a bit embarrassing that Calzaghe-Lacy is still being brought up…are we up to the 20th anniversary now? there must be another example of a Brit schooling an American you can use not even Joe’s best win, Kessler and BHop (yes, he beat him) are much more impressive performances
Why? Its part of the boxing Lexicon now.. why does it have to be recent? P4P was termed decades ago yet people still use that.. & it wasn't just a schooling though it was a f****** masterpiece... some fights are a schooling but they are boring as f***, this one had you gripped from start to end just by the sheer artistry .. but just to indulge u.. Fury Wilder II was a shellacking , maybe that one? He got wildered.. bewildered.. nah doesn't have the same ring to it.. Benn Barkley? Didnt last long LOL
The proper verb ceased to be "Lacy'ed" as soon as Mijares vs. Arce occurred, thirteen months later. The correct term has ever since, IMO, been "getting Arce'ed". (note: both were hyped - by HBO specifically - but Jorge Arce was by far the more respected commodity and higher ranked p4p fighter than Lacy in that period. Mijares dominated him in absolutely no less humiliating fashion than Joe did Jeff, but since it was the lighter weight range it got less attention from casuals. Make no mistake, that schooling was AT LEAST every bit as bad as Calzaghe vs. Lacy, and over a better regarded opponent - and Mijares was far more obscure than Calzaghe was heading in - so its shock value for those who knew their **** and were paying attention was much greater)
People remember that fight wrongly nowadays. They think its a lacy type schooling with the maidana broner moment in the end where the arrogant fighter gets his face slammed into a pole. Truth is besides mab obviously winning it was more of a 116-112 type victory. Naz looked terrible for his standards but he wasnt schooled in a calzaghe lacy type way.