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.
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..
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!!
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
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..
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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,
