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

Fair enough. Your opinion.
I would add though that when a fighter has no pedigree in a certain division, it can be very misleading how they perform there.
Take J Taylor, who at MW wasnt beaten twice by Hopkins or by Wright, yet goes to SMW and losses most of his fights, drops back to MW and wins a world title again
Pascal wasnt a top SMW and hadnt looked great, yet went up to LHW and is considered a top LHW
G Johnson was competitive at MW, a world champ at LHW but lost more than he won at SMW

Still this is greatest SMW of all time and Calzaghe is that without question

 

HAHAHA what rubbish!

The only true SMW Jermain lost to was Carl Froch, who only has 2 losses on his record. You expect that Jermain should have an easy win over monster that is 2nd best world SMW Froch?? HAHAHA.

Without even a warm up at SMW, taylor managed to defeat a former titlist, which you rate as one of joes greatest you hypocrite Failey!! And you think this is a poor performance??? MORE LIES FROM FAILEY

Ands whats this about Pascal being lesser at SMW?? - he won NABO, NABF, NABA titles and only lost to 2nd best SMW in the world Froch!Is this really so bad??? Of course not. But it is bad for your agenda, that's for sure failey. MORE LIES FROM FAILEY.


Glen JOhnson was losing everywhere once he got to a certain age, no matter what division - more lies from failey obviously.

 

Joe Calzaghes and Andre Wards resumes have been compared to death by now, and the conclusion is always the same (save fanatics who either hate or worship Calzaghe). Calzaghe is slightly ahead, and that's with a positive spinn put on Wards accomplihsments. Ward had obviously impressive potential but his interest seemed to fade after winning The Super Six Tournament.

Head to head it's anybodys guess. Ward always looked impressive controling his fights so one must assume he would have a chance. But fact is he never fought anyone with more than decent speed, so it's a big questionmark how he would do against someone as quick as Calzaghe. Fact is Ward ducked a scheduled fight against the very fast and agile Andre Dirrell, which made the TV-network Showtime call in the lawyers. Ward also ducked Lucian Bute and Adonis Stevenson. It's not a given he would agree to fight Calzaghe at all, given the opportunity.

Roy Jones Jr in his prime would propably have enough power to put an end to Calzaghes swarming tactics, and Bernard Hopkins in his prime would perhaps have ferocity enough to stop him.

But that's just a lot of if's. At the end of the day, Calzaghe is number one at SMW and it's not about to change anytime soon.

 

then you should stop comparing them to death and consider other peoples opinions.

that's joes career you mean of course, nothing else fits better than that phrase.

though I agree that Hopkins and jones beat joe in tough fights.

 

What it there to consider, you mean? I must have read every argument on the subject by now and think I have a good grasp on Calzaghes career.

He could be a bull****ter at times, yeah. But hey, he was a bloody prizefighter not a priest.

 

He was the best guy who ever fought at the weight.

His wins over Malinga and Lucas were good wins.

If anyone else had beaten them as easy as Roy, they probably would have been classed as very good-great wins.

 

RJJ, Toney, Froch, Eubank and Benn easily rate higher.

 

You say Reid was over the hill and I agree, he was faded. Reid was an odd fighter, in that he could be really good, or very negative, but he wasnt so faded that it wasnt long before that he beat undefeated Magee, who gave Froch a tough fight and looked unfortunate against Tsypko, and who also became a WBA champ, also many felt that Reid had beaten Ottke, not overly long before.

Manfredo had beaten recent Lacy victim Pemberton at SMW, and Pemberton was rated at that time when Lacy beat him, and was known for 2 wars with Sheika

 

why do you keep using ****pos to back up your claims? sheika, pemberton. even lacy wasn't good.

fi you do this your argument becomes crud

 

You'll spin the stats to make anyone look good.

Fighting Manfredo at 35 was an absolute embarrassment.

Mario Veit wasn't great, and the fact that he had to fight him again in 2005, or get stripped of his precious WBO belt, was a joke.

Also, with regards to Puwell who was a sub for Tate, why the hell was Joe going to face Tate at that point anyway?

The SMW division was weak at that point, and your stats won't change that.

Joe is rightfully the best SMW ever.

But that's mainly due to him having no ambition to go to LHW earlier.

Anyone who fought at SMW for as long as Joe did, should have the best stats.

 

Just f*cking lol

atsch:roflatsch

 

at your own face. that's really not a bad opinion.

learn to deal with opinions that differ from yours.

 

Do you not understand the need to gain public interest for a bout?
In 06, Manfredo was the most known to the American public, due to the contender series
He was facing Kessler after.

Why wasnt Veit a good win, when he is more accomplished than many today?
You say it was weak, but then look at Groves at number 3 today and try and tell me he has done more than Veit. This will be interesting
Today the number 1 is a fighter beaten by a faded Calzaghe victim.
Also you say a lack of ambition to go to LHW, but that was the reason for the Manfredo bout and I dont see Ward or Froch looking to go up. They dont exactly have big fights either, as the division only appears to have accomplished little fighters and recycled fighters.
No spin needed. You seem to be trying it and once again commenting, when you are not familiar, which isnt a first, maybe Serge or General Zod will need to get you some info

 

Learn to avoid British bias :hi: