haha!! legit?? there was another undefeated fighter in the division and they never fought. if you look at the rankings, the ring had ottke ranked ahead for joe for awhile. http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings:_Super_Middleweight--2000s
here's the hall of fame's list of modern boxers. you'll see joe louis' name there. http://www.ibhof.com/pages/about/inductees/modern.html the wbo was not a recognized title in '97. those of us following the sport then understand that. it gained momentum and is now recognized as a major belt. to prove my point, when lennox defeated holyfield in '99 he was recognized as the undisputed heavyweight champion. lennox held the ibf, wba and wbc belts. i'm sure this won't stop your opinions and your calzaghe revisionist history but at least you've been told the facts.
kmac, even though you're a ****ing idiot and a terrible troll, here's a post for others who might read your abomination of a thread The SMW divisions first world champs were WBC 1988, WBA 1987, IBF 1984 & WBO 1988. Now for a start it is a new division so no belt has any more prestige than the other as they were all started at a similar time. So the WBO SMW title has no less prestige than the others. Consider also that the WBO at SMW has been involved in 4 unification bouts. The IBF has been involved in 2 The WBA in 3 WBC in 4 also This shows that the WBO has been as willing to make top fights at SMW as much as any other governing body. Now look at the list of champs in each and who they defended against and you can see that the WBO SMW title has produced the best defences overall better than all of the other govening bodies in this particular weight division so far. Consider how much critism Bute gets now for his IBF defences. Consider M Beyer defending his WBC title against 26-14-5 fighter who was coming off of a win against a 0-2-0 fighter Or that Mundine when defending the WBA title against a 24-13-5 fighter who was the same fighter that WBC champ Beyer was defending against above. People bring up Eubank who helped mould the belt that was good enough to give T Hearns a slice of history making. Out of Eubanks 18 WBO SMW title fights 14 of those fights were against fighters who were, had been or became top 10 SMWs. One was a unification and another was against the undefeated former IBF SMW champ (relinquished his title). In fact 6 of the fighters he faced had been or became world champs
oh the will the name calling ever stop. i'm accused of being a troll but my first post you'll see is listed with facts that have links to prove my points. the points you've made here really show that all of the titles don't mean much and the 168 division, where joe basically campaigned his whole career, was terrible. i wonder if darrin morris was ever considered to be an opponent for joe? see below. joe was an excellent fighter but the point of this thread is to show and hopefully stop the british embellishment of calzaghe. ok, yes he was good but let's stop with all the crap. the wbo belt didn't make him the "champ", he fought below average fighters for years and his best wins at 168 were against eubank, kessler, and lacy. good fighters but it lacks in comparison to what ward and now froch have done. joe's win vs a 43-yr old bhop looked terrible but he won. people need to take into consideration that hopkins had fought only once in almost two years before fighting joe and was 2-2 in his last 4 fights before facing joe. http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/WBO Trivia: In 2001 the WBO twice moved Darrin Morris up in its super-middleweight rankings, despite the fact that the fighter was dead. Morris was #7 at the time of his death and #5 when the WBO discovered its error.
Nah, besides Jones he's the greatest SM ever. The prison bum**** dance against the racist ex con was a classic
It's not even name calling, it's just pointing out the obvious, you're a ****ing idiot :nut You tried to make out WBO SMW title wasn't significant, I schooled you on it, funny how you've changed your tone so now no belts matter atsch What do you care what we Brits think of Joe C? You're an American, why does he bother you so much? Don't forget his wins over Mitchell, Brewer and Reid, three former world champions who were robbed against Sven Ottke. Also Richie Woodhall was a former champion. Mitchell, Brewer, Reid and Woodhall are all more accomplished at SMW than Jermain Taylor, Arthur Abraham, Glen Johnson, Lucian Bute and Andre Dirrell. How does Joe's SMW resume lack in comparison to Ward and Froch? We've already established that Joe has beaten better opposition. Now, looking at their resumes, Ward's best win is over a past prime, Calzaghe leftover, who Joe beat when he was undefeated and prime. Kessler then went on to beat Froch. Froch's best win is Bute, who is no better than Lacy. Joe beat BHop when he was on the best run of his career with wins over Tarver, Wright - loss to Calzaghe - Pavlik. 3 years later BHop went on to win the title back against Pascal (another one of Froch's best wins). Consider that Joe was 36, had terrible hand injuries, was fighting above his prime weight and clearly wasn't the fighter he was. He travelled to Vegas, and beat BHop in front of his own fans. Now onto BHop, it's funny that people bring up his age and stamina, yet his stamina was never factor in fights against Tarver, Wright, Pavlik and Pascal. Maybe it's because Joe broke him down, overwhelmed him, and forced him to fake low blows, in one of the most disgraceful incidents witnessed in the modern era atsch You sound upset, is it because a shot, washed up Joe Calzaghe, fighting above his prime weight went to America and humiliated your favourite fighters in consecutive fights? :deal Way to spin an agenda kmac, you clearly are a **** troll, or you're ******ed. Either way, you've been schooled comprehensively in your own thread, now **** off back to the classic forum :hi: