Is this really the problem with Calzaghe and Mayweather?

i posted a thread on this a while ago i completley agree with you. thats why in some cases it maybe better for fighters to loose there 0 early on in their career. as the loonger its kept it soon begines to define a fighter.

As for Flloyd not fighting the best welterweights im not too mad at him for that there are some physical beasts in that division..imagine pbf going up against williams?

 

Pavlik lost to B-Hop (who Joe had just beaten) and was dominated in embarrassing fashion. Pavlik's handlers said he had "no business above 160" after the fight. Joe was fighting at light-heavyweight and surely any Pavlik fight would have been made at 168. This would probably have been very bad for Joe, to get down to this weight after moving up at age 36.

I don't think that Pavlik was an option.

B-Hop rematch would be boring, as Hopkins only hope against Joe is to spoil and disrupt Joe to steal rounds.

The only realistic fight would have been Dawson. I think that Calzaghe would beat Chad, but probably would have showed his age. This would only be a 'money' fight if it was held in Wales.

I don't think Calzaghe has the hunger anymore, to get into training and punishing his body and frail hands anymore.

 

Yes, i have a problem with both of them in that they are obssessed with their "0" and they brag about it. It's just that they didn't take on all comers, especially PBF at WW. The thing is, PBF along with Calzaghe had the talent to beat most, if not all of the "tough" challenges they didn't take.

 

There is a big difference between the two fighters.

Calzaghe only got to pick and choose who he fought, when he was aged 36, at the end of his career, and he choose to retire. Other than that, he faced all the top guys at 168, its just that 168 was a shallow division.

Floyd was young, could fight almost anyone, and he cherrypicked his way through the weights.

 

I would certainly value Calzaghe more if he'd given Hopkins a rematch. But at the same time I understand his tendency to value his record and his legacy, and not to want to tarnish that. Fundamentally, if a fighter hasn't got the will, there's no point in him fighting; moreover, he's unlikely to perform at his best.

As for Floyd, I don't think anyone can complain about him retiring when he did. He'd come off the back of victories against Hatton and DLH. Let's face it: the scheduled rematch wasn't about boxing; it was about money. I don't think (especially given his dismal performance against Forbes and then slaughtering by Pacman) that anyone could say Oscar had a shot at PBF in a rematch - he was thoroughly on the downward slide.

I do think there's a case for PBF coming out of retirement now, though. He's still young enough to be near his prime and there are plenty of opponents out there - the winner of Cotto and Mosley would be a real monster-fight, and that would really cement his legacy as perhaps even a top-20 ATG fighter. I think him fighting Pacman or JMM might be a bit grotesque, though - that would be a money match rather than for records.

At the same time, we fans are always going to be thirsty for more; we can always push fighters for one more performance without considering their legacy and drive. Certainly in Calslappy's case, there's little else for him to seriously acheive that would cap what he's already done, apart from that rematch (which isn't even all that sexy).

 

Imagine PBF's legacy if he had fought and most likely beaten Margarito, Mosley, Williams and Cotto. We are talking high ATG standings are we not?

 

This content is protected

 

PBF actually has a good resume, wins over Hernandez, Corrales, Castillo, Hatton and DLH at 154 shouldn't be dismissed, Slappy on the other hand hid behind Warren and the unregonised WBOGUS title for 10 yrs, no comparison IMO.

 

:rofl PBF's Top 5 wins **** all over Slappy's Top 5.

 

I agree.