Re: Non-British perspective: Froch easier to like than was Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
Can a mod delete this thread? It's fucking garbage, there has been no debate from the get go.
youre just biased
grow up yer troll
;D
Re: Non-British perspective: Froch easier to like than was Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Althugz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
Can a mod delete this thread? It's fucking garbage, there has been no debate from the get go.
youre just biased
grow up yer troll
;D
This thread is awesome
i know, which isnt unusual coz threads about calzaghe being a slapper are usually this good
i love them
someone says calazaghe slaps and then someone says he doesnt then someone else says that someone is biased
it doesnt get any better
Re: Non-British perspective: Froch easier to like than was Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Althugz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
Can a mod delete this thread? It's fucking garbage, there has been no debate from the get go.
youre just biased
grow up yer troll
;D
This thread is awesome
Agreed
Re: Non-British perspective: Froch easier to like than was Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
Can a mod delete this thread? It's fucking garbage, there has been no debate from the get go.
Granted............ it's not as educational as "Who would win between a prime Rocky and Batman"........... but we're doing the best we can.
Re: Non-British perspective: Froch easier to like than was Calzaghe
This thread is different class. ;D
TitoFan, if you want to redeem yourself, all you have to do is name the supermiddles Calzaghe ducked? Simple as that. Fact.
Re: Non-British perspective: Froch easier to like than was Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
This thread is different class. ;D
TitoFan, if you want to redeem yourself, all you have to do is name the supermiddles Calzaghe ducked? Simple as that. Fact.
You're the one who needs redeeming, Fenny. No objectiveness... no sense of humor... total lack of touch with reality. Make up shit as you go along. Now I claimed Calzaghe ducked anyone? Quote me, oh Deluded One.
Re: Non-British perspective: Froch easier to like than was Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
I beg to differ with the Calzaghe/Hopkins/Marciano opponents comparison. Hopkins, throughout his remarkable career, fought more than a handful of big name opponents. His list more than stacks up against Calzaghe's opponents list, IMO. Marciano I'm not too sure about.
Explain the difference between Hopkins and Cazlaghe's title defences?
Re: Non-British perspective: Froch easier to like than was Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
I beg to differ with the Calzaghe/Hopkins/Marciano opponents comparison. Hopkins, throughout his remarkable career, fought more than a handful of big name opponents. His list more than stacks up against Calzaghe's opponents list, IMO. Marciano I'm not too sure about.
Explain the difference between Hopkins and Cazlaghe's title defences?
First, you claim I said Calzaghe ducked people. There goes what little's left of your credibility right there. Second, I said "opponents". You're specifying "title defenses". Another blow to your negligible credibility. But I'll humor you and list the opponents:
Hopkins
Glen Johnson
Keith Holmes
Felix Trinidad
William Joppy
Oscar de la Hoya
Howard Eastman
Jermain Taylor (twice)
Antonio Tarver
Winky Wright
Joe Calzaghe
Kelly Pavlik
Roy Jones Jr.
Chad Dawson
Calzaghe
Eubank
Jeff Lacy
Kessler
Hopkins
RJJ
Oh...... and Peter Manfredo.
Next!
Re: Non-British perspective: Froch easier to like than was Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
There are no false facts. I find it easier to respond this way at times and bold my replies to portions rather then quote the post and respond. I sincerely mean no offense by this format. Its not Calzaghes fault that 168 was anorexic at his peak anymore then it was the fault of Hopkins for a mediocre 160 division or Marciano for a less then stellar heavyweight division. What stands out for Joe is the Lacy fight and the Kessler fight for me at a time when 175 was looming. Facts are facts.
Quote:
I beg to differ with the Calzaghe/Hopkins/Marciano opponents comparison. Hopkins, throughout his remarkable career, fought more than a handful of big name opponents. His list more than stacks up against Calzaghe's opponents list, IMO. Marciano I'm not too sure about.
Give me a name prior to Tito? a CAREER WELTER recently turned Jr Mid? Hopkins is a 1st ballot hall of famer for a dominant career and yet Reid probably beats anyone he fought. I'm not saying his record is better. You are saying I am and then suggesting my response is emotional.
Who did Marciano fight prime wise?
Quote:
Ali did NOT slap. Ali had little power in his punches, because of the way he threw them. He rarely put his whole body weight behind his punches, but rather threw them while leaning back or falling away. There's a huge difference between that and slapping. Ray Leonard, if you're including him in that group... was most definitely not a slapper. He could have his meaningless flurries, like a few he threw against Hagler. But he could punch with power, and had a few good KOs to his credit. Calzaghe was a slapper. For whatever the reason. Brittle hands, whatever. He slapped. The flurries looked downright U-G-L-Y. Turned me off immediately. Whatever the reason for Calzaghe to fight Manfredo, it was laughable. Should've never occurred at that stage of Calzaghe's career. Being a "Contender" star is a dubious entry in a fighter's resume.
Yes he did. Almost as much as he held behind the head. He and many others have won fights by the very combinations you dismiss. I could draft a list of fighters who slap by your opinion that would grow eternally. You claim that you are not a hater and that its a fact and yet empirical evidence would suggest that's not the case.
Oh..... I don't agree with you so I'm a hater?
I was starting to give you credit for being a non-emotional Calzaghe fan, but never mind.
:rolleyes:
By the way, I give you a paragraph of technical explanations as to why Ali was not the pathetic "slapper" that Calzaghe was..... and you counter with:
"Yes he did."
I rest my case.
:tumbleweed:
Ahhhhhhh..... the silence that always follows a whitewash.
;)
Re: Non-British perspective: Froch easier to like than was Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
I beg to differ with the Calzaghe/Hopkins/Marciano opponents comparison. Hopkins, throughout his remarkable career, fought more than a handful of big name opponents. His list more than stacks up against Calzaghe's opponents list, IMO. Marciano I'm not too sure about.
Explain the difference between Hopkins and Cazlaghe's title defences?
First, you claim I said Calzaghe ducked people. There goes what little's left of your credibility right there. Second, I said "opponents". You're specifying "title defenses". Another blow to your negligible credibility. But I'll humor you and list the opponents:
Hopkins
Glen Johnson
Keith Holmes
Felix Trinidad
William Joppy
Oscar de la Hoya
Howard Eastman
Jermain Taylor (twice)
Antonio Tarver
Winky Wright
Joe Calzaghe
Kelly Pavlik
Roy Jones Jr.
Chad Dawson
Calzaghe
Eubank
Jeff Lacy
Kessler
Hopkins
RJJ
Oh...... and Peter Manfredo.
Next!
Those Nard fights weren't all his Middleweight defences and he lost to 4 of the guys on your list.
B-Hop's reign at MW was no better than JC's at SMW. JC's opposition was medicore until Lacy/Kessler. B-Hop's opposition was mediocre until Tito. Doesn't mean that either one of them was not the best in their division, but both records are pretty equal.
Re: Non-British perspective: Froch easier to like than was Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
I beg to differ with the Calzaghe/Hopkins/Marciano opponents comparison. Hopkins, throughout his remarkable career, fought more than a handful of big name opponents. His list more than stacks up against Calzaghe's opponents list, IMO. Marciano I'm not too sure about.
Explain the difference between Hopkins and Cazlaghe's title defences?
First, you claim I said Calzaghe ducked people. There goes what little's left of your credibility right there. Second, I said "opponents". You're specifying "title defenses". Another blow to your negligible credibility. But I'll humor you and list the opponents:
Hopkins
Glen Johnson
Keith Holmes
Felix Trinidad
William Joppy
Oscar de la Hoya
Howard Eastman
Jermain Taylor (twice)
Antonio Tarver
Winky Wright
Joe Calzaghe
Kelly Pavlik
Roy Jones Jr.
Chad Dawson
Calzaghe
Eubank
Jeff Lacy
Kessler
Hopkins
RJJ
Oh...... and Peter Manfredo.
Next!
Those Nard fights weren't all his Middleweight defences and he lost to 4 of the guys on your list.
B-Hop's reign at MW was no better than JC's at SMW. JC's opposition was medicore until Lacy/Kessler. B-Hop's opposition was mediocre until Tito. Doesn't mean that either one of them was not the best in their division, but both records are pretty equal.
My original claim was that Bernard's list of opponents stacks up better than Calzaghe's list of opponents, and I still feel that way. I went back over both lists, and there's no way I can feel any different. I do agree, however, that they were both the best in their respective divisions during their reigns. In all honesty, I probably should have omitted DLH from the Hopkins list. De La Hoya had no business at 160..... never did anything worthy of note at 160, other than get a gift decision against Felix Sturm. DLH's fight against Hopkins, IMO, should not be considered a major accomplishment in Hopkins' career. But the rest of the list is still more impressive than Calzaghe's. Maybe not JC's fault, just like it won't be Wlad's fault that his list of opponents has been shit when he's done with his career. It's just circumstance. And yet... I failed to see a "Peter Manfredo" in Hopkins list of opponents at a comparable stage of his career. There's no way to talk up Manfredo. He was a bum.
Re: Non-British perspective: Froch easier to like than was Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
I beg to differ with the Calzaghe/Hopkins/Marciano opponents comparison. Hopkins, throughout his remarkable career, fought more than a handful of big name opponents. His list more than stacks up against Calzaghe's opponents list, IMO. Marciano I'm not too sure about.
Explain the difference between Hopkins and Cazlaghe's title defences?
First, you claim I said Calzaghe ducked people. There goes what little's left of your credibility right there. Second, I said "opponents". You're specifying "title defenses". Another blow to your negligible credibility. But I'll humor you and list the opponents:
Hopkins
Glen Johnson
Keith Holmes
Felix Trinidad
William Joppy
Oscar de la Hoya
Howard Eastman
Jermain Taylor (twice)
Antonio Tarver
Winky Wright
Joe Calzaghe
Kelly Pavlik
Roy Jones Jr.
Chad Dawson
Calzaghe
Eubank
Jeff Lacy
Kessler
Hopkins
RJJ
Oh...... and Peter Manfredo.
Next!
:vd:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Its not Calzaghes fault that 168 was anorexic at his peak anymore then it was the fault of Hopkins for a mediocre 160 division
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
I beg to differ with the Calzaghe/Hopkins/Marciano opponents comparison. Hopkins, throughout his remarkable career, fought more than a handful of big name opponents. His list more than stacks up against Calzaghe's opponents list, IMO.
You said "I beg to differ" about a comparison made between Calzaghe at 168 and Hopkins at 160. What does Hopkins post 160 career have to do with it?
It's not Fenster's credibility you should be concerned with. Fact.
Re: Non-British perspective: Froch easier to like than was Calzaghe
Calzaghe's list theses are either currant or ex World Champions.
RJJ
B Hopkins
M Kessler
J Lacy
B Mitchell
C Brewer
R Woodhall
R Reid
C Eubank
In that list are 10 World Champions some very good fighters, he all so faced many contenders some good and some not so good. But the same for all Champions don't face all good contenders.
There are a lot of people slag Joe off who he faced, but in that 10 there are some great fighters,so
please get your facts right.;)
