I know lockdown has messed us all up to some extent, but are we really using Kell Brook to make a point about Calzaghe wasting years of his career fighting scrubs...?
How many successful fighters would take a fight where they had virtually no chance of winning, and were almost guaranteed to suffer a career-shortening stoppage loss? We can celebrate Brook's bravery if that's how we want to view it, but we shouldn't be criticising other fighters for not sacrificing their careers in the same way. By that measure Brook is not only braver than Calzaghe, he's also braver than nearly every other fighter in the Hall of Fame who never made such a colossally reckless career decision with catastrophic consequences. There's plenty of other points to pick at with Calzaghe, but using Brook's career seppuku against Golovkin as a stick to beat him with is a real headscratcher.
Coming from a small town in Wales, working out of a glorified shed, to become a World Champion, undefeated after 46 fights, a place in the Hall of Fame, gave the British Boxing Public great nights - Desire/Ambition?????? Bit like Michael Owen scoring a hat trick versus Germany and failing to convert direct from a corner kick in the 94th minute.
It always struck me as odd how, after his masterclass against Lacy, Warren then matched Calzaghe against Sakio Bika. Even Calzaghe said in his book that, after stripping Lacy of his prime, that being matched with Bika for his next fight was a massive comedown for him.
My response was to Jurgen who compared them as being like a Ferrari and a Skoda, and noting that Brook lost when he stepped up. My response was justified. Okay, it was a silly move. But whilst Brook was putting it on the line to fight GG and Spence, Joe was happy to fight low level B and C class guys whilst there were much better fighters up at LHW. Brook deserves far more respect even if he was foolish.
Terrible analogy. Brook couldn’t get the big fights which is why he jumped at the chance to fight GG, whereas Joe never wanted the big fights, as he was content to defend a lightly regarded WBO belt for 10 years against mostly low level competition. Nobody is disputing his talent. But yes, he wasn’t overly ambitious.
Joe wanted to fight Pavlik straight after Lacy. Pavlik was an unknown, NABF champ at the time. Don’t believe everything that Joe says. He was happy to fight Manfredo, and according to Frank, he also wanted to fight Freeman Barr.
if I had to take a man at his word I would take joe's over warren instinctively.i lurked on here for years before joining but I always remember you going ball deep in every calzaghe thread with anyone who bites.seriously what's your gripe with him? Not having a dig btw but you seem obsessed.
I’ll tell you what my gripe with him was. For years and years, I had to put up with him whining to the media about being frozen out. He was always the victim. The guy who desperately wanted to fight the best, but who just couldn’t obtain the fights that he craved. A man who was dodged. A victim of circumstances. No. It was all BS. He was happy defending his lightly regarded belt against B and C class guys. He didn’t want the best. Eubank did the same with his WBO belt. But at least he was honest about it. Read this: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...k-is-gutless&usg=AOvVaw2O3jB8H7UgDCf846qjqFNz
Agreed. Time has been too kind for Joe. It's as if nobody remembers his career during the 00's. It was always anti-climatic regarding who his next opponent was.
why calzaghe specifically though loudon? Explain you're obsession for this particular fighter. Be honest now!
I’ve already told you. Read the link as a prime example. When he didn’t want to fight anybody, he’d just say that they didn’t deserve a fight with him. They hadn’t done anything to warrant a fight and they didn’t excite him etc. This was a guy who fought Mario Veit twice. He was asked about fighting Dawson. Same answer as above. He was asked about fighting Tarver. Same answer as above. He said that Tarver had done nothing apart from beat a shot version of Roy. He told the media that and wrote in his autobiography. He went on live TV and said that Roy was shot and that a fight would be pointless. He then beat Roy and criticised the media for not giving him the credit which he felt he deserved. If he’d have said that he was content doing what Eubank had done, I wouldn’t have minded. I would have respected him for it. But again, every time he was interviewed it was the same sad story of being frozen out etc. Telling the media that people were hiding from him. And many people on here have been taken in by him.
"Calzaghe was a great fighter" "Calzaghe was a bit of a dick" "Calzaghe wasted years of his career fighting sub-standard opposition" I think the key to a rational analysis of his career is understanding that the above statements are not mutually exclusive. He wasn't the most likeable of characters, and his career could and should have been filled with more meaningful fights. Across his whole career though he achieved a lot, and in terms of what he could do in the ring he was right up there with the best these islands have produced in modern times.
