How would prime Calzaghe have done in THE SUPER SIX??

well I tihnk theres a differnce bwtween what is said and what is done, but I guess we will never know. we know joe had a history of claiming injuries when he feared a loss.

 

Whats the unhealthy obsession with the great Joe Calzaghe. Calzaghe could put his gloves on now on 1 seconds notice and knock your countryman & national hero Vijender Singh out in 1 round

 

who is vijender singh

 

Read this below
Someone elses post

This content is protected

Calzaghe didnt bail on Johnson in 06. Johnson had to beat C Woods. Calzaghe was ringside as he was likely to be facing Johnson if he won, only Johnson lost to C Woods.
Same as how Calzaghe was due to face the winner of Johnson/sheika but Sheika beat Johnson
Know the full facts

 

Todd498,

I'm not belittling his wins, I'm just telling the truth. They were all hard fought wins.

He beat Reid on an S/D in a close fight. So why can't I say Reid ALMOST got the nod?

Yes, he shares similarities with Bernard. Although he's not as powerful as what Reid was, he's obviously an all round better fighter. Regarding Bika, at times, he can be as dirty as him. Also, all the guys are similar sized.

Nobody, which is why I think it would have been an extremely difficult fight for him.

Come on. I've just been banned for quoting about 6 of your abusive rants telling everyone he had no chance. I'm not making anything up. Don't insult mine or anyone else's intelligence. All we have to do is go back a few pages to see what you wrote.

 

Yes, again: he faced a similar fighter in Hopkins.

The result was an S/D, where it was a match based on: quality vs quantity. Joe threw a lot more shots, but he concentrated more on volume than accuracy. Hopkins landed fewer shots, but they were cleaner and more effective.

Many people would argue that Andre was a better fighter than a 43 year old Bernard Hopkins.

So again: If he could only register a close fought S/D against Hopkins, how would he have mutilated Andre like he was nothing??

 

How is it not a fact?

If you don't agree, then simply list all of the guys of Andre's calibre, who Joe beat with absolute ease.

I'll wait.

 

It's illogical to say Joe would have beaten Andre with absolute ease, again: based on the fact that he never easily beat any other elite level guys of Andre's calibre.

Yes, it's your right. Of course it is. But it's an opinion that holds no weight. You can't just try and convince people Joe would have destroyed him just because you hate him.

 

That could have been more than possible. Personally, I think it would have looked a lot like his fight with Bernard.

 

bailey,

This is a perfect example as to why nobody takes you seriously.

You say that Kessler was faded, unwell, and suffering from double vision. So you don't rate the win for Carl. Yet you think Joe's win over Eubank is absolutely outstanding, despite the fact that Eubank was faded, he had no sparring, he couldn't do roadwork, he only had 11 days notice to hit a weight he hadn't made in 2 years, and he had bad knees he needed injections for.

If Carl had've beaten that same version of Eubank, you'd no doubt have gladly noted all of the above. But because Joe beat him, you turn a blind eye, and only focus on Eubank's resume and overall achievements. Then you have the nerve to say you're not biased or a fan boy.

 

No. I know what I wrote.

It's quite simple.

I'll tell you for the final time, in the hope that it sinks in this time.

A few years ago, I told you that whilst Roy was preparing for the first fight against Montell Griffin, he was hoping to fight Virgil Hill afterwards.

You scoffed, and asked me if I possessed psychic powers. I said no, and noted that he'd said it in an interview, and then I actually posted the link with the interview so you could see for yourself.

You being the "King of Spin" have ran with it in another direction.

 

No.

I said I accept opinions if they're LOGICAL.

If you or anybody else tells me you think Joe would have beaten Andre to have won the Super Six, that's fine. I can accept that. Not only can I accept it, I can actually envisage it.

What I can't accept, is someone telling me that Joe would have mutilated both Andre and Dawson like they were nothing.

Those opinions aren't logical.


Nude fighters? Ha!


Double standards? You are the King of double standards.

 

Yes, he would obviously have had a lot of respect for Andre, and he'd have had to have been on the top of his game. It's still not a given he'd have overwhelmed him though. It would have been a very difficult fight for both guys.

 

Quite right.


My personal highlight was when he typed:

"You have crush for Calzaghe lose"

Ha!


He needs to wear one of Floyd's TBE caps.

Although it wouldn't stand for: "The Best Ever"

It Would stand for: "To Be Educated"

 

bailey,

Andre Dirrell didn't want to face him either.

We've discussed Bute a hundred times. He said he wanted to face him, and that whoever won the Super Six should face him afterwards. But after he beat Froch injured, he did a U-turn, saying that he had to prove himself first. At that point, he was recovering from injury and he was more than happy to see Carl step in. Had Carl not have wrecked him, you don't know that Andre wouldn't have gone on to have fought him at some point. But due to Carl's performance, there was absolutely no call for the fight afterwards.

I never took the DeGale talk seriously. Look where both guys were at the time.

Correct.

Don't try and downplay the win.

With hindsight, Andre gets no credit for that win. But when he signed the fight, nobody knew the struggles that Dawson would endure. The point is: Dawson was very highly regarded at the time.

Personally, I don't see how a guy who fought Carl with a fractured hand, as well as Dawson and Kovalev, is the kind of guy who'd have shied away from Joe.

It's completeley irrelevant what you think of the outcome. The point is: He fought a guy who is considered a devastating puncher, and one of the most dangerous LHW's of the modern era, who you think would have beaten a peak version of Roy early.

It doesn't matter. That doesn't give him a pass. Are you saying he'd have been willing to have faced him if Bernard hadn't have beaten him?

Joe was never going to fight him. He was never going to fight a LHW like Tarver. He had no interest. When will it register in your brain that Joe didn't want those kinds of fights? He literally starved himself to make the SMW limit to defend his lightly regarded WBO belt, even when he knew Ottke wouldn't unify, and there was nothing else on the horizon. We've discussed this hundreds of times. He said he never rated Tarver and he was never bothered about fighting him. Yet he was happy fighting Veit, Ashira, Evans and Mkrttchyan etc. Joe's default response was always: "They've done nothing, they don't excite me" Get in the real world. The man stayed at SMW for 14 years, walking around at 14 stone in-between fights, defending a lightly regarded belt, instead of mixing it at LHW. Yet you question whether Andre would have taken on Joe? If anybody was going to serve the fight, it was Joe.

Please explain to me why Joe wanted to fight an unknown NABF MW champion in 2006 after Lacy.

Please explain to me why in 2008, he preferred to fight Roy instead, who he claimed was shot and had been since 2004.

It's of no relevance that Pavlik lost to Hopkins afterwards.

Enough said?

In 2008, Joe was asked if he was interested in fighting Dawson. But instead of saying something like: "No, but I wish him well" he tried to belittle his resume in a derogatory manner, saying: "Who is he? Who's he fought? He's done nothing"

That just sums up the type of arrogant person Joe was. At that point, Dawson was making a lot of waves, and he'd beaten some good fighters, in: Harding, Adamek, Johnson and Tarver. But Joe dismissed him going on to fight a guy who he'd claimed had been shot for 4 years, coming into the ring with wins over: Prince Badi Ajamu, Anthony Hanshaw, and a faded Tito Trinidad at almost 40 years old.

Stop trying to defend him and tell the truth.

There's a good chance that Joe wouldn't have fought Andre, because he wasn't overly ambitious, and he was absolutely determined to retire unbeaten. The fact that he starved himself to go from 14 stone down to 12 to fight some of the guys he did, paints a very clear picture.

You're living in a fantasy if you think he'd have stepped up to LHW to fight a guy like Kovalev. He would never have done that.

I don't mind you questioning Andre, but to do that whilst giving Joe a pass and just assuming he'd have fought him, is nothing short of a joke.