Calzaghe vs Hopkins

Nah he just wanted an excuse to post a picture of messiah Calzaghe & the man all Calzaghe zealots are praying will one day be great. 168 is a pointless division & kept JC safe for years. Jones would have dealt with him in style, shame Joe never had the balls to step up.

 

Dan, you a full of rubbish mate. Ask yourself why he was calling for unification, it had nothing to do with proving who was the best. Hopkins was the Winky Wright of the middleweight division, talented, arguably the best, but a spoiler who had no fans and was making **** money and had to travel around defending his belt to get by. no Tito fight, meant no money.

Joe Calzaghe though was the biggest name at 168 albeit a very un-famous division. nobody realistically thought a rival champion could beat him until Jeff Lacy. And Joe Calzaghe did fight Jeff Lacy if i remember rightly.

Anyone who thinks Joe Calzaghe didnt want to unify is naive. because not only has he unified, but against younger, more dangerous champions that the Germans of five years ago...

 

its pointless arguing with someone who refuses to look at the bigger picture, and see what is really in front of them.

its the equilavent to going up to Pope and saying 'Nah mate, your barking up the wrong tree, there's no such thing as God.'. Even though its true id doubt he'll let it sink in.

 

So this is the way you justify years of crap defences is it? Before the unification fights he talked about a move to 175. Why did this not happen when he was apparently struggling to make 168? It seems to be a question you Calzaghe fanatics are unable to answer.

 

Unfortunately the only credability being lost here is yours. I always considered you a well measured and intelligent poster too.

 

Every champion who holds his belt for a long time will have some **** defences, ill glady point out Joe Louis', Larry Holmes, Ricardo Lopez's and even bernard Hopkins' record to illustrate this.

Joe Clazaghe has fought some very good fighters aswel, but that is overlooked by the blind haters to concentrate on the Tocker Pudwills...

 

I think he may well have but to say that he'd have presented Jones with no problems just displays ignorance beyond belief. You can find a hundred quotes, from great fighters, showing their appreciation for the tactical nous and skill of Calzaghe. You can come to ESB and find a thousand quotes, from idiots, showing nothing but disdain for his obvious talent. I often scratch my head around here.atsch

 

I've tried tackling the Calzaghe debate reasonably on numerous occasions but just get abuse.

Yeah but it's not as if Joe Louis or Larry Holmes could have moved division is it? Unlike Joe, the reasons for which you are yet to venture.

I never said he wouldn't have posed Jones problems but prime Roy would have first moved away parrying Joes shots & caught him with accurate straight shots. Then as the fight progressed & Joe got frustrated Jones would have started to land lead left uppercuts & harder rights that could well have stopped him late.

 

Hopkins was crap against Roy Jones anyway, not like it would make a difference if Joe lost to him. Doesn't seem to be held against St Bernard does it?

 

You really are missing the point aren't you son? I would have MORE respect for Joe if he'd taken a fight against Jones.

 

I cannot argue with your assessment as I don't know how it would have panned out....and never will know. I am a great fan of RJJ but I am 100% certain that a fight with JC would not have been a walkover like some here predict.

 

What did happen?? Sorry for my ignorance.

 

Nope we'll never know because Joe wasn't prepared to leave his little safe haven unlike Jones. A true modern day great.

 

With what? Sorry I don't understand your question.

 

I didn't realise Roy was such a well-travelled boxer. I thought he never fought outside the US. I'd better go and check BoxRec!