I'm sorry Calazagne fans Joe swings like a girl

[Bomp]

I've made it clear, even though I'm a fan of joe's, that I wasn't impressed with his performance on Saturday. However the slappy ineffective punches are a recent thing about last four years, before that he threw combinations at the same speed but could rock is opponents from side to side with them, it's combination of bad hands and age which has diminshed them, not poor technical ability. The danger with getting reputation at the tail end of your career is that you get remembered for the wrong things, Joe will get remembered for being a slapper, and Hop will be remembered for being a spoiler,. which wasn't necesarily the case in their primes.

As for comparing skills to the likes of the others, it's matter of different styles. Do you really think Mayweather or Hopkins himself would look any better coming forward against Hopkins Two primarily backfoot fighters. Then you compare Hopkins last weekend to how effective Joe was against come forward fighters Different styles suit different fights, and their are many fights out there where JC's style would be more effective than the styles of the fighters in your list, and vice versa. Hopkins style this late in his career is particularly effective against southpaws since the lead arms are on the same side making clinching inside a doddle, he also has an unconventional right lead which hits the southpaw fighter square, however poor Calzaghe's performance was, he was never going to look good anyway.

[LondonBB]

What i think from an unbiased view point is that YES, sometimes calzaghe swings in punches that are pitter patter, he did this a few times against nard on saturday.

At the same time he also gets in some decent punches though.

It is the speed of his punches, even if some are slaps that confuse the opponent. I think what it must make the opponent feel like is 'oh sh*t, im getting hit, im not hurt BUT I KNOW THAT THE JUDGES ARE GONNA SCORE THIS ROUND AGAINST ME'...So as a result it opens up a brawl because the person getting hit thinks he has to hit back.

Brawling is exactly what calzaghe wants, he wanted hopkins to start brawling esspecially in the later rounds because he knows hopkins stamina will have been gone by then...both fighters are very clever fighters, they know each others weaknesses...what calzaghe didnt seem to realise is nards power, nard wobbled tarver and put him on the floor. He is capable of powerful shots, calzaghe felt one in the first round, but it was later on where calzaghe won 75% of the brawls that the pair had, i think that hopkins might have felt that he had to do something in order to look better on the judges scorecard because he knew he wasnt gonna ko joe at this stage in the fight (round 6 onwards).

So whilst hopkins was prob ahead by 3 rounds come round 6 (due to the knock down in round one), it was then calzaghe who started using his quick but light hands, combined with some decent one two's and evasion of the hopkins right hand to win 5 out of the last 6 rounds and take the fight.

In a way if hopkins hadnt have clinched all the time and was able to stand and trade a bit with joe then he wouldve only needed to do this in 2 rounds and wouldve taken the fight from joe...but his stamina and probably his mindset (hes so used to clinching and being dirty) probably meant it came natural for him to do this and in a way thats why he lost the fight.

Lets be honest, if hopkins hadnt clinched as much and at least tried to trade and defend against joe, he might have come out on top with a round or two in which case wouldve won the fight...but because the guy kept going into clinches whilst joe was the one forcing the fight how can the judges give these rounds to hopkins?

In a way, it was hopkins own dirty tactics that gave joe the fight. It was a very close fight with joe's stamina and workrate being the key, if hopkins had tried to exchange (although at this stage his stamina was almost gone) the result might have swayed the judges the other way.

In my opinion its hopkins own fault.

The fact is though that when he needs to punch hard, calzaghe can punch hard, no one can deny this. The guy can hit hard when he has to. BUT he mixes it up with lots of quick and light punches.

I think against a roy jones there might be different tactics used, some harder punching and different movement.

But against pavlik, pavlik is tailor made for joe to start using light and fast hands against because they are going to disorientate kelly and then have trick him into brawling with joe where i think joe will end up putting kelly on the floor with a bigger shot that hes capable of, just my opinion.

I am a calzaghe fan because i truly believe he CAN BE the p4p number 1 (but hes not at the moment) he needs to beat 2 more great fighters first (and also it depends on who floyd and manny face aswell and the results they get)...currently the top 3 are: floyd, joe and manny. Id put floyd at the top and then its a t*ss up between manny and joe to be honest, but those are my top 3 p4p fighters at the moment.

In the end, i can see how someone can say 'I dislike joe calzaghe's style because i dont like the way he throws a huge volume of punches yet only a few hard and effective punches', but i CANT SEE HOW SOMEONE can say 'joe calzaghe is a load of crap, he a weak, slapping, non straight punching brawler' when the guy is 45,0,0 with 2 weight ring champion belts, undisputed and has beaten eubank, reid, lacy, kessler and hopkins aswell as having 32 ko's (THE SAME KO AMOUNT THAT HOPKINS HAS) on his record!

To say 'joe calzaghe is a load of crap' is ridiculous.

If joe is a load of crap then what does it make kessler? hopkins? lacy? eubank? reid? Or moreso if joe beats jones and pavlik then what does it make them?

You can dislike a boxer, dislike his style but at least have respect.

For myself, i dislike tyson, i dislike him as a person because i dont like the fact that he is a rapist (he might be innocent but he was convicted), i dont like his dirty tactics and trash talking either. As a boxer i feel he was incredible at what he did but was too one dimensional hence why lenox was able to pummel him the way he did, i think even a prime tyson wouldve been beaten 7/10 by a prime lenox lewis aswell. BUT i respect tyson as one of the best heavyweights of all time for his power, movement, defense and because he was so fun to watch!

Theres no way in hell id say 'tysons a load of crap' because his record and his performance speaks for itself, the same with joe calzaghe's...there are ways and means of saying things but after someone is 45,0,0 and beaten the likes of eubank, reid, lacy, kessler and hopkins, surely theyve proven that they have some class and are at least a 'pretty decent boxer'?

Respect is due where respect is due and i try never to allow personal judgement to distort my evaluation of an athlete.

[fishlock4ever]

great post...i wonder if a lot of the negativity is a uk/us divide.