Sven Okkte.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Printable View
Sven Okkte.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Well if in addition to beating Barrera twice Jones also reigned for 10 years as an undefeated super bantamweight champ, made 21 consective defenses of his title, unified the entire division and won all four belts then moved up and beat the man at featherweight then I would happily put him as an all time great :)Quote:
Originally Posted by QUISQUEYAQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Calzaghe beat a FORTY THREE YEAR OLD Hopkins. By a close points decision. After getting knocked down.
Please don't be confused. Hopkins dominating Pavlik says more about what Pavlik is NOT, than what Hopkins (at 43) is.
With all due respect, that "man that beat the man" argument is seriously flawed. Unless you are prepared to anoint Junior Jones as an ATG. Because he also "beat the man who beat the man".
41-year-old Hopkins EASILY beat Tarver.Quote:
Originally Posted by QUISQUEYAQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Calzaghe beat a FORTY THREE YEAR OLD Hopkins. By a close points decision. After getting knocked down.
Please don't be confused. Hopkins dominating Pavlik says more about what Pavlik is NOT, than what Hopkins (at 43) is.
With all due respect, that "man that beat the man" argument is seriously flawed. Unless you are prepared to anoint Junior Jones as an ATG. Because he also "beat the man who beat the man".
42-year-old Hopkins COMFORTABLY beat Winky.
43-year-old Hopkins was BEATEN by Calzaghe.
43-year-old Hopkins THRASHED Pavlik.
TWO fights prior to Calzaghe, Hopkins age WAS NOT a factor in beating class fighters. After he was BEATEN by Calzaghe his age WAS NOT a factor in defeating Pavlik. Fact.
So.. why is his age a factor in the Calzaghe LOSS?
Reid was very unlucky not to beat him (shocking ref). Brewer and Mitchell had arguable losses. I don't see him beating Hopkins, Eubank or Kessler. Starie gave him a close-ish fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreSven Okkte.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Very slim chance, Andre, Ottke would have remained unbeaten through that level of opposition. ;)
I'm still awaiting reply to this post above. I think Game Set Match is about to be declared :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboWell if in addition to beating Barrera twice Jones also reigned for 10 years as an undefeated super bantamweight champ, made 21 consective defenses of his title, unified the entire division and won all four belts then moved up and beat the man at featherweight then I would happily put him as an all time great :)Quote:
Originally Posted by QUISQUEYAQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Calzaghe beat a FORTY THREE YEAR OLD Hopkins. By a close points decision. After getting knocked down.
Please don't be confused. Hopkins dominating Pavlik says more about what Pavlik is NOT, than what Hopkins (at 43) is.
With all due respect, that "man that beat the man" argument is seriously flawed. Unless you are prepared to anoint Junior Jones as an ATG. Because he also "beat the man who beat the man".
I think you've made a very good point there. Fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboI'm still awaiting reply to this post above. I think Game Set Match is about to be declared :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboWell if in addition to beating Barrera twice Jones also reigned for 10 years as an undefeated super bantamweight champ, made 21 consective defenses of his title, unified the entire division and won all four belts then moved up and beat the man at featherweight then I would happily put him as an all time great :)Quote:
Originally Posted by QUISQUEYA
It's odd that you now change the criteria...but OK. Here goes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
If Calzaghe was actually fighting the MAB-equivalent opponents for his whole career, he would not be undefeated. I talk to knowledgeable boxing fans who can't name 2 or 3 Calzaghe opponents pre-Lacy. What does that tell ya?
It tells me that all those title defenses should be taken in context.
Thomas Damgaard had a GREAT record fighting in Europe. Are you also ready to crown him?
Here are some of the top guys from 160-175 during Calzaghe's tenure:
Winky
Tito
Hopkins
Taylor
Tarver
Toney
Pavlik
Johnson
Dawson
Many people just find it odd that Calzaghe hasn't found his way into the ring with ANY of those guys during their primes.
I respect your views and your love for CalSlappy. I just wish Joe would stop hanging around nursing homes looking for opponents. it's unseemly.
[quote=Bilbo;622929]Well seeing as the ancient past it Hopkins is beating most of the guys you mention Winky, Pavlik, Tarver etc you'd have to conclude that they are all in fact shit, losing to a shot fighter the wrong side of 40.Quote:
Originally Posted by QUISQUEYAIt's odd that you now change the criteria...but OK. Here goes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
If Calzaghe was actually fighting the MAB-equivalent opponents for his whole career, he would not be undefeated. I talk to knowledgeable boxing fans who can't name 2 or 3 Calzaghe opponents pre-Lacy. What does that tell ya?
It tells me that all those title defenses should be taken in context.
Thomas Damgaard had a GREAT record fighting in Europe. Are you also ready to crown him?
Here are some of the top guys from 160-175 during Calzaghe's tenure:
Winky
Tito
Hopkins
Taylor
Tarver
Toney
Pavlik
Johnson
Dawson
Many people just find it odd that Calzaghe hasn't found his way into the ring with ANY of those guys during their primes.
I respect your views and your love for CalSlappy. I just wish Joe would stop hanging around nursing homes looking for opponents. it's unseemly.
Really why would you say Calzaghe should fight them when grandaddy Popkin's beat them with ease? :confused:
And why do you keep mentioning James Toney, he's been fighting at CRUISERWEIGHT since 1997 :rolleyes:
I did wink and smile after the comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterReid was very unlucky not to beat him (shocking ref). Brewer and Mitchell had arguable losses. I don't see him beating Hopkins, Eubank or Kessler. Starie gave him a close-ish fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreSven Okkte.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Very slim chance, Andre, Ottke would have remained unbeaten through that level of opposition. ;)
Although he was a very tight fighter that just had answers out of his one dimensional boring fight style. Styles make fights, they also muck them up and guess who was a master at it.
When he did mess up in the ring, the home team refs had his back. Someone (we will blame the usual promoter) should have tried to lure him $$$ over to England for a good old school whooping then.
Please don't subscribe to triangular theories. I'm thinking that you are smarter than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Read the stats , lots of Calzaghe's oponants had already been beaten at top level , lots were total bums , Hopkins ,Kessler , were big names , and thats it , i accept Calzaghe is a top fighter , but why oh why did he fight so many soft touches ?Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboI'm still awaiting reply to this post above. I think Game Set Match is about to be declared :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboWell if in addition to beating Barrera twice Jones also reigned for 10 years as an undefeated super bantamweight champ, made 21 consective defenses of his title, unified the entire division and won all four belts then moved up and beat the man at featherweight then I would happily put him as an all time great :)Quote:
Originally Posted by QUISQUEYA
Also when you use Marciano as an example , remember 1 fact , Rocky was the only champion at the time.
Calzaghe held the WBO JOKE title for most of his reign with 3 other champions.
See my point Bilbo ?
It also makes me smile , a guy like Nigel Benn / James Toney etc could threaten an opponent " I'm going to knock you out " and for the most part in Benn's case he did.
Calzaghe is more a " I'll slap you around a bit and take you to a boring decision " lol
The famed Calzaghe " they cant take my power " was laughable as even pathetic fighters like Rick Thornberry who were KOED at lower levels , went the distance , even British standard fighters like Starie.
That tells me they're not that knowledgable.Quote:
Originally Posted by QUISQUEYAIt's odd that you now change the criteria...but OK. Here goes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
If Calzaghe was actually fighting the MAB-equivalent opponents for his whole career, he would not be undefeated. I talk to knowledgeable boxing fans who can't name 2 or 3 Calzaghe opponents pre-Lacy. What does that tell ya?
It tells me that all those title defenses should be taken in context.
Thomas Damgaard had a GREAT record fighting in Europe. Are you also ready to crown him?
Here are some of the top guys from 160-175 during Calzaghe's tenure:
Winky
Tito
Hopkins
Taylor
Tarver
Toney
Pavlik
Johnson
Dawson
Many people just find it odd that Calzaghe hasn't found his way into the ring with ANY of those guys during their primes.
I respect your views and your love for CalSlappy. I just wish Joe would stop hanging around nursing homes looking for opponents. it's unseemly.
Pavlik beat JT twice. JT beat Bernard. Pavilk beats Hopkins? Nope. Logic doesn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster41-year-old Hopkins EASILY beat Tarver.Quote:
Originally Posted by QUISQUEYAQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Calzaghe beat a FORTY THREE YEAR OLD Hopkins. By a close points decision. After getting knocked down.
Please don't be confused. Hopkins dominating Pavlik says more about what Pavlik is NOT, than what Hopkins (at 43) is.
With all due respect, that "man that beat the man" argument is seriously flawed. Unless you are prepared to anoint Junior Jones as an ATG. Because he also "beat the man who beat the man".
42-year-old Hopkins COMFORTABLY beat Winky.
43-year-old Hopkins was BEATEN by Calzaghe.
43-year-old Hopkins THRASHED Pavlik.
TWO fights prior to Calzaghe, Hopkins age WAS NOT a factor in beating class fighters. After he was BEATEN by Calzaghe his age WAS NOT a factor in defeating Pavlik. Fact.
So.. why is his age a factor in the Calzaghe LOSS?
Calzaghe is a first ballot hall of famer. 21 consecutive title defenses merits respect and adulation. Guy is a great. Does his resume leave something to be desired? Absolutely. Furthermore, if Kessler continues to fight bums and turns out to be all hype when he faces someone good, Calzaghe's resume will look weaker.
If Jones beats Calzaghe (and I don't think he has a shot), how will Calzaghe's resume look?
Err.. so Kesslers future results will determine the worth of Calzaghe's win against him.. yet Hopkins ENHANCED reputation since Calzaghe beat him means nothing?Quote:
Originally Posted by RantcatratPavlik beat JT twice. JT beat Bernard. Pavilk beats Hopkins? Nope. Logic doesn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster41-year-old Hopkins EASILY beat Tarver.Quote:
Originally Posted by QUISQUEYA
42-year-old Hopkins COMFORTABLY beat Winky.
43-year-old Hopkins was BEATEN by Calzaghe.
43-year-old Hopkins THRASHED Pavlik.
TWO fights prior to Calzaghe, Hopkins age WAS NOT a factor in beating class fighters. After he was BEATEN by Calzaghe his age WAS NOT a factor in defeating Pavlik. Fact.
So.. why is his age a factor in the Calzaghe LOSS?
Calzaghe is a first ballot hall of famer. 21 consecutive title defenses merits respect and adulation. Guy is a great. Does his resume leave something to be desired? Absolutely. Furthermore, if Kessler continues to fight bums and turns out to be all hype when he faces someone good, Calzaghe's resume will look weaker.
If Jones beats Calzaghe (and I don't think he has a shot), how will Calzaghe's resume look?
Just a tad hypocritical that one. ;)
And should Jones beat Calzaghe his WIN record will look as it does now. How does losing to Roy damage his 45 previous WINS?
If the GREAT fighter Roy Jones beats Joe that proves Joe is crap which must mean Hopkins and 44 others are incredibly crapper than Joe.
This is silly. Fact.
VERY WELL SAID INDEED WE ARE GETTING SOMEWERE ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterErr.. so Kesslers future results will determine the worth of Calzaghe's win against him.. yet Hopkins ENHANCED reputation since Calzaghe beat him means nothing?Quote:
Originally Posted by RantcatratPavlik beat JT twice. JT beat Bernard. Pavilk beats Hopkins? Nope. Logic doesn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Calzaghe is a first ballot hall of famer. 21 consecutive title defenses merits respect and adulation. Guy is a great. Does his resume leave something to be desired? Absolutely. Furthermore, if Kessler continues to fight bums and turns out to be all hype when he faces someone good, Calzaghe's resume will look weaker.
If Jones beats Calzaghe (and I don't think he has a shot), how will Calzaghe's resume look?
Just a tad hypocritical that one. ;)
And should Jones beat Calzaghe his WIN record will look as it does now. How does losing to Roy damage his 45 previous WINS?
If the GREAT fighter Roy Jones beats Joe that proves Joe is crap which must mean Hopkins and 44 others are incredibly crapper than Joe.
This is silly. Fact.
In fairness, Roy Jones has got more left in the tank than Joe Louis did when Marciano fought him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al
Still, Joe Walcott was still a very good fighter and he peaked late in his career. Ezzard Charles was also on the back end, but it's still probably more impressive to beat him twice for for Joe C to beat Eubank. LaStarza was a better win than Jeff Lacy. Archie Moore is probably equal to beating B-Hop.
Both Jones and Calzaghe are guilty of not making certain fights which should have been made. Joninnes should have fought Steve Collins and Dariusz. Jones and Calzaghe should have met sometime between 2000 and 2002. Shame on both of them for not making the fight. Calzaghe should have been willing to go Germany and fight Ottke. That wasn't all Calzaghe's fault, but his team is partially to blame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
BOTH are ATG and HoF level fighters, but neither one acted like a true champion and made the best, toughest fights available. Both were content to make money off silly defenses mandated by idiotic, corrupt sanctioning bodies. Both guys were scared to take risks in there careers until the the back end, when when they realized that they better cash in before they lost it completely and there names had gotten big enough.
It's funny, when you look at Roy Jones record, you see a lot of guys that Roy catching guys on the back nine, and a bunch who James Toney and/or somebody else had already beat when they were in there primes - McCallum (Toney), Sosa (Toney and Nunn), Reggie Johnson (Toney), Gllen Wolfe (Toney) Virgil Hill (old Hearns, Dariusz), Toney Thornton (Eubank and Toney).
Yet he Jones would never rematch Hopkins or Toney. Never sought Calzaghe in his prime. Never fought Steve Collins or Dariusz. Picked one of the worst HW belt-holders in history to cherry pick his belt at HW.
Both are all-time greats, but Calzaghe deserves all the crap he gets, and it's too bad that Jones gets a free pass from so many people for being such a bitch-ass for a pretty good chuck of his career. He beats a weight drained James Toney, leaves strong SMW with unifying. He goes LHW and spends half his career beating James Toney's leftovers. Sad, because he was so talented and we deserved to see him against better opposition.
Jones gets all love. Joe gets all the crap. Makes no sense when they are so similar.
I don't understand your reply, but in all fairness it may be because my reply was difficult to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterErr.. so Kesslers future results will determine the worth of Calzaghe's win against him.. yet Hopkins ENHANCED reputation since Calzaghe beat him means nothing?Quote:
Originally Posted by RantcatratPavlik beat JT twice. JT beat Bernard. Pavilk beats Hopkins? Nope. Logic doesn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Calzaghe is a first ballot hall of famer. 21 consecutive title defenses merits respect and adulation. Guy is a great. Does his resume leave something to be desired? Absolutely. Furthermore, if Kessler continues to fight bums and turns out to be all hype when he faces someone good, Calzaghe's resume will look weaker.
If Jones beats Calzaghe (and I don't think he has a shot), how will Calzaghe's resume look?
Just a tad hypocritical that one. ;)
And should Jones beat Calzaghe his WIN record will look as it does now. How does losing to Roy damage his 45 previous WINS?
If the GREAT fighter Roy Jones beats Joe that proves Joe is crap which must mean Hopkins and 44 others are incredibly crapper than Joe.
This is silly. Fact.
Did I say Hopkins' win over Pavlik doesn't enhance Calzaghe's resume? I think it does legitimize it in a way. Moreover, Kessler dominating the 168 weight class from this point onward would legimitize it too. My point was that Kessler is Calzaghe's best win. Kessler was a dominant force and in his prime. Whatever you can say about the other fighters he faced, you can't make the same arguments about Kessler. Bhop was old, Lacy was overrated etc. etc. If, however, Kessler fought Jermain Taylor or Carl Froch and JT/Froch beat him, I think it would have an effect on how I view Joe's resume. Wouldn't it for you? It would, at least seemingly, lessen its grandness.
To put it in perspective, one of the first things I thought when Bhop trounced Pavlik, is wow, doesn't Joe C. look mighty good right about now. Say what you want about Hopkins, he's old and he doesn't fight, but he took the middleweight champion of the world to school. Then again, styles make fights. Like Calzaghe said, Hopkins was tailor-made for his style and like Hopkins said, Pavlik was tailor made for his style.
I haven't decided what I think about Joe's legacy if he loses to RJJ. I don't think a win significantly much either. I'm not sure.
Funny thing is: Joe felt vindicated for not taking the Pavlik fight, if I were him, I would have felt stupid. Assuming that he would have beat Pavlik, not one pundit could have said denied Joe his props. He would have beat a prime Pavlik. I understand that Hopkins beat Pavlik and that vindicates Joe's decision, but now he fights RJJ and although he is decisively favored against RJJ, we know now he probably would have beat Pavlik. Sorry to ramble.
I totally understand some people disliking Calzaghe,after all we all have our own opinion on what makes a good fighter,but i cant really understand why soo many disagree with Calzaghe's past opponants:-\You cant tell me that these past Calzaghe's opponants were push-overs:-\:
Reid,Brewer,Bika,Lacy,Kessler,Hopkins.
Their all dangerous opponants!
Yeah, that pretty much sums all all of them. In ten years. Average of one dangerous opponent every 2 years. And it's pretty sad when you are pulling out names of guys who were on The Contender as one of the top 6 most dangerous fights of your career.Quote:
Originally Posted by yvonne
Go to BoxRec, lookup Oscar, and see his list of opponents. Or Tito. Even Roy Jones list makes Calzaghe look overprotected, and Jones was well protected.
This post makes no sense Al. You criticise his wins over fighters who have previously lost whilst at the same time when he defeats unbeaten fighters like Lacy and Kessler you dismiss them as unproven and overratted :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord AlRead the stats , lots of Calzaghe's oponants had already been beaten at top level , lots were total bums , Hopkins ,Kessler , were big names , and thats it , i accept Calzaghe is a top fighter , but why oh why did he fight so many soft touches ?Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboI'm still awaiting reply to this post above. I think Game Set Match is about to be declared :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Also when you use Marciano as an example , remember 1 fact , Rocky was the only champion at the time.
Calzaghe held the WBO JOKE title for most of his reign with 3 other champions.
See my point Bilbo ?
It also makes me smile , a guy like Nigel Benn / James Toney etc could threaten an opponent " I'm going to knock you out " and for the most part in Benn's case he did.
Calzaghe is more a " I'll slap you around a bit and take you to a boring decision " lol
The famed Calzaghe " they cant take my power " was laughable as even pathetic fighters like Rick Thornberry who were KOED at lower levels , went the distance , even British standard fighters like Starie.
Calzaghe has beaten every man he's ever faced, his record is 100% perfect.
You simply cannot dimiss his resume, he's a proven champion and one of the very best fighters in the world. Trying to criticise every single win he's had is just plain hating. Did you see Kessler fight at the weekend, that KO was sick, the guy is a top notch operater. Wins over Beyer, Mundine, Andrade he was a tough tough opponent and Calzahghe gave him a boxing lesson.
Joes world class amazing fighter (Slaps though); I want Roy to win but rate joe highly and admire what he has achieved.
Everytime Calzaghe is debated, we see the same arguments, and quite frankly I just dont get them. One side is saying that Calzaghe is the motherf****** man for beating 45 guys, while the other side tries to point out that most of these guys werent, well, all that great.
Yet what I fail to understand is 1) how people can say, he beat Will McIntyre, he must be an ATG (which is the consequence of touting the numerical argument), and 2) why people seem to think that because he beat the likes of Will McIntyre, he is not a great fighter. Surely, for any fighter out there, to win - and win in style even - is better than not doing so, and 45 wins must be better than, say, 25 wins? On the other hand just beating 45 guys do not make you an ATG, as witnessed by Sven Ottke.
[As for Bilbo's first since Rocky Marciano-statements, I'm pretty sure Ricardo Lopez would disagree]
First of all Damgaard never had a GREAT record. He had a couple of good wins at European-level, and a very entertaining style, but fought mostly bums, and was obviously on the decline for a few years before crossing the pond. But I guess that is way off-topic, as far as this thread is concerned...Quote:
Originally Posted by QUISQUEYA
I do think however you're clutching at straws here. I have never ever heard anyone suggest that Calzalghe should have fought Tito in his prime -he was a welterweight, remember? Toney, as Bilbo pointed out, was hardly in Calzaghe's division during Calzaghe's prime either. And if he had fought Dawson or Pavlik before 2007, it (too) would have been against a very untested opponents (and while you can knock Calzaghe's career, you simply cannot knock his recent opposition).
You're left with a list of Winky (who is also smallish, compared to Calzaghe), Hopkins (who he did fight - and who may have been past his prime, but certainly not shot), Taylor, Tarver and Johnson. Those three would surely be good additions to his resume, but does anyone really doubt that Calzaghe would beat them?
Does it matter ? if he didn't fight them then its irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikkel_KEverytime Calzaghe is debated, we see the same arguments, and quite frankly I just dont get them. One side is saying that Calzaghe is the motherf****** man for beating 45 guys, while the other side tries to point out that most of these guys werent, well, all that great.
Yet what I fail to understand is 1) how people can say, he beat Will McIntyre, he must be an ATG (which is the consequence of touting the numerical argument), and 2) why people seem to think that because he beat the likes of Will McIntyre, he is not a great fighter. Surely, for any fighter out there, to win - and win in style even - is better than not doing so, and 45 wins must be better than, say, 25 wins? On the other hand just beating 45 guys do not make you an ATG, as witnessed by Sven Ottke.
[As for Bilbo's first since Rocky Marciano-statements, I'm pretty sure Ricardo Lopez would disagree]
First of all Damgaard never had a GREAT record. He had a couple of good wins at European-level, and a very entertaining style, but fought mostly bums, and was obviously on the decline for a few years before crossing the pond. But I guess that is way off-topic, as far as this thread is concerned...Quote:
Originally Posted by QUISQUEYA
I do think however you're clutching at straws here. I have never ever heard anyone suggest that Calzalghe should have fought Tito in his prime -he was a welterweight, remember? Toney, as Bilbo pointed out, was hardly in Calzaghe's division during Calzaghe's prime either. And if he had fought Dawson or Pavlik before 2007, it (too) would have been against a very untested opponents (and while you can knock Calzaghe's career, you simply cannot knock his recent opposition).
You're left with a list of Winky (who is also smallish, compared to Calzaghe), Hopkins (who he did fight - and who may have been past his prime, but certainly not shot), Taylor, Tarver and Johnson. Those three would surely be good additions to his resume, but does anyone really doubt that Calzaghe would beat them?
He spent the lions share of his career fighting bums , beat an old hopkins past his best , and fought RJJ when he had already been KOED on 2 occasions. which leaves Kessler , so what's your point ?
he reall lost to hopkins, and true boxing fans know it, those who prefer activity by slapping truly belive calzaghe won
Why not? His resume is not that great. He's a actually a better fighter than his resume shows. His resume is OK, but it's not what it should be for a fighter of his calibre.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboThis post makes no sense Al. You criticise his wins over fighters who have previously lost whilst at the same time when he defeats unbeaten fighters like Lacy and Kessler you dismiss them as unproven and overratted :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord AlRead the stats , lots of Calzaghe's oponants had already been beaten at top level , lots were total bums , Hopkins ,Kessler , were big names , and thats it , i accept Calzaghe is a top fighter , but why oh why did he fight so many soft touches ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Also when you use Marciano as an example , remember 1 fact , Rocky was the only champion at the time.
Calzaghe held the WBO JOKE title for most of his reign with 3 other champions.
See my point Bilbo ?
It also makes me smile , a guy like Nigel Benn / James Toney etc could threaten an opponent " I'm going to knock you out " and for the most part in Benn's case he did.
Calzaghe is more a " I'll slap you around a bit and take you to a boring decision " lol
The famed Calzaghe " they cant take my power " was laughable as even pathetic fighters like Rick Thornberry who were KOED at lower levels , went the distance , even British standard fighters like Starie.
Calzaghe has beaten every man he's ever faced, his record is 100% perfect.
You simply cannot dimiss his resume, he's a proven champion and one of the very best fighters in the world. Trying to criticise every single win he's had is just plain hating. Did you see Kessler fight at the weekend, that KO was sick, the guy is a top notch operater. Wins over Beyer, Mundine, Andrade he was a tough tough opponent and Calzahghe gave him a boxing lesson.
Everybody gives him credit for the Kessler win. I do find it interesting that Joe was content to say at SMW defending the nearly worthless WBO belt when that division was one of the weakest in boxing. Once the division got strong (Bute, Kessler, Jermaine Taylor, Andrade, heck, even Carl Froch is better than most of defenses) he took the opportunity to fight an aging Hopkins and an aging Roy Jones. He takes fights with Manfredo, Ashira, and Salem. He could have been fighting Bute, Beyer, or even Mundine.
Yea i found that funny too and also the fact that Joe Calzaghe, stated in the past he was going to move up to LHW years ago. Because he said making SMW was so hard and he had to starve himself ETC.Quote:
Originally Posted by RozzySeanWhy not? His resume is not that great. He's a actually a better fighter than his resume shows. His resume is OK, but it's not what it should be for a fighter of his calibre.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboThis post makes no sense Al. You criticise his wins over fighters who have previously lost whilst at the same time when he defeats unbeaten fighters like Lacy and Kessler you dismiss them as unproven and overratted :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al
Calzaghe has beaten every man he's ever faced, his record is 100% perfect.
You simply cannot dimiss his resume, he's a proven champion and one of the very best fighters in the world. Trying to criticise every single win he's had is just plain hating. Did you see Kessler fight at the weekend, that KO was sick, the guy is a top notch operater. Wins over Beyer, Mundine, Andrade he was a tough tough opponent and Calzahghe gave him a boxing lesson.
Everybody gives him credit for the Kessler win. I do find it interesting that Joe was content to say at SMW defending the nearly worthless WBO belt when that division was one of the weakest in boxing. Once the division got strong (Bute, Kessler, Jermaine Taylor, Andrade, heck, even Carl Froch is better than most of defenses) he took the opportunity to fight an aging Hopkins and an aging Roy Jones. He takes fights with Manfredo, Ashira, and Salem. He could have been fighting Bute, Beyer, or even Mundine.
Then why didn't he move up in weight and fight RJJ or ETC, im pretty certain he would of got some big fights at that weightclass had he pursued more.
Boxing is about MONEY.
Guys like Mundine and Beyer want BIG money to travel. Guys like Salem and Ashira cost peanuts.
Calzaghe-Hopkins/Jones is worth far more MONEY to them now than it would have been 10 years ago.
Calzaghe has only been recognised as top draw since 2006. ;)
HMMMMM. you have a very good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by RozzySeanWhy not? His resume is not that great. He's a actually a better fighter than his resume shows. His resume is OK, but it's not what it should be for a fighter of his calibre.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboThis post makes no sense Al. You criticise his wins over fighters who have previously lost whilst at the same time when he defeats unbeaten fighters like Lacy and Kessler you dismiss them as unproven and overratted :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al
Calzaghe has beaten every man he's ever faced, his record is 100% perfect.
You simply cannot dimiss his resume, he's a proven champion and one of the very best fighters in the world. Trying to criticise every single win he's had is just plain hating. Did you see Kessler fight at the weekend, that KO was sick, the guy is a top notch operater. Wins over Beyer, Mundine, Andrade he was a tough tough opponent and Calzahghe gave him a boxing lesson.
Everybody gives him credit for the Kessler win. I do find it interesting that Joe was content to say at SMW defending the nearly worthless WBO belt when that division was one of the weakest in boxing. Once the division got strong (Bute, Kessler, Jermaine Taylor, Andrade, heck, even Carl Froch is better than most of defenses) he took the opportunity to fight an aging Hopkins and an aging Roy Jones. He takes fights with Manfredo, Ashira, and Salem. He could have been fighting Bute, Beyer, or even Mundine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
You know Fenster I'm done debating this with people.
Anyone who genuinely in their heart thinks that Calzaghe should have proven his greatness by staying at 168 to fight Bute, Beyer and Mundine rather than go on to fight Bernard Hopkins and Roy Jones is just beyond reason imo.
People who are saying BHop is done according the Ring magazine he's the number 4 p4p fighter in the world :confused:
As for Kessler he's the RING CHAMPION at 168. He destroyed Marcus Beyer and easily beat Mundine, why in the world would Joe fight Beyer or Mundine? When he fought Lacy he was the RING NUMBER ONE CONTENDER at 168.
And people say he should have avoided these fights and instead fought Bute who almost got ktfo last week and Mundine who got KO'd by Sven Ottke :confused:
Seriously I still can't get over Rozzy Sean's suggestion that he should have stayed at 168 to fight Beyer?
Beyer got KO'd in 3 rounds by Kessler and was a decent but wholly ordinary world champ. He almost got ko'd by Danny Green until he was controversially saved, Bika was giving him problems until they managed to call that fight a no contest too.
Yet beating Beyer, who has been KTFO by Kesller, Mundine who got KTGO by OTTKE and Bute who almost got KTFO by Andrade are better opponents than B Hopkins and Roy Jones two of the greatest fighters of the past 20 years, both probably near the top 10 ALL TIME great list and who have beaten a whose who of boxing's elite.
Calzaghe should have turned down those fights and chose to build his legacy on Bute, Beyer and Mundine instead?
Sorry but that's the most retarded post I've ever read
;D This debate is never ending. Only the sane get out ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by BilboQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
You know Fenster I'm done debating this with people.
Anyone who genuinely in their heart thinks that Calzaghe should have proven his greatness by staying at 168 to fight Bute, Beyer and Mundine rather than go on to fight Bernard Hopkins and Roy Jones is just beyond reason imo.
People who are saying BHop is done according the Ring magazine he's the number 4 p4p fighter in the world :confused:
As for Kessler he's the RING CHAMPION at 168. He destroyed Marcus Beyer and easily beat Mundine, why in the world would Joe fight Beyer or Mundine? When he fought Lacy he was the RING NUMBER ONE CONTENDER at 168.
And people say he should have avoided these fights and instead fought Bute who almost got ktfo last week and Mundine who got KO'd by Sven Ottke :confused:
Seriously I still can't get over Rozzy Sean's suggestion that he should have stayed at 168 to fight Beyer?
Beyer got KO'd in 3 rounds by Kessler and was a decent but wholly ordinary world champ. He almost got ko'd by Danny Green until he was controversially saved, Bika was giving him problems until they managed to call that fight a no contest too.
Yet beating Beyer, who has been KTFO by Kesller, Mundine who got KTGO by OTTKE and Bute who almost got KTFO by Andrade are better opponents than B Hopkins and Roy Jones two of the greatest fighters of the past 20 years, both probably near the top 10 ALL TIME great list and who have beaten a whose who of boxing's elite.
Calzaghe should have turned down those fights and chose to build his legacy on Bute, Beyer and Mundine instead?
Sorry but that's the most retarded post I've ever read
Had Calzaghe beat Mundine and Beyer i'm sure all the detrators would have ranked those wins WAY above the Reid, Brewer, Mitchell, etc. NO WAY would they have been thrown into the list of "bums" :rolleyes:
He should have fought Beyer or Mundine BEFORE the Lacy and Kessler fights, back when he was fighting bums in 2004 and 2005. He could have fought Bute in 2006 or 2007 when he was fighting Manfredo and Bika. By then Bute was a more credible opponent than either one. The version of Beyer that Kessler destroyed was an older Markus Beyer. Beyer had been hanging around as a top 10 SMW for years before the Kessler fight and Calzaghe ignored him and fought Kabary Salem, et alia.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
You know Fenster I'm done debating this with people.
Anyone who genuinely in their heart thinks that Calzaghe should have proven his greatness by staying at 168 to fight Bute, Beyer and Mundine rather than go on to fight Bernard Hopkins and Roy Jones is just beyond reason imo.
People who are saying BHop is done according the Ring magazine he's the number 4 p4p fighter in the world :confused:
As for Kessler he's the RING CHAMPION at 168. He destroyed Marcus Beyer and easily beat Mundine, why in the world would Joe fight Beyer or Mundine? When he fought Lacy he was the RING NUMBER ONE CONTENDER at 168.
And people say he should have avoided these fights and instead fought Bute who almost got ktfo last week and Mundine who got KO'd by Sven Ottke :confused:
Seriously I still can't get over Rozzy Sean's suggestion that he should have stayed at 168 to fight Beyer?
Beyer got KO'd in 3 rounds by Kessler and was a decent but wholly ordinary world champ. He almost got ko'd by Danny Green until he was controversially saved, Bika was giving him problems until they managed to call that fight a no contest too.
Yet beating Beyer, who has been KTFO by Kesller, Mundine who got KTGO by OTTKE and Bute who almost got KTFO by Andrade are better opponents than B Hopkins and Roy Jones two of the greatest fighters of the past 20 years, both probably near the top 10 ALL TIME great list and who have beaten a whose who of boxing's elite.
Calzaghe should have turned down those fights and chose to build his legacy on Bute, Beyer and Mundine instead?
Sorry but that's the most retarded post I've ever read
You totally misunderstood my post, and if you can explain to me why it was better for Joe to fight all those bums instead of much better, legit top ten opposition at several points in his career, I'll listen.
So which version of Beyer would you like Joe to have fought, the 2005 version of Markus Beyer who got knocked around the ring and battered by Danny Green or the one that got ko'd by Glen Catley in 2000?Quote:
Originally Posted by RozzySeanHe should have fought Beyer or Mundine BEFORE the Lacy and Kessler fights, back when he was fighting bums in 2004 and 2005. He could have fought Bute in 2006 or 2007 when he was fighting Manfredo and Bika. By then Bute was a more credible opponent than either one. The version of Beyer that Kessler destroyed was an older Markus Beyer. Beyer had been hanging around as a top 10 SMW for years before the Kessler fight and Calzaghe ignored him and fought Kabary Salem, et alia.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
You know Fenster I'm done debating this with people.
Anyone who genuinely in their heart thinks that Calzaghe should have proven his greatness by staying at 168 to fight Bute, Beyer and Mundine rather than go on to fight Bernard Hopkins and Roy Jones is just beyond reason imo.
People who are saying BHop is done according the Ring magazine he's the number 4 p4p fighter in the world :confused:
As for Kessler he's the RING CHAMPION at 168. He destroyed Marcus Beyer and easily beat Mundine, why in the world would Joe fight Beyer or Mundine? When he fought Lacy he was the RING NUMBER ONE CONTENDER at 168.
And people say he should have avoided these fights and instead fought Bute who almost got ktfo last week and Mundine who got KO'd by Sven Ottke :confused:
Seriously I still can't get over Rozzy Sean's suggestion that he should have stayed at 168 to fight Beyer?
Beyer got KO'd in 3 rounds by Kessler and was a decent but wholly ordinary world champ. He almost got ko'd by Danny Green until he was controversially saved, Bika was giving him problems until they managed to call that fight a no contest too.
Yet beating Beyer, who has been KTFO by Kesller, Mundine who got KTGO by OTTKE and Bute who almost got KTFO by Andrade are better opponents than B Hopkins and Roy Jones two of the greatest fighters of the past 20 years, both probably near the top 10 ALL TIME great list and who have beaten a whose who of boxing's elite.
Calzaghe should have turned down those fights and chose to build his legacy on Bute, Beyer and Mundine instead?
Sorry but that's the most retarded post I've ever read
You totally misunderstood my post, and if you can explain to me why it was better for Joe to fight all those bums instead of much better, legit top ten opposition at several points in his career, I'll listen.
As for Bute in 2006 what had he done then? He fought Jeff Lacy when he was unbeaten, in his physical prime and regarding as THE man he must face but when he beat him we were told Lacy in fact was just shit.
Had he beaten Bute in 2006 you think he'd be regarded any differently?
He took on Mario Veit twice who was unbeaten and ruined him instead.
My point is that when a fighter is unbeaten but unproven you really don't know how good they are. If Joe beats an unbeaten fighter then 'obviously' it's because they were in retrospect shit, but the one's he doesn't fight, they are the great ones.
I guess Joe has been lucky with his crystal ball in picking the unbeaten opponents who turn out to be crap after all whilst avoiding those who are great.
Yeah, he fought Veit, but what about the other load of crap that he fought? Beyer, Bute, and Mundine were all way better than the guys he fought.
You're being silly with the Bute business. When were they EVER likely to fight?Quote:
Originally Posted by RozzySean
Has Bute EVER even mentioned Calzaghe? He has only just moved out of the novices - a step above Froch.
And what you need to understand is - it takes TWO to tango. Did it ever occur to you that guys like Mundine and Beyer, that could earn good money defending their belts in their own country, might not have WANTED to fight Calzaghe?
One thing i'd like to know is why Joe Calzaghe decided to fight Charles Brewer, who was stopped in 3 rounds by Antwun Echols. So why did he not fight Antwun Echols ? i would of gave him credit for that win.
i remember their been talk of him fighting Atwun Echols and Syd vanderpool but think Calzaghe either pulled out with a broken nail or made a match with somebody who would fallover or fall asleep under a slapfest for 12 rounds.
So only third rate fighters were willing to take on Calzaghe? The second rate ones didn't want any part of him? If Beyer was willing to fight Kessler, I doubt he would have been unwilling to fight Calzaghe given the chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterYou're being silly with the Bute business. When were they EVER likely to fight?Quote:
Originally Posted by RozzySean
Has Bute EVER even mentioned Calzaghe? He has only just moved out of the novices - a step above Froch.
And what you need to understand is - it takes TWO to tango. Did it ever occur to you that guys like Mundine and Beyer, that could earn good money defending their belts in their own country, might not have WANTED to fight Calzaghe?
As for Bute, in April 2007, Calzaghe fought Manfredo. Two months later Bute fought Bika. He had already stopped Salem in 8, with whom Joe went the distance the previous year. Sure, Bute was just a knotch up from prospect at that point, but he was a legit top 10 MWW at the time, if I remember correctly, he was ranked about 6th or 7th then. Why is it crazy to think they could have offered him that fight instead of Manfredo? Are you saying that Bute hadn't done more than Manfredo at that point to deserve a shot? Would that not have been a better fight for the fans and a better show case of his skills? Since when does it require calling somebody out to make a fight? Manfredo certainly wassn't calling him out. And, in Bute's next fight, he beat Bika probably more easily than Calzaghe did. Bute would have been a good choice for the Spring 2007 defense if Calzaghe was interested in giving the fans a decent fight. Joe would have won, but it would been an interesting and meaningful win.
Even offering that spring 2007 fight to Froch would have been more meaningful than dragging Manfredo to Wales. I suppose you think Froch would have turned that down?
Beyer got a HUGE money cut against Kessler. A career high payday. Do you think it was a coincidence he retired after that fight (i know he's back)? I'm sure he wouldn't have minded Calzaghe retiring him for the money he got either. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by RozzySeanSo only third rate fighters were willing to take on Calzaghe? The second rate ones didn't want any part of him? If Beyer was willing to fight Kessler, I doubt he would have been unwilling to fight Calzaghe given the chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterYou're being silly with the Bute business. When were they EVER likely to fight?Quote:
Originally Posted by RozzySean
Has Bute EVER even mentioned Calzaghe? He has only just moved out of the novices - a step above Froch.
And what you need to understand is - it takes TWO to tango. Did it ever occur to you that guys like Mundine and Beyer, that could earn good money defending their belts in their own country, might not have WANTED to fight Calzaghe?
As for Bute, in April 2007, Calzaghe fought Manfredo. Two months later Bute fought Bika. He had already stopped Salem in 8, with whom Joe went the distance the previous year. Sure, Bute was just a knotch up from prospect at that point, but he was a legit top 10 MWW at the time, if I remember correctly, he was ranked about 6th or 7th then. Why is it crazy to think they could have offered him that fight instead of Manfredo? Are you saying that Bute hadn't done more than Manfredo at that point to deserve a shot? Would that not have been a better fight for the fans and a better show case of his skills? Since when does it require calling somebody out to make a fight? Manfredo certainly wassn't calling him out. And, in Bute's next fight, he beat Bika probably more easily than Calzaghe did. Bute would have been a good choice for the Spring 2007 defense if Calzaghe was interested in giving the fans a decent fight. Joe would have won, but it would been an interesting and meaningful win.
Even offering that spring 2007 fight to Froch would have been more meaningful than dragging Manfredo to Wales. I suppose you think Froch would have turned that down?
I think you're just being petty with Bute. Compared with Calzaghe, Bute is a nobody novice, he's NEVER even been on TV in Britain. Has he ever fought outside Canada? I've NEVER heard of a possible fight between the two. I've never heard Bute mention Calzaghe. And I don't understand WHY you think Bute's people would be in such a hurry to chance ruining him?
Calzaghe ducked Bute. Good luck with that one. :rolleyes:
I agree the Manfredo fight was utter shit. Pathetic. Calzaghe got tons of deserved criticism for that. I'm not even gonna try and justify it by Manfredo's "contender" fame, or the fact they shifted 30,000+ tickets for a mismatch. I agree it was crap.
That was pretty gutsy of Antwun to come back and do that but also a bit lucky too in that stoppage. I thought Brewer may :-\ have fought back out of that his arms were still up leaning back into the ropes taking a few clean for sure, but he wasnt going anywhere for a while and he was still intentionally bending with the wind so to speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
Could have been interesting if Joe had fought Antwun and yet look what Anthony Mundine eventually did with him and noone rates him either cause of his big mouth and getting caught by okkte that time in the temple by farting around in front of a pro fighter ,making a show of it, after owning Okkte in every round prior to it!
The analogy that he beat him so that means the other will beat the next even easier doesnt work well here with these different styles.