Floyd Sr on Calzaghe

This is valid. Compubox is used and discredited by the same fans depending on which side of the line they stand. Just another reason to do away with it.

 

He's entitled to his opinion, even though he's wrong

 

This is a shame. :?

I'm a fan of both. I think Calzaghe has paid his dues, and I think Mayweather Sr is the most honest man in Boxing...not today, not yesterday, not part time, but of all time!

 

The funny thing is that joe accomplished more in his career than floyd sr could have done in 10 careers. So nuff said. Floyd sr is a funny mother****er though .

 

On a serious note, can you give me a list of trainers you would place above him in boxing? He may be a rambling fool (outside of Jeff most of them are) but he does know the sport.

 

The latest ramblings of a crack addict.

The cream of the American underclass.

 

Fair point.

Then again, Mayweather Sr had to fight the likes of Sugar Ray Leonard to win a title whereas Calzaghe met old Eubank for his.

No slight on Calzaghe intended.

 

why exactly? it's not as if it has any impact on the official outcome of the result and nothing is going to stop some of the endless arguements that take place post fight.

it may not be entirely accurate but it can be a useful tool.

 

Floyd Sr is da ****.

 

Correction. Floyd Sr is a ****.

 

Very true but don't let peoplr fool you and say he gave Leonard a tuff fight. I seen it and have it on DVD and he beat his ass for 10 or 11 rounds. Even Howard Cowsell said he can't punch for nothing

 

31 Eubank.Joe was..34 ( in 2 weeks ) Calzaghe vs Lacy...36 vs Bernard...Eubank 31???......:rofl

 

Mayweather is a purist. Boxing purists hate watching Joe win, it just drives them nuts. Mayweather is a genious trainer, but I don't know how is boxers understand what he says. They must get used to that after a while. Floyd Sr. must have a lot to do with Jr's boxing ability, but Floyd must have learned to speak all on his own!

 

We aren't going to compare prime Leonard with any of those names are we?

My point is still valid.

 

For three reasons.

1. Its not accurate.

2. It doesn't measure quality of work, which is the most important aspect of boxing.

3. While it doesn't have a bearing on judges scorecards, it does shift public perception in general. By giving a punch count to novice fans, it strongly implies that the winner is the boxer who "lands more". Thats a terrible projection to give to fans because its not the true nature of our sport. And its fans (and their perception of fights) that often dictate the necessity of rematches. And compubox will always sway fans one way or the other.