
Originally Posted by
TitoFan

Originally Posted by
Greenbeanz

Originally Posted by
TitoFan
I don't get this lack of middle ground with Calzaghe. What. You either have to worship the ground he walks on..... or you're a hater? It doesn't work that way. There's pluses and minuses, as far as I'm concerned.
Pluses
- He did finish 46-0. Not easy to do under any circumstances.
- He did have two very good fights (Lacy, Kessler). Those shouldn't be held against him.
- He was busy (workrate). Quality of punches wasn't the best.... but I'll mention that later (see minuses).
Minuses
- He fought exclusively in the UK. Only for his last two fights did he venture to the U.S. In the global world of boxing, sorry..... that's a minus.
- He followed up Lacy with Peter ("Are you kidding me??") Manfredo two fights later. What the hell was all THAT about? He beats a Jeff Lacy, only to retreat to a Peter Manfredo?
- His win over B-Hop was highly disputed. Hardly a career-defining fight. He then ended up by getting a decision over an over-the-hill RJJ, and called it a career.
- What Calzaghe fans "love" to hear: His pitty-patter punches, delivered in slapping fashion... particularly in his flurries. He did it against Manfredo... he did it against B-Hop... he did it all the time. When shown in slo-mo.... the slap-fests were almost comical. He hurt his hands? Fine. But his fights were definitely not fan-friendly for me.
(Cue to Fuckster. Come running in here and express your outrage.)

Two fights that you will give him credit for. That is not quite taking the middle ground. Then you again show your double standards by trying to bait anybody who dare be reasonable and can be rational about Calzaghe's career. While we are on the subject of twos try, troll and hater.;-)
Ouch, beanz..... that hurt.
I give Calzaghe credit for some things. I just don't cherish the ground he walks on. And I
explain what I don't like about him. How's that being a "hater"?
Doh! here we go
Your pluses
His Record, something you can't dispute anyway.
Then you so begrudgingly acknowledge a measly TWO fights, that you then have to qualify the fact by saying they shouldn't be held against him! as though every other fight he won was against a bum, a negative mark to be remembered when appraising him
He was busy. Talk about damning with faint praise

and even then you have to add your
unqualified opinion that
"His quality of punches wasn't the best"
and that is your measured opinion of exactly how much credit you are going to afford him?
You are entitled to your opinion, deluded though it is, but you can not pretend that you are the one being rational and anyone disputing your version of events is worshipping Calzaghe or looking to have him anointed. If you were interested in disputing facts you would have responded to @
THE PHILOSOPHER , whose forensic breakdown completely destroys any semblance of rationality in your ranting.
Come in here VD

Come in here Fenster

Come in here I am not a Troll

Honestly
There have been some boxers whose careers have been exaggerated and only sustained by careful matchmaking that inflates any real ability they may have possessed. Yet I can not seriously in good conscience give even the lamest of those credit for just two fights.
That would not constitute debate,it would simply be hate.

Bookmarks