Calzaghe

So his solution was to avoid fighting the really skilled (clever punchers) and fight bums for the majority of his career.


LMAO ... yeah as long as Joe can exclude certain guys from this division or that he might be the man ..



While the bottom line is he has ALWAYS been a feather-fisted fighter because he has zero upper body strength, has always had zero upper body strength, and the slapping technique of a woman relative to the best ... but good match-making (avoid certain fighters unless or until the odds are stacked in your favor by time or attrition) gives boxing another bogus undefeated record while everyone knows if he had plied his trade in the US he would have long ago been starched and exposed as decent but never great.

He 'looked' good against a Kessler and was obviously the comparatively younger but far less talented fighter in the ring versus Hopkins (interesting how he was peak against Kessler but he has now 'deteriorated' since that win) ... 'nuff said about the legitimacy of his so-called 'undefeated' record or more accurately Valuev-like record.

Joey never had power ... and without any he wouldn't have done **** at light heavyweight unless he managed to fight nothing but the crappy Clinton Woods of the world. You can be sure that is all he would have done too.

 

I was wondering. Your English is usually a lot better. I was afraid maybe you suffered a stroke or something.

 

Being that the rest of your post was all hearsay and ignorance, I thought I'd argue this one.

Since when was Calzaghe at his peak vs Kessler? Compare his Kessler performance to his Lacy performance. They're three years apart.

In fact if anything, weren't there people highlighting that Calzaghe was past his prime and would have knocked Kessler out had he been in his prime?

Calzaghe is a 36 yr old fighter, he's 6 years removed from most fighters prime period at this weight.. he's no where near prime, he wasn't the spring chicken against the old guy

It was the old guy vs the old guy, and quite frankly, the guy who adapted the most and nullified his opponent won.

 

No, the majority (on ESB) were raving about Calzaghe as being the greatest ever to lace on gloves after defeating Kessler :rofl .... he looked fitter and comparatively 'stronger' than ever before ... now the same are certain that his poor showing versus Hopkins was more attributable to his subsequent deterioration than being less than great previously ... the reality is he looked great against Kessler because Kessler is merely Kessler ... he looked amateurish and less talented versus Hopkins because Hopkins is a class of fighter that Joe managed to largely avoid for the entirety of a long career. The direct comparison was impossible and allowed his fan boys to let their imaginations run wild attributing 'greatness' when it was really the level or quality of his competition.

Jeff Lacy had what .. a whole like fifteen fights or so when he fought Joe ... in front of the largest, most anti-Lacy crowd he had ever seen ... he took JC lightly as he figured one clean shot and he'd be going home with the belts ... but Jeff was so muscle bound Joe had an easy time beating Jeff to the punch every time ... but one shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Jeff had become almost body builder-like and he sure isn't 5'10" as listed. He's a short, muscle-bound or stiff 5'9" SMW. I thought Joe was in better condition (at least he seemed less anemic) for Kessler. The point is he was the same guy for all three fights ... against one dimensional fighters he has looked great .. against a 43-year ATG ... he looked like he was lucky he didn't get KTFO.

 

Just when I think you are as stupid as someone can possibly be, you go and trump it! Go and punch yourself in the nuts, or whatever.

 

Calzaghe is too white and too European to ever impress you.:deal

 

this thread has turned into a ***** slapping contest.

ghostlybadge goes out and puts on his favorite gloves so he can join in

:fight :fight :fight

 

calzaghe believe it or not should have lost the hopkins fight...he landed maybe one significant punch the whole fight never hurt b-hop and most his punches landed on arms shoulders or back (not scoring punches). b-hop landed the crisper punches and did the better infighting and was very effective inside and with his defense. B-hop 'old-manned' him. Its just unfortunate too much credit is given to go forward aggressors and crowd pleasers because it clouds the true picture

 

So why didn't hopkins stand trade with Calzaghe if he was landing the better punches?

 

Its difficult to use Calzaghe vs Eubank as the basis for an argument though, Eubank stepped in to replace Steve Collins at 2 weeks notice.

Classic Frank Warren - getting someone in late with a known pedigree/record who has has little time to prepare/train.

 

atschatschatsch

 

because that would be stupid he knows he can't beat calzaghe for speed and it would let calzaghe in a position where he could unload his flurries

 

So he held, hugged, threw the odd punch and expected to will the fight?

 

i see what you're saying but how can you expect to win a fight when you throw flurries where nothing lands even if you are making a fight effective aggression is what counts and calzaghe wasnt all that effective i always prefer effective clean punching over ineffective aggression

 

When hopkins does it it's "Schooling" when Hatton does it it's wrestling