Joe Calzaghe, overrated?

1 point :huh?

This content is protected

1. Calzaghe landed more than 100 punches than Hopkins throughout the fight.
2. Contrary to what people want to believe, Calzaghe also made Hopkins miss more
3. All round punch percentages, Calzaghe finished ahead of Hopkins
4. Calzaghe outlanded Hopkins in every round
5. A Byrd who scored for Hopkins. Type in Adalaide Byrd in Google and see what comes up for yourself, still here are some little things for you to look at
a. A Byrd was the only judge out of the 3 scoring judges that had Mack ahead against Cloud
b. The K Pavlik - A Lopez fight was scored 98-92, 99-91 by the other 2 judges, A Byrd scored it 95-95
c. A Byrd was one of the judges that had Morales a 4 point loser against Maidana
d. In the S Aydin vs S Ouali fight, the other 2 judges scored clearly for Aydin. Byrd scored for Ouali
e. The J Almaraz/C Tyler fight was scored a Maj-Dec all because of one judge, guess which? A Byrd
f. The A DeMarco/J Reyes fight was a SD. Guess who the odd judge out was? A Byrd.
g. The R Torres - M Arnaoutis fight was a close fight, a point either way to 2 judges but a wide result scored by Byrd
h. In the A Pryor Jr/D Stanislavjevic SD, guess who the odd judge out was? You guessed it... A Byrd
i. The W Ferguson/J Lopez SD, guess who the odd judge out was? You guessed it... A Byrd

I think thats enough.
Remember the other 2 judges scored clearly for Calzaghe

6. Calzaghe beat Hopkins in America, at a new weight with 3 American judges and Cortez as ref.
7. Calzaghe scored the single highest score card against Hopkins ever 116-111 at that time.
8. The 2 judges that scored for Calzaghe agreed on 9 of the rounds
9. Calzaghe landed more on Hopkins than anyone ever at that time.




Now I know there will be a flood of people coming on here noting Hopkins scoring a flash KD in the first round, and I agree that Hopkins did win a few rounds even when he didnt land as often, but people are mad if they think Calzaghe won on workrate, Calzaghe won because he was able to land his left more often than Hopkins could land his right.
Calzaghe finished the stronger and took away the moments Hopkins likes down the stretch.
Other thoughts, If Hopkins thought he was winning, do you think he would have been looking for time out and would bother trying to get points deducted off of Calzaghe, of course he wouldnt, Hopkins knew he was losing.

What I do note is that nobody seems to mind Hopkins lost to Taylor. In the first Hopkins/Taylor fight, Jermaine was badly hurt and Hopkins looked the stronger at the end, yet it seems to upset alot of these people that Calzaghe beat Hopkins. Appears very biased.

 

So you are comparing a faded old end of career Calzaghe against a prime undefeated Kessler to a young prime Ward facing a rusty, faded unwell double vision suffering Kessler atsch, then fail to remember that when comparing fights and fighters that old Calzaghe looked more impressive than prime Ward did against a faded inactive Bika

 

Thank you Loudon, it probably wont be a long stay as I have got a bit sick of the subject and did in the middle of winning a debate on the subject some while back and thought it was too much old ground. Bored silly with it really, but there are many that just dont know the SMW division before Lacy or the S6 which is a shame, but they still have an opinion about what they dont know

 

Heres an old post where many bits have changed since but you will get the idea and see you are not exactly correct

Where you have written for the WBO vs limited competition.
I just wanted to highlight some details to you.
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

Heres another old detail below

Then look at when E Morales was WBC SFW champ and he defended against E Croft who had been inactive for 3 years and was 1-5 in his last 6 fights with his last 3 being losses inside the distance, with his win being a SD against a 7-8-0 FW

 

more like utter rubbish from you again, observe -

so?

coursehe made him miss, he didn't just stand there and take punches LOL what stupid thing to write. Noone is claiming that calzaghe had no defence.

course he did, Hopkins gassed out at 40something. it would be impossible for Hopkins to outworked joe at that age.

because taylor (or any of his fans) doesn't claim to be something hes not.

 

no wrong failey again.

lets look at what you have claimed through a parallel example -if you started a "Failey" light cruiserweight belt tomorrow, and the WBA made their own light cruiserweight title at the same time, whose belt would hold more weight? Your unknown failey one, or the one presented by the WBA?

YOU claim that your failey belt would be held in the same regard as the WBA one!

What an utter failed argument that is.

The other guy is COMPLETELY right and you are utterly wrong again - the WBO belt was lightly regarded compared to the others no more lies from you failey.

 

calzaghe didn't look more impressive against bika. ward in fact outscored calzaghe. The novice Bika messed up joes face bad.

in addition, calzaghe was fighting a novice at smw in bika (for some unknown reason bika was worth a title shot having done nothing)

ward fought him as a seasoned smw, having already eclipsed joes best career high win by beating up Kessler.

 

he was 30, pretty much prime

but in calturd city, I understand that 30 can be past it if it makes joe look better.

 

you missed out

"collecting his pension"
"spotty"
"afraid to fly but did it anyway cos hes that 'ard"
"forgot his wallet and had to go home and collect it"
"needing a shag"

although - the double vision only happened after the ward fight, not before. the rusty, unwell etc is a figment of your imagination. sorry your time machine failed you there failey.

 

This is not English.

 

I dont think anyone would regard a title called failey. Only an idiot like yourself holds that belt high, and no that belt doesnt count for anything

 

Thereby proving your own argument is fail.


great, that's all that's need, you admitting your argument is failey.

 

lots taylor did that joe didn't.

joe didn't do this, joe didn't do that etc etc.

So?

 

Yeah, it's been done to death.

It still interests me though.


:good