Joe Calzaghe and the reasons why he has such a divided fanbase

OWNED!!!

 

Are you kidding me? atsch

Watch the fight without commentary mate. Froch only clearly won rounds 1,2,3 and 12. Kessler clearly won rounds 4,5,6 and 11 but you're being incredibly unfair on Kessler if you only give him those rounds because for me he definetly deserved to win rounds 10 and 7 as well.

I had Kessler just edging it but it could have gone either way and should have been a split decision. The score cards were an absolute disgrace and did not reflect the fight at all and I find it funny that the same Froch nut huggers who complain about Tillman scoring the fight 117-111 in the first contest don't say anything about the 118-110 score in the Kessler 2 fight as well as the Jean Pascal fight which Froch received.

The only thing your comment suggests is that the judges are a bit more biased over here which is possibly true.

I have also read a lot of Froch fans saying his fight with Ward was close. Why is that? because two of the judges were either payed off or imcompetant because that fight was no closer than Ward's fight with Edwin Rodriguez and less close than his fight with Sakio Bika.

You're knocking Veit as well but he beat a few respected champions including the still active Brahmer. Calzaghe also went to America and beat Hopkins.

 

and Froch clearly beat him in the UK too. Like for like. Why do you have a problem with like 4 like?

to claim them, name them. Either do that or accept that there are no alts.

Veit, terrible opponent, simple victory, who above national level wouldn't beat him anywhere?. joke of a riposte when comparing to a guy like Froch who travels frequently against top class opps. Its impressive though that you aren't cripplingly embarrassed by you using veit as your shining example of joe travelling. You must be in love with Joe Cal.

Now, you should say it in a post that has a valid sensible counter argument or what do you look like?

 

I can score a fight without the crowd factoring in. I scored both Kessler-Froch fights as 116-112 for the winner(I am pretty sure, but not 100% positive). To me both were close in that there were a lot of contested rounds, but clear in that I didn't find them hard to score, but did find Fight 1 harder. Put it this way, to me, after 12 rounds of boxing, the decision was in doubt in the 1st fight. Not in the 2nd. I'm not saying judges working in the UK are any more biased than anywhere, but hometown usually does play a factor.

Calzaghe did come to America and beat Hopkins, a good win on the road. My criticism of Calzaghe has always been pre-Lacy. Veit in Germany is nowhere near the same as Kessler in Denmark. Especially knowing, going in, hat you had previously eviscerated the guy in 1 round. It was not a challenge for Calzaghe at all.

 

Well in the bar I was in which had no volume on the telly everyone was like I wonder who won this with many saying Kessler and many saying Froch. I personally felt Kessler had done enough even over here to get it. What is a fact though is the score cards were a ****ing joke.

Which ever way you look at it the version of Kessler Calzaghe fought is better than any version of Froch, Calzaghe beat him soundly and also Froch ducked a fight with Calzaghe.

Calzaghe beat 10 world champions which ever way you look at it. I mean why do you think fights with Brewer, Mitchell were made after they were robbed in Germany (and they were robbed) do you think it is because Calzaghe stopped being scared of them or because these guys were more willing to make the fight after they lost the barganing chip of the title.

Reid, Mitchell, Brewer are all better super middle fighters than Pascal, Dirrell, Abraham etc. so why does Froch get so much credit for those wins but Calzaghe gets shat on for his. Leading up to the Froch fight Pascal was struggling to get wins on the NABF level and wasn't considered a puncher.

 

actually its just you who is being judgemental of frochs opponents bearing in mind that frochs ones you mentioned are all still active so its impossible to appraise their ability completely yet. And further bearing in mind that frochs fights were not all defences - you should be comparing like for like if you want to make a credible comparison of title defence material.


Whereas its possible to make appraisals of the careers of Mitchell, reid and brewer, since they are finished with boxing and wont ever win another title. putting reid aside because its arguably joes only loss, mitcehll and brewer are both not bad opponents, no one has said they were bad - but significantly they were both coming off losses rather than traditionally winning eliminators for a title shot. again, no one shats on them, they weren't bad, just they weren't good defences.


to put things in perpective, Frochs Yusuf Mack, his worst defence, is on par with Calzaghes MItchell and Brewer, some of Joes best defences. I suppose we should give joe leeway because he was fighting for an unwanted title whereas Frochs was recognised, but even so?

he was their champion and unbeaten. go figure who is being biased here.

 

a lot is made about the bhop and jones wins for joe in the US but is it really considered a "road win" when about 95% of the arena was pulling for joe to win? it's not like he had to go into a hostile environment like hagler did when he beat minter.

 

again Hopkins would not be a bad win for joe but he barely won it against a deliberately aged opponent. its an absolute stinker of a win, possibly joes worst behind the reid decision (but a good opponent even at that half tank age, if that makes sense).

Whereas the Jones fight is just pure evil lying on Joes part, but lying is nothing new to Joe Calzaghe, hes been doing it all his life. Shame he has to spoil it because no one can deny he has some great abilities.

 

Kessler was shot to **** when he fought Froch, but then maybe your so ****in dumb you can't see it can you?
Mack compares to Brewer? get da **** outa here ****o.

What an angry hatin little man you are.

 

he was good and crisp, but he had one hand half time against joe. you cant see it. What an angry hatin little man you are, obvious from the language you are sinking to using.

 

He was as "crisp" as your delivery or perhaps even a 1970's packet of Tuder you nob.

Anyone who knows this sport can see through your writings.

What's it like having all this hate inside you?

 

From the couch I was on, it looked like Froch won close but clear. He had his jab and his right going that day, controlled the action and won more rounds. It was certainly no closer than the 1st fight, one way or the other. I have zero problem with either result, despite one card being extra wide for Froch.

As for the 10 world champs thing. Who were they when he fought them is what counts most. Numbers can be dressed up or down. The circumstances are what matter most.

I don not think Calzaghe was scared of anyone, but I do think he was not a risk taker. Brewer and Mitchell were pretty good fighters, but if you're basing the judgement of a resume on it, then there is no choice but to be underwhelmed. They were decent fighters in a weak era. They were perennial top 10s back then. The whole SMW scene back then seems to lack.................credibility. Ottke, etc. It all seemed to be like a minor leagues version of the big show.

I don't know how this became a Calzaghe-Froch thing, but I'll put my thoughts out there. It certainly seems there is enough from both Froch and Calzaghe to deem it clear that Froch was chasing him hard for quite a while. Did he deserve the fight? No. But was he any less deserving than others than did get the fight? Also no. I am not one that believes that Froch is better, or has accomplished more than Calzaghe, but I do think he certainly has a higher concentration of high level fights than Calzsaghe, and in a much shorter span. Add that to the take all comers attitude, and go into their backyard to do it, despite his obvious limitations is why he gets the universal respect(if not adulation), that eludes Calzaghe.

 

what kind of question is that for a discussion?

now you are just plain hating with nothing new to add. once you stop and add something new, you will get replies. or you can continue to be an angry hating little man, in your owns words. no problem either way for me.

 

You cant answer because your trapped and you know it.

You have no depth.