Is Calzaghe a hall of fame boxer?

Of course!

 

atschatsch Oh god

 

Yep Calzaghe should be in the hall of fame, the fact you would not put "yes" in the poll shows insecurity. Wbo = Paperbelt ???

Other WBO boxing champs of the 90's

Ricardo Lopez
Michael Carbajal
Jorge Arce
Johnny Tapia
Marco Antonio Barrera
Naseem Hamed
Oscar De La Hoya
Hector Camacho
Winky Wright
Nigel Benn
Chris Eubank
Gerald McClellan
Steve Collins
Michael Moorer
Dariusz Michalczewski
Johnny Nelson
Ray Mercer
Riddick Bowe
Herbie Hide
Vitali Klitschko - So does that make all these guys paper belt champs aswell.

 

Great post that shines the light on the situation, making the cockroaches run to the cover of darkness. Boxing should be used for good, not evil. :good

 

YES??
Please don't use my name, in vain. :good

 

Yes! The Slapbox HOF. :rofl

 

atsch That was terrible.

 

edit

 

I respect your opinion,but I respectfully disagree with the second part.He had great handspeed for a 168 pounder,unmatched workrate,very good chin and underrated footwork.He also had a very good boxing IQ.I believe that he was a great fighter,and I'm not even a fan.

 

But Jermain Taylor did it twice to a better version of Hopkins. All I'm doing is stating a fact here. Calzaghe's achievement was not unparalleled.

Lame. Ward beat him with ease fair and square. End of story. It's the referee's job to call fouls, not internet forum members.

atschatsch Terrible argument.

Wlad lost to Corrie Sanders EIGHT YEARS ago, when Wlad didn't know how to use his size and got caught.

Reid was systematically outboxed and outfought over 12 rounds by a 42 year old man with 10 losses on his record (and who was coming off a loss) a mere TEN MONTHS before he faced Calzaghe.

I can't think when I've seen a bigger failure of an analogy on this forum - and that's saying something.

I handpicked "facts". That is correct. I did not manipulate or falsify anything. I picked out relevant facts. Glad we are on the same page at last. :smoke

 

HOF for sure.
Funny thing is all of these Hopkins nuthuggers who would love to dismiss Calzaghe realise that if Hopkins had of been good enough to beat Calzaghe, it would have been Hopkins best win ever. They will all rush and say different, but we know they wont be telling the truth

 

WTF !?! -(

 

this...^

YES!

get over it! move on!

 

I understand you bring it up because you want to minimize Calzaghes achievement. I agree that beating a younger Hopkins twice is even more impressive. I do however withstand that outboxing Hopkins, even at the age he was when Calzaghe did it, is a very difficult task that few in the world would be able to manage. Do we really have a different point of view on this one?

On this specifik point you are about to get owned. You have questioned the scorecards when Hopkins lost, both against Taylor on Calzaghe. Is that the task of an internet forum member? If so, it should be alright for me to point out if a boxer fouls. Of course you and I are entitled to disagree with refs, judges and other experts. Otherwise ESB would serve no point.

Everyone that watched the fight could see that Ward comitted horrible fouls. It surprises me that you suggest otherwise. The expression "fair and square" is not very well picked. I believe Ward would have won in any case, but all that cheating ruined the event for me, because I dont think thats what boxing should be about. Calzaghe vs Kessler was a lot more enjoyable to watch.

And you should respect that I use the same standards on my argument that you use on yours. You say that Taylor defeated a better Hopkins then Calzaghe, which I agree with, but it is irrelevant that Kessler suffered from an eye injury when Ward fought him? Calzaghe defeated a better version. That seems like a fact to me.

I know you dont mean that, so I dont feel offended. You can always minimize a boxer by pointing out his worst performance, which of course means a loss. Then you can add to it by pointing out the worst performence of the man he lost to. In that way you can tear any resume apart. It's a pointless game and I believe anyone that can be bothered to fallow this debate can see through it.

We are. Though the choice of facts always reflects bias, they can still be relevant. But if you read through my response I point out where you use double standards. That might be seen as manipulate, though. But I am not all that disappointed. This is ESB, after all, and we still have not accused each other for homosexuality.