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.
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.
No way would have Eubanks beaten Taylor, thats bs. Taylor is twice the fighter the Eubanks that stepped into the ring against Calzaghe was. I think if Taylor fought how he did the second fight against Pavlik he would give Calzaghe a lot of troubles.
Also who has Calzaghe foughten who is in their prime? Mikke Kessler is the only really good fighter I can think of who he beat in his prime, and Kessler didn't even spar or do the heavybad for the last 2-3 weeks leading into the fight because of hand injuries.
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.
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.
Semantics mi amigo. Point being they are legitimate challenges. At 26, Cotto has already faced very qualified opposition.
Shane Mosley is an ATG, first ballot hall-of-famer. Agreed, he wasn't in his prime when he faced Cotto, but Cotto outboxed him, and Shane hadn't slowed down too much in that fight.
Zab Judah. Has Notable wins on his record. Fought PBF very well. Big time name. etc. Cotto demolished him.
Paulie, as of now is a junior middleweight champion. He holds a strap. His only loss being against Cotto. Dangerous, err, NO. Of course not, it is well documented know Paulie is feather fisted, but a worthy opponent in his prime, yes.
Carlos Quintana. The least accomplished of the above mentioned, but a good boxer, and the only boxer in the world who has beat Paul Williams.
Antonio Margarito. Dodged by PBF and Sugar Shane. Accomplished resume and in his prime.
Again, Cotto is 26.
I'm not taking away PBF's greatness. He was great. Unbelievable. Arguably the best of the last decade. I was only discusshing his record in the context of his welterweight legacy. I am NOT disparaging his record in any other way. Don't get me wrong.
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taeth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
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.
No way would have Eubanks beaten Taylor, thats bs. Taylor is twice the fighter the Eubanks that stepped into the ring against Calzaghe was.
In all seriousness I thought that Eubank's performance against Calzaghe was one of his best performances
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
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.
Blimey! So now you're calling Keith Holmes a "clubfighter?" For what it's worth - he was the WBC champion.
Sven Ottke was "no one of note?"
"Will McIntryre a bit better then the rest?"
No disrepect mate.. but you CLEARLY have NO IDEA about that time period. That was a SHOCKING interpretation of boxrec records.
Shocking.
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zhubin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
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,
No it's not.
It means you're either too YOUNG to remember the time period.
or
Too ignorant to recognise class fighters exist OUTSIDE of the USA.
;)
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
Fenster
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.
Blimey! So now you're calling Keith Holmes a "clubfighter?" For what it's worth - he was the WBC champion.
Sven Ottke was "no one of note?"
"Will McIntryre a bit better then the rest?"
No disrepect mate.. but you CLEARLY have NO IDEA about that time period. That was a SHOCKING interpretation of boxrec records.
Shocking.
I misspoke on the McIntrye call. I edited that in, in the wrong place, see the Eubank and Reid comment at the bottom of my post.
I didn't mention Keith Holmes.
Sven Ottke, Robin Reid, and Eubank due to merit some praise. But, this is over a 7, repeat 7 year period. It may have been because of the lackluster competition in his division, but I mean come on, does that list impress you?
School me then. Explain to me, in the context of his wins over accomplished, prime, legitimate challenges, why that list merits praise?
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zhubin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
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,
No it's not.
It means you're either too YOUNG to remember the time period.
or
Too ignorant to recognise class fighters exist OUTSIDE of the USA.
;)
Probably a worthy topic for a post: stateside bias v. european bias?
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
[quote=hfahrenheit;624576][quote=leftylee;623837]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
No shame, yes, but definitely humbled in the way he lost- he gave Margarito everything he had and was brutally stopped.
You make it seem he was totally out of his depth. He completely dominated the first half of the fight.
And if your going by Cotto's facial injuries by any chance to believe he was "Brutally stopped" does that mean Paul Malignaggi was brutally beaten because did you see his face after Cotto ?
It was hardly brutal.
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
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.
Blimey! So now you're calling Keith Holmes a "clubfighter?" For what it's worth - he was the WBC champion.
Sven Ottke was "no one of note?"
"Will McIntryre a bit better then the rest?"
No disrepect mate.. but you CLEARLY have NO IDEA about that time period. That was a SHOCKING interpretation of boxrec records.
Shocking.
I misspoke on the McIntrye call. I edited that in, in the wrong place, see the Eubank and Reid comment at the bottom of my post.
I didn't mention Keith Holmes.
Sven Ottke, Robin Reid, and Eubank due to merit some praise. But, this is over a 7, repeat 7 year period. It may have been because of the lackluster competition in his division, but I mean come on, does that list impress you?
School me then. Explain to me, in the context of his wins over accomplished, prime, legitimate challenges, why that list merits praise?
You said Richie(ard) Woodall lost to a clubfighter. That clubfighter is Keith Holmes.
Calzaghe never fought Sven Ottke.
School you? I've never claimed Calzaghe beat great fighters through that time period.
Look mate, i'm sure you know plenty about boxing, but you don't KNOW this time period. That is CLEAR.
If you had originally said "Calzaghe fought bums" instead of "British bums" i wouldn't have even questioned you. I wanted to know who the "british bums" were. ;)
Calzaghe is clearly NEW to you. So i understand you would think his opposition is below par.
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
[quote=leftylee;624627][quote=hfahrenheit;624576]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
leftylee
You make it seem he was totally out of his depth. He completely dominated the first half of the fight.
And if your going by Cotto's facial injuries by any chance to believe he was "Brutally stopped" does that mean Paul Malignaggi was brutally beaten because did you see his face after Cotto ?
It was hardly brutal.
Personally, I'd be going by the fact he was willed into submission. Cotto took three knees. I think, may be wrong, but he even told his corner he didn't want to fight any longer. Paulie lasted the whole twelve rounds and judges had him winning a handful too. Of course, he was solidly dominated by Cotto.
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
Fenster
Blimey! So now you're calling Keith Holmes a "clubfighter?" For what it's worth - he was the WBC champion.
Sven Ottke was "no one of note?"
"Will McIntryre a bit better then the rest?"
No disrepect mate.. but you CLEARLY have NO IDEA about that time period. That was a SHOCKING interpretation of boxrec records.
Shocking.
I misspoke on the McIntrye call. I edited that in, in the wrong place, see the Eubank and Reid comment at the bottom of my post.
I didn't mention Keith Holmes.
Sven Ottke, Robin Reid, and Eubank due to merit some praise. But, this is over a 7, repeat 7 year period. It may have been because of the lackluster competition in his division, but I mean come on, does that list impress you?
School me then. Explain to me, in the context of his wins over accomplished, prime, legitimate challenges, why that list merits praise?
You said Richie(ard) Woodall lost to a clubfighter. That clubfighter is Keith Holmes.
Calzaghe never fought Sven Ottke.
School you? I've never claimed Calzaghe beat great fighters through that time period.
Look mate, i'm sure you know plenty about boxing, but you don't KNOW this time period. That is CLEAR.
If you had originally said "Calzaghe fought bums" instead of "British bums" i wouldn't have even questioned you. I wanted to know who the "british bums" were. ;)
Calzaghe is clearly NEW to you. So i understand you would think his opposition is below par.
I don't have any problem eating my words (a la "british bums"). Burnt pride is not my style. After researching his record, it appeared, Calzaghe fought subpar American and British competition.
Why question me if you agreed with the principle behind what I was putting forth? You agreed in your last post that he didn't fight accomplished, prime, legitimate challenges. Then, who cares if they were British or American? Unless you are a complete dullard, which you may be, could you not see the point in the post?
Your points didn't progress the discussion. I admit I was not a boxing fanatic in the late 90's. And it is very, very unfortunate. Trust me, I regret it completely. Do you feel vindicated now? Hopefully.
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taeth
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.
I agree that Roy deservescriticism for fighting a lot of bums at LWH and that there are fights he should have made. I've ripped his resume on a number of occasions. He should have given Calzaghe the 50/50 split if Calzaghe was willing to travel. That fight would have been worth more to him than his big splits against inferior opponents...that being said....
He beat Hopkins, Malinga (Prime and went on to beat Robin Reid two fights before Calzaghe did), Tate, TONEY, Sosa, Griffin, Eric Harding, Gonzolez, Tarver, and Ruiz. When you factor in his WHOLE resume, including MW and SMW, it's pretty strong. He did waste a lot of time between the Griffin and Harding fights and he should have a fought Steve Collins at some point between 1995 and 1997. Again, I know it was partly a money issue, but it's a fight that he should have made happen.
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
I misspoke on the McIntrye call. I edited that in, in the wrong place, see the Eubank and Reid comment at the bottom of my post.
I didn't mention Keith Holmes.
Sven Ottke, Robin Reid, and Eubank due to merit some praise. But, this is over a 7, repeat 7 year period. It may have been because of the lackluster competition in his division, but I mean come on, does that list impress you?
School me then. Explain to me, in the context of his wins over accomplished, prime, legitimate challenges, why that list merits praise?
You said Richie(ard) Woodall lost to a clubfighter. That clubfighter is Keith Holmes.
Calzaghe never fought Sven Ottke.
School you? I've never claimed Calzaghe beat great fighters through that time period.
Look mate, i'm sure you know plenty about boxing, but you don't KNOW this time period. That is CLEAR.
If you had originally said "Calzaghe fought bums" instead of "British bums" i wouldn't have even questioned you. I wanted to know who the "british bums" were. ;)
Calzaghe is clearly NEW to you. So i understand you would think his opposition is below par.
I don't have any problem eating my words (a la "british bums"). Burnt pride is not my style. After researching his record, it appeared, Calzaghe fought subpar American
and British competition.
Why question me if you agreed with the principle behind what I was putting forth? You agreed in your last post that he didn't fight accomplished, prime, legitimate challenges. Then, who cares if they were British or American? Unless you are a complete dullard, which you may be, could you not see the point in the post?
Your points didn't progress the discussion. I admit I was not a boxing fanatic in the late 90's. And it is very, very unfortunate. Trust me, I regret it completely. Do you feel vindicated now? Hopefully.
I'm NOT trying to win anything or embarrass anyone. Sorry if that's how it seems.
YES - i am a dullard. Fact. I've been over this same stupid fucking debate a billion times.
You would have a better understanding of the calibre of fighter Calzaghe faced if you realised the supermiddle divison was very WEAK through that period - hence the lack of star fights. ;)
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
Fenster
You said Richie(ard) Woodall lost to a clubfighter. That clubfighter is Keith Holmes.
Calzaghe never fought Sven Ottke.
School you? I've never claimed Calzaghe beat great fighters through that time period.
Look mate, i'm sure you know plenty about boxing, but you don't KNOW this time period. That is CLEAR.
If you had originally said "Calzaghe fought bums" instead of "British bums" i wouldn't have even questioned you. I wanted to know who the "british bums" were. ;)
Calzaghe is clearly NEW to you. So i understand you would think his opposition is below par.
I don't have any problem eating my words (a la "british bums"). Burnt pride is not my style. After researching his record, it appeared, Calzaghe fought subpar American
and British competition.
Why question me if you agreed with the principle behind what I was putting forth? You agreed in your last post that he didn't fight accomplished, prime, legitimate challenges. Then, who cares if they were British or American? Unless you are a complete dullard, which you may be, could you not see the point in the post?
Your points didn't progress the discussion. I admit I was not a boxing fanatic in the late 90's. And it is very, very unfortunate. Trust me, I regret it completely. Do you feel vindicated now? Hopefully.
I'm NOT trying to win anything or embarrass anyone. Sorry if that's how it seems.
YES - i am a dullard. Fact. I've been over this same stupid fucking debate a billion times.
You would have a better understanding of the calibre of fighter Calzaghe faced if you realised the supermiddle divison was very WEAK through that period - hence the lack of star fights. ;)
Fair enough. I have too. Usually, on the other side. ;). Maybe Calzaghe did fight everyone he could at 168 during that time period.
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RozzySean
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taeth
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.
I agree that Roy deservescriticism for fighting a lot of bums at LWH and that there are fights he should have made. I've ripped his resume on a number of occasions. He should have given Calzaghe the 50/50 split if Calzaghe was willing to travel. That fight would have been worth more to him than his big splits against inferior opponents...that being said....
He beat Hopkins, Malinga (Prime and went on to beat Robin Reid two fights before Calzaghe did), Tate, TONEY, Sosa, Griffin, Eric Harding, Gonzolez, Tarver, and Ruiz. When you factor in his WHOLE resume, including MW and SMW, it's pretty strong. He did waste a lot of time between the Griffin and Harding fights and he should have a fought Steve Collins at some point between 1995 and 1997. Again, I know it was partly a money issue, but it's a fight that he should have made happen.
The same type of sh1t over and over again.
This HOPKINS BATTERED THE SH1T OUT OF TARVER, PAVLIK AND WRIGHT...THE SAME ONE CALZAGHE BEAT!
NO 'past his prime' bullsh1t excuse about beating hopkins... otherwise you mean to say that pavlik got schooled by a past his prime old man.
Or tarver got schooled by an old man.
Wright got beat by an old man...
So why dont you rate calzaghe over wright, tarver or pavlik then seeing as they all got bashed by the 'weak old man' yet calzaghe beat him?
Why is that?
Ah yes...the double standard again.
Secondly, yes, woods is not a quality fighter, of those fighters you mentioned he lost to griffin the first time (ok not because he was beaten)...but NO THEY ARE NOT 'QUALITY' FIGHTERS.
They are exactly the same type of fighter as ouma, sheika, reid, bika etc...good fighters but not exceptionally good fighters and definately not great fighters.
How do you know that calzaghe wouldve been beaten by other fighters? CALZAGHE IS UNBEATEN therefore you dont know how good someone has to be in order to beat him...so once again its the same old sh1t from behind a keyboard.
Its always always always people who havent followed calzaghe properly at all and only know him over the last 3 years or so that slate him...because they havent been following him...hes been a huge name here in britain for fuking years, but because hes not american the same haters will arise.
NO...jones record does not look 'super impressive' by any means.
Like i said...he wanted to move upto heavyweight...why not against lenox lewis?
Because he wouldve got the sh1t smacked outve him and brutally ko'd within 4 rounds!
