Calzaghe Only Faced Bums In His WBO Title Reign? THE PROPER BREAKDOWN.

so you think it was wrong that b-hop never faced sturm but instead faced the guy who sturm was robbed blind against...meaing sturm never got the rematch he deserved & never had a chance to win back the title he was robbed of? is that your opinion? ok...tbh i never thought sturm was a glaring omission on b-hop's resume. i just don't think liles is a glaring omission on calzaghe's resume either. but you seem to make excuses for b-hop not facing sturm but criticise calzaghe for not facing b-hop.

oh...but now you are making excuses as to why b-hop didn't face sturm. that's weird.

yeah but sturm was actually boxing. liles only had 3 fights after calzaghe won the tile & lost 2 of them. sturm had 4 title defences while he was champ.

tbh they were actually ranked to hype the fight for us tv. that's what ring do. that's why tim bradley is top 10 p4p...or chad dawson was p4p no.5...to hype their fights. i don't give a **** about ring rankings tbh. sometimes they are useful but mostly not so much.

beyer & ottke had the same management & were famed duckers who got hometown decisons. they wouldn't be considered better wins than calzaghe already has tbh...you are lying if you say they would.

calzaghe:

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

****ing ottke. whatever. you obviously were not following boxing at this time. i'm trying really hard not to just slate that ducking, cheating, lying ****...

any eubank >>>>>>>>> mercado.

knocking down iron jawed eubank >>>> getting dumped on your arse by feather fisted mercado.

& so what if calzaghe didn't ko lots of people? every boxer has to be tyson? are you ******ed?

a) i disagree that calzaghe "struggled to overcome". i thought he won both fights quite well but was expected to do better which is where the criticism came from.

b) hopkins didn't dominate the fights he drew & lost did he? so not EVERY fight then. atsch

well pavlik was coming up in weight to face him & glen johnson was still a part time boxer who wasn't exactly a world beater at 168. who you beat > than how you beat them imo. tarver is b-hop's best win by miles imo.

no. cos hopkins lost the close fights he was involved with. :deal

 

"the public" barely know who froch is NOW. no-one was calling for calzaghe/froch in 2005 other than froch who wanted to get up warren's nose & if he was lucky get a decent payday. i mean c'mon.

 

simply because trinidad was moving up in weight to face a dominant champion & was never really that good at 160 or above...altho you are right he was a hell of a fighter who was still dangerous at 160.

b-hop's best win was imo tarver where he moved up in weight & beat a dominant champion & b-hop has shown that he can more than hang with the best at 175 with that performance & the pascal one...which is why i rate calzaghe's win over b-hop so highly...it's cos i rate b-hop so highly.

& tbh i do devalue the pavlik & wright wins to an extent. particularly the winky fight at 170 which was clearly bollocks & b-hop looked like **** anyway. pavlik was a better performane but a worse fighter & again 170 was not ideal for him.

but yeah...if you start picking too hard at either guy's resume they both fall apart to an extent. a big part of why i think they are so close.

 

so if you think sturm won: you "ain't seen the fight".

but you think it "could have gone either way"?

atsch

facts that are being used as excuses? excuse: "To explain (a fault or an offense) in the hope of being forgiven or understood", "To serve as justification for".

yes...i have never heard an interview where calzaghe called out liles. fair enough.

you are however massively wrong about sturm & hopkins...sturm was a mandatory to one of b-hop's titles & b-hop never faced him. sturm's promoter called out hopkins plenty of times. so you're wrong again...altho i don't expect you to accept this...and i can't be bothered to google it & provide a link.

& tbh i personally don't care & would not accuse b-hop of ducking sturm because he is so many levels above him...but google "sturm hopkins" & see what pops up before you make even more of a fool of yourself.

beyer was just as big a ***** as ottke & just as guilty of ducking and benefiting from those ridiculous sauerland decisions that made germany a laughing stock in the late 90's/early 00's. i don't blame you for not knowing...you clearly were not following boxing in europe at the time.

i dunno...sturm: b-hop's mandatoty? oh you mean ring *bull**** us biased purely based on hyping fights" rankings? how about felix sturm ranked no.3 in 2004? how about ridney jones (an american hype job) ranked no.3 in 2003? how about harry simon ranked no.1 in 2001 (& yes i know why this fight didn't happen...just making a point)?

there may be perfectly legitimate reasons those fights didn't happen. i don't see any of those as glaring ommissions from hopkins resume. but they were ring ranked top 3 & during b-hop's reign & he didn't fight them. so you are wrong again. does it hurt being wrong this much?

[/color]

see above. i don't think hopkin's was any more of a ***** than i think calzaghe was. some fights don't happen. but you offer excuses for hopkin's & criticise calzaghe for pretty much the same thing. it makes you look a hypocritical fool tbh.

i disagree...for the reasons i gave earlier. but whatever, it's just opinions anyway. "better dominance" lol.

so...we're not counting his whole reign? ok dude...change the criteria to back up your opinions..don't change your opinons based on things that happened. fair enough. don't be surprised if people think you are biased tho. cos you are.

i actually agree. i had him winning all 3.

he still won & won well tho. he was disappointing sure...but he was still a clear winner in both imo.

"pavlik said" . what's he gonna say? "yeah, i feel like **** & i'm an alcoholic...i don't know how i got this fight to be honest...i'm going to get my butt handed to me".

maybe cos his best wins are at 175. i don't think fighting at 175 hurt him more than it hurt calzaghe (if it hurt either).

& calzaghe beat lacy by shut out. what's your point?

yeah...calzaghe ducked a bunch of people he'd never heard of who were barely into double figures for fights when he moved up to 175. of course he did. keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. it is absolute bull**** tho...and anyone with a brain knows it.

 

i edited hacine cherifi (ring no.3 in 1998) out of this bit...but shouldn't have. oh well.

 

fair enough mate. :thumbsup

 

atschatschatsch

Delusion at its best.