Joe Calzaghe retired 46-0 (32) in 2008. Get over it. Fans & haters; quit trolling!

You see, I was correct when I said you are an irrelevant poster and I was right.
Was Lacy not a top upcomer? Or are you going further and saying that the top upcomers have to be fighters who havent won world titles and beaten anyone of note.

 

No thicko, the irrelevant joke part was about you. All cleared up for you, so you wont make that mistake again

 

are you going to pick someone to answer your pointless question, or keep repeating that? let me know.

lacy was weak, we all know that.

move on from your fantasies about him.

 

no its about Veit. this is a forum to debate boxer, not users. if you start slating users then you will be banned shortwith. it would appear however that you cannot take a joke, which I find odd.

now, why have you not caught on yet that Veit was rubbish?

 

You feel slated by being noted as irrelevant :|. Poor Herol.
No I got the joke and here I am laughing at it... I mean laughing with him (Herol).

As for Veit I noted he has a better resume than many of todays top 10. You seem to duck that as much as you did the previous posts.

 

no-one polarizes the british versus US rivalry more than joe calzaghe, and with good reason
I, along with many others (on either side of the fence), enjoy the debate he 'inspires'
for me, he was sooo much better than the regular European fighter who consciously avoided the US, because it was easier (and sometimes more profitable) to remain in Europe with 'a belt'...but never be recognized internationally
calzaghe didn't own 'a belt' - he was the man at 168
anybody who disputes that needs to stop snackin' on the local mushrooms

but - calzaghe also revealed the true intentions of frank wa+en as a promoter who had a very simple formulae....get a belt, sell it at home, don't make waves in the US

that calzaghe was better than that but still allowed war"en to guide his career, speaks volumes for his intent during his career

 

Just a direct question and one you dont answer, but please try.
Why do you not acknowledge that there was an attempt to make the Hopkins fight years previously?

 

you want to think that, I note.

why do you want to think that's the case so bad?

so you acknowledge the little joke that veit is now.good.

you can write that because you duck that veit is shyte period.

 

No sure why a small minority seem so hell bent on begrudging Clazaghe his achievements?

 

How can anyone be anti-Joe? Crazy talk here.

 

I understand where you're coming from.

But the difference in my opinion, is that it's completely unrealistic to suggest that Joe could have destroyed Roy, whereas it's not out of the question to suggest that Roy could have destroyed Joe.

Roy certainly had the capabilities. But IMHO, if they'd have fought, Roy would have taken a decision. The reason I say that, is because I'm certain that Joe would have boxed very cautiously.

 

Would Joe have brought that though?

That's the question.

Would Joe have gone all out and pressured him like Tarver did?

I honestly don't believe he would have done.

 

The only thing that was embarrassing, was Joe taking the fight just months after he'd laughed that Roy was past his best, live in the Setanta Sports studio. Not only that, he also said that he'd be disappointed if Roy was to be his last fight.

Joe was a great fighter. IMHO, he was better than Tarver and Griffin. But that doesn't necessarily mean that he'd have had the same success as what those two had. There's many factors to consider.