Why is JC not given the credit he deserves for this win...
The bookies had JC as an underdog, and nearly all the american press didnt give him chance...
Yet Calzaghe destroyes him and suddenly he was shit.,. EXPLAIN someone...
Printable View
Why is JC not given the credit he deserves for this win...
The bookies had JC as an underdog, and nearly all the american press didnt give him chance...
Yet Calzaghe destroyes him and suddenly he was shit.,. EXPLAIN someone...
Why are you bringing this up now? This was 2 and a half years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by gudnite vienna
Anywho I'll play American reporters were buying into the hype, Stateside Calzaghe was relatively unknown.
because in every thread involving calzaghe, the win over lacy is brought up, and then dismissed...
The american press must be pritty dum then to be fair
I would say more ignorant than dumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by gudnite vienna
Odd,I thought Lacy was going to lose the fight,he wasnt experienced enough
It's simple, Lacy was being overrated and Calzaghe being underrated at the time, or thought to be long in the tooth.
I liked Lacy, but never thought that highly of him.
It's a solid win for Calzaghe, but beating Kessler was definitely better. I thought much more highly of Kessler than lacy.
its very rare the bookies get in wrong in big title fights, and it was the most onesided 12 round fights ive ever seen
It's simple Lacy was very hyped at the time. He was billed as the next big thing, and JC was unknown to most fans in the states. Im pretty sure that noone takes anything away from JC because as you said some dismiss the Lacy fight he still has wins over Kessler and Hopkins that are impressive.. Even tough i tought hopkins won that fight with effective punching it was close enough, and for that he gets my props...Quote:
Originally Posted by gudnite vienna
Bookies often get it wrong. There's always upsets. Calzaghe was a slight betting underdog.Quote:
Originally Posted by gudnite vienna
Far bigger underdogs have dominated their opponents.
Seen it all before all the sportwriters said Holyfield would lose to Tyson except one, i never thought Lacy was that good as i said time and time again. All you have to do is watch how he struggled against mediocre fighters like Vanderpool, Sheika, American's were looking for an American hope since they hadn't had any good Super Middleweights in years. Hence why Jeff Lacy got overrated.Quote:
Originally Posted by gudnite vienna
And I think the reason why the one writer, Ron "The Plagarizer" Borges, picked Holyfield is because he doesn't like Tyson. Oh, and so he can pick an upset and be the one to get it right.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICBSeen it all before all the sportwriters said Holyfield would lose to Tyson except one, i never thought Lacy was that good as i said time and time again. All you have to do is watch how he struggled against mediocre fighters like Vanderpool, Sheika, American's were looking for an American hope since they hadn't had any good Super Middleweights in years. Hence why Jeff Lacy got overrated.Quote:
Originally Posted by gudnite vienna
I hate that guy.
yeh but everyone couldnt praise holffield enough after that fight unlike calzaghe
So what's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by gudnite vienna
He's whining that people downgrade Calzaghe's win over Lacy, but people do the same for Holyfield and Tyson.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepSo what's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by gudnite vienna
Lots of people on message boards talk about how Tyson wasn't the same post-prison and only a 4-round fighter by then, forgetting that Holyfield was the huge underdog who was considered a shot fighter in 1996.
In retrospect, both guys were past their primes, but Holyfield adapted better to the decline.
they were both championship fights, both underdogs won in great fashion but for some reason Calzaghe's win doesnt got the credit it deserves..