Why couldn't Calzaghe's peak have been around now :-(

Printable View

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

07-11-2011, 09:21 PM
porkypara

Re: Why couldn't Calzaghe's peak have been around now :-(

Quote:

Originally Posted by hitmanhatton

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

Originally Posted by hitmanhatton

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

calzaghe wouldnt have fought them if he was around now they are not in their 40's.

This !!

Coz Hopkins has been shite in his forties :rolleyes: Coming off convincing wins against Tarver and Winky, he loses to Calzaghe, then goes on to dominate undefeated Pavlik and even now is beating the likes of Pascal and lined up to fight Chad Dawson next.

Somebody who 'ducks' people, doesn't fight Lacy (when everybody thought he was the 2nd coming) or undefeated Mikhael Kesler.

and then avoid a rematch like its the plague, claiming he doesnt do rematches ..... unless your marco veit that is

He had to fight Veit or he would have been stripped of his wbo belt.
07-11-2011, 09:28 PM
imp

Calzaghe is a great boxer period.. But no way on earth would he beat prime roy at super middle..no one would. Not even wife beater ray robinson. Frank warren done well in keeping joe undefeated..just like rocky m they were both undefeated. But not the greatest.
07-11-2011, 09:29 PM
ICB

Re: Why couldn't Calzaghe's peak have been around now :-(

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

Originally Posted by hitmanhatton

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

calzaghe wouldnt have fought them if he was around now they are not in their 40's.

This !!

Coz Hopkins has been shite in his forties :rolleyes: Coming off convincing wins against Tarver and Winky, he loses to Calzaghe, then goes on to dominate undefeated Pavlik and even now is beating the likes of Pascal and lined up to fight Chad Dawson next.

Somebody who 'ducks' people, doesn't fight Lacy (when everybody thought he was the 2nd coming) or undefeated Mikhael Kesler.

I think B-Hop beat Joe Calzaghe but im not going to debate it again, also his win over Winky Wright wasn't convincing i had it a draw, plus remember Winky Wright was bloated at that weightclass aswell.

B-Hop is still a very good fighter in his 40's, but he lacks the stamina he once had and the aggression. If he had fought Joe Calzaghe when he destroyed Glen Johnson, i think he would of won even wider like 8-4.
07-12-2011, 01:12 AM
Hunter

Re: Why couldn't Calzaghe's peak have been around now :-(

I think Joe Cal would have beaten Bute and Ward. Joe did a number on Kessler in his prime. Joe had underrated power and a ton of stamina. Joe even beat B Hop when B Hop was fighting like a little bitch and trying to cheat his way to a victory.
07-12-2011, 09:11 AM
erics44

Re: Why couldn't Calzaghe's peak have been around now :-(

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

Originally Posted by hitmanhatton

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

calzaghe wouldnt have fought them if he was around now they are not in their 40's.

This !!

Coz Hopkins has been shite in his forties :rolleyes: Coming off convincing wins against Tarver and Winky, he loses to Calzaghe, then goes on to dominate undefeated Pavlik and even now is beating the likes of Pascal and lined up to fight Chad Dawson next.

Somebody who 'ducks' people, doesn't fight Lacy (when everybody thought he was the 2nd coming) or undefeated Mikhael Kesler.

I think B-Hop beat Joe Calzaghe but im not going to debate it again, also his win over Winky Wright wasn't convincing i had it a draw, plus remember Winky Wright was bloated at that weightclass aswell.

B-Hop is still a very good fighter in his 40's, but he lacks the stamina he once had and the aggression. If he had fought Joe Calzaghe when he destroyed Glen Johnson, i think he would of won even wider like 8-4.

I am at a loss to how anyone can think calazaghi lost to hopkins

i like the debates that boxing brings when fights go to descision even some less debateable descisions can be debated but that fight was so clear cut, i dont think there can be any question who won
07-13-2011, 10:51 PM
ICB

Re: Why couldn't Calzaghe's peak have been around now :-(

Quote:

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

Originally Posted by hitmanhatton

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

calzaghe wouldnt have fought them if he was around now they are not in their 40's.

This !!

Coz Hopkins has been shite in his forties :rolleyes: Coming off convincing wins against Tarver and Winky, he loses to Calzaghe, then goes on to dominate undefeated Pavlik and even now is beating the likes of Pascal and lined up to fight Chad Dawson next.

Somebody who 'ducks' people, doesn't fight Lacy (when everybody thought he was the 2nd coming) or undefeated Mikhael Kesler.

I think B-Hop beat Joe Calzaghe but im not going to debate it again, also his win over Winky Wright wasn't convincing i had it a draw, plus remember Winky Wright was bloated at that weightclass aswell.

B-Hop is still a very good fighter in his 40's, but he lacks the stamina he once had and the aggression. If he had fought Joe Calzaghe when he destroyed Glen Johnson, i think he would of won even wider like 8-4.

I am at a loss to how anyone can think calazaghi lost to hopkins

i like the debates that boxing brings when fights go to descision even some less debateable descisions can be debated but that fight was so clear cut, i dont think there can be any question who won

Im at a loss how you thought Carl Froch beat Mikkel Kessler but thats just my opinion. I said i didn't want to debate it again, because its been debated to death trust me. I just liked B-Hop's cleaner punches.
07-14-2011, 09:13 AM
erics44

Re: Why couldn't Calzaghe's peak have been around now :-(

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

Originally Posted by hitmanhatton

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

calzaghe wouldnt have fought them if he was around now they are not in their 40's.

This !!

Coz Hopkins has been shite in his forties :rolleyes: Coming off convincing wins against Tarver and Winky, he loses to Calzaghe, then goes on to dominate undefeated Pavlik and even now is beating the likes of Pascal and lined up to fight Chad Dawson next.

Somebody who 'ducks' people, doesn't fight Lacy (when everybody thought he was the 2nd coming) or undefeated Mikhael Kesler.

I think B-Hop beat Joe Calzaghe but im not going to debate it again, also his win over Winky Wright wasn't convincing i had it a draw, plus remember Winky Wright was bloated at that weightclass aswell.

B-Hop is still a very good fighter in his 40's, but he lacks the stamina he once had and the aggression. If he had fought Joe Calzaghe when he destroyed Glen Johnson, i think he would of won even wider like 8-4.

I am at a loss to how anyone can think calazaghi lost to hopkins

i like the debates that boxing brings when fights go to descision even some less debateable descisions can be debated but that fight was so clear cut, i dont think there can be any question who won

Im at a loss how you thought Carl Froch beat Mikkel Kessler but thats just my opinion. I said i didn't want to debate it again, because its been debated to death trust me. I just liked B-Hop's cleaner punches.

i did think froch won that fight, i can understand a case for the other way but i thought froch won a close fight, even those that thought kessler won thought it was close and some rounds could be seen either way

i wont mention hopkins calazaghi gain then if you dont want to talk about it :)

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