foreman:calzaghes a so-so fighter.

edit

 

edit

 

I love it when people say "Owned" to their own comments. Pretty much the signature of the dickhead :good

And Calzaghe was closer to his prime than Eubank was. It's hard to dispute that.

And Calzaghe hadn't fought any top class fighter before Eubank. I don't see what relevance this is, anyway. Pat Lawlor was a good, experianced challenge though. he'd beaten a shot Benitez and Duran. He had also been in the ring with Camacho, Jackson, Norris, so he was a big challenge. Maybe moreso than Eubank was, because of a comination of him being closer to the top of his skills and Calzaghe still being green.

Take that "Owned" back, you stupid ****.

 

Well Calzaghe's record leaves a lot to be desired, I mean the overall level of opponents.

However, as a more general observation it must be said Foreman is a muppet, the joint worst boxing analyst around (with kellerman). He's been a bad joke for a long time.....don't listen to anything he says.

 

I agree. If Calzaghe was RJJ and RJJ had Calzaghe's resume, you think any of these euro-fans would be praising RJJ? I think not.

Edit- Not to say Calzaghe is a bad fighter.

 

well it wasn't the WBO but Hopkins hid behind a belt for years fighting a load of stiffs....jesus he even fought one chump 3 times. Hopkins goes on about the 20 defences but look who he fought :roll:

 

Age is just a number. George Foreman was world champion at 45, whereas Tyson wasn't a great fighter shortly after loss to Douglas. he peaked at age 21. Does Foreman deserve to be ranked #1, whereas Tyson somewhere around 50? Of course not.

Age. Is. Just. A. Number.

The majority of the tme, you can use the rule that when a fighter gets old, he deteriorates. However, this is not always the case. You get the odd bo Fitzsimmons, Archie Moore, George Foreman or Bernard Hopkins, who can fight at the top level for years past their numerical prime.

Age is not representive of how good a fighter is. It's an insane argument with no logic behind it.

I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. Go and improve your grammar skills, and get back at me when you can make a logical sentence.






And you're owning yourself with your stupidity, by the way. Somebody throw in the towel for this chump. I'm moidering da bum

 

****ing tool.....atsch

 

I'm not saying that. I said "Closer to his prime". Calzaghe was not in his prime, but closer to it than Eubank was.

****ing hell...

 

Let's not be to hard on George, he has taken many mighty shots to the head. Also Calzaghe is a victim of Warrens terrible match making.
What I think is sad is that George is more famous for his grill than his boxing.
Who do you think wins in a grill off, Foreman VS Toney?

 

How does Hopkins' record compare to Sugar Ray robinson's? Harry Greb's? Henry Armstrong's? Marvin Hagler's? Roberto Duran's?


Yes, Bernard Hopkins' record can stand up to anyones*























*As long as you ignore every fighter who beat an ATG



By the way, nice attempt to cover your racism. Too bad I quoted it before you could edit, eh?

 

i get the feeling a nice little ban might be coming your way.

but you're right, b-hop is good at beating up future HOF's.
























from the lower divisions :yep

 

foreman more talented than calzaghe?

have you actually watched foreman fight?

 

What a total clown you are. You call me a 'god damn chink'........

Hopkins fought a load of shite, then 2 little guys and then a drained Tarver who was always ****. Then he made sure Winky moved right up before he agreed to fight him. He's known as a tough negociator but that basically means he's picked and chosen his opponents over the years whilst avoiding almost all the formidable fighters 160-168. Old fart Hopkins is overrated as ****.

 

What if he likes Roy Jones? Or SRR? or SRL? go on amuse me, rip there records to ****. Go on do it, do it. Oh and more racism please Paul it makes you look real smart and helps validate your argument :-(