Calzaghe

:rofl

Too true.

 

American bias is unbelievable

 

:rofl

There are some real ****ing clowns on here. Anybody would think Hopkins won that fight, not beaten by a clear 4 rounds.

Anybody would think Calzaghe has no power at all, so its something of a miracle nobody has just walked through his punches and given him a good whooping :think

 

If someone is slapping you in a fight you knock him out..

 

In America, if someone is slapping you in a fight it's your girlfriend or wife ....

 

Yep! He was a genuine powerhouse a few years ago.

Anything known about his future plans? Will he soon take early retirement or continue boxing for the next 1-2 years??

 

im actually from the UK just wasnt that impressed with calzaghes ineffective aggression and flurries.

 

I don't mind Calzaghe, but he's certainly never been a "Genuine Powerhouse".

 

He hasnt lost ower,,, it was the 1st time hes faced a TOP fighter.

Imagine what B-hop would have done to JOEY a few years back...most likely tear hm a new A hole

 

like ****

 

No, I honestly don't mind him, I think hes a good boxer.

What I do get annoyed with though is when his obsessive nutthuggen fans on here are constantly declaring him as a "Genuine Power house" and power puncher.

The official facts state that only 20, or so, established boxers in the entire history of the sport of boxing have laid out less opponents then this old time "power puncher". Add to that the obvious evidence, that most people see, that he cant punch for toffee; and the hordes of obsessive fan boys proclaiming him to be a power puncher tends to get a few peoples backs up. People who otherwise tend not mind the the bloke and boxer.

 

I would favour JC against Tarver, certainly.

There were some big punchers at 175, guys like Paul Briggs, who I would favour JC over at any point in time, but who would have a fairly large punchers chance in the fight. To put it bluntly, I don't see him winning too many of those fights in a row.

Other fighters such as Montell Griffin, James Toney, or Michael Nunn I could see winning decisions against JC at 175 (in close fights).

Then there was Michalczewski.

 

Good thoughts, I agree with you here for the most part.

It's hard to know what Joe could have been at 175lbs, coming up at 36 to face the cagiest fighter in the game isn't a very good indication of what his key attributes and weaknesses were going to be at that weight.

Bernard Hopkins is a hard guy to perform against and I think what a lot of people over-estimate is the price of age on Hopkins in this fight. Age played a part but Joe at 36 is at an age where his skills won't be as sharp as they once were.

Had we seen Joe come up to 175 immediately after the Mitchell fight or perhaps even the Lacy fight, we would have a better indication of how he would have gone against the Toney's, Nunn's and Griffin's.

Toney vs Calzaghe would have been one hell of a fight at 168-175.

 

good points...no one looks good against hopkins but i just don't appreciate calzaghe as a fighter because i don't appreciate his technique or lack of it should i say..if you slow the fight down you really get a clear indication of how amateurish he is and i dont think that's hopkins that did that its always the way hes been his game is quantity over quality. when i judge fights i tend to favour precision and accuracy a lot more but thats just me.