in the P4P rankings, and destroyed William Joppy like no one else had before. Bernard Hopkins doesn't get enough credit for this win, do you know how much of a favorite Tito was at the time ?

Antonio Tarver = Again Bernard Hopkins was the one moving up 2 weight classes, and was quite a big underdog. If Bernard Hopkins would of lost, there would of been an even more legit excuse for Bernard Hopkins.

One last thing RJJ had many more quality wins against.

Virgil Hill
Montel Griffin
Thulani Malinga
Eric Harding
Jorge Fenando Castro

etc.

Excatly!

Virgil Hill
Montel Griffin
Thulani Malinga
Eric Harding
Jorge Fenando Castro


Exactly the rest of his good wins (those are less than a Pavlik) have question marks.

So does Hopkins so does Wright (small guy king) so does Calzaghe.

Its worrying why idiots pull up Calzaghes wins then not expect to get annihilated on the board.

They were examples RJJ has plenty more good wins than that, i don't have to list every single one of them. Because i do everytime we have this debate, and you have no real answer or debate to counter it. And plus im still waiting for you to debate my point regarding Joe Calzaghe's opposition, and how of i got annihilated

Its a debate jeez just because your massive fan of Joe Calzaghe, you have to except other people to criticize your fighter without getting defensive all the time.

Originally Posted by ICB

Originally Posted by Markusdarkus

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

Excatly!

Virgil Hill
Montel Griffin
Thulani Malinga
Eric Harding
Jorge Fenando Castro


Exactly the rest of his good wins (those are less than a Pavlik) have question marks.

So does Hopkins so does Wright (small guy king) so does Calzaghe.

Its worrying why idiots pull up Calzaghes wins then not expect to get annihilated on the board.

They were examples RJJ has plenty more good wins than that, i don't have to list every single one of them. Because i do everytime we have this debate, and you have no real answer or debate to counter it. And plus im still waiting for you to debate my point regarding Joe Calzaghe's opposition, and how of i got annihilated

Its a debate jeez just because your massive fan of Joe Calzaghe, you have to except other people to criticize your fighter without getting defensive all the time.

Listen you say Eubanks, Reid, Woodhall, Brewer, Lacy have question marks so i say:

Jones, Hopkins, Wright all have the same question marks over their wins, no?

Originally Posted by ICB

Originally Posted by Markusdarkus

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

Excatly!

Virgil Hill
Montel Griffin
Thulani Malinga
Eric Harding
Jorge Fenando Castro


Exactly the rest of his good wins (those are less than a Pavlik) have question marks.

So does Hopkins so does Wright (small guy king) so does Calzaghe.

Its worrying why idiots pull up Calzaghes wins then not expect to get annihilated on the board.

They were examples RJJ has plenty more good wins than that, i don't have to list every single one of them. Because i do everytime we have this debate, and you have no real answer or debate to counter it. And plus im still waiting for you to debate my point regarding Joe Calzaghe's opposition, and how of i got annihilated

Its a debate jeez just because your massive fan of Joe Calzaghe, you have to except other people to criticize your fighter without getting defensive all the time.

Name one good win better than Eubank or even a Brewer Jones had between 94-02.

Originally Posted by ICB

Originally Posted by Fenster

Originally Posted by ICB

Bilbo comparing a great fighter like Felix Trinidad who had the record, for the most Welterweight title defenses in history is madness. Felix Trinidad defeated great fighters and proved time and time again, he belonged against the best of his era.

Jeff Lacy was struggling with the likes of Omar Sheika, Syd Vanderpool, even before the Joe Calzaghe fight for crying out loud. He only got overhyped because he defeated a shot undertrained Robin Reid, who gave Joe Calzaghe all he could handle back in 1999.

Im not saying i agree with TM i think he is discrediting Joe Calzaghe, just for the sake of discrediting him. But i think what he is saying is that majority of Joe Calzaghe's best wins are all questionable. I'll give you examples of what i mean Bilbo.

Charles Brewer = Just got stopped in 3 rounds by Antwun Echols.

Richie Woodhall = Just lost Markus Beyer, was also dropped 3 times by feather fisted Markus Beyer.

Chris Eubank = Weight drained.

Robin Reid = Just lost to 40+ Thulani Malinga.

etc.

I mean the only really good wins Joe Calzaghe has had with no question marks is Mikkel Kessler, Jeff Lacy, but as i pointed out to you before. previous fights before the Joe Calzaghe fight, proved Jeff Lacy wasn't world class.

And i don't see why that if Joe Calzaghe beats RJJ. That the RJJ win should be hailed as some great win, everyone before this fight considered RJJ. A shot fighter and from his last 2 fights he hasn't really impressed me at all, RJJ does have a chance he still has speed and he is still the bigger man, but come on if this fight was 6 years ago would we be even questioning anything else but a clear cut RJJ win ?

Im not saying its Joe Calzaghe's fault he was in a weak era of the Super Middleweights, but i still think he should of moved up to Light Heavyweight years ago. I remember after the Kabary Salem fight, Joe Calzaghe said he was tight at the weight and struggled to make the Super Middleweight limit.

I don't understand why you rate Kessler as a "good" win? Who did he ever beat?

Mikkel Kessler i rate as a good win because i think he is one of the best technical fighters out there. He had some solid wins against Librado Andrade, Craig Cummings, Anthony Mundine, he may not have the best wins in the world.

But he is a much better fighter than Jeff Lacy ever was, and it was between the two best Super Middleweights in the world and people were demanding the fight. I rated Mikkel Kessler as a good fighter before and after the Joe Calzaghe fight. And i give Joe Calzaghe alot of props for winning the fight.

That was EXACTLY the situation for Lacy-Calzaghe. Unfortunately you weren't here to inform everyone what a pointless match it was between two such ordinary fighters.

Kessler's solid wins - Librado Andrade, Craig Cummings, Anthony Mundine.

Not very impressive is it? Beating those couldn't have led you to believe Kessler was "world class?" I don't see how they are any better than Lacy beating Sheika, Vanderpool, Reid, Pemberton. You knew Lacy wasn't "world class", right?

So basically you rate Kessler as "world class" because you like his style. He has no "world class" wins going by your criteria. Therefore shouldn't be rated as a "good" win for Calzaghe.. Or any better than his other "questionable" wins.

Originally Posted by Fenster

Originally Posted by ICB

Originally Posted by Fenster

I don't understand why you rate Kessler as a "good" win? Who did he ever beat?

Mikkel Kessler i rate as a good win because i think he is one of the best technical fighters out there. He had some solid wins against Librado Andrade, Craig Cummings, Anthony Mundine, he may not have the best wins in the world.

But he is a much better fighter than Jeff Lacy ever was, and it was between the two best Super Middleweights in the world and people were demanding the fight. I rated Mikkel Kessler as a good fighter before and after the Joe Calzaghe fight. And i give Joe Calzaghe alot of props for winning the fight.

That was EXACTLY the situation for Lacy-Calzaghe. Unfortunately you weren't here to inform everyone what a pointless match it was between two such ordinary fighters.

Kessler's solid wins - Librado Andrade, Craig Cummings, Anthony Mundine.

Not very impressive is it? Beating those couldn't have led you to believe Kessler was "world class?" I don't see how they are any better than Lacy beating Sheika, Vanderpool, Reid, Pemberton. You knew Lacy wasn't "world class", right?

So basically you rate Kessler as "world class" because you like his style. He has no "world class" wins going by your criteria. Therefore shouldn't be rated as a "good" win for Calzaghe.. Or any better than his other "questionable" wins.

Cummings? not Beyer 3rd rd KO?

Originally Posted by Markusdarkus

Originally Posted by ICB

Originally Posted by Markusdarkus

Virgil Hill
Montel Griffin
Thulani Malinga
Eric Harding
Jorge Fenando Castro


Exactly the rest of his good wins (those are less than a Pavlik) have question marks.

So does Hopkins so does Wright (small guy king) so does Calzaghe.

Its worrying why idiots pull up Calzaghes wins then not expect to get annihilated on the board.

They were examples RJJ has plenty more good wins than that, i don't have to list every single one of them. Because i do everytime we have this debate, and you have no real answer or debate to counter it. And plus im still waiting for you to debate my point regarding Joe Calzaghe's opposition, and how of i got annihilated

Its a debate jeez just because your massive fan of Joe Calzaghe, you have to except other people to criticize your fighter without getting defensive all the time.

Name one good win better than Eubank or even a Brewer Jones had between 94-02.

Montell Griffin could have beaten both Eubank and Brewer that is and im a massive Eubank fan i grew up on him so it aint just to get one over on Calzaghe.

I like Calzaghe a lot.I've liked him since the early years.He has one of the best boxing brain and chin in the business i reckon!I wish him well.You deserve it Joe!!

Originally Posted by Markusdarkus

Originally Posted by Fenster

Originally Posted by ICB

Mikkel Kessler i rate as a good win because i think he is one of the best technical fighters out there. He had some solid wins against Librado Andrade, Craig Cummings, Anthony Mundine, he may not have the best wins in the world.

But he is a much better fighter than Jeff Lacy ever was, and it was between the two best Super Middleweights in the world and people were demanding the fight. I rated Mikkel Kessler as a good fighter before and after the Joe Calzaghe fight. And i give Joe Calzaghe alot of props for winning the fight.

That was EXACTLY the situation for Lacy-Calzaghe. Unfortunately you weren't here to inform everyone what a pointless match it was between two such ordinary fighters.

Kessler's solid wins - Librado Andrade, Craig Cummings, Anthony Mundine.

Not very impressive is it? Beating those couldn't have led you to believe Kessler was "world class?" I don't see how they are any better than Lacy beating Sheika, Vanderpool, Reid, Pemberton. You knew Lacy wasn't "world class", right?

So basically you rate Kessler as "world class" because you like his style. He has no "world class" wins going by your criteria. Therefore shouldn't be rated as a "good" win for Calzaghe.. Or any better than his other "questionable" wins.

Cummings? not Beyer 3rd rd KO?

It doesn't matter - Kessler beat them. Calzaghe is BETTER than Kessler. But Calzaghe is ordinary. Every win he's had is QUESTIONABLE.

So.. Beyer and Cummings are both beyond PATHETIC considering Calzaghe is so ordinary and he beat Kessler.

Craig Cummings weren't really a good win i remember him the fireman he fought Steve Collins collins stopped him in 3 i think .

Originally Posted by Fenster

Originally Posted by ICB

Originally Posted by Fenster

I don't understand why you rate Kessler as a "good" win? Who did he ever beat?

Mikkel Kessler i rate as a good win because i think he is one of the best technical fighters out there. He had some solid wins against Librado Andrade, Craig Cummings, Anthony Mundine, he may not have the best wins in the world.

But he is a much better fighter than Jeff Lacy ever was, and it was between the two best Super Middleweights in the world and people were demanding the fight. I rated Mikkel Kessler as a good fighter before and after the Joe Calzaghe fight. And i give Joe Calzaghe alot of props for winning the fight.

That was EXACTLY the situation for Lacy-Calzaghe. Unfortunately you weren't here to inform everyone what a pointless match it was between two such ordinary fighters.

Kessler's solid wins - Librado Andrade, Craig Cummings, Anthony Mundine.

Not very impressive is it? Beating those couldn't have led you to believe Kessler was "world class?" I don't see how they are any better than Lacy beating Sheika, Vanderpool, Reid, Pemberton. You knew Lacy wasn't "world class", right?

So basically you rate Kessler as "world class" because you like his style. He has no "world class" wins going by your criteria. Therefore shouldn't be rated as a "good" win for Calzaghe.. Or any better than his other "questionable" wins.

Them fighters were shot and past their best. Lacy never was nor never will be world class. Just an overrated contender.

Originally Posted by leftylee

Originally Posted by Fenster

Originally Posted by ICB

Mikkel Kessler i rate as a good win because i think he is one of the best technical fighters out there. He had some solid wins against Librado Andrade, Craig Cummings, Anthony Mundine, he may not have the best wins in the world.

But he is a much better fighter than Jeff Lacy ever was, and it was between the two best Super Middleweights in the world and people were demanding the fight. I rated Mikkel Kessler as a good fighter before and after the Joe Calzaghe fight. And i give Joe Calzaghe alot of props for winning the fight.

That was EXACTLY the situation for Lacy-Calzaghe. Unfortunately you weren't here to inform everyone what a pointless match it was between two such ordinary fighters.

Kessler's solid wins - Librado Andrade, Craig Cummings, Anthony Mundine.

Not very impressive is it? Beating those couldn't have led you to believe Kessler was "world class?" I don't see how they are any better than Lacy beating Sheika, Vanderpool, Reid, Pemberton. You knew Lacy wasn't "world class", right?

So basically you rate Kessler as "world class" because you like his style. He has no "world class" wins going by your criteria. Therefore shouldn't be rated as a "good" win for Calzaghe.. Or any better than his other "questionable" wins.

Them fighters were shot and past their best. Lacy never was nor never will be world class. Just an overrated contender.

They had a best? Those guys must have been beyond pathetic if Lacy beat them - considering Calzaghe beat Lacy.

And yes I agree.. the former IBF world supermiddleweight champion, Jeff Lacy, was never world class. Non-fiction.

Originally Posted by Fenster

Originally Posted by leftylee

Originally Posted by Fenster

That was EXACTLY the situation for Lacy-Calzaghe. Unfortunately you weren't here to inform everyone what a pointless match it was between two such ordinary fighters.

Kessler's solid wins - Librado Andrade, Craig Cummings, Anthony Mundine.

Not very impressive is it? Beating those couldn't have led you to believe Kessler was "world class?" I don't see how they are any better than Lacy beating Sheika, Vanderpool, Reid, Pemberton. You knew Lacy wasn't "world class", right?

So basically you rate Kessler as "world class" because you like his style. He has no "world class" wins going by your criteria. Therefore shouldn't be rated as a "good" win for Calzaghe.. Or any better than his other "questionable" wins.

Them fighters were shot and past their best. Lacy never was nor never will be world class. Just an overrated contender.

They had a best? Those guys must have been beyond pathetic if Lacy beat them - considering Calzaghe beat Lacy.

And yes I agree.. the former IBF world supermiddleweight champion, Jeff Lacy, was never world class. Non-fiction.

Homie if your going by that rule your calling former WBA world champion Gavin Rees world class ? Or former WBC world champion Sergio Mora world class ? Or former WBO world champion Alex Arthur world class ?Those three are garbage. The list is endless really if you talk like that.

Originally Posted by Fenster

Originally Posted by leftylee

Originally Posted by Fenster

That was EXACTLY the situation for Lacy-Calzaghe. Unfortunately you weren't here to inform everyone what a pointless match it was between two such ordinary fighters.

Kessler's solid wins - Librado Andrade, Craig Cummings, Anthony Mundine.

Not very impressive is it? Beating those couldn't have led you to believe Kessler was "world class?" I don't see how they are any better than Lacy beating Sheika, Vanderpool, Reid, Pemberton. You knew Lacy wasn't "world class", right?

So basically you rate Kessler as "world class" because you like his style. He has no "world class" wins going by your criteria. Therefore shouldn't be rated as a "good" win for Calzaghe.. Or any better than his other "questionable" wins.

Them fighters were shot and past their best. Lacy never was nor never will be world class. Just an overrated contender.

They had a best? Those guys must have been beyond pathetic if Lacy beat them - considering Calzaghe beat Lacy.

And yes I agree.. the former IBF world supermiddleweight champion, Jeff Lacy, was never world class. Non-fiction.

So i guess Sam peter, the former WBC world champion "IS" world class?
People dont have to be good to win championships. Lacy was never world class

Originally Posted by intoccabile

Originally Posted by Fenster

Originally Posted by leftylee

Them fighters were shot and past their best. Lacy never was nor never will be world class. Just an overrated contender.

They had a best? Those guys must have been beyond pathetic if Lacy beat them - considering Calzaghe beat Lacy.

And yes I agree.. the former IBF world supermiddleweight champion, Jeff Lacy, was never world class. Non-fiction.

So i guess Sam peter, the former WBC world champion "IS" world class?
People dont have to be good to win championships. Lacy was never world class

Exactly. Rep will be given.