Holy S**T

[Gandalf]

Ice Cold Boxing... I don't disagree with anything in your rant bar the word farce.

Yes Calzaghe has beaten a lot of overrated and underwhelming fighters. But he was the man at 168 for a decade and then BEAT Bernard Hopkins on top of that.

I just fail to see what is farcical about that? Who are you gonna tell me has been a more accomplished, more talented fighter at 168?

But don't get me wrong, i feel like the super-middle weight division has entered a new era, post Calzaghe, were a couple of brilliant fighters have arrived. So we'll see.

The reason Joe Calzaghe is the best Super Middleweight, is because most of the top American fighters used the division. As a stepping stone like RJJ, James Toney. And also because the best of our British fighters had retired, which isn't Joe Calzaghe's fault. But as i said he could of moved up, considering he always said he found it hard to make 168.

And also because the Super Middleweight division, is a pretty new division isn't it ? didn't it only become a serious division in the late 1980s ? i know the division was made in the 1960s or something, but i thought it only become a serious division in the late 1980s.

Either way my point still stands, and as for fighters that were more talented than Joe Calzaghe at 168.

Roy Jones Jr
James Toney
Michael Nunn
Michael Watson = Debatable

So why didn't Hopkins step up when he was 30? Why should Calzaghe have stepped up? You offer no reason why. He offered to fight Hopkins, we know Hopkins withdrew wanting more money.

Is Calzaghe to blame for this? You offer 4 fighters at 168 that you say are better than Calzaghe and offer no reason why. All 4 are debatable with a lot of bad days between them.

More talented than=your opinion on a forum.....quite a tacky concept too if I might add.

[ICB]

Ice Cold Boxing... I don't disagree with anything in your rant bar the word farce.

Yes Calzaghe has beaten a lot of overrated and underwhelming fighters. But he was the man at 168 for a decade and then BEAT Bernard Hopkins on top of that.

I just fail to see what is farcical about that? Who are you gonna tell me has been a more accomplished, more talented fighter at 168?

But don't get me wrong, i feel like the super-middle weight division has entered a new era, post Calzaghe, were a couple of brilliant fighters have arrived. So we'll see.

The reason Joe Calzaghe is the best Super Middleweight, is because most of the top American fighters used the division. As a stepping stone like RJJ, James Toney. And also because the best of our British fighters had retired, which isn't Joe Calzaghe's fault. But as i said he could of moved up, considering he always said he found it hard to make 168.

And also because the Super Middleweight division, is a pretty new division isn't it ? didn't it only become a serious division in the late 1980s ? i know the division was made in the 1960s or something, but i thought it only become a serious division in the late 1980s.

Either way my point still stands, and as for fighters that were more talented than Joe Calzaghe at 168.

Roy Jones Jr
James Toney
Michael Nunn
Michael Watson = Debatable

So why didn't Hopkins step up when he was 30? Why should Calzaghe have stepped up? You offer no reason why. He offered to fight Hopkins, we know Hopkins withdrew wanting more money.

Is Calzaghe to blame for this? You offer 4 fighters at 168 that you say are better than Calzaghe and offer no reason why. All 4 are debatable with a lot of bad days between them.

More talented than=your opinion on a forum.....quite a tacky concept too if I might add.

Quite a tacky concept ? whats wrong with my opinion ? i debate on all era's and all different fighters, about all different weightclasses. And normally give good opinions.

If you honestly need for me to explain why RJJ, James Toney, are more talented than Joe Calzaghe well im speechless.

How about these.

Better speed
Better power
Better reflexes
Better defense
More fluid
More punch variety
ETC.

As for the other 2 well Michael Nunn was extremely talented, alot like RJJ until he ruined himself. And as for Michael Watson as i said its debatable, because he didn't have enough time to show how good he was. But the 2nd Chris Eubank fight, aswell as the Nigel Benn fight. I think shows he is on par with Joe Calzaghe skill wise.

As for Bernard Hopkins how can you compare him with Joe Calzaghe ? he started his career in 1988 when he was 23 but lost another 2 years, so his 2nd pro fight was when he was 25. Where as Joe Calzaghe started his career at 21, and Bernard Hopkins learnt his boxing in prison. He didn't have the Amateur backgroud Joe Calzaghe had, so theres a big difference.

[Fenster]

The reason Joe Calzaghe is the best Super Middleweight, is because most of the top American fighters used the division. As a stepping stone like RJJ, James Toney. And also because the best of our British fighters had retired, which isn't Joe Calzaghe's fault. But as i said he could of moved up, considering he always said he found it hard to make 168.

And also because the Super Middleweight division, is a pretty new division isn't it ? didn't it only become a serious division in the late 1980s ? i know the division was made in the 1960s or something, but i thought it only become a serious division in the late 1980s.

Either way my point still stands, and as for fighters that were more talented than Joe Calzaghe at 168.

Roy Jones Jr
James Toney
Michael Nunn
Michael Watson = Debatable

So why didn't Hopkins step up when he was 30? Why should Calzaghe have stepped up? You offer no reason why. He offered to fight Hopkins, we know Hopkins withdrew wanting more money.

Is Calzaghe to blame for this? You offer 4 fighters at 168 that you say are better than Calzaghe and offer no reason why. All 4 are debatable with a lot of bad days between them.

More talented than=your opinion on a forum.....quite a tacky concept too if I might add.

Quite a tacky concept ? whats wrong with my opinion ? i debate on all era's and all different fighters, about all different weightclasses. And normally give good opinions.

If you honestly need for me to explain why RJJ, James Toney, are more talented than Joe Calzaghe well im speechless.

How about these.

Better speed
Better power
Better reflexes
Better defense
More fluid
More punch variety
ETC.

As for the other 2 well Michael Nunn was extremely talented, alot like RJJ until he ruined himself. And as for Michael Watson as i said its debatable, because he didn't have enough time to show how good he was. But the 2nd Chris Eubank fight, aswell as the Nigel Benn fight. I think shows he is on par with Joe Calzaghe skill wise.

As for Bernard Hopkins how can you compare him with Joe Calzaghe ? he started his career in 1988 when he was 23 but lost another 2 years, so his 2nd pro fight was when he was 25. Where as Joe Calzaghe started his career at 21, and Bernard Hopkins learnt his boxing in prison. He didn't have the Amateur backgroud Joe Calzaghe had, so theres a big difference.

Hopkins has been boxing since he was 7. He won junior titles.

[ICB]

So why didn't Hopkins step up when he was 30? Why should Calzaghe have stepped up? You offer no reason why. He offered to fight Hopkins, we know Hopkins withdrew wanting more money.

Is Calzaghe to blame for this? You offer 4 fighters at 168 that you say are better than Calzaghe and offer no reason why. All 4 are debatable with a lot of bad days between them.

More talented than=your opinion on a forum.....quite a tacky concept too if I might add.

Quite a tacky concept ? whats wrong with my opinion ? i debate on all era's and all different fighters, about all different weightclasses. And normally give good opinions.

If you honestly need for me to explain why RJJ, James Toney, are more talented than Joe Calzaghe well im speechless.

How about these.

Better speed
Better power
Better reflexes
Better defense
More fluid
More punch variety
ETC.

As for the other 2 well Michael Nunn was extremely talented, alot like RJJ until he ruined himself. And as for Michael Watson as i said its debatable, because he didn't have enough time to show how good he was. But the 2nd Chris Eubank fight, aswell as the Nigel Benn fight. I think shows he is on par with Joe Calzaghe skill wise.

As for Bernard Hopkins how can you compare him with Joe Calzaghe ? he started his career in 1988 when he was 23 but lost another 2 years, so his 2nd pro fight was when he was 25. Where as Joe Calzaghe started his career at 21, and Bernard Hopkins learnt his boxing in prison. He didn't have the Amateur backgroud Joe Calzaghe had, so theres a big difference.

Hopkins has been boxing since he was 7. He won junior titles.

Yea i heard you say this before but are you sure ? because i thought he started boxing in prison and won some stuff while he was in there ?

[Fenster]

Quite a tacky concept ? whats wrong with my opinion ? i debate on all era's and all different fighters, about all different weightclasses. And normally give good opinions.

If you honestly need for me to explain why RJJ, James Toney, are more talented than Joe Calzaghe well im speechless.

How about these.

Better speed
Better power
Better reflexes
Better defense
More fluid
More punch variety
ETC.

As for the other 2 well Michael Nunn was extremely talented, alot like RJJ until he ruined himself. And as for Michael Watson as i said its debatable, because he didn't have enough time to show how good he was. But the 2nd Chris Eubank fight, aswell as the Nigel Benn fight. I think shows he is on par with Joe Calzaghe skill wise.

As for Bernard Hopkins how can you compare him with Joe Calzaghe ? he started his career in 1988 when he was 23 but lost another 2 years, so his 2nd pro fight was when he was 25. Where as Joe Calzaghe started his career at 21, and Bernard Hopkins learnt his boxing in prison. He didn't have the Amateur backgroud Joe Calzaghe had, so theres a big difference.

Hopkins has been boxing since he was 7. He won junior titles.

Yea i heard you say this before but are you sure ? because i thought he started boxing in prison and won some stuff while he was in there ?

Hopkins interview

Age started boxing: I started at seven as a youth. Then I went to Graterford (prison) for five years and I picked it back up in there. But (I started) as a pro in ‘88. So I started at seven.

Early Boxing Memory: Winning Pennsylvania Junior Olympics when I was nine. Won a trophy which had to be two-feet tall! When I won that I was the baby in the gym. We had guys like Robert Hines. I got my butt kicked 95% of the time in the gym by guys who were bigger and older than me. But I was too advanced for my level. I beat a guy named ‘Bunchie’ Williams, a good, good amateur who went 12-1 as a pro but then I think drugs got him.
Bernard Hopkins | BoxingInsider.com

[JazMerkin]

Ice Cold Boxing... I don't disagree with anything in your rant bar the word farce.

Yes Calzaghe has beaten a lot of overrated and underwhelming fighters. But he was the man at 168 for a decade and then BEAT Bernard Hopkins on top of that.

I just fail to see what is farcical about that? Who are you gonna tell me has been a more accomplished, more talented fighter at 168?

But don't get me wrong, i feel like the super-middle weight division has entered a new era, post Calzaghe, were a couple of brilliant fighters have arrived. So we'll see.

The reason Joe Calzaghe is the best Super Middleweight, is because most of the top American fighters used the division. As a stepping stone like RJJ, James Toney. And also because the best of our British fighters had retired, which isn't Joe Calzaghe's fault. But as i said he could of moved up, considering he always said he found it hard to make 168.

And also because the Super Middleweight division, is a pretty new division isn't it ? didn't it only become a serious division in the late 1980s ? i know the division was made in the 1960s or something, but i thought it only become a serious division in the late 1980s.

Either way my point still stands, and as for fighters that were more talented than Joe Calzaghe at 168.

Roy Jones Jr
James Toney
Michael Nunn
Michael Watson = Debatable

So why didn't Hopkins step up when he was 30? Why should Calzaghe have stepped up? You offer no reason why. He offered to fight Hopkins, we know Hopkins withdrew wanting more money.

Is Calzaghe to blame for this? You offer 4 fighters at 168 that you say are better than Calzaghe and offer no reason why. All 4 are debatable with a lot of bad days between them.

More talented than=your opinion on a forum.....quite a tacky concept too if I might add.

It's hard to deny that RJJ in his prime was better than Calzaghe. As for the Hopkins thing, sorry but if Hopkins was supposed to come over here, he wanted parity with what he was getting in the US. The simple fact was The Man was Hopkins. He was the one global boxing fans cared about it. Calzaghe had to make it work. I'll defend Joe over a lot of things, he's a much better fighter than people give him credit for & whether people like it or not he's a great boxer, but his comp levels sucked & that's not Jones' or Hopkins' fault, he should of gone to the US later. I'd like to blame it on Warren, but the fact that he chose to fight Jones over Pavlik leads me to think it may well have been his own doing.