Andre Dirrell - "I would beat Calzaghes ass"

Froch didn't say he was better than Hagler, Hearns or Leonard - he said he thought he'd have been competitive with them. He wasn't as much of a spastic as Dirrell was with his comment.

 

Because he wanted the chance for a dream shot at William Joppy?

 

And is Dirrell's career over? atsch how many big names did Joe beat in his first 18 fights? NONE, he beat a washed up Eubanks in his 23rd fight :deal.

 

look i'm a big fan of cazaghe's ability and i always have been. you wont a signle post on this forum which implies otherwise.

what you will find is a lot of criticism about a world class fighter who dominated his division and was clearly the man at SMW, but who stuck to frank warren and got bogged down in his world.

i agree, apart from jones and hopkins there wanst a lot out there for him, but the MW and LHW divisions werent strong at that time so how hard would it have been for him to 'do a hatton' and make it happen?

not very if he truly wanted too.

 

Who can blame him William Joppy is a legend

 

You think not, but you don't know. So why even comment. Let's wait to see what he does against Froch before we assume that he's all talk.

 

thats what you should be asking about calzaghe...

since calzaghe wasn't known internationally he was always, and i mean always, a high risk - low reward fighter.

even ricky hatton knew that by staying with warren meant he couldnt further his career EVEN after beating tszyu.

you cant blame hopkins for taking a joppy fight just because the fighter who truly should have been the main challenger to jones and hopkins wasnt prepared to look past his promoter and make himself an international commodity.

 

Calzaghe is quite an unassuming character and maybe didn't wanna rattle the cage. i feel he may have been slightly naive in the past. perhaps the Hatton issue wa what gave him th impetous and general kick up the arse to make himrealis "where's my bloody money fights"

 

But he wouldn't have been competitive with them. Froch doesn't have a single advantage over any of them. And he's far too slow.

 

Because this is a forum for opinion and that is mine. I really dont think he would have beaten them. nobody can know.

 

Well then he has absolutely no right claiming that he could beat calzaghe does he?

 

None of which i debate, I said he was a pillock for saying that when it came out. But it's not the same as saying you're going to beat the ass off a guy like Calzaghe when you've never even faced a top ten contender.

Froch has at least proved something at SMW - it's all about positions.

 

i dont believe that because calzaghe has repeatedly referred to himself as a businessman.

for me, his case is unique because as much as i admire his ability its unfathomable to me to believe that someone with his ability and discipline in training can sell his career short like this.

ive always believed than when you look in the mirror there's only the truth looking back at you. and i promise you now that ricky hatton will sleep a lot sounder in his old age than joe will.

 

How old is Joe NOW? Joe is past his prime so of course Dirrell would have a fair chance, just like Joe did against Eubanks.

 

:rofl both just sound mad, hating on Calzaghe. Nothing big.