Joe Calzaghe retired 46-0 (32) in 2008. Get over it. Fans & haters; quit trolling!

I'm here.

Elaborate.


Bailey only deals in boxrec stats.


What do you want to discuss?

Eubank, Kessler?


Bailey thinks that because Eubank beat Roch, Watson and Benn etc, and that he was a great fighter, that it automatically means that Joe's win over him was GREAT.

While in the real world, we know it doesn't work like that.

 

I'll have an objective debate with you.

If you don't agree with what I've wrote, tell me which bits, and we'll discuss it.

Now I admit, that it's like goundhog day on here, and all of these subjects have been done to death. We're all guilty of turning up on the same threads, week after week.


Everyone knows I don't like Joe.

I've got reasons for not liking him. I hate the fact that he's portrayed himself all throughout his career, as some sort of a victim of circumstances. He's always been the guy who wanted the best, but couldn't get the fights. Always the victim.

'Nobody would fight me'

'We chased Roy for six years'

It's all bollocks!

And I'm going to pull him up on that.

The guy has contradicted himself all throughout his career, and we've got the proof.


But that doesn't mean I'm not going to acknowledge other things.

Not ONCE, have I ever said he wasn't a great fighter.

You can check my post history.

I've called him great numerous times, and said that I appreciated the predicament he was in, in going for the big fights.

I can be objective.


I'm only arguing here because of his demented fans, who create threads like this, claiming he's a top 5 ATG.

That's why Joe gets a lot of flack on here.

1. Because of his giant ego and contradictions.

2. His fans who grossly exaggerate his abilities and accomplishments.


Now I like the way you stand up for him as a fan, and you correct people if they've wrote things that aren't true, and you correct them with facts.

I respect that.


That's what I do when I defend Roy.

I defend Roy by using facts, which can be backed with actual evidence.

Evidence which I can prove if needed.

And all of my opinions are based on logic.


So if you want to defend Joe, go ahead.


I want to know what I've said on this thread that you don't agree with?


I haven't really ripped Joe on this thread, only his fans.


The Eubank win was great for Joe personally. It was his first big fight, against a still game British hero, who was a great fighter.

But it wasn't a great win in the world of boxing.


The Kessler win was also great for Joe himself. Finally unifying the division he'd fought in for 14 years, against a very good fighter.


But again, it wasn't a great win in the world of boxing.


Again, I'm arguing with the likes of Bailey, who is dismissing Bernard's win over Tito, while at the same time telling us all how great the Eubank win was.


Now to my knowledge, I haven't been biased on this thread.


If you think otherwise, again, show me where and I'll discuss it with you.


I like you as a poster.


So it's over to you.

Come back to me with something.

:good

 

So another hissy fit and a fail to answer the question atsch.
I said a simple yes or no to -
So basically you have had a hissy fit and not given a straight answer .
So just to confirm, you really believe that a MW champ who turned pro inside the CW limit beating a former WW champ, who had only had one fight at MW, had been put down 7 times that I know and nearly KOd more than once that I know of and previously exposed, is better than Calzaghe beating undefeated Kessler, Eubank or Hopkins sandwiched between arguably Hopkins best wins?
Just a yes or no will do Loudon
Im not saying P4P Tito isnt a real good fighter but look at his MW career

 

Comical isnt it.
Loudon seems to have an agenda and makes excuses for others and then doesnt allow for circumstance when it suits

 

Indeed.
Loudon doesnt allow for circumstances

 

Again, there is no hissy fit.

Yes, IMHO, Bernard beating Tito, was better than Joe's win over Eubank.

And I've given you specific reasons as to why.


I've told you my criteria for rating a win or a resume, and I've also asked you many times, if there's anything you'd add or change.


My opinions are logical, covering a number of things.

Your opinions are based on statistics.


Now I've answered your points, go and answer mine.

 

There's no way you could have typed that with a straight face.

 

You see Loudon, you get all defensive. I havent dismissed Hopkins win over Tito, just noted facts that Hopkins turned pro inside CW and Tito was a former WW champ, who had been put over and nearly out several times and already exposed, with only one MW fight. What is incorrect there?
As for you saying about Calzaghe unifying, he unified 2 titles against Lacy.
Once again you dont allow for circumstance or you would know Ottke was not wanting to face Calzaghe and Reid didnt want to face Calzaghe when he was champ, but do you allow for that circumstance? Yes or No.
As for you saying about Calzaghe unifying for a period of time, do you not allow for circumstance again and point to age?
Calzaghe was 33 when he unified, yet Hopkins was 36. Golovkin is something like 33 now, to give another example. Froch was 34. All just examples, where you could say they were not defending for as long, but also werent champs at as young an age. Sure there are others who did do it at younger ages, but it is an example for you to get wrapped up in

 

Ha!

And again.


You never ever allow for circumstances.

You debate in statistics alone.


How many times have I told you, that statistics don't allow for circumstances?

 

This is great

Eubank a known force at SMW, having beaten many top SMW fighters and champs.
Trinidad, one MW fight where there was a glove wrap query and never did well at the weight

Eubank at SMW looks greater than Trinidad at MW to me.
Guess its down to opinion, but I know which one I rate higher

 

I'm not getting defensive at all.

If Serge wants a debate, he can have one.


Yes you have dismissed Tito.

You typed:

'And don't mention Tito, when....'


You've also dismissed EVERY FACT that I've listed regarding Eubank.


Yes, I have allowed for circumstances regarding Joe unifying. Many times.

 

Well you've just painted yourself into a corner.

By again, not allowing for any circumstances.


You haven't allowed for Hopkins's age, his manner of victory, and the shape that Tito was in.


You also haven't allowed for any of the facts that I've mentioned regarding Eubank going into his fight with Joe.


Your opinion is worked out by the following:

Eubank had more fights at his weight, than Tito had at his.

Eubank looked better.


So what sort of reasoning is that, WITHOUT allowing for ANYTHING else?


You don't have any real criteria.


The Eubank fight is a prime example.

You look at all of the great things that Eubank did, and then give Joe heaps of praise because he beat him, without allowing for anything else.

Joe didn't beat the Eubank that beat Benn, Watson and Roch etc.

You completely dismiss where he was in his career at the time, and his preparation etc.


To you, it's simply - Eubank did this, and Joe beat him, so it's great.


It doesn't work like that.


If a fighter beats a once great fighter, that doesn't automatically make it a great win.


It's just a shame that you can't see it.


Look at what you've wrote?


'Eubank a known force at SMW'

Yes, he WAS at one point.

But was he a force at SMW, WHEN Joe fought him?

No he wasn't.


'He'd beaten many top fighters and champs.'

Yes he had.

But had he going into the fight with Joe?

No he hadn't.


'Eubank at SMW, looked better than Tito at MW'

You only look at things from the past.

Did Tito look good at MW, AT THE TIME Bernard fought him?

Yes he did.

Because he'd just beaten Joppy.


Now did Eubank look good at SMW, AT THE TIME that Joe fought him?

No he didn't.

Because he hadn't even fought at the weight in two years.


Do you understand?


Eubank at one point, was a great SMW.


But he wasn't a great SMW, when Joe fought him.


Now do you see where I'm coming from?


You debate by using facts from the past, instead of looking at everything from the exact time of when the fights took place.

 

Actions spoke louder than words look at Hatton ,similar situation matter of fact even more popular than Joe was yet he had the stones to come to the US and actually challenge Mayweather closer to his prime ..Yet. Joe really wanted to fight Jones you believe that I have a bridge to sell you as well.