Calzaghe

Yep it is silly for him to go after Bernard I do agree.

Enzo was having a right go as well from what I read of the transcripts - I don't get the logic, its a bit backward. He wants credit for the win so why attack the legacy? Its nonsensical.

Joe is just trying to hype the fight I think with the silly talk. It doesn't bother me. He says in his book that he wishes he had something to say back to the likes of Eubank and Reid etc in the trash talking stakes - so maybe hes trying to make up for it now

Really I just think its hype. Nothing more nothing less.

 

Yes, Calzaghe has been guilty of defending against average opponents, but he's also faced several very dangerous opponents.

Coward is a completely inappropriate description of Calzaghe.

Riddick Bowe ducked Lewis but I'd never call him a coward because he displayed immense courage against Holyfield, Golota etc.

Michael Spinks froze against Mike Tyson, but I'd never call him a coward because of the courage he displayed throughout his career.

Roy Jones never faced a genuine one punch KO artist in his career; he never secured fights with Benn, McClellan or Mike Tyson - does that make Jones a coward?

If Calzaghe is a coward, you could probably make a case for 99% of boxers being cowards because you could find something they've done (or haven't done) that makes them a coward in your eyes.

 

I'd just like to point at something Calzaghe has done in 10+ years that is impressive. Bowe beating and knocking out Holyfield is very impressive, and if that was all he ever did he'd be a great fighter. Because he'd have beaten at least one great fighter.

Spinks FOUGHT Mike Tyson, I'm not calling Calzaghe a coward for LOSING to Roy Jones in 2002, I'm calling him a coward for not even trying to FIGHT Roy Jones.

His BEST opponents are a Eubank with no wins in 3 years, and 2 young fighters with no great wins between them... There 's no prime Tyson on Calzaghe's record. Spinks is the opposite of a coward.

 

I agree that face to face he won't say much. I mean he ran his mouth on Kessler a little bit but was respecful to his face. I don't think he dislikes Hopkins or anything like that nor do I think hes overtly bothered about winning a slagging match with him, hes just coming away with the scripted stuff to hype the fight and help make more money in the long run.

I think at the weigh in all he will do is his trademark 'now ive got you' smile. Hopkins is another matter. He loves the psychological edge and who knows what he will pull at the weigh in. Just helps to build anticipation all this anyway in my mind.

Enzo has did a great job with Joe....but he is part of the stage crew: Joe is the star. Im a big JC fan and for that I respect what Enzo has achieved particularly with his lack of grounding in the sport but he is being disrespecful and is guilty of something totally illogical in attacking Hopkins in terms of ability and legacy: if hes so easy to beat why fight him?

Sure, its a macho thing in regards to the two boxers saying it. I can understand that - oh hes nothing he throws 1000 slaps look at me im going to own him! JC hes an old ******* how can he possibly beat me look at my workrate!

Again this is to do with masculinty, machoism and also adds to the build up. But I do think trainers should simply express their belief their fighter will win - without tearing down others in order to enhance themselves.

Enzo I believe has been guilty of that and that ain't cool or classy.

 

:good

It is getting harder to stay objective as the fight approaches I must say. Its illogical, but it feels like instinct in some way to attack your guys opponent even though we want them to get credit for a huge win :huh

I did it with Kessler too. I think its some psychological defence mechanism - to dismiss some huge threat by trying to convince others that they aren't and thus reassure yourself. Its odd you see it all over this website.

Nonetheless, im refraining from these impulses. But like I said, im getting more nervous about it as the fight approaches!

 

Ricky Hatton

 

He just fought Mayweather, you cretin.

 

He didn't defend against him, which was the question. I don't class Hatton a coward I was just answering Sleazey's question.

 

It actually says WHO DOESN'T FIGHT HIS MOST DANGEROUS OPPONENTS

How does Hatton fit that description?

 

Neither Calzaghe or Hatton are cowards - happy now. I was just trying to answer Sleazey's question for him. I'd say Witter is a more dangerous opponent for Hatton than Mayweather - strictly in terms of getting hurt.

 

the one mistake Sleaze nation makes is to call any boxer a coward. That aside and despite being a four on one battle for most of this thread no one has laid a glove on him. And you know why ? Because his point holds up. Coward accusation aside there isn't a man alive who can make calzaghe's reign at supermiddle heroic. It has been an essentially mundane safety first run with two decent fights coming late on in his tenure. Two fights that it's arguable he only took cos there was nowhere left to go. And yet two fights that still took place in his own backyard. Against two fighters who had no great wins on their record. Indeed one of them is now seen as the epitome of hype over substance, however unfair that may be to both Calzaghe and Lacy.

And now his moment of supreme bravery comes against a 43 year old Hopkins, a fighter whose own record whilst decent is at best a little flaky. A man whose best wins, Tarver aside, were against blown up little folk. A man who lost, twice at that, to the distinctly average Jermaine Taylor and needed to take winky on at 170lb so as to not so much beat him as drown him in his own fat.

I like calzaghe, hatton, khan, in fact i even like carl froch. I don't really do the hater thing. Mostly i lurk and prefer to read other people. I've read some great stuff on this board. But this boards deification of Calzaghe as some sort of anti Hatton, some sort of saviour of the ideals and aspirations of the corinthians is just so full of ****.