Joe Calzaghe

[Sovereign]

yeah so did I, Robin Reid got robbed against Sven Ottke AND Joe Cazlaghe.

[TrickyTree]

yeah so did I, Robin Reid got robbed against Sven Ottke AND Joe Cazlaghe.

Carl Froch is No 1 at SMW.

[BIG H]

yeah so did I, Robin Reid got robbed against Sven Ottke AND Joe Cazlaghe.

Carl Froch is No 1 at SMW.

Course he is mate - he's beaten all the top guys

[ICB]

yeah so did I, Robin Reid got robbed against Sven Ottke AND Joe Cazlaghe.

wouldnt call reid vs calzaghe robbery was very close fight could of gone either way and point deduction reid had didnt help either

[Tysonbruno]

yeah so did I, Robin Reid got robbed against Sven Ottke AND Joe Cazlaghe.

wouldnt call reid vs calzaghe robbery was very close fight could of gone either way and point deduction reid had didnt help either

Yes but they should have fought again Joe Should have proved he were'nt lucky to win all the great fighters if they win by a close points win and people question it they want to prove a point e.g Barrera v Juarez and Mayweather v Castillo plus if the wins go either way trilogys dont hurt careers e.g Barrera v morales and Bowe v holyfield

[Preme]

Can I just ask what risks Bernard Hopkins or Roy Jones Jnr took during their primes?

I reckon I can name a lot more people that both of them should have fought and didn't that anybody can name that Calzaghe should've fought and didn't

ill do list for you mate
bernard hopkins

howard eastman
felix trinidad 40-0 at that time
oscar dela hoya

all risky fights

hopkins may of not had as many risky fights but eastman trinidad and oscar are twice as good as calzaghe opponents shame calzaghe wernt born few years later he would of been in era of benn eubank collins

Oscar was a risky right for hopkins? gimmie a brake the only risk of that was he might get screwed if it went the 12 - shit i don't think oscar should of even held the belt to go into that fight, Sturm was screwed so HBO could get the hopkins v oscar fight IMO and even if he wasnt screwed he got through it by the skin of his teath!

Eastman i guess thats debatable, i never really rated him or thought to highly of him, but some do so thats fair enough i guess...

As for the 2 Viet fights you questiond, the first one veit was something like 28 or 29 and 0 coming into it, he was fairy highly thought of around europe, germanys next big hope (atleast the media were saying that) - the second fight he had to fight him or vacate.. for one there was no one else around worth beating, and two he only had the wbo belt, so vacating it would of been dumb.

[Preme]

yeah so did I, Robin Reid got robbed against Sven Ottke AND Joe Cazlaghe.

wouldnt call reid vs calzaghe robbery was very close fight could of gone either way and point deduction reid had didnt help either

Yes but they should have fought again Joe Should have proved he were'nt lucky to win all the great fighters if they win by a close points win and people question it they want to prove a point e.g Barrera v Juarez and Mayweather v Castillo plus if the wins go either way trilogys dont hurt careers e.g Barrera v morales and Bowe v holyfield

lucky? hahahahah yeah it was close but lucky? Up untill calzaghe rboke his hand reid wasn't in the fight, the only reaosn he was able to get back in it and get the fight so close is calzaghe had to box with one hand for half a freaking fight and you call him LUCKY? even ant evens who seems to jump at any chance to slate calzaghe give the fight to him!

a rematch would of been totaly pointless for two reasons - One, anyone who actualy watched it and understood what was going on knew the only reason reid was in the fight was coz calzaghe had bust his hand;

Two and the most imporntant one THEN; HBO were watching that fight with great interest, after the beating he had given eubank and impressing in his next two fights and first 2 defences of his belt HBO wanted to build calzaghe up in the US for a future mega fight with Roy jones. SO HBO were planning to show the reid fight on tv but calzaghe went and bust his hand, the fight turnd out to be a right messy snooze fest HBO lost all interest so calzaghe had to start over, reid would of been a step backwards fact.

just FYI a few fights later HBO were back in the interest of calzaghe, same thing happend calzaghe went and bust his hand again and they lost interest again...

[Tysonbruno]

yeah so did I, Robin Reid got robbed against Sven Ottke AND Joe Cazlaghe.

wouldnt call reid vs calzaghe robbery was very close fight could of gone either way and point deduction reid had didnt help either

Yes but they should have fought again Joe Should have proved he were'nt lucky to win all the great fighters if they win by a close points win and people question it they want to prove a point e.g Barrera v Juarez and Mayweather v Castillo plus if the wins go either way trilogys dont hurt careers e.g Barrera v morales and Bowe v holyfield

lucky? hahahahah yeah it was close but lucky? Up untill calzaghe rboke his hand reid wasn't in the fight, the only reaosn he was able to get back in it and get the fight so close is calzaghe had to box with one hand for half a freaking fight and you call him LUCKY? even ant evens who seems to jump at any chance to slate calzaghe give the fight to him!

a rematch would of been totaly pointless for two reasons - One, anyone who actualy watched it and understood what was going on knew the only reason reid was in the fight was coz calzaghe had bust his hand;

Two and the most imporntant one THEN; HBO were watching that fight with great interest, after the beating he had given eubank and impressing in his next two fights and first 2 defences of his belt HBO wanted to build calzaghe up in the US for a future mega fight with Roy jones. SO HBO were planning to show the reid fight on tv but calzaghe went and bust his hand, the fight turnd out to be a right messy snooze fest HBO lost all interest so calzaghe had to start over, reid would of been a step backwards fact.

just FYI a few fights later HBO were back in the interest of calzaghe, same thing happend calzaghe went and bust his hand again and they lost interest again...

Wake up mate he is'nt that great and if he his he as not proved it

[Preme]

yeah so did I, Robin Reid got robbed against Sven Ottke AND Joe Cazlaghe.

wouldnt call reid vs calzaghe robbery was very close fight could of gone either way and point deduction reid had didnt help either

Yes but they should have fought again Joe Should have proved he were'nt lucky to win all the great fighters if they win by a close points win and people question it they want to prove a point e.g Barrera v Juarez and Mayweather v Castillo plus if the wins go either way trilogys dont hurt careers e.g Barrera v morales and Bowe v holyfield

lucky? hahahahah yeah it was close but lucky? Up untill calzaghe rboke his hand reid wasn't in the fight, the only reaosn he was able to get back in it and get the fight so close is calzaghe had to box with one hand for half a freaking fight and you call him LUCKY? even ant evens who seems to jump at any chance to slate calzaghe give the fight to him!

a rematch would of been totaly pointless for two reasons - One, anyone who actualy watched it and understood what was going on knew the only reason reid was in the fight was coz calzaghe had bust his hand;

Two and the most imporntant one THEN; HBO were watching that fight with great interest, after the beating he had given eubank and impressing in his next two fights and first 2 defences of his belt HBO wanted to build calzaghe up in the US for a future mega fight with Roy jones. SO HBO were planning to show the reid fight on tv but calzaghe went and bust his hand, the fight turnd out to be a right messy snooze fest HBO lost all interest so calzaghe had to start over, reid would of been a step backwards fact.

just FYI a few fights later HBO were back in the interest of calzaghe, same thing happend calzaghe went and bust his hand again and they lost interest again...

Wake up mate he is'nt that great and if he his he as not proved it

'THAT' great? where did is ay he was great? i was just filling you in on things you cleary don't know.

[Tysonbruno]

Must be a welsh thing other day you had me over Gammer been shit today its Calzaghe look you pulled me on me liking Sheffield fighters thats because im from Sheffield

[ICB]

Can I just ask what risks Bernard Hopkins or Roy Jones Jnr took during their primes?

I reckon I can name a lot more people that both of them should have fought and didn't that anybody can name that Calzaghe should've fought and didn't

ill do list for you mate
bernard hopkins

howard eastman
felix trinidad 40-0 at that time
oscar dela hoya

all risky fights

hopkins may of not had as many risky fights but eastman trinidad and oscar are twice as good as calzaghe opponents shame calzaghe wernt born few years later he would of been in era of benn eubank collins

Oscar was a risky right for hopkins? gimmie a brake the only risk of that was he might get screwed if it went the 12 - S*** i don't think oscar should of even held the belt to go into that fight, Sturm was screwed so HBO could get the hopkins v oscar fight IMO and even if he wasnt screwed he got through it by the skin of his teath!

Eastman i guess thats debatable, i never really rated him or thought to highly of him, but some do so thats fair enough i guess...

As for the 2 Viet fights you questiond, the first one veit was something like 28 or 29 and 0 coming into it, he was fairy highly thought of around europe, germanys next big hope (atleast the media were saying that) - the second fight he had to fight him or vacate.. for one there was no one else around worth beating, and two he only had the wbo belt, so vacating it would of been dumb.

your telling me there was no one else to fight other than guy calzaghe destroyed in 1 round ??

eastman was 40-1 and only loss come against william joppy by close decision were alot of people thought he won so i think that was big risk

and i still think oscar was risk but thats my opinion

[Tysonbruno]

Lets hope he retires at the end of the year and puts us all out of our misery

[Preme]

Can I just ask what risks Bernard Hopkins or Roy Jones Jnr took during their primes?

I reckon I can name a lot more people that both of them should have fought and didn't that anybody can name that Calzaghe should've fought and didn't

ill do list for you mate
bernard hopkins

howard eastman
felix trinidad 40-0 at that time
oscar dela hoya

all risky fights

hopkins may of not had as many risky fights but eastman trinidad and oscar are twice as good as calzaghe opponents shame calzaghe wernt born few years later he would of been in era of benn eubank collins

Oscar was a risky right for hopkins? gimmie a brake the only risk of that was he might get screwed if it went the 12 - S*** i don't think oscar should of even held the belt to go into that fight, Sturm was screwed so HBO could get the hopkins v oscar fight IMO and even if he wasnt screwed he got through it by the skin of his teath!

Eastman i guess thats debatable, i never really rated him or thought to highly of him, but some do so thats fair enough i guess...

As for the 2 Viet fights you questiond, the first one veit was something like 28 or 29 and 0 coming into it, he was fairy highly thought of around europe, germanys next big hope (atleast the media were saying that) - the second fight he had to fight him or vacate.. for one there was no one else around worth beating, and two he only had the wbo belt, so vacating it would of been dumb.

your telling me there was no one else to fight other than guy calzaghe destroyed in 1 round ??

eastman was 40-1 and only loss come against william joppy by close decision were alot of people thought he won so i think that was big risk

and i still think oscar was risk but thats my opinion

the same willima joppy who hopkins went on to win 11 or 12 of the rounds against 2 fights later? i understand styles make fightes etc.. eastman losses just, hopkins basicaly shuts him out and eastman is then later considerd a risk? fair enougn bro its your opinion and i got alot of respect for your postsi aint saying your wrong, i just can't see your logic in this one.

As for calzaghe, na, at the veit time i struggle to think of one person who he could of fought that would of matterd. there was no kessler i can think of then, no up and coming mundanes or andrades - what was he meant to do, vacate his WBO belt and turn down a 750 G pay day to fight some other bumb? or just do this - not as if calzaghe or warren asked for this fight...

[Preme]

Must be a welsh thing other day you had me over Gammer been S*** today its Calzaghe look you pulled me on me liking Sheffield fighters thats because im from Sheffield

what exactly is a welsh thing there? pointing out the fact that calzaghe fought half the reid fight with 1 hand? that up untill he bust it he was clearly in controll, the fact that HBO lost interest in calzaghe after that fight?

Thats not a wlesh thing, its called backing up your comments with facts, something as of yet you have failed to do.

[Tysonbruno]

Can I just ask what risks Bernard Hopkins or Roy Jones Jnr took during their primes?

I reckon I can name a lot more people that both of them should have fought and didn't that anybody can name that Calzaghe should've fought and didn't

ill do list for you mate
bernard hopkins

howard eastman
felix trinidad 40-0 at that time
oscar dela hoya

all risky fights

hopkins may of not had as many risky fights but eastman trinidad and oscar are twice as good as calzaghe opponents shame calzaghe wernt born few years later he would of been in era of benn eubank collins

Oscar was a risky right for hopkins? gimmie a brake the only risk of that was he might get screwed if it went the 12 - S*** i don't think oscar should of even held the belt to go into that fight, Sturm was screwed so HBO could get the hopkins v oscar fight IMO and even if he wasnt screwed he got through it by the skin of his teath!

Eastman i guess thats debatable, i never really rated him or thought to highly of him, but some do so thats fair enough i guess...

As for the 2 Viet fights you questiond, the first one veit was something like 28 or 29 and 0 coming into it, he was fairy highly thought of around europe, germanys next big hope (atleast the media were saying that) - the second fight he had to fight him or vacate.. for one there was no one else around worth beating, and two he only had the wbo belt, so vacating it would of been dumb.

your telling me there was no one else to fight other than guy calzaghe destroyed in 1 round ??

eastman was 40-1 and only loss come against william joppy by close decision were alot of people thought he won so i think that was big risk

and i still think oscar was risk but thats my opinion

the same willima joppy who hopkins went on to win 11 or 12 of the rounds against 2 fights later? i understand styles make fightes etc.. eastman losses just, hopkins basicaly shuts him out and eastman is then later considerd a risk? fair enougn bro its your opinion and i got alot of respect for your postsi aint saying your wrong, i just can't see your logic in this one.

As for calzaghe, na, at the veit time i struggle to think of one person who he could of fought that would of matterd. there was no kessler i can think of then, no up and coming mundanes or andrades - what was he meant to do, vacate his WBO belt and turn down a 750 G pay day to fight some other bumb? or just do this - not as if calzaghe or warren asked for this fight...

No warren and Calzaghe did'nt want it because they had that fight set up with that p4p fighter Brian Magee no sorry that fighter who is just an ok british fighter