-
If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
We keep hearing about how poor Calzaghe's record is and that he's not really an elite fighter.
However to those who say this please tell me all the guys out there with a better record amongst the currenty p4p lot.
I mean we have Pavlik, who beat Taylor twice and Miranda but got completely exposed by BHop. Is his record better?
Mijares, who beat Jorge Arce, Alexander Munoz and some other fighters I've mostly never heard of. Is his record better?
Ivan Calderon, double weight champ, beat Hugo Cazares twice, what about his record?
Margarito, huge win over Cotto, destroyed Cintron twice. But has losses to Santos twice, and Paul Williams. I won't count his early losses. Is his record better?
Isreal Vazquez. Fought a great trilogy with R Marquez, losing once but winning twice. Got a great come from behind win over Jhonny Gonzalez and knocked out Oscar Larios although he was himself KO'd by Larios earlier on too. His record any better?
Miguel Cotto. Impressive wins over Malignaggi, Quintana, Judah and Mosely but was badly beaten by Margarito. Not yet risen to the top in any weight class. His record better?
JM Marquez. A great fighter, probably the best resume of any fighter on this list.
Has dominated 3 weight classes, had two very disputed results against the worlds best current fighter and also beat Barrera.
However his best results, against Pacquiao were technically a draw and a loss. He won a close fight against Barrera in which the judging was way off. He lost to little known Chris John recently and his win over Casamayor although impressive has to be seen in the light of Casamayor being a fraction of the fighter he once was, following a string of uninspiring performances.
So now look at Calzaghe, who unlike all of those above is completely unbeaten, never lost a fight. He beat B Hopkins who even at 43 was still in the top 10 p4p according to the Ring magazine, something that Casamayor certainly was not. Barrera it can be said has slipped a lot more than Hopkins as well. I wouldn't personally rate wins over Barrera and Casamayor higher than wins over a prime Kessler and a still effective B Hopkins.
I belive Calzaghe's resume is better than all of the guy's above.
I didn;t mention B Hop or Manny because I agree Calzaghe's record isn't as hot as those two guys but of all the others in the current top 10 p4p Calzaghe's record is better imo.
Thoughts?
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
I'm not sure if the argument for or against joe is ever going to be settled, those for calzagehe are going to support him no matter what and those who dislike him are going to no matter what. I just wish he would've started this push towards U.S. fights a little bit earlier, i doubt a fight is going to ever happen that will sway anyone to the other side. Some good arguments for both against and for the guy.
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Thing is fighters such as Pavlik and Cotto are both young fighters but they are willing to take risks now Pavlik lost to Hopkins and Cotto to Margarito but at least these young fighters are going for it. Calzaghe is in his late 30's unbeaten in 45 fights but he has only just started taking risks and is last 2 risks have been against fighters past there best Hopkins and Jones even if Hopkins has just beaten Pavlik he still isn't at his best. Calzaghe could have learned a lot from fighters like Pavlik and Cotto risk takers wanting big fights tough fights not clinging on to there unbeaten records.
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Bilbo I don't know how you say Cotto got badly beaten by Margarito. The first 6 rounds he took Margarito to school.
ALL of those guys have better resumes than Calzaghe's IMO bar Calderon.
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tysonbruno
Thing is fighters such as Pavlik and Cotto are both young fighters but they are willing to take risks now Pavlik lost to Hopkins and Cotto to Margarito but at least these young fighters are going for it. Calzaghe is in his late 30's unbeaten in 45 fights but he has only just started taking risks and is last 2 risks have been against fighters past there best Hopkins and Jones even if Hopkins has just beaten Pavlik he still isn't at his best. Calzaghe could have learned a lot from fighters like Pavlik and Cotto risk takers wanting big fights tough fights not clinging on to there unbeaten records.
Calzaghe beat Eubank as a young fighter let's not forget that.
Also look at B Hop. He didn't get his first signifcant fight until he fought the welterweight Trinidad in 2001 at the age of 36, the same age Calzaghe is now!
Calzaghe is actually ahead of Hopkins. At this age Hopkins had only fought Trinidad, Calzaghe already has wins over Eubank, Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins and is fighting another legend in Roy Jones next month.
Hagler didnt' get any big fights until he was past 30 either.
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Ok he beat Eubank as a young fighter but then what did he do he didn't take a risk till he fought Lacy.
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
leftylee
Bilbo I don't know how you say Cotto got badly beaten by Margarito. The first 6 rounds he took Margarito to school.
ALL of those guys have better resumes than Calzaghe's IMO bar Calderon.
So being knocked out and having your corner throw in the towel isn't being badly beaten? :rolleyes:
After the fight Bunce, Watt and Spencer Oliver all said they thing Cotto may now be totally ruined by such a brutal loss yet you don't think it was even a beating :-\
So wins over Munoz and Arce are better than Kessler, Hopkins, Lacy and Eubank?
Your hate is blinding you lefty.
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
leftylee
Bilbo I don't know how you say Cotto got badly beaten by Margarito. The first 6 rounds he took Margarito to school.
ALL of those guys have better resumes than Calzaghe's IMO bar Calderon.
So being knocked out and having your corner throw in the towel isn't being badly beaten? :rolleyes:
After the fight Bunce, Watt and Spencer Oliver all said they thing Cotto may now be totally ruined by such a brutal loss yet you don't think it was even a beating :-\
So wins over Munoz and Arce are better than Kessler, Hopkins, Lacy and Eubank?
Your hate is blinding you lefty.
Since when did you take any notice of Steve Bunce?
And forget them 3 "Experts". Cotto looked fabulous in the first 6 rounds. After the 6 rounds his nose and cuts combined with Margarito's relentless pressure caught up to him. No shame in losing to Margarito.
And yes I would rather have Jose Navarro, Jorge Arce and Alex Munoz on my resume.
Rather than an overhyped, one-dimesnional Jeff Lacy, Mikkel Kessler, a 43yr old grandad Nard Hopkins and a shot Chris Eubank.
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tysonbruno
Thing is fighters such as Pavlik and Cotto are both young fighters but they are willing to take risks now Pavlik lost to Hopkins and Cotto to Margarito but at least these young fighters are going for it. Calzaghe is in his late 30's unbeaten in 45 fights but he has only just started taking risks and is last 2 risks have been against fighters past there best Hopkins and Jones even if Hopkins has just beaten Pavlik he still isn't at his best. Calzaghe could have learned a lot from fighters like Pavlik and Cotto risk takers wanting big fights tough fights not clinging on to there unbeaten records.
Calzaghe beat Eubank as a young fighter let's not forget that.
Also look at B Hop. He didn't get his first signifcant fight until he fought the welterweight Trinidad in 2001 at the age of 36, the same age Calzaghe is now!
Calzaghe is actually ahead of Hopkins. At this age Hopkins had only fought Trinidad, Calzaghe already has wins over Eubank, Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins and is fighting another legend in Roy Jones next month.
Hagler didnt' get any big fights until he was past 30 either.
how the fuk is calzaghe ahead of hopkins. frm 40 and up he fought Taylor twice, Tarver, Wright, Calslappy, and Pavlik. just those 4 not including JOKE are way better than calzaghe has ever faced and joe is like wat 36-37 and Bhop is past 40 and is fighting PRIMEFIGHTERS unlike JOE.
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kingfrnk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tysonbruno
Thing is fighters such as Pavlik and Cotto are both young fighters but they are willing to take risks now Pavlik lost to Hopkins and Cotto to Margarito but at least these young fighters are going for it. Calzaghe is in his late 30's unbeaten in 45 fights but he has only just started taking risks and is last 2 risks have been against fighters past there best Hopkins and Jones even if Hopkins has just beaten Pavlik he still isn't at his best. Calzaghe could have learned a lot from fighters like Pavlik and Cotto risk takers wanting big fights tough fights not clinging on to there unbeaten records.
Calzaghe beat Eubank as a young fighter let's not forget that.
Also look at B Hop. He didn't get his first signifcant fight until he fought the welterweight Trinidad in 2001 at the age of 36, the same age Calzaghe is now!
Calzaghe is actually ahead of Hopkins. At this age Hopkins had only fought Trinidad, Calzaghe already has wins over Eubank, Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins and is fighting another legend in Roy Jones next month.
Hagler didnt' get any big fights until he was past 30 either.
how the fuk is calzaghe ahead of hopkins. frm 40 and up he fought Taylor twice, Tarver, Wright, Calslappy, and Pavlik. just those 4 not including JOKE are way better than calzaghe has ever faced and joe is like wat 36-37 and Bhop is past
40 and is fighting PRIMEFIGHTERS unlike JOE.
Read it again carefully I said Calzaghe is ahead of Hopkins compared to where he was at the same age.
Hopkins got his megafight against Trinidad at age 36. The same age as Joe is now.
Now go and look at B Hops resume up until the age of 36 and compare it with Calzaghe's
Calzaghe's resume is as good if not better than Hopkins was at age 36.
Go and have a look if you don't believe me.
Trinidad, Oscar, Tarver, Pavlik, Wright, all of those fights he was older than Calzahghe is now
What I'm saying is that B Hop won his resect even later in life than what Joe is doing.
If you just looked at B Hops record up until age 36 and the Trinidad fight, who did he beat? ;)
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Mayweather
Delahoya
Jones
Toney
Lewis
To name a few
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kingfrnk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Calzaghe beat Eubank as a young fighter let's not forget that.
Also look at B Hop. He didn't get his first signifcant fight until he fought the welterweight Trinidad in 2001 at the age of 36, the same age Calzaghe is now!
Calzaghe is actually ahead of Hopkins. At this age Hopkins had only fought Trinidad, Calzaghe already has wins over Eubank, Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins and is fighting another legend in Roy Jones next month.
Hagler didnt' get any big fights until he was past 30 either.
how the fuk is calzaghe ahead of hopkins. frm 40 and up he fought Taylor twice, Tarver, Wright, Calslappy, and Pavlik. just those 4 not including JOKE are way better than calzaghe has ever faced and joe is like wat 36-37 and Bhop is past
40 and is fighting PRIMEFIGHTERS unlike JOE.
Read it again carefully I said Calzaghe is ahead of Hopkins compared to where he was at the same age.
Hopkins got his megafight against Trinidad at age 36. The same age as Joe is now.
Now go and look at B Hops resume up until the age of 36 and compare it with Calzaghe's
Calzaghe's resume is as good if not better than Hopkins was at
age 36.
Go and have a look if you don't believe me.
Trinidad, Oscar, Tarver, Pavlik, Wright, all of those fights he was older than Calzahghe is now
What I'm saying is that B Hop won his resect even later in life than what Joe is doing.
If you just looked at B Hops record
up until age 36 and the Trinidad fight, who did he beat? ;)
yea but bhop was in jail to so dont forget that. bhop even said it himself that why people keep asking bhop why are u still fighting and bhop said people dont remember that I lost years of fighting because I WAS IN JAIL.
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tysonbruno
Thing is fighters such as Pavlik and Cotto are both young fighters but they are willing to take risks now Pavlik lost to Hopkins and Cotto to Margarito but at least these young fighters are going for it. Calzaghe is in his late 30's unbeaten in 45 fights but he has only just started taking risks and is last 2 risks have been against fighters past there best Hopkins and Jones even if Hopkins has just beaten Pavlik he still isn't at his best. Calzaghe could have learned a lot from fighters like Pavlik and Cotto risk takers wanting big fights tough fights not clinging on to there unbeaten records.
Calzaghe beat Eubank as a young fighter let's not forget that.
Also look at B Hop. He didn't get his first signifcant fight until he fought the welterweight Trinidad in 2001 at the age of 36, the same age Calzaghe is now!
Calzaghe is actually ahead of Hopkins. At this age Hopkins had only fought Trinidad, Calzaghe already has wins over Eubank, Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins and is fighting another legend in Roy Jones next month.
Hagler didnt' get any big fights until he was past 30 either.
Bilbo do you realize how much of an underdog Bernard Hopkins was against Felix Trinidad ? and do you know Felix Trinidad was being compared to SRR. And was very high in the P4P rankings ?
Bernard Hopkins also beat Antwun Echols x2 who beat Charles Brewer, which is one of Joe Calzaghe's better wins, and also a win over Keith Holmes who dominated a young Richie Woodhall, which is also one of Joe Calzaghe's better wins.
Also aren't you forgetting Glen Johnson, John David Jackson, Simon Brown, ETC. they are all solid wins.
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tysonbruno
Thing is fighters such as Pavlik and Cotto are both young fighters but they are willing to take risks now Pavlik lost to Hopkins and Cotto to Margarito but at least these young fighters are going for it. Calzaghe is in his late 30's unbeaten in 45 fights but he has only just started taking risks and is last 2 risks have been against fighters past there best Hopkins and Jones even if Hopkins has just beaten Pavlik he still isn't at his best. Calzaghe could have learned a lot from fighters like Pavlik and Cotto risk takers wanting big fights tough fights not clinging on to there unbeaten records.
Calzaghe beat Eubank as a young fighter let's not forget that.
Also look at B Hop. He didn't get his first signifcant fight until he fought the welterweight Trinidad in 2001 at the age of 36, the same age Calzaghe is now!
Calzaghe is actually ahead of Hopkins. At this age Hopkins had only fought Trinidad, Calzaghe already has wins over Eubank, Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins and is fighting another legend in Roy Jones next month.
Hagler didnt' get any big fights until he was past 30 either.
Bilbo do you realize how much of an underdog Bernard Hopkins was against Felix Trinidad ? and do you know Felix Trinidad was being compared to SRR. And was very high in the P4P rankings ?
Bernard Hopkins also beat Antwun Echols x2 who beat Charles Brewer, which is one of Joe Calzaghe's better wins, and also a win over Keith Holmes who dominated a young Richie Woodhall, which is also one of Joe Calzaghe's better wins.
Also aren't you forgetting Glen Johnson, John David Jackson, Simon Brown, ETC. they are all solid wins.
This isn't about B Hop though Ice, you'll notice he's not in my list of fighters.
i'll ask you again, who, of the fighters I mentioned in the current p4p list has a better resume than Calzaghe and why?
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
To be fair Calzaghe is at the end of his career, wait a little bit for guys like Cotto, and rest, but what about Marquez and Vazquez they have a list of healthy competition. Margarito doesn't have the same resume as Calzaghe but its pretty good. Winky Wright who I think is still in top 10 p4p contention has a better resume then Calzaghe.
But if you go by age Cotto is way ahead in competition if not almost equal regardless in terms of competition with Calzaghe.
Magarito is close as well, especially if he faces Mosley.
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Calzaghe beat Eubank as a young fighter let's not forget that.
Also look at B Hop. He didn't get his first signifcant fight until he fought the welterweight Trinidad in 2001 at the age of 36, the same age Calzaghe is now!
Calzaghe is actually ahead of Hopkins. At this age Hopkins had only fought Trinidad, Calzaghe already has wins over Eubank, Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins and is fighting another legend in Roy Jones next month.
Hagler didnt' get any big fights until he was past 30 either.
Bilbo do you realize how much of an underdog Bernard Hopkins was against Felix Trinidad ? and do you know Felix Trinidad was being compared to SRR. And was very high in the P4P rankings ?
Bernard Hopkins also beat Antwun Echols x2 who beat Charles Brewer, which is one of Joe Calzaghe's better wins, and also a win over Keith Holmes who dominated a young Richie Woodhall, which is also one of Joe Calzaghe's better wins.
Also aren't you forgetting Glen Johnson, John David Jackson, Simon Brown, ETC. they are all solid wins.
This isn't about B Hop though Ice, you'll notice he's not in my list of fighters.
i'll ask you again, who, of the fighters I mentioned in the current p4p list has a better resume than Calzaghe and why?
Well firstly most of those fighters have only been champions for a few years, and fighters like Marquez, Margarito, have only recently been starting to get the fights and respect because they were ducked for years.
Calzaghe has been a champion for over 10 years, which is x3-x4 aslong as every fighter on that list. So i think its unfair to compare how about in 5 years from now lets see if its debatable whether Joe Calzaghe has a better resume than most of the fighters on that list.
Of course Joe Calzaghe has better resume overall than most of the fighters on that list, because of how long he has been champion. But the fact of matter is, that out of all those title defenses only few names stand out.
And even those wins are questionable, like Chris Eubank being late replacement for Steve Collins, and he had to lose ridiculous amount of weight in a short time. And don't even get me started on Jeff Lacy.
I never said Joe Calzaghe hasn't got a good resume overall, but he could of took more risks and moved up in weight like he said he would. I find it funny now the division is starting to get stronger, he has moved up in the weight and is fighting RJJ the same RJJ he called a hasbeen before his fight with Felix Trinidad. He contradicts himself all the time.
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Bilbo do you realize how much of an underdog Bernard Hopkins was against Felix Trinidad ? and do you know Felix Trinidad was being compared to SRR. And was very high in the P4P rankings ?
Bernard Hopkins also beat Antwun Echols x2 who beat Charles Brewer, which is one of Joe Calzaghe's better wins, and also a win over Keith Holmes who dominated a young Richie Woodhall, which is also one of Joe Calzaghe's better wins.
Also aren't you forgetting Glen Johnson, John David Jackson, Simon Brown, ETC. they are all solid wins.
This isn't about B Hop though Ice, you'll notice he's not in my list of fighters.
i'll ask you again, who, of the fighters I mentioned in the current p4p list has a better resume than Calzaghe and why?
Well firstly most of those fighters have only been champions for a few years, and fighters like Marquez, Margarito, have only recently been starting to get the fights and respect because they were ducked for years.
Calzaghe has been a champion for over 10 years, which is x3 aslong as every fighter on that list. So i think its unfair to compare how about in 5 years from now lets see if its debatable whether Joe Calzaghe has a better resume than most of the fighters on that list.
Of course Joe Calzaghe has better resume overall than most of the fighters on that list, because of how long he has been champion. But the fact of matter is, that out of all those title defenses only few names stand out.
And even those wins are questionable, like Chris Eubank being late replacement for Steve Collins, and he had to lose ridiculous amount of weight in a short time. And don't even get me started on Jeff Lacy.
I never said Joe Calzaghe hasn't got a good resume overall, but he could of took more risks and moved up in weight like he said he would. I find it funny now the division is starting to get stronger, he has moved up in the weight and is fighting a man he called a hasbeen before his fights with Felix Trinidad.
He contradicts himself all the time.
LOL. I was just about to make a thread on Calzaghe's contadicting.
Last week someone asked him would you give Hopkins a rematch, he replied "No, I don't do rematches".
Then WTF was Mario Veit or Evans Ashira rematch (I get mixed up with Calzaghe's below par opposition names) all about :lolhaha: The first fight he won in a round, one of the most pointless rematches ever.
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Bilbo do you realize how much of an underdog Bernard Hopkins was against Felix Trinidad ? and do you know Felix Trinidad was being compared to SRR. And was very high in the P4P rankings ?
Bernard Hopkins also beat Antwun Echols x2 who beat Charles Brewer, which is one of Joe Calzaghe's better wins, and also a win over Keith Holmes who dominated a young Richie Woodhall, which is also one of Joe Calzaghe's better wins.
Also aren't you forgetting Glen Johnson, John David Jackson, Simon Brown, ETC. they are all solid wins.
This isn't about B Hop though Ice, you'll notice he's not in my list of fighters.
i'll ask you again, who, of the fighters I mentioned in the current p4p list has a better resume than Calzaghe and why?
Well firstly most of those fighters have only been champions for a few years, and fighters like Marquez, Margarito, have only recently been starting to get the fights and respect because they were ducked for years.
Calzaghe has been a champion for over 10 years, which is x3-x4 aslong as every fighter on that list. So i think its unfair to compare how about in 5 years from now lets see if its debatable whether Joe Calzaghe has a better resume than most of the fighters on that list.
Of course Joe Calzaghe has better resume overall than most of the fighters on that list, because of how long he has been champion. But the fact of matter is, that out of all those title defenses only few names stand out.
And even those wins are questionable, like Chris Eubank being late replacement for Steve Collins, and he had to lose ridiculous amount of weight in a short time. And don't even get me started on Jeff Lacy.
I never said Joe Calzaghe hasn't got a good resume overall, but he could of took more risks and moved up in weight like he said he would.
I find it funny now the division is starting to get stronger, he has moved up in the weight and is fighting RJJ the same RJJ he called a hasbeen before his fight with Felix Trinidad. He contradicts himself all the time.
That is really stupid.
He was scared out of the supermiddle division (fuck knows by who?) to face Bernard Hopkins. :rolleyes:
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Calzaghe would have got some good respect had he rematched Robin Reid funny he says he doesn't do rematches when asked about rematching Hopkins the guy that nearly beat him.
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
This isn't about B Hop though Ice, you'll notice he's not in my list of fighters.
i'll ask you again, who, of the fighters I mentioned in the current p4p list has a better resume than Calzaghe and why?
Well firstly most of those fighters have only been champions for a few years, and fighters like Marquez, Margarito, have only recently been starting to get the fights and respect because they were ducked for years.
Calzaghe has been a champion for over 10 years, which is x3-x4 aslong as every fighter on that list. So i think its unfair to compare how about in 5 years from now lets see if its debatable whether Joe Calzaghe has a better resume than most of the fighters on that list.
Of course Joe Calzaghe has better resume overall than most of the fighters on that list, because of how long he has been champion. But the fact of matter is, that out of all those title defenses only few names stand out.
And even those wins are questionable, like Chris Eubank being late replacement for Steve Collins, and he had to lose ridiculous amount of weight in a short time. And don't even get me started on Jeff Lacy.
I never said Joe Calzaghe hasn't got a good resume overall, but he could of took more risks and moved up in weight like he said he would.
I find it funny now the division is starting to get stronger, he has moved up in the weight and is fighting RJJ the same RJJ he called a hasbeen before his fight with Felix Trinidad. He contradicts himself all the time.
That is really stupid.
He was scared out of the supermiddle division (fuck knows by who?) to face Bernard Hopkins. :rolleyes:
I never said he was scared out of the SMW division. I just find it funny that he called RJJ a hasbeen yet he is fighting him ? if he thinks that then why doesn't he fight the top SMW's, if he thinks RJJ is such a old hasbeen according to Joe Calzaghe himself ?
Infact you know what ? i would rather see Joe Calzaghe fight some of the elite SMW's. Than see Roy Jones vs Joe Calzaghe, Roy Jones lost 4 rounds against Felix Trinidad who had been retired since 2005 and was way above his natural weightclass.
Plus he almost lost a decision against the mediocre Anthony Hanshaw, RJJ is a shot fighter which is a fact. He can only fight for 1 minute of a round if that, and he fights entirely on the ropes. Thinking about this fight some more i actually think its a joke.
I only give RJJ a chance because he is faster than anyone Joe Calzaghe has fought, plus he has a good straight right hand. And he is the bigger man but thats more hope than anything.
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Well firstly most of those fighters have only been champions for a few years, and fighters like Marquez, Margarito, have only recently been starting to get the fights and respect because they were ducked for years.
Calzaghe has been a champion for over 10 years, which is x3-x4 aslong as every fighter on that list. So i think its unfair to compare how about in 5 years from now lets see if its debatable whether Joe Calzaghe has a better resume than most of the fighters on that list.
Of course Joe Calzaghe has better resume overall than most of the fighters on that list, because of how long he has been champion. But the fact of matter is, that out of all those title defenses only few names stand out.
And even those wins are questionable, like Chris Eubank being late replacement for Steve Collins, and he had to lose ridiculous amount of weight in a short time. And don't even get me started on Jeff Lacy.
I never said Joe Calzaghe hasn't got a good resume overall, but he could of took more risks and moved up in weight like he said he would. I find it funny now the division is starting to get stronger, he has moved up in the weight and is fighting RJJ the same RJJ he called a hasbeen before his fight with Felix Trinidad. He contradicts himself all the time.
That is really stupid.
He was scared out of the supermiddle division (fuck knows by who?) to face Bernard Hopkins. :rolleyes:
I never said he was scared out of the SMW division. I just find it funny that he called RJJ a hasbeen yet he is fighting him ? if he thinks that then why doesn't he fight the top SMW's, if he thinks RJJ is such a old hasbeen according to Joe Calzaghe himself ?
Infact you know what ? i would rather see Joe Calzaghe fight some of the elite SMW's. Than see Roy Jones vs Joe Calzaghe, Roy Jones lost 4 rounds against Felix Trinidad who had been retired since 2005 and was way above his natural weightclass.
Plus he almost lost a decision against the mediocre Anthony Hanshaw, RJJ is a shot fighter which is a fact. He can only fight for 1 minute of a round if that, and he fights entirely on the ropes. Thinking about this fight some more i actually think its a joke.
So you think Calzaghe will win easy then?
What supermiddles would you like him to fight?
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
How great would Joe Calzaghe v Chad Dawson be?
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tysonbruno
Calzaghe would have got some good respect had he rematched Robin Reid funny he says he doesn't do rematches when asked about rematching Hopkins the guy that nearly beat him.
Reid turned down the rematch because he wanted more money than he was offered.
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tysonbruno
Calzaghe would have got some good respect had he rematched Robin Reid funny he says he doesn't do rematches when asked about rematching Hopkins the guy that nearly beat him.
Reid turned down the rematch because he wanted more money than he was offered.
Is that a fact? i never heard that
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tysonbruno
Thing is fighters such as Pavlik and Cotto are both young fighters but they are willing to take risks now Pavlik lost to Hopkins and Cotto to Margarito but at least these young fighters are going for it. Calzaghe is in his late 30's unbeaten in 45 fights but he has only just started taking risks and is last 2 risks have been against fighters past there best Hopkins and Jones even if Hopkins has just beaten Pavlik he still isn't at his best. Calzaghe could have learned a lot from fighters like Pavlik and Cotto risk takers wanting big fights tough fights not clinging on to there unbeaten records.
Calzaghe beat Eubank as a young fighter let's not forget that.
Also look at B Hop. He didn't get his first signifcant fight until he fought the welterweight Trinidad in 2001 at the age of 36, the same age Calzaghe is now!
Calzaghe is actually ahead of Hopkins. At this age Hopkins had only fought Trinidad, Calzaghe already has wins over Eubank, Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins and is fighting another legend in Roy Jones next month.
Hagler didnt' get any big fights until he was past 30 either.
Trinidad was regarded as the best fighter in the world when hopkins destroyed him. The same can not be said of anyone on joes resume. Also, hagler was dying to get huge fights his entire career and eddie futch famously told him, you have 3 things going against you, 1 your left handed, 2 your black, 3 your good. Hagler was avoided, plain and simple. Joes a hall of famer but the criticism laid on him is no different than what jones and mayweather received as well, he did not take as many risks as he could have.
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
That is really stupid.
He was scared out of the supermiddle division (fuck knows by who?) to face Bernard Hopkins. :rolleyes:
I never said he was scared out of the SMW division. I just find it funny that he called RJJ a hasbeen yet he is fighting him ? if he thinks that then why doesn't he fight the top SMW's, if he thinks RJJ is such a old hasbeen according to Joe Calzaghe himself ?
Infact you know what ? i would rather see Joe Calzaghe fight some of the elite SMW's. Than see Roy Jones vs Joe Calzaghe, Roy Jones lost 4 rounds against Felix Trinidad who had been retired since 2005 and was way above his natural weightclass.
Plus he almost lost a decision against the mediocre Anthony Hanshaw, RJJ is a shot fighter which is a fact. He can only fight for 1 minute of a round if that, and he fights entirely on the ropes. Thinking about this fight some more i actually think its a joke.
So you think Calzaghe will win easy then?
What supermiddles would you like him to fight?
I think Joe Calzaghe has a very good chance of winning, im only going with RJJ because he is one of my favorite fighters. And he was one of my idols when i used to watch him as a young kid.
As for who Joe Calzaghe could fight, well if we are saying he wasn't gonna fight RJJ. I would like him to fight Jermain Taylor, Lucian Bute, Carl Froch. These fighters are all young in there prime. Or even Chad Dawson at LHW.
But these fights are too dangerous and i understand why he is fighting RJJ, because is a name and he will make tons of money out of it. But Joe Calzaghe should stop contradicting himself all the time.
He said he doesn't do rematches but he fought a ridiculous rematch with Mario Veit, but he didn't rematch Robin Reid who many people thought beat Joe Calzaghe. And he won't rematch B Hop by the looks of it either another fight with alot of question marks.
He also called RJJ an old hasbeen before the Felix Trinidad fight, so what has changed his mind about RJJ now ? because RJJ won 8 rounds to 4 against a fighter who hadn't fought since 2005, and was way above his weightclass ?
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Well firstly most of those fighters have only been champions for a few years, and fighters like Marquez, Margarito, have only recently been starting to get the fights and respect because they were ducked for years.
Calzaghe has been a champion for over 10 years, which is x3-x4 aslong as every fighter on that list. So i think its unfair to compare how about in 5 years from now lets see if its debatable whether Joe Calzaghe has a better resume than most of the fighters on that list.
Of course Joe Calzaghe has better resume overall than most of the fighters on that list, because of how long he has been champion. But the fact of matter is, that out of all those title defenses only few names stand out.
And even those wins are questionable, like Chris Eubank being late replacement for Steve Collins, and he had to lose ridiculous amount of weight in a short time. And don't even get me started on Jeff Lacy.
I never said Joe Calzaghe hasn't got a good resume overall, but he could of took more risks and moved up in weight like he said he would. I find it funny now the division is starting to get stronger, he has moved up in the weight and is fighting RJJ the same RJJ he called a hasbeen before his fight with Felix Trinidad. He contradicts himself all the time.
That is really stupid.
He was scared out of the supermiddle division (fuck knows by who?) to face Bernard Hopkins. :rolleyes:
I never said he was scared out of the SMW division. I just find it funny that he called RJJ a hasbeen yet he is fighting him ? if he thinks that then why doesn't he fight the top SMW's, if he thinks RJJ is such a old hasbeen according to Joe Calzaghe himself ?
Infact you know what ? i would rather see Joe Calzaghe fight some of the elite SMW's. Than see Roy Jones vs Joe Calzaghe, Roy Jones lost 4 rounds against Felix Trinidad who had been retired since 2005 and was way above his natural weightclass.
Plus he almost lost a decision against the mediocre Anthony Hanshaw, RJJ is a shot fighter which is a fact. He can only fight for 1 minute of a round if that, and he fights entirely on the ropes.
Thinking about this fight some more i actually think its a joke.
I only give RJJ a chance because he is faster than anyone Joe Calzaghe has fought, plus he has a good straight right hand. And he is the bigger man but thats more hope than anything.
Man i knew that fight was a fukin joke as soon it started gettin talked about, but i still hope roy wins though. and if anyody says this fight is th best that can be made at 175 then thats fukin wrong, how does joe from fighting bhop who was atleast in the top 5 p4p to roy jones who isnt even the top 20 p4p anymore. to me thats just stupid
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
I never said he was scared out of the SMW division. I just find it funny that he called RJJ a hasbeen yet he is fighting him ? if he thinks that then why doesn't he fight the top SMW's, if he thinks RJJ is such a old hasbeen according to Joe Calzaghe himself ?
Infact you know what ? i would rather see Joe Calzaghe fight some of the elite SMW's. Than see Roy Jones vs Joe Calzaghe, Roy Jones lost 4 rounds against Felix Trinidad who had been retired since 2005 and was way above his natural weightclass.
Plus he almost lost a decision against the mediocre Anthony Hanshaw, RJJ is a shot fighter which is a fact. He can only fight for 1 minute of a round if that, and he fights entirely on the ropes. Thinking about this fight some more i actually think its a joke.
So you think Calzaghe will win easy then?
What supermiddles would you like him to fight?
I think Joe Calzaghe has a very good chance of winning, im only going with RJJ because he is one of my favorite fighters. And he was one of my idols when i used to watch him as a young kid.
As for who Joe Calzaghe could fight, well if we are saying he wasn't gonna fight RJJ. I would like him to fight Jermain Taylor, Lucian Bute, Carl Froch. These fighters are all young in there prime. Or even Chad Dawson at LHW.
But these fights are too dangerous and i understand why he is fighting RJJ, because is a name and he will make tons of money out of it. But Joe Calzaghe should stop contradicting himself all the time.
He said he doesn't do rematches but he fought a ridiculous rematch with Mario Veit, but he didn't rematch Robin Reid who many people thought beat Joe Calzaghe. And he won't rematch B Hop by the looks of it either another fight with alot of question marks.
He also called RJJ an old hasbeen before the Felix Trinidad fight, so what has changed his mind about RJJ now ? because RJJ won 8 rounds to 4 against a fighter who hadn't fought since 2005, and was way above his weightclass ?
I take it you'll give Roy no credit for beating Calzaghe - should he win then? Considering all Calzages wins are questionable. Shame for Roy.
You want him to fight Taylor? He's coming off TWO losses to a Hopkins victim.
Bute? He Just was unbelievably LUCKY not to be KO'd by a Kessler victim.
Froch? a 31-year-old who's best win is a beyond ancient Robin Reid.
Yeah.. i'm sure you'd give Calzaghe credit for those fights. Behave ;)
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tysonbruno
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tysonbruno
Calzaghe would have got some good respect had he rematched Robin Reid funny he says he doesn't do rematches when asked about rematching Hopkins the guy that nearly beat him.
Reid turned down the rematch because he wanted more money than he was offered.
Is that a fact? i never heard that
Thats what Reid said in an interview
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tysonbruno
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Reid turned down the rematch because he wanted more money than he was offered.
Is that a fact? i never heard that
Thats what Reid said in an interview
Well ok if thats what you read
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tysonbruno
Ok he beat Eubank as a young fighter but then what did he do he didn't take a risk till he fought Lacy.
I don't like Calzaghe much myself, and Jones is gonna light his ass up, but I will say that he took on Robin Reid, Omar Sheika, and Charles Brewer.
Those three were risks, specially since Sheika and Brewer were murderous punchers.
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hulk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tysonbruno
Ok he beat Eubank as a young fighter but then what did he do he didn't take a risk till he fought Lacy.
I don't like Calzaghe much myself, and Jones is gonna light his ass up, but I will say that he took on Robin Reid, Omar Sheika, and Charles Brewer.
Those three were risks, specially since Sheika and Brewer were murderous punchers.
Sheika had been beaten by Tony Booth puncher or not and Brewer was on lost twice to ottke he was a safe bet.And Atwun Echols had stopped Brewer in 3 like ICB said i forgot about that.
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tysonbruno
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tysonbruno
Is that a fact? i never heard that
Thats what Reid said in an interview
Well ok if thats what you read
Here's the quote.
We thought bearing in mind how close the first fight was we would get paid a decent amount for a second fight, especially when so many people thought I won the first one. I was told I would get paid what I was worth, I was told it would be an offer I could not refuse, in the end all I was offered was 90k, that was only 15k more than the first time around.
No one could tell me that people would not have been interested in a second fight, all I wanted was to be paid for what I was worth! To be honest I thought I was going to be offered 150k and as I say I was offered 90k, that is why the second fight never came. It was shortly after that I signed for Jess Harding.
Robin Reid; I beat Calzaghe in the 1st fight...; I would beat him in the 2nd!
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
You contradict yourself a bit in this one Bilbo...
"If Calzaghe's record is so bad who's is better"
Yet you name at least 3 on the P4P list with better...
Should the title not be
"Calzghes record is better then many of the other P4P fighters":-\
There are a ton of guys off the P4P list with better resumes...
Calzaghe has a decent resume but it is scattered..he beat guy like Eubank but goes long streatches until he fights guys like Kessler
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hulk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tysonbruno
Ok he beat Eubank as a young fighter but then what did he do he didn't take a risk till he fought Lacy.
I don't like Calzaghe much myself, and Jones is gonna light his ass up, but I will say that he took on Robin Reid, Omar Sheika, and Charles Brewer.
Those three were risks, specially since Sheika and Brewer were murderous punchers.
Omar Sheika a murderous puncher ? you are kidding right ? 18 KO's out of 27 wins is hardly a "murderous puncher"
28 KO's out of 40 wins for Charles Brewer how is he a murderous puncher aswell ? plus he had a weak chin.
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tysonbruno
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Thats what Reid said in an interview
Well ok if thats what you read
Here's the quote.
We thought bearing in mind how close the first fight was we would get paid a decent amount for a second fight, especially when so many people thought I won the first one. I was told I would get paid what I was worth, I was told it would be an offer I could not refuse, in the end all I was offered was 90k, that was only 15k more than the first time around.
No one could tell me that people would not have been interested in a second fight, all I wanted was to be paid for what I was worth! To be honest I thought I was going to be offered 150k and as I say I was offered 90k, that is why the second fight never came. It was shortly after that I signed for Jess Harding.
Robin Reid; I beat Calzaghe in the 1st fight...; I would beat him in the 2nd!
I don't blame him what a shit offer that was indeed, what was Joe Calzaghe getting ?
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
So you think Calzaghe will win easy then?
What supermiddles would you like him to fight?
I think Joe Calzaghe has a very good chance of winning, im only going with RJJ because he is one of my favorite fighters. And he was one of my idols when i used to watch him as a young kid.
As for who Joe Calzaghe could fight, well if we are saying he wasn't gonna fight RJJ. I would like him to fight Jermain Taylor, Lucian Bute, Carl Froch. These fighters are all young in there prime. Or even Chad Dawson at LHW.
But these fights are too dangerous and i understand why he is fighting RJJ, because is a name and he will make tons of money out of it. But Joe Calzaghe should stop contradicting himself all the time.
He said he doesn't do rematches but he fought a ridiculous rematch with Mario Veit, but he didn't rematch Robin Reid who many people thought beat Joe Calzaghe. And he won't rematch B Hop by the looks of it either another fight with alot of question marks.
He also called RJJ an old hasbeen before the Felix Trinidad fight, so what has changed his mind about RJJ now ? because RJJ won 8 rounds to 4 against a fighter who hadn't fought since 2005, and was way above his weightclass ?
I take it you'll give Roy no credit for beating Calzaghe - should he win then? Considering all Calzages wins are questionable. Shame for Roy.
You want him to fight Taylor? He's coming off TWO losses to a Hopkins victim.
Bute? He Just was unbelievably LUCKY not to be KO'd by a Kessler victim.
Froch? a 31-year-old who's best win is a beyond ancient Robin Reid.
Yeah.. i'm sure you'd give Calzaghe credit for those fights. Behave ;)
I meant wait until after those fights have finished Fenster to decide whos the best opponent. And yes i'll give Joe Calzaghe no credit what so ever for beating RJJ, please do tell me Fenster what RJJ has done to deserve a shot other than being a name for his past achievements ?
I would rather Joe Calzaghe fight young upcoming champions like Chad Dawson, Lucian Bute, Carl Froch, they all appeal to me more.
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
I think Joe Calzaghe has a very good chance of winning, im only going with RJJ because he is one of my favorite fighters. And he was one of my idols when i used to watch him as a young kid.
As for who Joe Calzaghe could fight, well if we are saying he wasn't gonna fight RJJ. I would like him to fight Jermain Taylor, Lucian Bute, Carl Froch. These fighters are all young in there prime. Or even Chad Dawson at LHW.
But these fights are too dangerous and i understand why he is fighting RJJ, because is a name and he will make tons of money out of it. But Joe Calzaghe should stop contradicting himself all the time.
He said he doesn't do rematches but he fought a ridiculous rematch with Mario Veit, but he didn't rematch Robin Reid who many people thought beat Joe Calzaghe. And he won't rematch B Hop by the looks of it either another fight with alot of question marks.
He also called RJJ an old hasbeen before the Felix Trinidad fight, so what has changed his mind about RJJ now ? because RJJ won 8 rounds to 4 against a fighter who hadn't fought since 2005, and was way above his weightclass ?
I take it you'll give Roy no credit for beating Calzaghe - should he win then? Considering all Calzages wins are questionable. Shame for Roy.
You want him to fight Taylor? He's coming off TWO losses to a Hopkins victim.
Bute? He Just was unbelievably LUCKY not to be KO'd by a Kessler victim.
Froch? a 31-year-old who's best win is a beyond ancient Robin Reid.
Yeah.. i'm sure you'd give Calzaghe credit for those fights. Behave ;)
I meant wait after those fights have finished Fenster to decide whos the best opponent. And yes i'll give Joe Calzaghe no credit what so ever for beating RJJ, please do tell me Fenster what RJJ has done to deserve a shot other than being a name for his past achievements ?
Wait till they've finished? I just gave you the excuses you would use to class them under "questionable" wins. ;)
I know you wont give Calzaghe any credit.
I meant Roy. If Roy beats Joe it means NOTHING, right?
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tysonbruno
Well ok if thats what you read
Here's the quote.
We thought bearing in mind how close the first fight was we would get paid a decent amount for a second fight, especially when so many people thought I won the first one. I was told I would get paid what I was worth, I was told it would be an offer I could not refuse, in the end all I was offered was 90k, that was only 15k more than the first time around.
No one could tell me that people would not have been interested in a second fight, all I wanted was to be paid for what I was worth! To be honest I thought I was going to be offered 150k and as I say I was offered 90k, that is why the second fight never came. It was shortly after that I signed for Jess Harding.
Robin Reid; I beat Calzaghe in the 1st fight...; I would beat him in the 2nd!
I don't blame him what a shit offer that was indeed, what was Joe Calzaghe getting ?
How many fights have you promoted?
-
Re: If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
leftylee
Bilbo I don't know how you say Cotto got badly beaten by Margarito. The first 6 rounds he took Margarito to school.
ALL of those guys have better resumes than Calzaghe's IMO bar Calderon.
I guess it depends on how you define "badly beaten." However, either way you cut it, Cotto was mauled by Margarito. You need to watch that fight again. Fast forward to the part when he kneels to Margarito...THREE times. Margarito made his face look unrecognizable. Cotto's boxing acumen was futile in the face of Margarito.
Calzaghe has a good resume, but as someone mentioned, you are comparing his resume to guys who are 10 years younger. Just the fact you are making the comparison should be indicative of something.
