If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-28-2008, 08:14 PM
ICB

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Here's the quote.

We thought bearing in mind how close the first fight was we would get paid a decent amount for a second fight, especially when so many people thought I won the first one. I was told I would get paid what I was worth, I was told it would be an offer I could not refuse, in the end all I was offered was 90k, that was only 15k more than the first time around.

No one could tell me that people would not have been interested in a second fight, all I wanted was to be paid for what I was worth! To be honest I thought I was going to be offered 150k and as I say I was offered 90k, that is why the second fight never came. It was shortly after that I signed for Jess Harding.

Robin Reid; I beat Calzaghe in the 1st fight...; I would beat him in the 2nd!

I don't blame him what a shit offer that was indeed, what was Joe Calzaghe getting ?

How many fights have you promoted?

You don't need to be a promoter to see that was a shit offer, but maybe it wasn't depending on what Joe Calzaghe was getting. You got any articles regarding what Joe Calzaghe was getting ?
10-28-2008, 08:15 PM
Rantcatrat

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

So you think Calzaghe will win easy then?

What supermiddles would you like him to fight?

I think Joe Calzaghe has a very good chance of winning, im only going with RJJ because he is one of my favorite fighters. And he was one of my idols when i used to watch him as a young kid.

As for who Joe Calzaghe could fight, well if we are saying he wasn't gonna fight RJJ. I would like him to fight Jermain Taylor, Lucian Bute, Carl Froch. These fighters are all young in there prime. Or even Chad Dawson at LHW.

But these fights are too dangerous and i understand why he is fighting RJJ, because is a name and he will make tons of money out of it. But Joe Calzaghe should stop contradicting himself all the time.

He said he doesn't do rematches but he fought a ridiculous rematch with Mario Veit, but he didn't rematch Robin Reid who many people thought beat Joe Calzaghe. And he won't rematch B Hop by the looks of it either another fight with alot of question marks.

He also called RJJ an old hasbeen before the Felix Trinidad fight, so what has changed his mind about RJJ now ? because RJJ won 8 rounds to 4 against a fighter who hadn't fought since 2005, and was way above his weightclass ?

I take it you'll give Roy no credit for beating Calzaghe - should he win then? Considering all Calzages wins are questionable. Shame for Roy.

You want him to fight Taylor? He's coming off TWO losses to a Hopkins victim.

Bute? He Just was unbelievably LUCKY not to be KO'd by a Kessler victim.

Froch? a 31-year-old who's best win is a beyond ancient Robin Reid.

Yeah.. i'm sure you'd give Calzaghe credit for those fights. Behave ;)

Calzaghe needs to dominate an accomplished guy in his prime. Like Kessler. But, he only has one Kessler on his resume. For example, if Calzaghe fought Chad Dawson right now, I think many doubters would come over to your side. In terms of risk/reward, the fight doesn't make sense for Calzaghe, but Dawson is in his prime. A win over a prime light heavyweight would solidify him in the books (if he isn't already).

And I ain't knocking him. He's a great. I am explaining the argument of the doubters.
10-28-2008, 08:20 PM
Andre

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hulk

Quote:

Originally Posted by tysonbruno

Ok he beat Eubank as a young fighter but then what did he do he didn't take a risk till he fought Lacy.

I don't like Calzaghe much myself, and Jones is gonna light his ass up, but I will say that he took on Robin Reid, Omar Sheika, and Charles Brewer.

Those three were risks, specially since Sheika and Brewer were murderous punchers.

Omar Sheika a murderous puncher ? you are kidding right ? 18 KO's out of 27 wins is hardly a "murderous puncher"

28 KO's out of 40 wins for Charles Brewer how is he a murderous puncher aswell ? plus he had a weak chin.

Murderous is a bit of a stretch of launguage, but i can still see his point on them being a real risk.
10-28-2008, 08:24 PM
gudnite vienna

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

well said fenster... if Calzaghe fought any of them three montioned he would take a hammering on here, none of them are even remotely worthy...

The only fights for calzaghe now are RJJ, rematch Hopkins, and BCD...
10-28-2008, 08:29 PM
Fenster

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICB

I don't blame him what a shit offer that was indeed, what was Joe Calzaghe getting ?

How many fights have you promoted?

You don't need to be a promoter to see that was a shit offer, but maybe it wasn't depending on what Joe Calzaghe was getting. You got any articles regarding what Joe Calzaghe was getting ?

Dont embarrass yourself.

You don't know NOTHING about making fights or the worth of that offer. Proved by - you're asking for Calzaghe's cut yet claiming Reid's is SHIT.

From that link - just accept that the rematch was offered. Money makes fights. Reid didn't like the money so declined. Simple as that.
10-28-2008, 09:16 PM
JT Rock

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Also Jones has every right to be able to challenge Calzaghe and have a match. It is far from a onesided affair and it will make money
10-28-2008, 09:23 PM
HattonTheHammer

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

RJJ didnt actually look all that bad against trinidad and at times you got the old roy doing what he did best.

The problem he`ll come up against this time around which ultimately will be the deciding factor is he wont get the time nor space someone like tito moving up to 175 gave him and for RJJ to have a chance he really would have to produce arguably the performance of his career which im pretty sure he no longer has in him.

You cant blame calzaghe for taking this fight over dawson/tarver/froch etc, the man is 37 and for a guy considered an all time p4p great hasnt exactly made the kind of money the likes of RJJ and hopkins have.

If this is the inevitable calzaghe swangsong then he would of retired having just beat arguably the 2 best p4p boxers of the last decade and yet people will still have issues with his decision not to fight a younger hungrier boxer.

you just cannot win in these situations!!
10-28-2008, 09:55 PM
ICB

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

How many fights have you promoted?

You don't need to be a promoter to see that was a shit offer, but maybe it wasn't depending on what Joe Calzaghe was getting. You got any articles regarding what Joe Calzaghe was getting ?

Dont embarrass yourself.

You don't know NOTHING about making fights or the worth of that offer. Proved by - you're asking for Calzaghe's cut yet claiming Reid's is SHIT.

From that link - just accept that the rematch was offered. Money makes fights. Reid didn't like the money so declined. Simple as that.

Oh sorry almighty Fenster i didn't know you knew all about making fights, and all of us on here including me are completely clueless ? ;D

How many fights have you made ? None, FACT.

You keep your little Frank Warren stories/articles locked away in your diary, then use them on here and think you know about matchmaking.

Don't make me laugh and also the FACT is you can't give me any article, regarding what Joe Calzaghe was getting. Which is probably the reason Robin Reid didn't accept it FACT. Or you do have the facts but aren't using them here, which might prove me right/wrong.

Lets stop the bickering and see if can find all the facts and not just one side of the story. Joe Calzaghe has been known to be a hard fighter to neogatite with in the past. So i would be very interested to see what money Joe Calzaghe was getting, because there is no way Robin Reid would turn that fight down unless the money difference was ridiculous. He wanted that rematch badly and alot of people wanted to see the fight at that time.
10-28-2008, 10:41 PM
Fenster

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICB

You don't need to be a promoter to see that was a shit offer, but maybe it wasn't depending on what Joe Calzaghe was getting. You got any articles regarding what Joe Calzaghe was getting ?

Dont embarrass yourself.

You don't know NOTHING about making fights or the worth of that offer. Proved by - you're asking for Calzaghe's cut yet claiming Reid's is SHIT.

From that link - just accept that the rematch was offered. Money makes fights. Reid didn't like the money so declined. Simple as that.

Oh sorry almighty Fenster i didn't know you knew all about making fights, and all of us on here including me are completely clueless ? ;D

How many fights have you made ? None, FACT.

You keep your little Frank Warren stories/articles locked away in your diary, then use them on here and think you know about matchmaking.

Don't make me laugh and also the FACT is you can't give me any article, regarding what Joe Calzaghe was getting. Which is probably the reason Robin Reid didn't accept it FACT. Or you do have the facts but aren't using them here, which might prove me right/wrong.

Lets stop the bickering and see if can find all the facts and not just one side of the story. Joe Calzaghe has been known to be a hard fighter to neogatite with in the past. So i would be very interested to see what money Joe Calzaghe was getting, because there is no way Robin Reid would turn that fight down unless the money difference was ridiculous. He wanted that rematch badly and alot of people wanted to see the fight at that time.

Stop talking nonsense.

I don't claim things i can't back up. I gave a quote from Robin Reid PROVING he had been offered the Calzaghe rematch. Robin Reid NEVER mentioned he was UNHAPPY about Calzaghe's cut. I don't know Calzaghe's cut. Why would Robin Reid have known Calzaghe's cut? HE says he was UNHAPPY with the amount he was offered.

I'm not bickering. I'm providing evidence for something i said. Fact.
10-28-2008, 10:59 PM
Kirkland Laing

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

Originally Posted by tysonbruno

Well ok if thats what you read

Here's the quote.

We thought bearing in mind how close the first fight was we would get paid a decent amount for a second fight, especially when so many people thought I won the first one. I was told I would get paid what I was worth, I was told it would be an offer I could not refuse, in the end all I was offered was 90k, that was only 15k more than the first time around.

No one could tell me that people would not have been interested in a second fight, all I wanted was to be paid for what I was worth! To be honest I thought I was going to be offered 150k and as I say I was offered 90k, that is why the second fight never came. It was shortly after that I signed for Jess Harding.

Robin Reid; I beat Calzaghe in the 1st fight...; I would beat him in the 2nd!

I don't blame him what a shit offer that was indeed, what was Joe Calzaghe getting ?

Reid lost the first fight and was an ex-world champion. I'm betting he didn't get offered anywhere near that kind of money for any fight after that. He didn't want the rematch so he priced himself out of the fight.
10-28-2008, 11:01 PM
zhubin

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

I love when people point to Calzaghe beating a well past it Eubanks as an example of his excellent resume. Or better yet...his win over an overhyped, one dimensional fighter in Lacy. Give credit to Joe for exposing Lacy...but anyone who thinks Lacy was a great challenge needs to have a word with themselves. His recent fight with Hopkins wasn't tremendously convincing of his "greatness" either. IMO he at the very least fought to a draw in that fight. Against a 43 year old opponent who threw only one punch the entire fight (the straight right). So shockingly enough...you can argue that Joe's biggest win in his career (and by big i mean over a PRIME, well regarded opponent)...is Kessler. Kessler is a solid fighter...but by no means (at this point anyways) a pound 4 pound powerhouse. Is a Joe a bum of a fighter...of course not. Is he one of the most overhyped fighters in recent years...absolutely. And it's true...Roy Jones doesn't have the greatest resume either. But he beat a clear p4p champion in their prime in Toney...something Calzaghe never has done. But Roy's impact on the sport transcends his resume...for the pure fact that he is one of the most athletically gifted fighters the sport has seen.
10-29-2008, 12:30 AM
LondonBB

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Its true...

Everyone raves about tyson also, how lenox's biggest win came against mike tyson...lol...but WHO THE HELL IS MIKE TYSON?

If you wanna play this whole game...

Tysons record is a load of sh1t!

His biggest wins came against a way past it holmes and burbek, he got beat by douglas at his peak and lost to holyfield and lenox.

So lenox biggest win came against the guy who beat a past it holmes and burbeck?

Hahaha, it totally cracks me up.

Roy jones fought a load of fukin bums as well, his biggest wins against one of the sh1ttest heavyweight champs of all time ruiz, james toney and a close one with hopkins. WOW!!!! WHAT AN AMAZING RECORD HEY??? NOT!!!

Why is it that calzaghe gets crticism for his record, but jones also has equally as sh1t record, tyson has a PATHETIC record compared with both of them, yet tyson is an all time great?

Theres so much favouritism and biasness its ridiculous.

By the way, why didnt roy jones move upto heavyweight and fight lennox?

Womder if hed have been able to ko lennox with one hand behind his back like he did with that other class c bum that he fought in the ring.
10-29-2008, 12:40 AM
LondonBB

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by zhubin

I love when people point to Calzaghe beating a well past it Eubanks as an example of his excellent resume. Or better yet...his win over an overhyped, one dimensional fighter in Lacy. Give credit to Joe for exposing Lacy...but anyone who thinks Lacy was a great challenge needs to have a word with themselves. His recent fight with Hopkins wasn't tremendously convincing of his "greatness" either. IMO he at the very least fought to a draw in that fight. Against a 43 year old opponent who threw only one punch the entire fight (the straight right). So shockingly enough...you can argue that Joe's biggest win in his career (and by big i mean over a PRIME, well regarded opponent)...is Kessler. Kessler is a solid fighter...but by no means (at this point anyways) a pound 4 pound powerhouse. Is a Joe a bum of a fighter...of course not. Is he one of the most overhyped fighters in recent years...absolutely. And it's true...Roy Jones doesn't have the greatest resume either. But he beat a clear p4p champion in their prime in Toney...something Calzaghe never has done. But Roy's impact on the sport transcends his resume...for the pure fact that he is one of the most athletically gifted fighters the sport has seen.

Just like you love it when tyson beat a well past it fat holmes?

Or when tyson beat burbeck?

Or when hopkins beat a blown up welterweight in trinidad or a blown up lightweight in de la hoya?

Or when jones fought 30 of his fights against useless bums.

I could go on and on.

WHY THE FUK DID ROY JONES NOT ACCEPT TO FIGHT CALZAGHE YEARS AGO WHEN CALZAGHE ASKED HIM FOR THE FIGHT?

WHY NOT?

Any other fighter and it would be classes as avoiding or 'ducking'...ah but i forgot...its roy jones, the man who's skill looked awesome against the greatest opposition in history ruiz and tony right?

WHY DID JONES NOT FIGHT CALZAGHE YEARS BACK WHEN THE OFFER WAS ON THE TABLE?

WHATS THE EXCUSE ON THAT ONE?
10-29-2008, 03:08 AM
match

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonBB

Its true...

Everyone raves about tyson also, how lenox's biggest win came against mike tyson...lol...but WHO THE HELL IS MIKE TYSON?

If you wanna play this whole game...

Tysons record is a load of sh1t!

His biggest wins came against a way past it holmes and burbek, he got beat by douglas at his peak and lost to holyfield and lenox.

So lenox biggest win came against the guy who beat a past it holmes and burbeck?

Hahaha, it totally cracks me up.

Roy jones fought a load of fukin bums as well, his biggest wins against one of the sh1ttest heavyweight champs of all time ruiz, james toney and a close one with hopkins. WOW!!!! WHAT AN AMAZING RECORD HEY??? NOT!!!

Why is it that calzaghe gets crticism for his record, but jones also has equally as sh1t record, tyson has a PATHETIC record compared with both of them, yet tyson is an all time great?

Theres so much favouritism and biasness its ridiculous.

By the way, why didnt roy jones move upto heavyweight and fight lennox?

Womder if hed have been able to ko lennox with one hand behind his back like he did with that other class c bum that he fought in the ring.

One of three things is happening here:
1 - This post is a joke
2 - You're a troll
3 - You're clueless

Roy would get grilled by Larry Merchant on national TV in post fight interviews for Christ's sake. No one ever gave that man a free pass. Also, calling Tyson's record 'pathetic' leads me to believe that you fall under category 3.
10-29-2008, 03:57 AM
LondonBB

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by match

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonBB

Its true...

Everyone raves about tyson also, how lenox's biggest win came against mike tyson...lol...but WHO THE HELL IS MIKE TYSON?

If you wanna play this whole game...

Tysons record is a load of sh1t!

His biggest wins came against a way past it holmes and burbek, he got beat by douglas at his peak and lost to holyfield and lenox.

So lenox biggest win came against the guy who beat a past it holmes and burbeck?

Hahaha, it totally cracks me up.

Roy jones fought a load of fukin bums as well, his biggest wins against one of the sh1ttest heavyweight champs of all time ruiz, james toney and a close one with hopkins. WOW!!!! WHAT AN AMAZING RECORD HEY??? NOT!!!

Why is it that calzaghe gets crticism for his record, but jones also has equally as sh1t record, tyson has a PATHETIC record compared with both of them, yet tyson is an all time great?

Theres so much favouritism and biasness its ridiculous.

By the way, why didnt roy jones move upto heavyweight and fight lennox?

Womder if hed have been able to ko lennox with one hand behind his back like he did with that other class c bum that he fought in the ring.

One of three things is happening here:
1 - This post is a joke
2 - You're a troll
3 - You're clueless

Roy would get grilled by Larry Merchant on national TV in post fight interviews for Christ's sake. No one ever gave that man a free pass. Also, calling Tyson's record 'pathetic' leads me to believe that you fall under category 3.

Ok...

1. no its not, if thats all you can say about my post its upto you TO PROVE IT OTHERWISE!

Of course its not meant to be taken literally, anyone with a brain cell can see im messing around because of course tyson, jones, hopkins etc are fantastic boxers.

HOWEVER you can use the whole 'who did he fight at their prime' argument with any boxer...

it is TIME AND TIME AGAIN used to discredit calzaghe.

WHY ISNT IT USED TO DISCREDIT JONES? Why isnt it used to discredit tyson? Why isnt it used to discredit bhop?

Please explain why calzaghe gets a bad rep for his unbeaten in 47 fights record, yet tyson NEVER GETS ANY BAD REP FOR HIS RECORD, where EVERY TIME hes gone up against an awesome fighter (the two being holyfield and lewis) hes been beaten (and then they are said to have beaten a 'past his prime' tyson) HAAHAHA The double standard is ridiculous.

Tysons best wins come against an extremely old and shadow of his former self larry holmes and trevor burbeck.

He lost to lewis, holyfield and douglas (im not counting stupid fights after the lewis fight as he was finished after this and his heart wasnt in it).

How does tysons record look great exactly?

So explain why then tyson gets no sh1t for his record yet calzaghe does?

SHOW ME 5 AWESOME PRIME FIGHTERS ON JONES' RECORD PLEASE THAT HE BEAT?

Look at ali's record, hes beaten liston, frazier, foreman, norton, cooper, shavers, patterson, moore... AWESOME FIGHTERS!

Show me how roy jones' record looks like that please?

IT DOESNT!

So all this fuss over calzaghe's record, yet no one EVER criticises hopkins, tysons or jones' record...screams of HATE!

2. No im not a troll

Look at my picture, im a nationally ranked competitive bodybuilder...and top personal trainer...

You wouldve thought that with my knowledge of sports nutrition and supplements combined with my knowledge of strength and conditioning (all of which are very influential factors in physical sport inparticular boxing) you wouldve thought id be quite a good assett to the forum...

Any boxer on the site can freely send me a pm asking for advice on diet or supplements or what weights program they can use. A valuable tool surely?

3. Look at my picture, do i look clueless? Do i look like i dont know about sport? Do i look like i am not very competitive? Do i look like an amateur at things?

Wheres your credentials before you try to slam me, very foolish, infact not once have i resorted to silly names or insults (the way you did to me)...i think that kind of sums of the difference in opinions and what they are worth.
10-29-2008, 04:17 AM
match

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonBB

Quote:

Originally Posted by match

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonBB

Its true...

Everyone raves about tyson also, how lenox's biggest win came against mike tyson...lol...but WHO THE HELL IS MIKE TYSON?

If you wanna play this whole game...

Tysons record is a load of sh1t!

His biggest wins came against a way past it holmes and burbek, he got beat by douglas at his peak and lost to holyfield and lenox.

So lenox biggest win came against the guy who beat a past it holmes and burbeck?

Hahaha, it totally cracks me up.

Roy jones fought a load of fukin bums as well, his biggest wins against one of the sh1ttest heavyweight champs of all time ruiz, james toney and a close one with hopkins. WOW!!!! WHAT AN AMAZING RECORD HEY??? NOT!!!

Why is it that calzaghe gets crticism for his record, but jones also has equally as sh1t record, tyson has a PATHETIC record compared with both of them, yet tyson is an all time great?

Theres so much favouritism and biasness its ridiculous.

By the way, why didnt roy jones move upto heavyweight and fight lennox?

Womder if hed have been able to ko lennox with one hand behind his back like he did with that other class c bum that he fought in the ring.

One of three things is happening here:
1 - This post is a joke
2 - You're a troll
3 - You're clueless

Roy would get grilled by Larry Merchant on national TV in post fight interviews for Christ's sake. No one ever gave that man a free pass. Also, calling Tyson's record 'pathetic' leads me to believe that you fall under category 3.

Ok...

1. no its not, if thats all you can say about my post its upto you TO PROVE IT OTHERWISE!

Of course its not meant to be taken literally, anyone with a brain cell can see im messing around because of course tyson, jones, hopkins etc are fantastic boxers.

HOWEVER you can use the whole 'who did he fight at their prime' argument with any boxer...

it is TIME AND TIME AGAIN used to discredit calzaghe.

WHY ISNT IT USED TO DISCREDIT JONES? Why isnt it used to discredit tyson? Why isnt it used to discredit bhop?

Please explain why calzaghe gets a bad rep for his unbeaten in 47 fights record, yet tyson NEVER GETS ANY BAD REP FOR HIS RECORD, where EVERY TIME hes gone up against an awesome fighter (the two being holyfield and lewis) hes been beaten (and then they are said to have beaten a 'past his prime' tyson) HAAHAHA The double standard is ridiculous.

Tysons best wins come against an extremely old and shadow of his former self larry holmes and trevor burbeck.

He lost to lewis, holyfield and douglas (im not counting stupid fights after the lewis fight as he was finished after this and his heart wasnt in it).

How does tysons record look great exactly?

So explain why then tyson gets no sh1t for his record yet calzaghe does?

SHOW ME 5 AWESOME PRIME FIGHTERS ON JONES' RECORD PLEASE THAT HE BEAT?

Look at ali's record, hes beaten liston, frazier, foreman, norton, cooper, shavers, patterson, moore... AWESOME FIGHTERS!

Show me how roy jones' record looks like that please?

IT DOESNT!

So all this fuss over calzaghe's record, yet no one EVER criticises hopkins, tysons or jones' record...screams of HATE!

2. No im not a troll

Look at my picture, im a nationally ranked competitive bodybuilder...and top personal trainer...

You wouldve thought that with my knowledge of sports nutrition and supplements combined with my knowledge of strength and conditioning (all of which are very influential factors in physical sport inparticular boxing) you wouldve thought id be quite a good assett to the forum...

Any boxer on the site can freely send me a pm asking for advice on diet or supplements or what weights program they can use. A valuable tool surely?

3. Look at my picture, do i look clueless? Do i look like i dont know about sport? Do i look like i am not very competitive? Do i look like an amateur at things?

Wheres your credentials before you try to slam me, very foolish, infact not once have i resorted to silly names or insults (the way you did to me)...i think that kind of sums of the difference in opinions and what they are worth.

You're clueless because EVERY single form of criticism Calzaghe has faced has been laid against BOTH Jones AND Tyson, ESPECIALLY here on this board. Try doing alittle research before making a stupid blanket statement about a make believe double standard.
10-29-2008, 05:44 AM
Hulk

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hulk

Quote:

Originally Posted by tysonbruno

Ok he beat Eubank as a young fighter but then what did he do he didn't take a risk till he fought Lacy.

I don't like Calzaghe much myself, and Jones is gonna light his ass up, but I will say that he took on Robin Reid, Omar Sheika, and Charles Brewer.

Those three were risks, specially since Sheika and Brewer were murderous punchers.

Omar Sheika a murderous puncher ? you are kidding right ? 18 KO's out of 27 wins is hardly a "murderous puncher"

28 KO's out of 40 wins for Charles Brewer how is he a murderous puncher aswell ? plus he had a weak chin.

I'll admit I kinda just like saying the words "Murderous Puncher"
lol
10-29-2008, 05:51 AM
Dark Lord Al

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilbo

We keep hearing about how poor Calzaghe's record is and that he's not really an elite fighter.

However to those who say this please tell me all the guys out there with a better record amongst the currenty p4p lot.

I mean we have Pavlik, who beat Taylor twice and Miranda but got completely exposed by BHop. Is his record better?

Mijares, who beat Jorge Arce, Alexander Munoz and some other fighters I've mostly never heard of. Is his record better?

Ivan Calderon, double weight champ, beat Hugo Cazares twice, what about his record?

Margarito, huge win over Cotto, destroyed Cintron twice. But has losses to Santos twice, and Paul Williams. I won't count his early losses. Is his record better?

Isreal Vazquez. Fought a great trilogy with R Marquez, losing once but winning twice. Got a great come from behind win over Jhonny Gonzalez and knocked out Oscar Larios although he was himself KO'd by Larios earlier on too. His record any better?

Miguel Cotto. Impressive wins over Malignaggi, Quintana, Judah and Mosely but was badly beaten by Margarito. Not yet risen to the top in any weight class. His record better?

JM Marquez. A great fighter, probably the best resume of any fighter on this list.

Has dominated 3 weight classes, had two very disputed results against the worlds best current fighter and also beat Barrera.

However his best results, against Pacquiao were technically a draw and a loss. He won a close fight against Barrera in which the judging was way off. He lost to little known Chris John recently and his win over Casamayor although impressive has to be seen in the light of Casamayor being a fraction of the fighter he once was, following a string of uninspiring performances.

So now look at Calzaghe, who unlike all of those above is completely unbeaten, never lost a fight. He beat B Hopkins who even at 43 was still in the top 10 p4p according to the Ring magazine, something that Casamayor certainly was not. Barrera it can be said has slipped a lot more than Hopkins as well. I wouldn't personally rate wins over Barrera and Casamayor higher than wins over a prime Kessler and a still effective B Hopkins.

I belive Calzaghe's resume is better than all of the guy's above.

I didn;t mention B Hop or Manny because I agree Calzaghe's record isn't as hot as those two guys but of all the others in the current top 10 p4p Calzaghe's record is better imo.

Thoughts?

Its about quality of oposition , these guys have losses because from their 20's they fought top fighters.
In Pavlik's case he is still only 26 , so how can you judge him on the same level , he has lots of fighting to go.
Fact is Calzaghes record is one of the most padded in history.
Also if Tyson / RJJ / etc fought a lesser guy in a World title fight , when in their primes , they would dispatch them and look fantastic doing it. Calzaghe has looked boring and laboured againest the likes of Rick Thornberry.
As i said for me Calzaghe doesnt look like your ATG material.
10-29-2008, 06:02 AM
zhubin

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonBB

Quote:

Originally Posted by zhubin

I love when people point to Calzaghe beating a well past it Eubanks as an example of his excellent resume. Or better yet...his win over an overhyped, one dimensional fighter in Lacy. Give credit to Joe for exposing Lacy...but anyone who thinks Lacy was a great challenge needs to have a word with themselves. His recent fight with Hopkins wasn't tremendously convincing of his "greatness" either. IMO he at the very least fought to a draw in that fight. Against a 43 year old opponent who threw only one punch the entire fight (the straight right). So shockingly enough...you can argue that Joe's biggest win in his career (and by big i mean over a PRIME, well regarded opponent)...is Kessler. Kessler is a solid fighter...but by no means (at this point anyways) a pound 4 pound powerhouse. Is a Joe a bum of a fighter...of course not. Is he one of the most overhyped fighters in recent years...absolutely. And it's true...Roy Jones doesn't have the greatest resume either. But he beat a clear p4p champion in their prime in Toney...something Calzaghe never has done. But Roy's impact on the sport transcends his resume...for the pure fact that he is one of the most athletically gifted fighters the sport has seen.

Just like you love it when tyson beat a well past it fat holmes?

Or when tyson beat burbeck?

Or when hopkins beat a blown up welterweight in trinidad or a blown up lightweight in de la hoya?

Or when jones fought 30 of his fights against useless bums.

I could go on and on.

WHY THE FUK DID ROY JONES NOT ACCEPT TO FIGHT CALZAGHE YEARS AGO WHEN CALZAGHE ASKED HIM FOR THE FIGHT?

WHY NOT?

Any other fighter and it would be classes as avoiding or 'ducking'...ah but i forgot...its roy jones, the man who's skill looked awesome against the greatest opposition in history ruiz and tony right?

WHY DID JONES NOT FIGHT CALZAGHE YEARS BACK WHEN THE OFFER WAS ON THE TABLE?

WHATS THE EXCUSE ON THAT ONE?

The excuse? Well...it didn't help that Joe until the very near end of his career refused to leave his backyard for a fight. I am not into the whole nationalistic pride thing either...but facts are facts. The big fights/events...take place here in the states...and Joe, for whatever reason, didn't want to bring himself here until just recently. Another issue is money. At the height of his power...Roy was as big, if not the biggest draw in boxing. So especially back then...things where going to be done on his terms...BECAUSE that's what happens when you are the big name...you call the shots, you make the offers, etc. So please don't make this into a "Roy ducking Calzaghe" nonsense. For Calzaghe's sake...it's a good thing he never fought Roy in his prime...because Jones would have spanked him silly. I , however, agree with you...Roy doesn't have the greatest resume. Very few fighters in history have the kind of resume that is almost beyond reproach. But again...Roy at least fought and beat a prime p4p champ in Toney. And more importantly...he showcased a level of athleticism that has rarely been seen in the sport.
10-29-2008, 06:08 AM
zhubin

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilbo

We keep hearing about how poor Calzaghe's record is and that he's not really an elite fighter.

However to those who say this please tell me all the guys out there with a better record amongst the currenty p4p lot.

I mean we have Pavlik, who beat Taylor twice and Miranda but got completely exposed by BHop. Is his record better?

Mijares, who beat Jorge Arce, Alexander Munoz and some other fighters I've mostly never heard of. Is his record better?

Ivan Calderon, double weight champ, beat Hugo Cazares twice, what about his record?

Margarito, huge win over Cotto, destroyed Cintron twice. But has losses to Santos twice, and Paul Williams. I won't count his early losses. Is his record better?

Isreal Vazquez. Fought a great trilogy with R Marquez, losing once but winning twice. Got a great come from behind win over Jhonny Gonzalez and knocked out Oscar Larios although he was himself KO'd by Larios earlier on too. His record any better?

Miguel Cotto. Impressive wins over Malignaggi, Quintana, Judah and Mosely but was badly beaten by Margarito. Not yet risen to the top in any weight class. His record better?

JM Marquez. A great fighter, probably the best resume of any fighter on this list.

Has dominated 3 weight classes, had two very disputed results against the worlds best current fighter and also beat Barrera.

However his best results, against Pacquiao were technically a draw and a loss. He won a close fight against Barrera in which the judging was way off. He lost to little known Chris John recently and his win over Casamayor although impressive has to be seen in the light of Casamayor being a fraction of the fighter he once was, following a string of uninspiring performances.

So now look at Calzaghe, who unlike all of those above is completely unbeaten, never lost a fight. He beat B Hopkins who even at 43 was still in the top 10 p4p according to the Ring magazine, something that Casamayor certainly was not. Barrera it can be said has slipped a lot more than Hopkins as well. I wouldn't personally rate wins over Barrera and Casamayor higher than wins over a prime Kessler and a still effective B Hopkins.

I belive Calzaghe's resume is better than all of the guy's above.

I didn;t mention B Hop or Manny because I agree Calzaghe's record isn't as hot as those two guys but of all the others in the current top 10 p4p Calzaghe's record is better imo.

Thoughts?

Its about quality of oposition , these guys have losses because from their 20's they fought top fighters.
In Pavlik's case he is still only 26 , so how can you judge him on the same level , he has lots of fighting to go.
Fact is Calzaghes record is one of the most padded in history.
Also if Tyson / RJJ / etc fought a lesser guy in a World title fight , when in their primes , they would dispatch them and look fantastic doing it. Calzaghe has looked boring and laboured againest the likes of Rick Thornberry.
As i said for me Calzaghe doesnt look like your ATG material.

Exactly! What irks me more than some people claiming Joe has a great resume is when people claim he possesses great skills and fighting style. His "intelligence" or better yet...his "fast hands and feet." Pleeeease! When you watch a guy like Roy in his prime, no matter who the opposition, you where likely to see an awe inspiring combination of power, speed, and reflexes. Not some half ass show boating, pitter patter slap fest.
10-29-2008, 06:10 AM
Dark Lord Al

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonBB

Quote:

Originally Posted by zhubin

I love when people point to Calzaghe beating a well past it Eubanks as an example of his excellent resume. Or better yet...his win over an overhyped, one dimensional fighter in Lacy. Give credit to Joe for exposing Lacy...but anyone who thinks Lacy was a great challenge needs to have a word with themselves. His recent fight with Hopkins wasn't tremendously convincing of his "greatness" either. IMO he at the very least fought to a draw in that fight. Against a 43 year old opponent who threw only one punch the entire fight (the straight right). So shockingly enough...you can argue that Joe's biggest win in his career (and by big i mean over a PRIME, well regarded opponent)...is Kessler. Kessler is a solid fighter...but by no means (at this point anyways) a pound 4 pound powerhouse. Is a Joe a bum of a fighter...of course not. Is he one of the most overhyped fighters in recent years...absolutely. And it's true...Roy Jones doesn't have the greatest resume either. But he beat a clear p4p champion in their prime in Toney...something Calzaghe never has done. But Roy's impact on the sport transcends his resume...for the pure fact that he is one of the most athletically gifted fighters the sport has seen.

Just like you love it when tyson beat a well past it fat holmes?

Or when tyson beat burbeck?

Or when hopkins beat a blown up welterweight in trinidad or a blown up lightweight in de la hoya?

Or when jones fought 30 of his fights against useless bums.

I could go on and on.

WHY THE FUK DID ROY JONES NOT ACCEPT TO FIGHT CALZAGHE YEARS AGO WHEN CALZAGHE ASKED HIM FOR THE FIGHT?

WHY NOT?

Any other fighter and it would be classes as avoiding or 'ducking'...ah but i forgot...its roy jones, the man who's skill looked awesome against the greatest opposition in history ruiz and tony right?

WHY DID JONES NOT FIGHT CALZAGHE YEARS BACK WHEN THE OFFER WAS ON THE TABLE?

WHATS THE EXCUSE ON THAT ONE?

AT THE TIME of the offer - If Calzaghe had wanted Jones you get the fight by beating RJJ top contenders and calling him out , not by shouting from Wales. LOL
HAHAHA yes RJJ p4p world number 1 , fights in USA for the most part , hmm hes going to leave America to come to the hotbed of world boxing Wales , to fight a guy with the WBO SM title , LOL GET FUCKING REAL.
10-29-2008, 08:56 AM
antimoron

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

IM JUST WONDERING.. Where is Joe from (after Eubank)1998-2006(before Lacy)? why no Unification during those 8 YEARS.. If he really wanted to fight the best why he did not fight the other title holders back then. Thats my only question..
10-29-2008, 09:30 AM
BIG H

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by antimoron

IM JUST WONDERING.. Where is Joe from (after Eubank)1998-2006(before Lacy)? why no Unification during those 8 YEARS.. If he really wanted to fight the best why he did not fight the other title holders back then. Thats my only question..

There simply weren't any big unification bouts out there until Lacy and Kessler!! The titlles were passed around all over the place. He didn't fight Mundine Beyer or Saica (or of whom were sh1t and wouldn't have enhanced his legacy anyway) but he fought Kessler who beat all three of those guys. He didn't fight Frankie Liles, but he beat Mitchell who beat Liles. Reid never had the title long, but he beat him, same with Woodhall.RJJ was already at Light Heavy - so couldn't unify against him, Sven Ottke - Would he have got any praise for beating that chump? So who should he have fought and didn't is the age old question!!
10-29-2008, 09:44 AM
Tysonbruno

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonBB

Quote:

Originally Posted by zhubin

I love when people point to Calzaghe beating a well past it Eubanks as an example of his excellent resume. Or better yet...his win over an overhyped, one dimensional fighter in Lacy. Give credit to Joe for exposing Lacy...but anyone who thinks Lacy was a great challenge needs to have a word with themselves. His recent fight with Hopkins wasn't tremendously convincing of his "greatness" either. IMO he at the very least fought to a draw in that fight. Against a 43 year old opponent who threw only one punch the entire fight (the straight right). So shockingly enough...you can argue that Joe's biggest win in his career (and by big i mean over a PRIME, well regarded opponent)...is Kessler. Kessler is a solid fighter...but by no means (at this point anyways) a pound 4 pound powerhouse. Is a Joe a bum of a fighter...of course not. Is he one of the most overhyped fighters in recent years...absolutely. And it's true...Roy Jones doesn't have the greatest resume either. But he beat a clear p4p champion in their prime in Toney...something Calzaghe never has done. But Roy's impact on the sport transcends his resume...for the pure fact that he is one of the most athletically gifted fighters the sport has seen.

Just like you love it when tyson beat a well past it fat holmes?

Or when tyson beat burbeck?

Or when hopkins beat a blown up welterweight in trinidad or a blown up lightweight in de la hoya?

Or when jones fought 30 of his fights against useless bums.

I could go on and on.

WHY THE FUK DID ROY JONES NOT ACCEPT TO FIGHT CALZAGHE YEARS AGO WHEN CALZAGHE ASKED HIM FOR THE FIGHT?

WHY NOT?

Any other fighter and it would be classes as avoiding or 'ducking'...ah but i forgot...its roy jones, the man who's skill looked awesome against the greatest opposition in history ruiz and tony right?

WHY DID JONES NOT FIGHT CALZAGHE YEARS BACK WHEN THE OFFER WAS ON THE TABLE?

WHATS THE EXCUSE ON THAT ONE?

AT THE TIME of the offer - If Calzaghe had wanted Jones you get the fight by beating RJJ top contenders and calling him out , not by shouting from Wales. LOL
HAHAHA yes RJJ p4p world number 1 , fights in USA for the most part , hmm hes going to leave America to come to the hotbed of world boxing Wales , to fight a guy with the WBO SM title , LOL GET FUCKING REAL.

LOL;D good old Al
10-29-2008, 09:45 AM
antimoron

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

Originally Posted by antimoron

IM JUST WONDERING.. Where is Joe from (after Eubank)1998-2006(before Lacy)? why no Unification during those 8 YEARS.. If he really wanted to fight the best why he did not fight the other title holders back then. Thats my only question..

There simply weren't any big unification bouts out there until Lacy and Kessler!! The titlles were passed around all over the place. He didn't fight Mundine Beyer or Saica (or of whom were sh1t and wouldn't have enhanced his legacy anyway) but he fought Kessler who beat all three of those guys. He didn't fight Frankie Liles, but he beat Mitchell who beat Liles. Reid never had the title long, but he beat him, same with Woodhall.RJJ was already at Light Heavy - so couldn't unify against him, Sven Ottke - Would he have got any praise for beating that chump? So who should he have fought and didn't is the age old question!!

i don't buy it.. if he holds all belts then this debate is over for sure.. why not collect all if he really wants to be called the UNDISPUTED CHAMP.. Reasons of no BIG UNIfICATION is not a valid ONE. isn't it is better if you hold a WBC,WBA,IBF and RING title than that WBO alone..
10-29-2008, 09:50 AM
BIG H

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by antimoron

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

Originally Posted by antimoron

IM JUST WONDERING.. Where is Joe from (after Eubank)1998-2006(before Lacy)? why no Unification during those 8 YEARS.. If he really wanted to fight the best why he did not fight the other title holders back then. Thats my only question..

There simply weren't any big unification bouts out there until Lacy and Kessler!! The titlles were passed around all over the place. He didn't fight Mundine Beyer or Saica (or of whom were sh1t and wouldn't have enhanced his legacy anyway) but he fought Kessler who beat all three of those guys. He didn't fight Frankie Liles, but he beat Mitchell who beat Liles. Reid never had the title long, but he beat him, same with Woodhall.RJJ was already at Light Heavy - so couldn't unify against him, Sven Ottke - Would he have got any praise for beating that chump? So who should he have fought and didn't is the age old question!!

i don't buy it.. if he holds all belts then this debate is over for sure.. why not collect all if he really wants to be called the UNDISPUTED CHAMP.. Reasons of no BIG UNIfICATION is not a valid ONE. isn't it is better if you hold a WBC,WBA,IBF and RING title than that WBO alone..

Depends what means more to you. Just cause a chump like Saica holds a belt, does beating him improve your legacy? If Calzaghe won 3 more belts off 3 stiffs, people would not give him adulation for being undisputed champion, they would say he won the titles off nobodies. Have you seen how many of the biggest fights in recent years have been non title fights? I mean Pac is p4p number 1 and he has only fought for world titles in about 3 of his last 10 fights!!
10-29-2008, 10:50 AM
antimoron

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

Originally Posted by antimoron

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG H

There simply weren't any big unification bouts out there until Lacy and Kessler!! The titlles were passed around all over the place. He didn't fight Mundine Beyer or Saica (or of whom were sh1t and wouldn't have enhanced his legacy anyway) but he fought Kessler who beat all three of those guys. He didn't fight Frankie Liles, but he beat Mitchell who beat Liles. Reid never had the title long, but he beat him, same with Woodhall.RJJ was already at Light Heavy - so couldn't unify against him, Sven Ottke - Would he have got any praise for beating that chump? So who should he have fought and didn't is the age old question!!

i don't buy it.. if he holds all belts then this debate is over for sure.. why not collect all if he really wants to be called the UNDISPUTED CHAMP.. Reasons of no BIG UNIfICATION is not a valid ONE. isn't it is better if you hold a WBC,WBA,IBF and RING title than that WBO alone..

Depends what means more to you. Just cause a chump like Saica holds a belt, does beating him improve your legacy? If Calzaghe won 3 more belts off 3 stiffs, people would not give him adulation for being undisputed champion, they would say he won the titles off nobodies. Have you seen how many of the biggest fights in recent years have been non title fights? I mean Pac is p4p number 1 and he has only fought for world titles in about 3 of his last 10 fights!!

3 champ fights? get your facts straight mate.. Pac has been fighting world championship level since 98,he is currently the WBC Lightweight Champion, was formerly the WBC/Linear Super Featherweight Champion, The Linear/Ring Featherweight, IBF Super Bantamweight Champion and WBC/Linear Flyweight Champion and in the process he fought some HOF type not bums..and he is fighting most of the time away from his backyard.. So its not right if you compare his to JOE.. Again if Joe did what Pac did then theres no debate like this again.
10-29-2008, 11:12 AM
BIG H

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by antimoron

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

Originally Posted by antimoron

i don't buy it.. if he holds all belts then this debate is over for sure.. why not collect all if he really wants to be called the UNDISPUTED CHAMP.. Reasons of no BIG UNIfICATION is not a valid ONE. isn't it is better if you hold a WBC,WBA,IBF and RING title than that WBO alone..

Depends what means more to you. Just cause a chump like Saica holds a belt, does beating him improve your legacy? If Calzaghe won 3 more belts off 3 stiffs, people would not give him adulation for being undisputed champion, they would say he won the titles off nobodies. Have you seen how many of the biggest fights in recent years have been non title fights? I mean Pac is p4p number 1 and he has only fought for world titles in about 3 of his last 10 fights!!

3 champ fights? get your facts straight mate.. Pac has been fighting world championship level since 98,he is currently the WBC Lightweight Champion, was formerly the WBC/Linear Super Featherweight Champion, The Linear/Ring Featherweight, IBF Super Bantamweight Champion and WBC/Linear Flyweight Champion and in the process he fought some HOF type not bums..and he is fighting most of the time away from his backyard.. So its not right if you compare his to JOE.. Again if Joe did what Pac did then theres no debate like this again.

My facts are fine pal. You were talking about fights specifically for belts.
Pacs fights against Barerra (both times) against Valazquez, Battery, Morales (1 & 3), Larios & Solis were not for WORLD titles.
10-29-2008, 12:09 PM
ono

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

I noticed a few are saying Pavlik and Cotto etc... have taken risks at a younger age and Calzaghe didn't. Thing is, i don't see why it matters. If you take a risk, you take a risk. At the end of the day Calzaghe wiped the floor with the guys he supposedly took a risk with (well except Hopkins), whereas Pavlik and Cotto didn't.

He's always going to have his haters and i must admit i'm not a big fan, but his record is second to none. Same with Mayweather though. Great record, but folk would rather talk about the guys he didn't face.
10-29-2008, 01:30 PM
Rantcatrat

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ono

I noticed a few are saying Pavlik and Cotto etc... have taken risks at a younger age and Calzaghe didn't. Thing is, i don't see why it matters. If you take a risk, you take a risk. At the end of the day Calzaghe wiped the floor with the guys he supposedly took a risk with (well except Hopkins), whereas Pavlik and Cotto didn't.

He's always going to have his haters and i must admit i'm not a big fan, but his record is second to none. Same with Mayweather though. Great record, but folk would rather talk about the guys he didn't face.

It matters and it is relevant because it reflects the quality of their legacy. A fighter's standing in history depends largely on who they beat. Just the fact that people are comparing Calzaghe's record, at age 37, to records of fighters who are 10 years younger should be indicative enough. Cotto has already fought at least 4 accomplished fighters in their prime. Pavlik took a risk fighting Hopkins, and Jermain Taylor for that matter, whereas when Calzaghe was at that age he was content to fight British clubfighters. Whether taking the risk was justified is another story (ask Pavlik or Cotto). Moreover, Calzaghe only "wiped the floor" with one prime accomplished fighter, Kessler. Pavlik and Cotto can already make that claim, at age 26.

And you are dead-on about PBF. Good comparison. PBF was an amazing pound for pound fighter, but when he left the game he had never fought any accomplished prime welterweight. He left the game when Sugar Shane, Miguel Cotto, and Antonio Margarito were all in their primes. It will always be a knock on PBF.
10-29-2008, 01:35 PM
Dark Lord Al

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

;D;D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

Originally Posted by ono

I noticed a few are saying Pavlik and Cotto etc... have taken risks at a younger age and Calzaghe didn't. Thing is, i don't see why it matters. If you take a risk, you take a risk. At the end of the day Calzaghe wiped the floor with the guys he supposedly took a risk with (well except Hopkins), whereas Pavlik and Cotto didn't.

He's always going to have his haters and i must admit i'm not a big fan, but his record is second to none. Same with Mayweather though. Great record, but folk would rather talk about the guys he didn't face.

It matters and it is relevant because it reflects the quality of their legacy. A fighter's standing in history depends largely on who they beat. Just the fact that people are comparing Calzaghe's record, at age 37, to records of fighters who are 10 years younger should be indicative enough. Cotto has already fought at least 4 accomplished fighters in their prime. Pavlik took a risk fighting Hopkins, and Jermain Taylor for that matter, whereas when Calzaghe was at that age he was content to fight British clubfighters. Whether taking the risk was justified is another story (ask Pavlik or Cotto). Moreover, Calzaghe only "wiped the floor" with one prime accomplished fighter, Kessler. Pavlik and Cotto can already make that claim, at age 26.

And you are dead-on about PBF. Good comparison. PBF was an amazing pound for pound fighter, but when he left the game he had never fought any accomplished prime welterweight. He left the game when Sugar Shane, Miguel Cotto, and Antonio Margarito were all in their primes. It will always be a knock on PBF.

;D;D;D
10-29-2008, 01:41 PM
Fenster

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

Originally Posted by ono

I noticed a few are saying Pavlik and Cotto etc... have taken risks at a younger age and Calzaghe didn't. Thing is, i don't see why it matters. If you take a risk, you take a risk. At the end of the day Calzaghe wiped the floor with the guys he supposedly took a risk with (well except Hopkins), whereas Pavlik and Cotto didn't.

He's always going to have his haters and i must admit i'm not a big fan, but his record is second to none. Same with Mayweather though. Great record, but folk would rather talk about the guys he didn't face.

It matters and it is relevant because it reflects the quality of their legacy. A fighter's standing in history depends largely on who they beat. Just the fact that people are comparing Calzaghe's record, at age 37, to records of fighters who are 10 years younger should be indicative enough. Cotto has already fought at least 4 accomplished fighters in their prime. Pavlik took a risk fighting Hopkins, and Jermain Taylor for that matter, whereas when Calzaghe was at that age he was content to fight British clubfighters. Whether taking the risk was justified is another story (ask Pavlik or Cotto). Moreover, Calzaghe only "wiped the floor" with one prime accomplished fighter, Kessler. Pavlik and Cotto can already make that claim, at age 26.

And you are dead-on about PBF. Good comparison. PBF was an amazing pound for pound fighter, but when he left the game he had never fought any accomplished prime welterweight. He left the game when Sugar Shane, Miguel Cotto, and Antonio Margarito were all in their primes. It will always be a knock on PBF.

Name them?
10-29-2008, 01:43 PM
Bomp

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by antimoron

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

Originally Posted by antimoron

i don't buy it.. if he holds all belts then this debate is over for sure.. why not collect all if he really wants to be called the UNDISPUTED CHAMP.. Reasons of no BIG UNIfICATION is not a valid ONE. isn't it is better if you hold a WBC,WBA,IBF and RING title than that WBO alone..

Depends what means more to you. Just cause a chump like Saica holds a belt, does beating him improve your legacy? If Calzaghe won 3 more belts off 3 stiffs, people would not give him adulation for being undisputed champion, they would say he won the titles off nobodies. Have you seen how many of the biggest fights in recent years have been non title fights? I mean Pac is p4p number 1 and he has only fought for world titles in about 3 of his last 10 fights!!

3 champ fights? get your facts straight mate.. Pac has been fighting world championship level since 98,he is currently the WBC Lightweight Champion, was formerly the WBC/Linear Super Featherweight Champion, The Linear/Ring Featherweight, IBF Super Bantamweight Champion and WBC/Linear Flyweight Champion and in the process he fought some HOF type not bums..and he is fighting most of the time away from his backyard.. So its not right if you compare his to JOE.. Again if Joe did what Pac did then theres no debate like this again.

You don't even understand what he's saying, he's not bagging Pac, he's making an argument as to why Joe didn't unify sooner. Take the anti out of your name.
10-29-2008, 02:13 PM
BIG H

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bomp

Quote:

Originally Posted by antimoron

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG H

Depends what means more to you. Just cause a chump like Saica holds a belt, does beating him improve your legacy? If Calzaghe won 3 more belts off 3 stiffs, people would not give him adulation for being undisputed champion, they would say he won the titles off nobodies. Have you seen how many of the biggest fights in recent years have been non title fights? I mean Pac is p4p number 1 and he has only fought for world titles in about 3 of his last 10 fights!!

3 champ fights? get your facts straight mate.. Pac has been fighting world championship level since 98,he is currently the WBC Lightweight Champion, was formerly the WBC/Linear Super Featherweight Champion, The Linear/Ring Featherweight, IBF Super Bantamweight Champion and WBC/Linear Flyweight Champion and in the process he fought some HOF type not bums..and he is fighting most of the time away from his backyard.. So its not right if you compare his to JOE.. Again if Joe did what Pac did then theres no debate like this again.

You don't even understand what he's saying, he's not bagging Pac, he's making an argument as to why Joe didn't unify sooner. Take the anti out of your name.

Hahahha ;D Spot on though mate, can't say anything bad about Pac and agree with his fight choices totally. As you rightly say, I was just pointing out that fighting a nobody for a belt does not always make sense, just to get a belt.

PS I owe u some Rep from earlier.
10-29-2008, 03:02 PM
zhubin

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

Originally Posted by ono

I noticed a few are saying Pavlik and Cotto etc... have taken risks at a younger age and Calzaghe didn't. Thing is, i don't see why it matters. If you take a risk, you take a risk. At the end of the day Calzaghe wiped the floor with the guys he supposedly took a risk with (well except Hopkins), whereas Pavlik and Cotto didn't.

He's always going to have his haters and i must admit i'm not a big fan, but his record is second to none. Same with Mayweather though. Great record, but folk would rather talk about the guys he didn't face.

It matters and it is relevant because it reflects the quality of their legacy. A fighter's standing in history depends largely on who they beat. Just the fact that people are comparing Calzaghe's record, at age 37, to records of fighters who are 10 years younger should be indicative enough. Cotto has already fought at least 4 accomplished fighters in their prime. Pavlik took a risk fighting Hopkins, and Jermain Taylor for that matter, whereas when Calzaghe was at that age he was content to fight British clubfighters. Whether taking the risk was justified is another story (ask Pavlik or Cotto). Moreover, Calzaghe only "wiped the floor" with one prime accomplished fighter, Kessler. Pavlik and Cotto can already make that claim, at age 26.

And you are dead-on about PBF. Good comparison. PBF was an amazing pound for pound fighter, but when he left the game he had never fought any accomplished prime welterweight. He left the game when Sugar Shane, Miguel Cotto, and Antonio Margarito were all in their primes. It will always be a knock on PBF.

Name them?

You just made his point. The fact that most people can't name the bums Calzaghe fought for the majority of his career...is perfectly indicative of his resume,
10-29-2008, 03:03 PM
Kev

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

Originally Posted by ono

I noticed a few are saying Pavlik and Cotto etc... have taken risks at a younger age and Calzaghe didn't. Thing is, i don't see why it matters. If you take a risk, you take a risk. At the end of the day Calzaghe wiped the floor with the guys he supposedly took a risk with (well except Hopkins), whereas Pavlik and Cotto didn't.

He's always going to have his haters and i must admit i'm not a big fan, but his record is second to none. Same with Mayweather though. Great record, but folk would rather talk about the guys he didn't face.

It matters and it is relevant because it reflects the quality of their legacy. A fighter's standing in history depends largely on who they beat. Just the fact that people are comparing Calzaghe's record, at age 37, to records of fighters who are 10 years younger should be indicative enough. Cotto has already fought at least 4 accomplished fighters in their prime. Pavlik took a risk fighting Hopkins, and Jermain Taylor for that matter, whereas when Calzaghe was at that age he was content to fight British clubfighters. Whether taking the risk was justified is another story (ask Pavlik or Cotto). Moreover, Calzaghe only "wiped the floor" with one prime accomplished fighter, Kessler. Pavlik and Cotto can already make that claim, at age 26.

And you are dead-on about PBF. Good comparison. PBF was an amazing pound for pound fighter, but when he left the game he had never fought any accomplished prime welterweight. He left the game when Sugar Shane, Miguel Cotto, and Antonio Margarito were all in their primes. It will always be a knock on PBF.

What four acomplished fighters in their prime has Cotto beat? :confused:

Certainly not Judah (he hasn't one a big fight in about 4 years) , certainly not Mosely (people on here saying he should retire after the Mayorga debacle) , maybe Margarito but he got battered by Margarito.

I guess you mean Quintana and Malignaggi?

Dangerous fighters indeed :)

I'm not criticising Cotto here, I think he's a fantastic fighter but he hasn't faced 4 elite prime fighters like you suggest.

And Eubank was a million miles away from being a British 'club fighter', even weight drained he'd have beaten Jermain Taylor that's for sure.

And regarding Floyd why does it really matter that he never fought a prime welterwight, as he was never a welterweight anyway.

That's like criticising Roy Jones for never fighting a genuine heavyweight champ.

Mayweather is a star for winning world titles in 5 weight classes, not just welterweight.

I'd have loved to see him fight Cotto and Margarito too but to suggest his legacy isn't very good because he didn't is just stupid. No fighter in the last 15 years has a better resume than Floyd Mayweather.
10-29-2008, 03:03 PM
hfahrenheit

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

[quote=leftylee;623837][quote=Bilbo;623835]

Quote:

Originally Posted by leftylee

...No shame in losing to Margarito.

No shame, yes, but definitely humbled in the way he lost- he gave Margarito everything he had and was brutally stopped.
10-29-2008, 03:05 PM
Taeth

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonBB

Its true...

Everyone raves about tyson also, how lenox's biggest win came against mike tyson...lol...but WHO THE HELL IS MIKE TYSON?

If you wanna play this whole game...

Tysons record is a load of sh1t!

His biggest wins came against a way past it holmes and burbek, he got beat by douglas at his peak and lost to holyfield and lenox.

So lenox biggest win came against the guy who beat a past it holmes and burbeck?

Hahaha, it totally cracks me up.

Roy jones fought a load of fukin bums as well, his biggest wins against one of the sh1ttest heavyweight champs of all time ruiz, james toney and a close one with hopkins. WOW!!!! WHAT AN AMAZING RECORD HEY??? NOT!!!

Why is it that calzaghe gets crticism for his record, but jones also has equally as sh1t record, tyson has a PATHETIC record compared with both of them, yet tyson is an all time great?

Theres so much favouritism and biasness its ridiculous.

By the way, why didnt roy jones move upto heavyweight and fight lennox?

Womder if hed have been able to ko lennox with one hand behind his back like he did with that other class c bum that he fought in the ring.

First of all Ruiz would have DESTROYED Calzaghe. Second, Calzaghe wouldn't fight Jones in america unless he got a 50-50 cut. Why would he deserve that? He was scared to fight prime Roy because he knew he would have been demolished.

Also the close fight with Hopkins? Is that the one where Roy won by 4 or 5 rounds with a broken right hand? As for shitty competition what about Mike McCallum, Reggie Johnson, Virgill Hill, Eric Harding, Montell Griffin, Jorge Castro, Mequi Sosa, Clinton Woods, Otis Grant, Julio Gonzalez, Antonio Tarver(he beat him one sidedly in the first fight and two judges agree with me 117-111, and 116-112) And its not the fact that these guys are good, but besides two fights(Eric Harding, Montell Griffin 1) Roy has dominated his fights more than I have seen anybody else dominate the same level of competition.
10-29-2008, 03:05 PM
Dark Lord Al

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

Originally Posted by ono

I noticed a few are saying Pavlik and Cotto etc... have taken risks at a younger age and Calzaghe didn't. Thing is, i don't see why it matters. If you take a risk, you take a risk. At the end of the day Calzaghe wiped the floor with the guys he supposedly took a risk with (well except Hopkins), whereas Pavlik and Cotto didn't.

He's always going to have his haters and i must admit i'm not a big fan, but his record is second to none. Same with Mayweather though. Great record, but folk would rather talk about the guys he didn't face.

It matters and it is relevant because it reflects the quality of their legacy. A fighter's standing in history depends largely on who they beat. Just the fact that people are comparing Calzaghe's record, at age 37, to records of fighters who are 10 years younger should be indicative enough. Cotto has already fought at least 4 accomplished fighters in their prime. Pavlik took a risk fighting Hopkins, and Jermain Taylor for that matter, whereas when Calzaghe was at that age he was content to fight British clubfighters. Whether taking the risk was justified is another story (ask Pavlik or Cotto). Moreover, Calzaghe only "wiped the floor" with one prime accomplished fighter, Kessler. Pavlik and Cotto can already make that claim, at age 26.

And you are dead-on about PBF. Good comparison. PBF was an amazing pound for pound fighter, but when he left the game he had never fought any accomplished prime welterweight. He left the game when Sugar Shane, Miguel Cotto, and Antonio Margarito were all in their primes. It will always be a knock on PBF.

What four acomplished fighters in their prime has Cotto beat? :confused:

Certainly not Judah (he hasn't one a big fight in about 4 years) , certainly not Mosely (people on here saying he should retire after the Mayorga debacle) , maybe Margarito but he got battered by Margarito.

I guess you mean Quintana and Malignaggi?

Dangerous fighters indeed :)

I'm not criticising Cotto here, I think he's a fantastic fighter but he hasn't faced 4 elite prime fighters like you suggest.

Cotto has faced those fighters at the age of 26 , so he can come again ,
losing may just be a blip and he can come back stronger who knows.
10-29-2008, 03:07 PM
Rantcatrat

Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

Originally Posted by ono

I noticed a few are saying Pavlik and Cotto etc... have taken risks at a younger age and Calzaghe didn't. Thing is, i don't see why it matters. If you take a risk, you take a risk. At the end of the day Calzaghe wiped the floor with the guys he supposedly took a risk with (well except Hopkins), whereas Pavlik and Cotto didn't.

He's always going to have his haters and i must admit i'm not a big fan, but his record is second to none. Same with Mayweather though. Great record, but folk would rather talk about the guys he didn't face.

It matters and it is relevant because it reflects the quality of their legacy. A fighter's standing in history depends largely on who they beat. Just the fact that people are comparing Calzaghe's record, at age 37, to records of fighters who are 10 years younger should be indicative enough. Cotto has already fought at least 4 accomplished fighters in their prime. Pavlik took a risk fighting Hopkins, and Jermain Taylor for that matter, whereas when Calzaghe was at that age he was content to fight British clubfighters. Whether taking the risk was justified is another story (ask Pavlik or Cotto). Moreover, Calzaghe only "wiped the floor" with one prime accomplished fighter, Kessler. Pavlik and Cotto can already make that claim, at age 26.

And you are dead-on about PBF. Good comparison. PBF was an amazing pound for pound fighter, but when he left the game he had never fought any accomplished prime welterweight. He left the game when Sugar Shane, Miguel Cotto, and Antonio Margarito were all in their primes. It will always be a knock on PBF.

Name them?

Obviously, I was exagerating a bit with the point being that none of his fights between 1997 and 2004 were against prime, accomplished boxers.

Just for you though ;), per boxrec, after winning the WBO strap from Eubank in 1997, Calzaghe fought: Branco Sobot (finished his career with a 19-11 record and was destroyed by Danilo Haussler of recent dubious fame), David Sarie (didn't fight anyone of note after fighting Calzaghe, rarely left Britain, only twice, and lost to Sven Ottke and Andre Thysse when he did) Richard Woodhall (never left Britain, well once, and was beat by an American club fighter in Baltimore, Maryland, retired after the Calzaghe fight at age 32) Will McIntryre (american club fighter, a bit better then the rest), Charles Brewer (biggest name on this list, finished career at 40-11) Miguel Angel Jiminez (americannever fought anyone of note), Tocker Pudwill (??), Omar Sheika (average fighter, career ended at 27-8) etc. Best wins during that span were over Mario Veit and Robin Reid.

Edit: this post sounds like I am a Calzaghe hater, but that is far from the truth. He is a special talent. I am just showing the knocks on him from a legacy standpoint.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:17 AM.