
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Calzaghe deserves credit because PLENTY of people picked him to lose. Including PLENTY of "EXPERTS."
If Roy had won would no-one be giving him credit? Nobody would be gloating over Calzaghe's loss?
Calzaghe would have been SLAUGHTERED.
If the fight was even remotely close Calzaghe would have been slagged-off something cronic.
Now people are moaning about him winning too EASILY.. that he showboated too much.

Of course RJJ would get more credit isn't that obvious ? he was considered a shot fighter. And at 39 years old it would of been a great achievement beating a top 4 P4P fighter.
Just like if George Foreman would of lost to Michael Moorer, Michael Moorer wouldn't have gotten the credit George Foreman did. Thats the way it works.
Fenster you are biased to Joe Calzaghe, you do give facts/stats ETC but you twist them in a way to suit Joe Calzaghe.
People who were picking RJJ were "hoping" RJJ would turn back the clock. Hoping is the key word here Fenster.
The fact is RJJ hasn't had a stoppage win or the killer instinct since 2002. He couldn't finish off Felix Trinidad, Anthony Hanshaw, when he had them in huge trouble.
For the simple reason he hasn't got fire in his belly anymore. He has only shown "flashes" of his old self in his comeback fights. Again Fenster flashes being the key word here again.
And he has only shown flashes because of the opposition he was up against. Lets be fair here and give Joe Calzaghe his credit for beating Bernard Hopkins, because Bernard Hopkins is a very young 43 year old with plenty still left.
But giving Joe Calzaghe alot of credit for beating a fighter, who hasn't had a good showing for atleast 6 or 7 years, is being biased to Joe Calzaghe and not fair.
Bookmarks