Hate On Joe Calzaghe

Did he even drop Brewster? Herol Graham dropped him as I recall. Brewster was a typical Calslappy defence - a name fighter that just couldn't do it any more. See Hopkins and Jones for proof.

 

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

Oh yes they are. Shame on you.

 

Why not start another thread asking if he's not only the best fighter the last 25 years, but 50 while you're at it... Eventually you'll see you're a part of the problem. The flip side to haters....

 

I doubt scoring would be necessary, to be honest. Old man Hopkins had Calslappy in trouble a few times but didn't have the confidence in his own stamina to follow it up....Taylor would out-speed and hurt the guy, and finish it :yep

 

I suggested the other day to a big mouth Calslappy fan that he start a poll about whether Hopkins would have beaten Calslappy had he been younger. The guy I challenged didn't start the poll but someone else did (an alias, probably) and lo and behold it went badly for the Slap-fans

I still think 43 year old Hopkins won that fight personally, and I know I'm not alone in that - both Calzaghes in the opposite corner thought Hopkins had won too, from what I saw.

 

I am Welsh and he does desrerve a LOT of criticism.

What he IS is a great fighter, who was an amazing talent. He has some great wins and is P4P easily one of the worlds very best fighters.

However his resume is NOT that good, it is only now, when he is past prime that he is fighting the best. Or not as the case may be, with Jones. He IS ducking Pavlik, he COULD be taking more challenging meaningful fights at this stage and he SHOULD have fought Jones, Toney, Hopkins etc years ago. His ten year 'title reign' was, in retrospect, a complete joke for a fighter of his potential.

And He has pissed me off MASSIVELY by deciding to bow out with Jones and not Pavlik as well. I think it proves that he is more interested in the money and cant be bothered with the challenge of Pavlik, he would rather rip off the fans by fighting a name, who is shot to pieces.

I think it says a lot about his attitude, and while I whille admit he had a period (Lacy-to-Hopkins) where he really wanted to forge a good legacy, he gave up on it, and therefore he does NOT deserve the benefit of the doubt in regards to his failure to fight the best in his prime.

His avid fans will tell you that it was all Frank Warren, and others ducking him, and no blame whatsoever was his. The Pavlik fiasco suggests otherwise, and frankly he can **** off into retirement for all I care now, he has sold himself out by ducking Pavlik and choosing Jones.

 

Your a ****ing ****** if you think Calzaghe's resume isn't a whole lot better than Pavlik's. The outliers on Calzaghe's resume, like Sakio Bika, are arguably as good (maybe better) than any fights on Pavlik's record except for Taylor (which were both very impressive wins, but that alone doesn't come close).

Pavlik's a good fighter and no doubt his resume will grow but at this point its not in the same ballpark as Calzaghe's.

 

Pretty fair assesment, nice one. However the Lacy - Hopkins period, would you really call it that good? After Lacy he said he was only going after the very biggest names and what did he do? Was it Bika and Manfredo? OK he then fought Kessler but even that win may end up being tainted depending on what Kessler does from now on.

I bashed Hatton for years for padding up his record and taking on bums but the moment he agreed to fight Mayweather I shut my mouth on that front. I'd have done the same with Calslappy if he'd only done that when it counted. Too late now though, he'll most likely retire with his precious 0 intact and get tons of plaudits from people that know nothing about the sport, which is sad. Hatton deserves far more credit in my opinion for actually being a man when it counted - even though he lost.

 

Oh dear, we have a Frank Warren employee in the house atsch

Pavlik at age 25 took on and beat an undisputed champion, and then took him on and beat him again. That eclipses anything that Calslappy has ever done. Hell the Calslappy fans are still crowing over him beating the left overs of the guy that lost to the guy that Pavlik beat

Even more amusing is that in the eyes of true boxing fans Calslappy lost that fight.

 

So You're going to give Pavlik **** for fighting him then?

 

So anyone who disagrees with your opinion isn't a true boxing fan? :rofl
Thats both funny and arrogant. You should win a prize.

 

Pavlik is a young fighter, he has a reason to beat a past it Hopkins I suppose because he never had a chance to beat the guy when he was prime.

Calzaghe on the other hand.....

 

I'm not even a huge Calzaghe fan to be honest, i was bitter when Hopkins lost, but if you think Pavlik's resume is better than Joes, you are actually just plain ******ed, a pure idiot. There is no two ways about it.

I'm not even saying Joe is the better fighter, but anyone who suggests Pavlik's resume is better wouldn't no logic and reason if it was turkey slapping them.

I don't know what to say to someone as ******ed as you, but i love it how you call an objective post nuthuggery and then you go onto suggest something that most Pavlik fans wouldn't even agree with.

Kessler win is roughly on par with Taylor (except without the US hype bull****), which is Joe's best win, and then his resume is far longer and deeper with a ton more B level fighters.

Whats not to get?

****head.

 

Yes I should, please feel free to award that prize.

I thought Hopkins won, and I was watching that fight in a room full of neutrals, all of whom were disgusted at the decision. Calzaghe and his dad both thought he'd lost but miraculously 24 hours later only idiots scored the fight for Hopkins, somehow :think

 

If you think Hopkins won then you don't really hold any credibility.

I was cheering for Hopkins and thought it was pretty close but he just didn't do enough, especially when he gave up in the 12th round. It was frustrating to watch, but he did not win that fight.