Good wins that are often discredited for whatever reason

Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of Joe Calzaghe's. I think he'd be made to look pretty ordinary against a prime Roy Jones at 168lbs. Calzaghe's two biggest strengths are arguably his hand speed and his work rate but both would work against him in this match-up. Jones is twice as fast, and that's probably no exaggeration, and his work rate would just provide ample opportunities for Jones' to counter-punch. I would favor a stoppage. We've seen Calzaghe hurt numerous times, and against much lesser fighters than a peak Jones Jr. He'd be getting hit with regularity in my opinion.

Yeah, I hope this doesn't offend the Calzaghe supporters, but the only way Jones loses this fight is if he jumps out of the ring ala Cintron vs Williams.

 

Like i said, i think more of Calzaghe's chances here than most, and i think this cponversation reflects that, i see your point whole-heartedly though and agree that he's wide open for Jones, and i just kepp envisioning some meaty right hand rapid haymaker type shot from Jones blasting him the **** to the floor.

 

:yep I appreciate you saying I'm a fair poster, but maybe I'm not the right guy to talk too when it comes to Joe Calzaghe. I've cheered him on in every fight I watched of him live, but I'm just not a big advocate of his greatness.

 

Same here, i'd never go all out and say he was in the highest of tiers, there just isn't the evidence, and to be frank he never displayed that level of skill enough imo. Some great performances though, snd the thing i rate about his ability is just that he's versatile and can think on the spot, ie change mid-fight strategy, which is an underrated trait. There's nothing that i think he does particularly spectacular though.

 

Joe Calzaghe is similar to Rocky Marciano.

Technically unappealing, yet highly effective. Swarmer with a huge heart and inhuman workrate. Beat up some old ATG fan favourite cuties and retired undefeated.

I personally think he is criminally underrated on here, atleast. Many posters picked Duran over him in a recent thread

 

No they didn't.

...Did they?

 

I hope they did, because if someone pulls the thread up and it turns out they didnt, im going to look like a liar. But i'm pretty sure there was a Calzaghe vs Duran at MW thread. Or a Toney vs Duran thread and mentioned in there

 

I told some mates the other day something that I think is relevant to boxing, actually it was my opponent on Saturday.

The guy told me he had a chest infection and he wasnt at his best.

I said to him,

'There is no excuses in boxing, if you go into a fight you are saying you are fit and able to fight and you are the best you can be that night and that bout. That is what matters. Tonight I was better, tomorrow it could be completely different but it was tonight that mattered. Boxing is about the best man on the night.'


That is why I very rarely discredit a win for a fighter because of his opponent being in some way weakened.

There is NO excuses in boxing.

 

I know I'm a bit late with this one but had to respond on this one....come on lets not kid ourselves here??? Foreman was not stronger at the age of 42 come on man??? He was definately not the 25 year old Foreman of Frazier/Norton days (if it was Holy would've been out of there fast - he didn't have any balance whatsoever in comparison, he sways all over the place whenever he throws those huge arc'ing roundhouse blows - he was almost falling over at times - and he was ONLY A TAD SLOWER??? Are you kidding?? He was a mile slower and carrying about 30plus pounds of flab and had like a probably 45inch waist - I'll credit Holyfield because he fought well (he was in his prime after all) magnificently conditioned, boxing nicely in and out mixing it up with great combinations which made George look like the slow moving punch bag he was at age 42 - even the Foreman of '76 wasn't near the Foreman of 72/73 - if ever a fighter relied solely on his huge punch it was that Foreman that faced Holy - that's literally all he had and it was sufficient on its own to cause Holy enough of a problem to deal with to make it an interesting fight - the young Foreman with speed and youth and that nasty killer instinct and that the intimidating aura and much better balance and form and technique ?? No, if Holy found fat old swaying Foreman hard work - he would've got annihilated by the young one.

 

did you say that in the clinch, lil Cassius?

 

:rofl

 

After the fight.

There weren't any clinches.

 

I thought you were kidding about that chest infection crap. What a load of bollocks, that kid sounds like the next Roberto Duran..

 

Nah, kid has bottle. Trust me.

He's not the most refined but he has balls to spare.

Anyway back to the topic. I do not want to hi-jack this, I just wanted to highlight that I do not feel that excuses are valid in boxing.

Fair enough if a guy has an off night and loses, but if he goes back and proves his dominance its all fair. But if he loses and moans about it, saying he was poor then its a black mark against himself.

 

Exactly. Your opponent from the other night needs to reevaluate himself.

I hope you stay true to your philosophy if you ever lose as a Professional, Greg. It seems like guys who are successful in this game have to fabricate as many lies and excuses as possible, to avoid facing up to the fact that they were beaten by a better fighter. There are exceptions, but they seem to be few and far between these days. I don't really have any problems with it, I can understand that a guy who's been a winner for most of his adult life is finding failure hard to digest. Marco Antonio Barrera, like Duran, had an excuse for all of his defeats. Some more credible than others.