Calzaghe Fans: "Joe was better than Hagler"

Joe was NOT better than Hagler. He didn't do nearly enough to warrant that. What kind of crack are you guys smoking?

 

Joe would SRL Hagler man

 

He would do nothing of the sort.

 

A prime Calzaghe almost got KTFO'd by Byron "I don't like to throw punches" Mitchell, what the f*ck man..... he couldn't hold a candle to Marvelous.

 

Bailey,

You've been missed ha!

Listing those opinions doesn't change the following FACTS:

Roy was 9 weeks from being 40.

He hadn't won at elite level for 5 years.

Tarver had knocked him out in May 2004.

Glen Johnson had brutally knocked him out in Sept 2004.

In 2007, Joe said a fight with Roy would be pointless.

Early in 2008, he said that he'd be dissapointed if Roy was to be his last fight, because Roy wasn't great anymore.

All of the following predicted Joe to win:

Ricky Hatton

John Ruiz

Peter Manfredo

Oscar De La Hoya

Manny Pacquiao

Shane Mosley - Who said "Roy back in the day would have DESTROYED Calzaghe!"

Amir Khan

Mickey Ward

Chad Dawson

Freddie Roach


When Joe himself dismissed Roy on TWO occasions, then he doesn't deserve any credit.


The End.

 

Jc 47:0

 

Pryk, DirtyDen the cam perv, and Louden all fancy Roy Jones.

What grown man refers to a stranger with their first name otherwise?:roflatsch:dead

 

If Joe had any balls in his sack he'd rematch Hopkins now and earn the biggest paycheck of his career.

Hopkins was 3 years older than Joe is now when they fought! lmao.

 

the Leonard/Duran rematch was a farce? :huh so you agree with me on that the. it's a win on paper only. if you call what Leonard did in that rematch as "boxing" then there is no hope for you. looks great on paper. looks bad on screen.

Duran quit because Leonard didn't want to fight. he ran and failed to engage. no wonder Duran stormed off.
the Americans claiming this to be some great win is all hype and bull****.

and to think the Yanks **** all over Haye when he fought the much bigger Valuev. Leonard was the bigger fighter in there, not smaller.

Hearns and Leonard were indeed in their primes. it was much better than the Duran rematch, but it was still Hearns who did most of the work. Leonard took advantage of a tired Hearns late on. we all know the famous line uttered by Dundee "you're blowing it son" he knew that Leonard was just running and losing wide on the cards. it looks great on paper, but in the ring, it's a completely different story.

i don't care if Leonard struggled with Hearns' jab. fighters throughout history have come against fighters that give them a difficult time with their style. they grit it out and push for the win. that's a part of what make fighters great... not running for round after round.
Leonard became the Welter champ after that. no complaints. it's just when people claim him to be a top ten after such a dreadful performance that gets me. he's no where near to being a top ten. :deal that is massively overrating him if you claim that.

and Leonard didn't find his opening in the 14th. more like he knew that Hearns had nothing left. that's a fact. so stop sugar coating it. it is what it is. you have your own eyes, so see what is staring you straight in the face.

an unheard of achievement??? :rofl i don't need to say anything for that one. your stupidity does it for me.

the Hagler win was a great win. never said it wasn't. just pointed out that he worked the last 30-60 seconds. that is true.

the Hopkins win for Joe is a great win, but it was an eye sore. the reason why i give Joe big credit for it is due to him pushing like a true champ from the get go and making sure he got the win against the awkward style of Hopkins. he never gave up on him self like many have in that instance, and showed a different side to him. he adjusted and dug deep.

what is wrong with that? both were great wins. one was an eye sore, the other was a whole lot more pleasing. if anything, it's Joe that comes out worse, not Leonard. i'm just speaking the truth of what happened. unlike most do on this site. i don't sugar coat, ****.

name you one clear win over an ATG or HOF that Joe beat?? :huh i'm not comparing the two? so what would be the point?

i'm disagreeing about Leonard being a top ten ATG, not comparing him to Calzaghe. you're going off base with that one.

Foreman, Patterson, Frazier and Liston are well thought off at Heavy and play a big part in it's history. but they are still no where near to being ATG's in the broader sense. they don't have the resume to be ATG's. people constantly talk is if though they are the greatest of the greatest. they're not. that's why i consider them to be way overrated. there is no depth to any of them. the closest one to having any depth is Foreman. and if you think wins over Lyle, Frazier, Norton and Moorer make you a genuine ATG, then you're smoking some serious ****. :deal

you talking about froch?? he actually has depth to his resume...

Pascal
Dirrell
Kessler
Magee
Bute
Johnson
Taylor
Abraham

that's depth that the fighters we're talking about don't have. consistency!

the huge difference being that Froch isn't talked about as if he's one of the very greatest fighters in history. huge difference don't you think? and there is still more to come.

my analogy of Tyson is void is it?

so Frazier defending the title he won against Ali against a couple of bums makes all the difference does it? i'm sure that Douglas could have done the same thing. but he instead fought Holyfield. the first time that Frazier fought anyone who had a chance against him blew him away with ease.

Liston defended against the same fighter in Patterson that was **** scared of him and had a glass jaw. he then lost to Ali...

where the hell is the consistency in there? it's just more rubbish from you! do you even know what the hell you're talking about?

and you have the cheek to question my boxing knowledge?? **** out of here.

so other than Frazier's win over Ali and Liston's over Patterson, what makes them ATG's? other than Foreman's win over Frazier, what makes him an ATG?

exactly!

 

It's Loudon, and it's clear that you can't refute any of what we've said.

But yeah, I've got mad love for Roy Levesta Jones, just like you have for Joseph.

Don't you think it's ironic though, saying that we fancy Roy, when out of ANY username you could have chosen, you've gone for 46and0? Ha! That's hilarious!

 

you don't think that Kessler, Eubank, Lacy and Hopkins were great wins???

they're not ATG wins, but great wins non the less. i do consider the Hopkins win to be an ATG win.

can you give me a handful of great wins from fighters that aren't the usual suspects... don't give me the likes of Ali over Foreman or Turpin over Robinson. i'm really curious to know what you consider a great win to be?

i think these are great wins that aren't from the usual suspects. tell me which ones you disagree with...

Trinidad over Vargas
Froch over Bute
Benn over McClellan
Margarito over Cotto
Tarver over Jones
Toney over McCallum
Hamed over Bungu
Collins over Eubank
Mosley over Margarito
Forrest over Mosley
Mayorga over Forrest

i can't understand if you think these are not great wins. they're a bit more than being very good. because if that's the case, there are very few great wins in history.

the reasons why i think they are great wins for Joe...

Eubank: Joe had been no where near to world level before taking on the vet. he got in there and beat him in a fashion that no one had yet done. in fact, no one after either.

Kessler: undefeated duel champ. prime. Joe clearly beat him. 9 rounds to 3.

Lacy: making big noise in the division with most claiming he was going to be a super star. big favorite to win the fight but had a mater class put on him. he was ruined after that the same way Vargas was against Trinidad. if they both never took those fights, they would have done a lot more. but due to them bot getting a pasting, they were never the same again. i won't deduct from either Joe or Trinidad because they ruined them. that wouldn't be fair.

Hopkins: this doesn't even need spelling out in my mind. he was doing great before and after the Calzaghe fight. how you can't see that as a great win is just confusing. i'm sorry.

where did Woodhall win a round?? he was utterly dominated. the Salem fight was Joe getting stupid in there, so i wouldn't read anything into it. but he still won pretty much every round? what rounds did you give to the two in their fights with Joe?

Kessler won 3 rounds for crying out loud. he's far too good for him to not win any rounds. that's crazy.
and don't say "Ward beat him clearly, showing us that he wasn't that good to begin with" that was Kessler 3 years later and without a meaningful fight in that time. Ward should have been DQ'd as well. he cheated with all the holding he done to mess up the rhythm of Kessler while the ref just stood there. then Ward brought in the clearly intended headbutts. it was a joke of a fight. how anyone gives Ward credit for that is beyond me.

a prime Joe would **** up Ward's ****! Ward likes to go on the inside. that isn't the place you want to go to get a win over Calzaghe. he's better in every area. 5-6 rounds and it's over. Joe would drop him hard with every upper cut he lands. and he's landing that shot at will until it's over.

Froch is made for Joe like no one else. i love Carl, but he isn't coming close to winning a round. utter domination. i could see Joe stopping Froch due to him not putting bis hands up to guard his face when being attacked.
could you imagine the damage that Joe would do? every shot landing clean. plus a prime Joe would have his power. look what he did to Lacy when past his best and having little power? and Lacy had better defence than Carl does.
no, Carl would be punched half to death in that one. every shot would land at will. Joe would do it on the inside where Carl wouldn't be able to come back with anything. it would be brutal.

a Ward win would be great but a Hopkins win isn't?? are you being serious here?

what the hell has Ward done to be considered a great win?

should have been DQ'd in the Kessler fight. so that means nothing.

Dawson was drained to hell. that doesn't mean anything.

Abraham was coming off getting dominated in his last two so had zero confidence. good win, nothing more.

Bika had been out for 18 months but pushed him to the wire. i had Ward winning by 2 points. good win, nothing more.

Froch was held onto for most of the fight while the ref again just stood there. it wasn't the domination that people claim either. boxing is about punching, not grappling and holding. Ward just looked on top from doing this, not punching. i had him winning by 2 points over Carl. had Smoger of used the rules of boxing, he would have taken points off Ward. had Smoger of warned him to cut it out and fight clean, Froch could have been given the opportunity to win. but he was denied that. for argument sake, lets call it a very good win.

not impressive at all! what makes it a great win if you beat him? i can't see it in any way shape or form. :deal

last question: do you think that Hagler, Hopkins or Roy Jones have a great win in their career?

 

46and0 is the alt of Hagman an Totteham19