Calzaghe-Lacy performance of the decade

He was until he was humbled!

Lacey was the bad man who was going to do all sorts of nasty things to everyone. Look at the betting odds before the JC fight. I know that hindsight is always perfect, but even so...

He only became an also ran after the fight. I'm no expert (or JC fan) but I think that Lacey was expected by many to come over and win the belt easily.

As I have no axe to grind, I am almost certainly wrong...

They were both bums probably.

 

Let's say 99% thought Lacy was as good as Ali. OK?

My question to you (and other who have have the same conclusion you have (that this was a great performance beating a great fighter) is this: Why does it matter what people thought before the fight?

____________________

Let's make an example:
Let's say the world record of lifting the heaviest object is 450 kgs. Now there is a big rock in a forrest who suppossedly weighs 600 kgs!

One day Jimmy comes by on his horse. He tries to lift the rock in the forrest and succeds!! Noone thoght it was possible, but he did it! Terrific stuff! Some time after he lifted the rock, some scientists brought a scale and weighed the rock. They found that the rock actually only weighed 30 kgs :-(

Now - the question to you (and others like you): Should Jimmy get respect for lifting 30 kgs, or should he be called the world's strongest man with a record of 600 kgs?

_________________________________

PS.

After all BEFORE it was weighed everyone THOUGHT it weighed 600 kgs - right? So, the fact that people thought it weighed 600 kgs, does that make it any harder to lift 30 kgs?

Same with the Lacy fight. Lacy is who he is and he had never beaten a top 10 fighter and Joe won easily. Should Joe be seen as beating the 600 kgs fighter the media wanted us to THINK Lacy was, or should he get recognition for beating the 30 kgs fighter Lacy ACTUALLY was?

 

Grant/Lewis gets an honorable mention.

 

I believe you, honest, I do.:roll:

 

Stop talking out of your arse, again. Of course he was a damn star. He was being labelled as the 'new Tyson' and the 'saviour of boxing' by many. Granted, most of those making the claims were American but isn't that the home of boxing??

 

Matress dude. Why does it matter whether he was labelled a star? I believe it only matter if he was a star (in skill) and not if he was labelled a star (marketing).

...

Can you answer this: Cheers.

Let's say 99% thought Lacy was as good as Ali. OK?

My question to you (and other who have have the same conclusion you have (that this was a great performance beating a great fighter) is this: Why does it matter what people thought before the fight?

____________________

Let's make an example:
Let's say the world record of lifting the heaviest object is 450 kgs. Now. there is a big rock in a forrest who suppossedly weighs 600 kgs!

One day Jimmy comes by on his horse. He tries to lift the rock in the forrest and succeds!! Noone thoght it was possible, but he did it! Terrific stuff! Some time after he lifted the rock, some scientists brought a scale and weighed the rock. They found that the rock actually only weighed 30 kgs :-(

Now - the question to you (and others like you): Should Jimmy get respect for lifting 30 kgs, or should he be called the world's strongest man with a record of 600 kgs?

_________________________________

PS.

After all BEFORE it was weighed everyone THOUGHT it weighed 600 kgs - right? So, the fact that people thought it weighed 600 kgs, does that make it any harder to lift 30 kgs?

Same with the Lacy fight. Lacy is who he is and he had never beaten a top 10 fighter and Joe won easily. Should Joe be seen as beating the 600 kgs fighter the media wanted us to THINK Lacy was, or should he get recognition for beating the 30 kgs fighter Lacy ACTUALLY was?

 

Yes,I agree.

His corner did him no favours by letting take round after round of punishment.

 

Indeed, Lacy was supposed to be the next big thing. Big knockout puncher, undefeated, younger, stronger. He was hammered in a one sided beating.
You will find it hard to get a more text book case of puncher being beaten by the much more skilled boxer than this.

 

Robin Reid had a shout at a SD win over Joe.

Charles Brewer gave joe hell

Woodhall gave joe an entertaining scrap.

 

I am inclined to say that it was, the vast majority of boxing writers and fans went for Lacy, he was the new big thing. That fight destroyed his career, otherwise why would everyone make him in to a star in the first place (which he was, in America). Calzaghe wasnt supposed to win this fight, and he provided one of the most incredible beat downs in the history of boxing... performance of the decade? Definitely a contender.

 

It was a great perfomance and the fight that got me fully interested in boxing. All the punches in the book, Good skill on the backfoot, Turning an opponent in a corner, Knocked down an unbeaten fighter, ducking and weaving punches, counterpunching etc. Its a very good performance and no matter how good lacy rly was he was still a rival world champion who was betting favourite who according to experts was much stronger than Calzaghe. Great inspiring performance!

 

100% correct:yep but it's always the same old bleats from the majority of yank sheep that once any fighter they've raised 2 the top of yank mt olympus gets beat then they all bleat the same old shite: HE'S A BUM, HE'S A BUM, HE'S A BUM, there as loyal as ****in head lice, WANKERS:smoke

 

Bingo...this is the correct answer

Barrera/Hamed was better as well

 

Personally, I thought Jeff Lacy was overrated and not ready before going into the fight with Calzaghe. I admit that Calzaghe's performance against Lacy was one of his more dominating. I think Calzaghe's fight with Byon Mitchell was more impressive, simply because he (Cal) was dropped and wobbled, yet he managed to show his character by returning the favor to Mitchell and winning.

 

pac hoya was the performance of the decade.. a former flyweight champ beating up a former middleweight champ..