Why is JC not given the credit he deserves for this win...
The bookies had JC as an underdog, and nearly all the american press didnt give him chance...
Yet Calzaghe destroyes him and suddenly he was shit.,. EXPLAIN someone...
Printable View
Why is JC not given the credit he deserves for this win...
The bookies had JC as an underdog, and nearly all the american press didnt give him chance...
Yet Calzaghe destroyes him and suddenly he was shit.,. EXPLAIN someone...
Why are you bringing this up now? This was 2 and a half years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by gudnite vienna
Anywho I'll play American reporters were buying into the hype, Stateside Calzaghe was relatively unknown.
because in every thread involving calzaghe, the win over lacy is brought up, and then dismissed...
The american press must be pritty dum then to be fair
I would say more ignorant than dumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by gudnite vienna
Odd,I thought Lacy was going to lose the fight,he wasnt experienced enough
It's simple, Lacy was being overrated and Calzaghe being underrated at the time, or thought to be long in the tooth.
I liked Lacy, but never thought that highly of him.
It's a solid win for Calzaghe, but beating Kessler was definitely better. I thought much more highly of Kessler than lacy.
its very rare the bookies get in wrong in big title fights, and it was the most onesided 12 round fights ive ever seen
It's simple Lacy was very hyped at the time. He was billed as the next big thing, and JC was unknown to most fans in the states. Im pretty sure that noone takes anything away from JC because as you said some dismiss the Lacy fight he still has wins over Kessler and Hopkins that are impressive.. Even tough i tought hopkins won that fight with effective punching it was close enough, and for that he gets my props...Quote:
Originally Posted by gudnite vienna
Bookies often get it wrong. There's always upsets. Calzaghe was a slight betting underdog.Quote:
Originally Posted by gudnite vienna
Far bigger underdogs have dominated their opponents.
Seen it all before all the sportwriters said Holyfield would lose to Tyson except one, i never thought Lacy was that good as i said time and time again. All you have to do is watch how he struggled against mediocre fighters like Vanderpool, Sheika, American's were looking for an American hope since they hadn't had any good Super Middleweights in years. Hence why Jeff Lacy got overrated.Quote:
Originally Posted by gudnite vienna
And I think the reason why the one writer, Ron "The Plagarizer" Borges, picked Holyfield is because he doesn't like Tyson. Oh, and so he can pick an upset and be the one to get it right.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICBSeen it all before all the sportwriters said Holyfield would lose to Tyson except one, i never thought Lacy was that good as i said time and time again. All you have to do is watch how he struggled against mediocre fighters like Vanderpool, Sheika, American's were looking for an American hope since they hadn't had any good Super Middleweights in years. Hence why Jeff Lacy got overrated.Quote:
Originally Posted by gudnite vienna
I hate that guy.
yeh but everyone couldnt praise holffield enough after that fight unlike calzaghe
So what's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by gudnite vienna
He's whining that people downgrade Calzaghe's win over Lacy, but people do the same for Holyfield and Tyson.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepSo what's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by gudnite vienna
Lots of people on message boards talk about how Tyson wasn't the same post-prison and only a 4-round fighter by then, forgetting that Holyfield was the huge underdog who was considered a shot fighter in 1996.
In retrospect, both guys were past their primes, but Holyfield adapted better to the decline.
they were both championship fights, both underdogs won in great fashion but for some reason Calzaghe's win doesnt got the credit it deserves..
If you took into account all the facts at the time, Lacy was the right choice and anyone who thinks anyone was stupid for picking Lacy are morons.
Like already mentioned, Lacy was hyped to be the next big thing and for good reason. He was a great specimen with a cannonball for a left hook.
On the other side of the coin, Calzaghe was looked at by non-UK as another protected British fighter who really fought no one of real value. At the time, Calzaghe had dropped out of a fight or two, and that had even some British fans questioning his heart (believe me, I remember). Calzaghe was known to be injury prone (especially with those brittle hands) and was thought of as a "slapper". Couple all that with the fact that he was now in his mid 30s, when most fighters start to slow down.
So I don't want to hear any of you brag about picking Calzaghe or laugh at people who picked Lacy. We didn't know what we knew about Calzaghe now (that he could compete with A-level opposition). Jeff Lacy was a good pick.
It gets plenty of credit. You're just too busy listening to the people who downgrade it rather than the numerous people who give Calzaghe credit for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by gudnite vienna
Boxing publications praised Calzaghe and The Ring put him on the top 10 p4p after that fight.
Uhh maybe because Holyfield was fighting MIKE TYSON and Calzaghe was fighting JEFF LACY ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by gudnite vienna
vienna maybe you better join Legion on the Tennis Forum :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by boozeboxer
Better yet, he could join you on the Lonely Law Students for Gay Marriage forum.
I remember some of the casual comments leading up to that one on the networks,Openly fearing for Holyfields health and not wanting to witness a ring tragedy :-X. Me,I won fifty bucks that night and broke the tape rewatching it so many times ;D Ironically it was Lamply (?) I believe who said on air in one of his fights "Im seeing flashes of Holyfield in Lacy".Company man hype 101 !!Quote:
Originally Posted by ICBUhh maybe because Holyfield was fighting MIKE TYSON and Calzaghe was fighting JEFF LACY ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by gudnite vienna
Calzaghe actually was spectacular and watching Lacy's build up throughout early stages you just knew that his over reliance on straight forward mega hooking was bound to get exploited by a Mover with top notch hand speed and great stamina.What a clinic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli surfs 'NawlinsI remember some of the casual comments leading up to that one on the networks,Openly fearing for Holyfields health and not wanting to witness a ring tragedy :-X. Me,I won fifty bucks that night and broke the tape rewatching it so many times ;D Ironically it was Lamply (?) I believe who said on air in one of his fights "Im seeing flashes of Holyfield in Lacy".Company man hype 101 !!Quote:
Originally Posted by ICBUhh maybe because Holyfield was fighting MIKE TYSON and Calzaghe was fighting JEFF LACY ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by gudnite vienna
Calzaghe actually was spectacular and watching Lacy's build up throughout early stages you just knew that his over reliance on straight forward mega hooking was bound to get exploited by a Mover with top notch hand speed and great stamina.What a clinic.
It was a straight up clinic. I didn't really have a prediction either way at the time of who would win; but I was kind of leaning towards Lacy. But damn, what a one sided whooping that was.
It was very impressive; whether Lacy turned out to be more one dimensional than previously thought by many or not. I still think that beating haunts Jeff to this day. No one can take anything away from Calzaghe for that performance. He did shine that night.
yeh but wasnt mike tyson supposidly washed up at this point ICB
No he wasn't people said that only after the fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by gudnite vienna