Calzaghe

Its total nonsenscial hate.

The guy is just trotting out old cliches probably picked up from the general forum by certain American fans who are of the belief the boxing world revolves around them and anyone who hasn't fought there isn't worth considering.

Calzaghe has taken risks in his career. That is not open for debate in my mind.

A point that IS debatable is whether he has taken enough. I have offered my opinion and in my mind and also signficantly others whose opinions I actually value, have backed it up.

From what I understand because he only heard Calzaghe call out Jones and Ottke once that means he never tried to fight anybody :nut

Perhaps he just didn't follow the sport via the internet and didn't hear about behind the scenes developments until now?

 

Did he fight the great Chris Eubank? remind who Eubank had beaten in the previous 3 years. He lost the two decent fights he'd had against Collins.

Eubank had done nothing for 3 years, he was basically done.

 

What another great comeback. I suppose Joe is super brave as well given that he did fight in Germany against Veit and also in Denmark against McIntyre? Great logic there mate!

Notice you didn't address the Hopkins point. What a surprise.

Calzaghe can be taken to task over certain fights and ive acknowledged that before.

But in regards to Ottke, in the past he pretended to not know who Calzaghe was when he was asked for his opinion on a proposed fight. :rofl

You are a joke mate. Please just admit that you have a weak knowledge in regards to this subject. People might respect you a bit more that way

 

Reid was after a world title, he had to chase Otkke (and look what happened when he got the fight? Robbed) Calzaghe didn't. You're entitled to your opinion on the quality, or lack thereof, of Calazaghe reign but I the 'coward' remark is ridiculous.

 

Yeh, he fought in Germany against Veit AFTER OTTKE RETIRED. Think about it genius.

My knowledge on Calzaghe's career is as good as your's will ever be. I can't reply to every point in all of your posts, I don't have the time. If you want to talk about one specific point, say it, and I'll reply to it.

 

Reid wasn't robbed, it was a close fight with a referee who favoured Ottke. In was in Germany. That's why only the brave risk it. That's why Calzaghe didn't.

 

"The brave" didn't have a world title so had little choice. I've seen the fight and it was a robbery....

 

How did you score the fight?

 

It is simple FACTS. Eubank hadn't held a world title, or beat a good fighter for 3 years. That is a fact. And he didn't beat a good fighter ever again. Those are the facts. Argue with them if you must.

 

Yeah ****ing right!

You come off as a boxrec warrior in this respect. It looks as though you looked it up thought 'wow why hasn't he fought the likes of Jones, Hopkins and Ottke' I know! He must have ducked them cause thats what everyone says on the general forum!

When really it runs alot deeper. Ive made several specific points and you've pretty much ducked them all.

I won't duck yours though. Why did Calzaghe fight Veit in Germany? Ill mix in a bit of cyncism with logic. Because firstly, they won the purse bid and thus decided the location and he was mandated to face him to keep his belt. Logic. Secondly, any dodgy judging probably wouldn't come into play...he had already overwhelmed Veit in a round before and obviously felt very confident about giving him a pasting again.

Nothing to do with ****ing Ottke retiring At least when asked about Ottke Calzaghe actually acknowledged his existence and challenged him!

Ottke on the other hand is on record as pretending not to know who JC was :nut

Right in regards to Jones, you should know that the guy is a notriously difficult match maker and rightly or wrongly in the past has been criticsed over his competition.

Do you really think he wanted to face a dangerous largely unknown southpaw when it wouldn't make him that much money and he wasn't mandated by one of his many belts to do so? No! And rightly so.

Calzaghe needed a more firm basis upon which to challenge him. By beating long term rival Hopkins he certainly could have.

The fight was agreed in 2002. Hopkins was to get the lions share of the purse, a cool 3 million and agreed to the fight. Just as the contracts were about to be signed he demanded TWICE the amount originally agreed to and ultimately pulled out despite the fight being slated to take place in the US and getting more money.

And your telling me thats Calzaghes fault? Thats hes totally to blame for not having a raised profile or taking a true legacy defining fight earlier in his career?

Bull****.

 

:good

 

I had Reid winning by two rounds which isn't the worst robbry that will happen to fighter away from home but, just as importantly the ref was also on Rieds case all the time. I seem to recall he got a warning for just hitting Ottke once.
The point I was making was that Ried had very few other options at that stage in his career other than take a chance and go to Germany to fight Ottke, he'd lost his WBC title and lost in a challenge to Calzaghe for the WBO.

 

The referee certainly favoured Ottke, but not to a point where he wouldn't have beaten Ottke if he was the better man. And he wasn't.
It was a close fight, nothing more - there was no robbery. imo.

 

If you have a point, let me know it. If I don't answer every sentence in you're post, then you say I'm dodging them. I don't have time to write you an essay. Specific point, I'm here.

I'm a "boxrec warrior" because why? because on ESB if you haven't post here for years, you obviously haven't posted anywhere and have only watched boxing for as long. :roll:

 

I think a fair ref and fair judges Reid would have won that fight but thats just IMHO and we'll never know for sure.