Calzaghe top 10 perfomances

its not 'dog****' if it applies to the person who is trying to judge people who haven't been in that position and trying to be dismissive of people who have.

i don't base my arguments on this - ever - but i know when it applies.

the pavlik fight for hopkins was a relatively easy win but it also wasn't foreseen that convincingly.

my gripe about "easy" was simply that it's hypocritical to dismiss a man who has tested himself in life to try and prove a point.

what i'm saying is that if he'd suffered a few hard knocks himself then he wouldn't have been so dismissive.

it might sound petty to some people, but for me it's a solid source to read people on this forum.

 

Adamek was being outboxed by Cunningham for most part, and had to rely on his power to come back on the cards. He won't be landing cleanly on Hopkins, or knocking him down for that matter. I would favor Bernard in this fight, but the difference in size and Adamek's power would keep it interesting.

 

Kessler and the win will look better and better in time

 

Lacy and Kessler are hard to go past, but for Joe to adjust after the knockdown and claw back a points victory against Hopkins was brilliant I thought. yes the fight was not the most entertaining, but as a victory it is very very good.

 

I think Hopkins is his best win, but Lacy or Kessler his best performance.


Calzaghe went into the fight with Hopkins a very clear favourite with every bookey, all having him to win by a very clear margin. In betting terms, prior to the fight, it was a bit of a non event and as a bit of a foregone conclusion.

Joe came out of the fight obviously thinking he'd lost at the final bell, with a face like a smacked arse.

I don't think Hopkins is the performance his career - and Joe himself states it was a bad performance.

The holes in Pavliks game (though I like him) are there for all to see and he will lose again.

This content is protected

Final bell

This content is protected

I voted Kessler.

 

So an ex-boxer who had suffered a few hard knocks would never ever predict an easy win in a big fight?

My dad was a boxer for a long time and suffered a broken collarbone in the ring. He predicted that Manny Pacquiao would blow out Oscar De La Hoya with no trouble whatsoever (I argued with him till I was blue in the face that this would not happen ).

Oscar had tested himself in life, but my father believed Oscar at his age would not be able to cope with Pacquiao's movement, so he called it as he saw it.

Sorry, but I think you are talking dog****.

 

But bears absolutely no relevance to what actually happened in the fight. Pretending to be Mr. Happy at the end of a fight is an old trick to impress the judges/fans. :tired

 

Exactly. Anyone who believes that a 43-year old version of any athlete is superior to a prime version is a fool and likely was never a top notch athlete in their own right.

A great athlete would have gone after those that were considered the best in one's relative youth. They wouldn't have stood for the acclaim that went to others and not raised their voice. Joe went backwards after Eubank not forward.

 

you're misunderstanding what i mean by "easy".

i'm saying that someone who has fought wouldn't be so dismissive when comparing two fighters and would, at the bare minimum, show some respect when talking about the other fighter.

anyone who uses the word nuthuggers and all that tripe to downplay a fighter they don'øt like are the same as this guy.

they are just defending a fighter they like but don't have the bigger picture to bring to it.

i'm not judging anyone based on their opinion, and especially someone like your dad who has been through what i have, the main point i am making is that people who haven't fought but want to write off or judge those who have deserved criticism for being dismmissive about current day fighters - and he even had the audacity to try and say that he had...

you misread what i said, and it's him that you should be pissed at because he's trying to cheapen boxing by claiming he's fought himself when he clearly hasn't.

 

I really could not care less whether anyone has boxed or not, it does not make their opinion on a sport they loved and studied any more or less valid.

My father boxed for many years and suffered some nasty injuries in the process.

He believed Manny would trounce Oscar so he called it like he seen it, he said he thought Manny would win easily. He was right.

I myself have never boxed professionally, but I call it like I see it too. I thought Calzaghe would beat Jones easily, so I said so. I was right.


I don't see your point at all. I dismissed Jones's chances because I genuinely didn't believe he could win. McGrain genuinely doesn't believe Kessler could beat Hopkins, he has called it like he seen it and gave his honest opinion.

What's the problem?