the truth about bhop and calzaghe...

You can just see Calzaghe-Jones or Calzaghe-Hopkins in Wales with a British ref and 3 British judges!!!

 

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

 

When he actually makes a point, I might consider replying to it.

 

How ironic that you previously accused me of "changing the subject".

Which part of my last post do you disagree with?

Bernard Hopkins wasn't the legitimate champ, or perhaps Calzaghe didn't fight bums and nobodies?

 

you pull yourself down and lose creditability whenever you post like this (OR ANYONE).

dont post anything you cant back up and dont end any post dismissing others but offer nothing..THINK.

 

I can't make this any clearer to you - either you are deliberately not acknowledging the facts and trying to change the subject with all of the above fluster, or you genuinely can't grasp it.

The fact is that Hopkins agreed to fight Calzaghe in the UK. The deal fell through when Hopkins came back and demanded double the agreed purse the next day.

However Calzaghe approached his career before or after that event is moot in a discussion about why Calzaghe and Hopkins never fought earlier. Agreed?

 

Yeah, and imagine the reaction from these guys to Calzaghe winning in those circumstances

 

He killed your argument about biased judging and you chose to pick him up for using 'lol' in his reply.

You then questioned his intelligence and implied he was a conspiracy theorist.

Yeah, you really 'considered replying' to his post, clever clogs.

 

Oh i`m quite sure we wouldn`t hear a peep out of them.

 

So, in exactly what capacity are you privy to the details of delicate contract negotiations?

Or perhaps you're just regurgitating the same tired FW/Team Calzaghe blurb...

....'cause rumors are a great foundation on which to build a credible argument!

 

and like i said before you're trying to justify your fighter's career with a win over a faded great and i've already told you why this doesn't rub.

if calzaghe is a "great" - stop talking about what should have happened and tell me why it didnt in his prime...what dont you understand or do you just not want to let go because you know you cant debate me on that?

its always the ****ing same.

i have to be up for work in 6 hours so this is my last post tonight. fi you disagree with anything i have to say and can be ORIGINAL then message me and i'll reply tomorrow night..but you'll be the first person who does if you can see the difference between baby**** and wanting to believe in your hero.

its always the same ****ing thing.....trying to cling to something that happened in the spotlight and justify it because bugger all happened when it mattered.

message me if you disagree because if you dont you're just another fart in the wind trying to squeeze this out as long as you can hold it

 

Have a read of the progression of the discussion and tell me you know what you're talking about

It is well-documented that Hopkins accepted $3million to fight Calzaghe in the UK then returned the following day demanding double that amount, effectively killing the deal.

You question that, yet are happy to believe and support anyone on here who says that Calzaghe ducked world class opposition.

You need to look up the definition of irony if you're going to use such a big word

 

He's questioning the credibility of reports that clearly describe the situation when Hopkins accepted the $3 million then demanded double.

I haven't posted anything I can't back up and you know it.

You lose credibility when you use words like 'creditability' instead of 'credibility' in trying to patronise me.

 

Like I said, if he makes a credible point, I'll consider replying.

At the moment, his "argument", which you're subscribing to, is "Lewis didn't beat Holyfield because of biased yank judging, but Calzaghe beat Hopkins because of it!" - yeah, fantastic. Why didn't I think of that.

3 American judges hand Calzaghe a win over Hopkins - great example of "biased yank judging"

A British judge handing Lewis a draw with Holyfield - another stellar example of "biased yank judging".



The gaping holes in that logic, really shouldn't need highlighting.

 

Its pretty simple really. You're argument that "Hopkins ducked Calzaghe" is based on a rumor from FW/Team Calzaghe that you read on the internet.

My point that Calzaghe fought a lot of bums and nobodies, is based on the fact that Calaghe fought a lot of bums and nobodies.

At no point did I say "Calzaghe ducked world class opposition", if you want to resort to lies to legitimise a feeble argument already based on rumor, then go ahead. It doesn't add any credibilty in my eyes.