Can't ever see him getting a purse like that not in the Super Middles or Light Heavy divisions.
Shame theres no Pacs or Oscars his weight.
Joe Calzaghe Would Consider a 10 Million Dollar Return - Boxing News
Printable View
Can't ever see him getting a purse like that not in the Super Middles or Light Heavy divisions.
Shame theres no Pacs or Oscars his weight.
Joe Calzaghe Would Consider a 10 Million Dollar Return - Boxing News
he said this tonge in cheek. I read the interview and it was quite clear that JC has no intention of returning..
Thing is he would for that kind of money!
Any fighter would;)
Bet he wouldntQuote:
Originally Posted by smashup
He`d risk 12-13 years hardwork just for 1 last payday despite the fact the man is set for life already??
No, I can't see him coming back now. I wished he had stayed for one more after Jones Jr against a younger fighter. But that wasn't to be. He is best off staying retired now he seems to have been set into that way of life. Especially at his age.
If i was Joe Calzaghe i would of fought Kelly Pavlik instead of Bernard Hopkins, and Chad Dawson instead of Roy Jones Jr.
Kelly Pavlik is one dimensional and would of probably, been outboxed clearly over 12 rounds.
And Chad Dawson wouldn't have been ready for someone like Joe Calzaghe, he takes too many rounds off and he still hasn't got the experience. To deal with Joe Calzaghe's workrate.
These 2 names would of been better wins for him because he wasn't impressive, in the Bernard Hopkins fight. And even fans that don't really follow the sport knew Roy Jones Jr was finished as a top fighter.
And he would of probably looked better in fights with Chad Dawson, Kelly Pavlik, but oh well its too late now.
He probably would've got more credit for those fights too. Pavlik was still unbeaten of courseQuote:
Originally Posted by ICB
He's doing stricktly come dancing on BBC1 soon too...
Gonna make a proper tit out of himself:-\
I agree with all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
Finishing off with a really old Hopkins and a way past it Jones Jr just left me feeling that Joe was cashing out too easily. I would really have liked a final fight against someone young just to hammer home a point about how good he was. Nobody was impressed when the Jones fight was signed really.
Yea thats what i think aswell, beating Kelly Pavlik now won't mean as much anymore, and even Frank Warren said he would of set up the Kelly Pavlik fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HHe probably would've got more credit for those fights too. Pavlik was still unbeaten of courseQuote:
Originally Posted by ICB
Because Kelly Pavlik had a big following and Joe Calzaghe, would of looked impressive because Kelly Pavlik's. Style is made for Joe Calzaghe.
And like i said Chad Dawson i don't think would of had the experience. To deal with Joe Calzaghe, yes people will comeback and say Chad Dawson wasn't that well known which is probably true.
But hardcore fans would of gave Joe Calzaghe alot of credit, because unlike Jeff Lacy. Chad Dawson had proven himself against elite fighters.
its not right to put out that big price who can pay that much??? what happened to fighting for history???? if your body can do it then do it i'd love to see calzaghe against dawson style make fight so i feel like nodody can really predict this fight.
I duno to have all time great names like Jones and Hopkins on a resume is more impressive than Chad and Pav. Especially after Hopkins beat Pavlik.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesI agree with all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
Finishing off with a really old Hopkins and a way past it Jones Jr just left me feeling that Joe was cashing out too easily. I would really have liked a final fight against someone young just to hammer home a point about how good he was. Nobody was impressed when the Jones fight was signed really.
Joe considered himself from that era not this new era so he beat evry guy he needed to . If he started fighting every young challenger out there he would never get out the game
I wanted to see 1 more but he made the right decision and retired after his best display. He defo wont comeback for Froch.
Im going to see Calzaghe next week. Legend !
If Calzaghe had fought Pavlik instead of Hopkins.After Calzaghe had outboxed him to claim a UD people would of just said what they did against Lacy that he was overrated,and Pavlik stepped up.
Calzaghe will never get the respect he deserves.
Hopkins schooled Pavlik to pieces though remember. JC for me deserves top credit for beatin Hopkins. Hopkins is still an elite fighter no doubt. I think he would have hammered Dawson too, just like he beat Lacy.....Quote:
Originally Posted by milesI agree with all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
Finishing off with a really old Hopkins and a way past it Jones Jr just left me feeling that Joe was cashing out too easily. I would really have liked a final fight against someone young just to hammer home a point about how good he was. Nobody was impressed when the Jones fight was signed really.
The problem is almost all people I know who're not big Calzaghe fans feel he lost that fight, and despite him being one of my favourites I felt he did too. All that fight did was convince people that if an old Hopkins could do that, imagine what Hopkins from about 2001-2004 could have done. Joe would of schooled Pavlik like he did Lacy though, but no way does he beat Dawson like Lacy. Lacy's weaknesses were apparent to everyone not desperate for some kind of Tyson reincarnation, the best he'd beaten was Robin Reid. Whereas Dawson has beaten Adamek & Glen Johnson at the point that fight could have been made. Whilst I think Joe would have beaten him, no way is it like Lacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by themacmagicianHopkins schooled Pavlik to pieces though remember. JC for me deserves top credit for beatin Hopkins. Hopkins is still an elite fighter no doubt. I think he would have hammered Dawson too, just like he beat Lacy.....Quote:
Originally Posted by milesI agree with all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
Finishing off with a really old Hopkins and a way past it Jones Jr just left me feeling that Joe was cashing out too easily. I would really have liked a final fight against someone young just to hammer home a point about how good he was. Nobody was impressed when the Jones fight was signed really.
How many people are you talking about? I think only a minority think Hopkins won that fight. Polls on here and many other sites all strongly favoured Calzaghe.. ESPECIALLY at the time of the fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinThe problem is almost all people I know who're not big Calzaghe fans feel he lost that fight, and despite him being one of my favourites I felt he did too All that fight did was convince people that if an old Hopkins could do that, imagine what Hopkins from about 2001-2004 could have done. Joe would of schooled Pavlik like he did Lacy though, but no way does he beat Dawson like Lacy. Lacy's weaknesses were apparent to everyone not desperate for some kind of Tyson reincarnation, the best he'd beaten was Robin Reid. Whereas Dawson has beaten Adamek & Glen Johnson at the point that fight could have been made. Whilst I think Joe would have beaten him, no way is it like Lacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by themacmagicianHopkins schooled Pavlik to pieces though remember. JC for me deserves top credit for beatin Hopkins. Hopkins is still an elite fighter no doubt. I think he would have hammered Dawson too, just like he beat Lacy.....Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Everyone at my gym, and tbh most of the posters that I have seen comment on it on here. I wasn't around at the time of the fight, but those I've seen mention it have generally said they feel Calzaghe lost, or they display they are big Joe fans by going on about 'Hopkins cheating, being boring etc etc', which for me is immaterial for how I score a fightQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterHow many people are you talking about? I think only a minority think Hopkins won that fight. Polls on here and many other sites all strongly favoured Calzaghe.. ESPECIALLY at the time of the fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinThe problem is almost all people I know who're not big Calzaghe fans feel he lost that fight, and despite him being one of my favourites I felt he did too All that fight did was convince people that if an old Hopkins could do that, imagine what Hopkins from about 2001-2004 could have done. Joe would of schooled Pavlik like he did Lacy though, but no way does he beat Dawson like Lacy. Lacy's weaknesses were apparent to everyone not desperate for some kind of Tyson reincarnation, the best he'd beaten was Robin Reid. Whereas Dawson has beaten Adamek & Glen Johnson at the point that fight could have been made. Whilst I think Joe would have beaten him, no way is it like Lacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by themacmagician
16 mill. Ha ha yea right joe. Get the fuck outta here.
Nah.. there's no way MOST on here think Calzaghe lost. The Calzaghe haters turn up in any thread about him, so that's probably what makes it look like what it's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinEveryone at my gym, and tbh most of the posters that I have seen comment on it on here. I wasn't around at the time of the fight, but those I've seen mention it have generally said they feel Calzaghe lost, or they display they are big Joe fans by going on about 'Hopkins cheating, being boring etc etc', which for me is immaterial for how I score a fightQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterHow many people are you talking about? I think only a minority think Hopkins won that fight. Polls on here and many other sites all strongly favoured Calzaghe.. ESPECIALLY at the time of the fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkin
There's a poll on here, if i can find it
A smart move....Quote:
Originally Posted by smashup
My Mum loves this show, if he can survive a few weeks, he will become a pretty big household name to an audience that has probably never heard of him.
I think Tszyu did it in Australia and made quite a name for himself.....
As for his tongue in cheek remark, perhaps if you added another nought to that £10 Million, then it would be worth the effort!;)
There's a bigger poll than this somewhere but still ...
http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...won-fight.html
must of missed that poll,Calzaghe edged it by 2 rounds for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
There's a bigger poll with different names where Calzaghe is winning by a landslide (can't find it).Quote:
Originally Posted by littlebifmust of missed that poll,Calzaghe edged it by 2 rounds for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Just about every major boxing site had Calzaghe winning by a huge margin.
I had Bernard Hopkins winning by 1 point, too much was made of the amount of punches Joe Calzaghe landed.
It was obvious before the fight he would land more punches, but i expected him to be more effective with his punches.
And i was pretty shocked how ineffective Joe Calzaghe's punches were. I would rate one clean effective punch from Bernard Hopkins, over 10 of Joe Calzaghe's glancing slapping punches.
Most of Joe Calzaghe's punches were very ineffective, he struggled to land a solid blow all night long. I mean can anyone tell me how many effective punches you think Joe Calzaghe landed ?
Is that not like saying, it was pretty obvious before the fight Tyson was going to knock out Julius Francis, so if he did, it should not count?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidIs that not like saying, it was pretty obvious before the fight Tyson was going to knock out Julius Francis, so if he did, it should not count?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
I don't really get what your saying BK, if you read my whole post. I said i knew Joe Calzaghe was going to land more punches.
But i expected him to land more effective punches than he did. I know he slaps alot but i atleast expected him to land more clean punches than he did.
Thats why he lost the fight IMO, Bernard Hopkins landed the better more effective punches. He was also able to get Joe Calzaghe out of his rhythm for quite alot of the fight, and he also scored the knockdown which is why i think Bernard Hopkins edged it.
Calzaghe won because he was more crafty than the King of Craft Hopkins.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICBQuote:
Originally Posted by BritkidIs that not like saying, it was pretty obvious before the fight Tyson was going to knock out Julius Francis, so if he did, it should not count?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
I don't really get what your saying BK, if you read my whole post. I said i knew Joe Calzaghe was going to land more punches.
But i expected him to land more effective punches than he did. I know he slaps a lot but i atleast expected him to land more clean punches than he did.
Thats why he lost the fight IMO, Bernard Hopkins landed the better more effective punches. He was also able to get Joe Calzaghe out of his rhythm for quite alot of the fight, and he also scored the knockdown which is why i think Bernard Hopkins edged it.
Hopkins was fighting in his home country so was always going to get any benefit of doubt the judges had.
Calzaghe out smarted him, by looking the busier and more spectacular, even if all the punches were not landing correctly or indeed if they were landing at all!
Hopkins just did not have the pace of the fight right and Joe took advantage.
For an American to moan he was robbed by the judges fighting a Brit in the States is kind of at least pushing, if not out right taking the piss!
Exactly, it doesn't matter who Super Joe Calzaghe faces he won't ever get any respect, especially here in the States, but I do no he was a great fight an All-Time Great.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlebif
Joe Calzaghe more crafty than Bernard Hopkins ? i don't think so somehow. Bernard Hopkins was making Joe Calzaghe miss all night long. And he was able to smartly gain time to recover in the late rounds by being very crafty.Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidCalzaghe won because he was more crafty than the King of Craft Hopkins.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICBQuote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
I don't really get what your saying BK, if you read my whole post. I said i knew Joe Calzaghe was going to land more punches.
But i expected him to land more effective punches than he did. I know he slaps a lot but i atleast expected him to land more clean punches than he did.
Thats why he lost the fight IMO, Bernard Hopkins landed the better more effective punches. He was also able to get Joe Calzaghe out of his rhythm for quite alot of the fight, and he also scored the knockdown which is why i think Bernard Hopkins edged it.
Hopkins was fighting in his home country so was always going to get any benefit of doubt the judges had.
Calzaghe out smarted him, by looking the busier and more spectacular, even if all the punches were not landing correctly or indeed if they were landing at all!
Hopkins just did not have the pace of the fight right and Joe took advantage.
For an American to moan he was robbed by the judges fighting a Brit in the States is kind of at least pushing, if not out right taking the piss!
I don't really see how just throwing non effective punches, is out-smarting Bernard Hopkins. Joe Calzaghe always throws alot of punches, what he did in this fight was no difference to what he has done in the past.
I think Bernard Hopkins was out smarting Joe Calzaghe by gaining time, making him off balance an clinching to get Joe Calzaghe out of his rhythm.
You just said it yourself Joe Calzaghe missed alot of punches, and the ones he did land were not effective.
So why did you score the fight for Joe Calzaghe then ? because with that logic you would of had Sam Soliman beating Winky Wright, because he threw 1000 punches right ?
Im not really getting what your saying BK, because all you've proved to me so far is that you only thought Joe Calzaghe won based on workrate. But boxing is far more complicated than just letting your arms go as you know.
Bernard Hopkins was excellent defensively, he was able to make it his kind of fight. For a majority of the fight. He landed the cleaner more effective punches, and he scored a knockdown. So shouldn't Bernard Hopkins be credited for all the things above ?
As for your last comment im not sure if your on about me, but im English and im from London. And i never said the fight was a robbery. I had Bernard Hopkins winning by 1 point, i just didn't like Joe Calzaghe's work. It was sloppy and his punches were ineffective.
Well then how comes Hopkins did not get the decision? Calzaghe outsmarted him, he knew what the judges wanted and Hopkins fought the wrong fight, the scores say Joe was too crafty for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICBJoe Calzaghe more crafty than Bernard Hopkins ? i don't think so somehow. Bernard Hopkins was making Joe Calzaghe miss all night long. And he was able to smartly gain time to recover in the late rounds by being very crafty.Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidCalzaghe won because he was more crafty than the King of Craft Hopkins.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
Hopkins was fighting in his home country so was always going to get any benefit of doubt the judges had.
Calzaghe out smarted him, by looking the busier and more spectacular, even if all the punches were not landing correctly or indeed if they were landing at all!
Hopkins just did not have the pace of the fight right and Joe took advantage.
For an American to moan he was robbed by the judges fighting a Brit in the States is kind of at least pushing, if not out right taking the piss!
Hopkins nine times out of ten delivers what is needed, but Joe was too good for him and still won despite losing a 10/8 round.
Luckily for Hopkins, Joe is one of the few with at least the equal of Hopkins boxing brain, because Calzaghe is that good, not Hopkins that bad.
Calzaghe went to America and beat their best 175lber IMO. What is more, he got off the floor to win on points, that is simply brilliant, a virtually unheard of feat for a Brit in the Americas.
Thing is Adam if Calzaghe never "Threw 10 ineffective punches" then there wouldn't have been a fight. Hopkins didn't hardly ever throw a punch and was in defensive mode all night. Calzaghe outworked and outlanded him taking a close yet clear decision.
Bernard Hopkins lost because Las Vegas judges normally favor the aggressive fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidWell then how comes Hopkins did not get the decision? Calzaghe outsmarted him, he knew what the judges wanted and Hopkins fought the wrong fight, the scores say Joe was too crafty for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICBJoe Calzaghe more crafty than Bernard Hopkins ? i don't think so somehow. Bernard Hopkins was making Joe Calzaghe miss all night long. And he was able to smartly gain time to recover in the late rounds by being very crafty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
Hopkins nine times out of ten delivers what is needed, but Joe was too good for him and still won despite losing a 10/8 round.
Luckily for Hopkins, Joe is one of the few with at least the equal of Hopkins boxing brain, because Calzaghe is that good, not Hopkins that bad.
Calzaghe went to America and beat their best 175lber IMO. What is more, he got off the floor to win on points, that is simply brilliant, a virtually unheard of feat for a Brit in the Americas.
Yes he was the aggressor but it wasn't effective aggression. Im sorry but i can't score that fight for Joe Calzaghe just based on workrate, he hardly landed an effective/clean punch all night long.Quote:
Originally Posted by leftylee
Then why did the ring smart and crafty Hopkins not fight more aggressively. This model of Calzaghe lacks in the power department and Hopkins could easily been the aggressor if he wished.....Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
The truth is Calzaghe read the situation better than Hopkins and executed the better fight plan. Hopkins had everything in his favour and yet still managed to lose, like I said not because Hopkins is that bad, but because Joe is that good!
Think that Calzghe pace just tired out Hopkin mean he did nothing in last rounds to get the win mean its his own fault for not doing anything.
Calzaghes record is deceiving in my opinion. Great record, defences, etc. Very good career, not as great though as many think. I cant see him coming back now. I do think he wasted some years, but his career still ran its course. Is he a fighter that should et paid 16 mil for a fight? Absolutely not. Hes not a legend, and most logical people that know what a truly great fighter is are not in not awe of him when he fights. Hes a very good fighter, but probably not even a top 100 atg imo.
Question bit of topic boom but Ricardo Lopez what would you rate him because in my eyes Joe Calzaghe record is on par with him. I think people bit harsh i am not saying he is a top20 but i think he could make it in top 100 pretty easy boom no way in hell you could name 100 above him i am sure. Wins over Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins are good enough i mean if not for Tito and Oscar Bhops record at middle weight is kinda crap as well all i am saying is top100 i am sure he could make.
Fair enough point, but I do rate Ricardo Lopez higher. The reason is because his record, although undefeated, does him no justice. But in an opposite way. Whats on paper is only a part of it for me. Watching his fights you get the feeling you are watching a spectacular fighter. Its also in how he won. He usually dominated his opposition flawlessly. So truthfully, his opposition wasnt HOFers, but he destroyed worthy opponents. Calzaghe was a very good fighter, also undefeated, but struggled a lot against B level fighters. On paper, I guess you could argue they were to par with one another, but in the ring they werent imo. Being undefeated is an afterthought to me. Its all opinion I guess, its hard to rate a fighter based on anything other than that.
Fair enough i can understand that i just thought that top 100 was bit harsh reason i even brought it up have some rep dude good post.
100 may be too harsh now that Im really thinking about it but there are a lot of fighters and I doubt I can even count to 100 without losing track lol. He may very well be in the 80-100 group.