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!
