Are Things Looking Ominous For Joe??

no.

 

Yes

 

I'll buy that.

 

I will soon have to choose a side, because my ass is getting sore of setting on the fence here.

 

The difference being that in the first two fights, Enzo's guy was the inferior fighter. So No

 

No, honestly, it makes no sense why some other person losing has anything to do with another persons fight.

 

Joeboxer - It's psychology. It could place just the smallest bit of doubt in the back of Calzaghe's mind that he'll be the next one to get TKO'd, that there's a flaw in the gameplan. Not that I buy this necessarily, but it's possible. Personally, I think Calzaghe's in trouble because he won't be suited to LHW, because he's in Hopkins' backyard, and because he's vulnerable to right-hand counters. But that's another subject entirely.

 

rees lost because he was not good enough to be a world champion anyway and was a huge underdog (or very small 5ft 2 underdog) against kotelnik.

enzo macca lost because he was facing a far superior fighter in david haye. plus he was a paper champ anyway, barely legit imo.

joe calzaghe is a different proposition and i'm not convinced his record so far is down to his fathers ability as a trainer, rather than his own natural talent.


so.....no.

 

why?