You want to Know something about Calzaghe....

he meant that the hopkins and jones fights shouldnt count based on the way you assess old fighters. how is it right to say an old tarver and johnson dont count, when an old hopkins and jones do? thats what he meant

 

agreed, if thats really how it played out

 

In a matter of a couple days Joe went from Claiming Kelly wasn't a big enough name to claiming he offered KP a fight in 2006 after Lacy. In other words, with Miranda, and 2 wins over Taylor in 2 divisions, KP wasn't a big enough name, BUT back when he was recovering from career threatening hand surgery and Zuniga was his best win, he was plenty big enough. That's the part that got my stink up for the guy.

And then, to cap it off, Joe claimed Pavlik ducked him and rematched Taylor. I'd bet my bottom dollar that Joe is thoroughly familiar with rematch clausesatsch

 

Joe was about 10x a bigger name then than he was just after Lacy.

End of the day - he decided to let Pavlik have a career, and not ruin the poor *******.

 

Yea Bernard schooled Kelly.but he was still past his prime...

 

It's pretty hard to ruin a guy when you're running as fast as you can the other direction.

 

Simple, some fighters age quicker than others, to even compare how Tarver and Johnson have aged next to Hopkins is ridiculous, no?

 

I've never claimed he was prime, but the guy was still bloody good. I have an issue with anyone who says Hopkins was waaay past prime or shot. He wasn't/isn't.

 

yes. maybe it can be said for Tarver, but I still think he can beat as many LHW as he would have been able to, and Johnson has aged gracefully, hasn't lost a step

 

For whatever reason - Pavlik was given higher acclaim than Lacy. Joe gets almost zero credit for destroying Lacy. Calzaghe decided that he'd rather fight someone else. Maybe he decided that Pavlik wouldn't be a challenge, and he'd earn more money fighting RJJ, and claiming victory over two legends, past prime or not, than he would destroying another over hyped, limited American fighter - and getting zero credit again for it.

Calzaghe couldn't lose to Pavlik if he broke both hands. Pavlik is limited, slow, totally one dimensional and isn't all that effective at that. It's testament to for 99% of his career - few people have been competent to show that. His only real name is Taylor, which is a great win - he nearly lost in the 2nd (when has Calzaghe ever even been noticeably hurt/looking to survive in a ring), but came back and won - TOP win, all the credit in the world. He's then arguably fortunate to win the rematch (Taylor won in a poll made after the fight), but he gets the win. He then beats a no hoper in Lockett, and gets destroyed, humiliated and exposed by a 44 year old man. Who was spending the last few rounds of the Calzaghe fight struggling to survive because he was exhausted. Pavlik didn't even land a noticeable clean punch on Hopkins. He then labours to victory over Rubio.

Pavlik has one real win. Believe me, Calzaghe was not running from him at all - he made a decision that benefitted his career, and his bank balance. Had Pavlik had been half of what he was made out to be by the masses, he'd have beaten Hopkins - then the Calzaghe fight would have a) been worthwhile. b) HUGE. and c) it would have happened.

Pavlik proved he couldn't handle being in with the big boys - and his chance was gone.

 

Joe ran and hid behind a version of Roy Jones that was more shot than Reverand King and the Kennedy boys combined! Stop making excuses.

 

If you're into conspiracy theories, how do you know Warren and the Calzaghes weren't just stringing Pavlik along to make sure he fought Lockett. I know Lockett was a mandatory but Pavlik could have dropped that belt and still been the champ. Maybe Warren was telling them "fight Lockett then we'll get it on with Calzaghe" and Joe Calzaghe's dad made more money that way than if Lockett fought for a vacant belt. Lockett was an undercard fighter in Britain.

It's as likely as saying Lockett was just a fact finding mission by sports network.

 

But he's not exactly A material is he? Look I like Glen Johnson, but no guy with those losses, to those fighters can be compared to BHOP.

 

who is and isn't A material? that's completely subjective unless blatantly obvious. Most would argue that Tarver is still an A level LHW, and Johnson most certainly is.

 

No-one is making excuses from what I see. Joe C fought him for money not glory, even his fans know that - but so what it was his last fight and he'd just fought the two toughest fighters available to him.