Calzaghe - only fighter to beat both Hopkins and Roy Jones Jr.

Thats why you are one of the best posters here. I always share your views! But this is just how people are, if everyone could just be objective fans the forums might be a little boring.

btw, why the name change?

 

Cheers mate :good

I changed my name as I am a fan of JMM just as much as I am a fan of Pac, I felt it was time to give JuanMa some love too! Plus, I'm so tired of brainless childish idiots replying to anything I say with some crappy insult about Manny, it was getting really boring.

 

I agree with you. okay? But my point is what chriswrench just said is 100 % correct. I have said it, as well as others. If Joe goes for dawson, he's ducking Johnson, and Hopkins rematch, he's ducking someone, no matter what
If he goes for Hopkins, he's fighting an old man ( something Dawson would never do :rofl )..So no matter WHO Joe fights, and no matter what their rank/age is, Joe is NEVER gonna get credit. If these haters would talk sensibly about Joe even once in a great while, I would not be on here like this,complaining and defending so much and there would be more sense from the huggers. likely...

 

I'm sorry, but I think you're being very childish. If Joe fights Dawson, why the **** would anyone say he is ducking a 40-year-old that Dawson recently defeated? No-one in their right mind would say that. Dawson is the best fight out there for Joe, if Joe takes it he is taking the best fight available at the time, just like he did with Lacy, Kessler, and Hopkins - but which he failed to do for his 1st 9 years as a world champion. That is the reason Calzaghe is roundly criticized for his resume and for who he hasn't fought, not some global conspiracy. If he had chased and got fights with lots of big names and beat them, then he wouldn't be subject to these criticisms you hate so much - but he didn't. It's ridiculous to say "he beat Lacy, Kessler, and Hopkins and he still gets criticized, so he would get criticized no matter what he done" - sorry, but 3 fights do not make a resume that is beyond reproach. Certain fighters are above criticism when it comes to resume - Oscar De La Hoya is one, Marco Antonio Barrera another, Erik Morales another. But Calzaghe is not. If he beat Dawson and Hopkins or Kessler in a rematch or something, then maybe people would say "he bashed up tomato cans in Wales for 9 years, but then he really got his act together late in his career and ended up with a good run of wins" - they may say that. But as of now, 3 wins are not enough to mean he is above criticism. Whether you agree with them or not, the criticisms are valid, and it's infantile to pretend that they are only levelled because of some worldwide hate campaign against the infallible Joe.

 

Regardless of how he got to the top of the game, he got there none the less and all credit must be given to him. We all know that he was held back by the corrupt Warren for many years. Resume aside, he is a fantastic fighter and arguably one of the best in the world currently. My original point was to prove that no matter who he beats from now on, there will always be another name beyond that and so on.

 

Just another hater

 

Credit is given to him, but he is not above criticism when it comes to his resume, as his resume is weak. If you want credit you have to accept criticism, that's the way of the world amigo.

We all don't know he was held back by Warren. Some of us choose to believe that, but some of us think a boxer who possesses some testicles would have stood up to Warren and demanded better opposition if he really wanted it, and some of us believe it wasn't Warren's fault at all. There are more than one side to any argument.

Resume aside? Why would we put aside the most important thing in boxing? Resume never aside, he is a talented fighter who beat mediocre opposition for 9 years then stepped it up when he realized his legacy was akin to that of Sven ****ing Ottke, but it looks like too little too late just now. Retiring as world p4p#3 is not what he hoped for I'm guessing, having never been the top dog.

I disagree. If he beats Dawson, the majority of people will say he has done enough to deserve retirement and acclaim, as there will be no other legtimate contenders that he hasn't already fought. Who is it you think people would say he should fight if he has fought and beaten Dawson??

 

drvooh

You have been thoroughly owned on every page of this thread by several posters. People have presented elaborate arguments and all you have to respond back with are crappy one-liners "Waaah why isn't Chad Dawson getting any crap for fighting old guys? Stop picking on my Joe!!"

Or you wait for another Calzaghe nuthugger to respond and actually make a decent argument, then you reply with "That's what I meant to say." You suck at debating. You don't present much of argument. Just give up. It's time to wave the white flag. You tool.

 

Calzaghe obviously deserves credit for the fact. But as much as he deserves credit, Hopkins deserves credit for making it close as hell, and simultaneously he has to get less credit for the RJJ win after RJJ's two devastating knockouts against less than stellar opposition.

 

If he fights Dawson and beats him, the only fight people will still really want to see is the Hopkins rematch.

 

yep and especially since one of those wins (lacy) is decreasing in value and significance by the fight

 

Now that you;ve resorted to laughing at some lowlife that knocks me, if what you say is true, then tell me this...I have said it before, and will again IN the year 2006, I ABSOLUTELY recall the Joe haters, amoung others, saying LAcy was the next smw Tyson...NOT ONCE did I read apost saying he was fighting bums...Joe was called a ducker, and no crtics here believed his injury story. When he was about to fight Jeff, he was gonna get TKOD-KOD within 3,,,HE WON ALL 12 rounds, and NO CREDIT was given, and don't tell me he was overrated, the haters did NOT claim that till AFTER Joe won, which has been the case ,,,when Joe wins, it matters not who..they are called hyped

 

No, I'm saying he's not idiotic enough to admit how shot he was before a fight that was on PPV that's all. Who'd have bought the thing if he'd said beforehand that he knew he was going to lose because he was shot?

I remember Merkerson saying that Jones was slipping in the gym probably as long ago as 2002, if you think he's actually improved in that time then you go right ahead but everyone else will continue to laugh at you, I guarantee it :good

 

IMO, those are the 2 fights he needs to cement his place as an ATG. I don't think his resume is strong enough to justify ATG status as it is. But I do think most people would be satisfied with just Dawson, as most thought he beat Hopkins convincingly. I did not though.