Joe Calzaghe's world famous WBO ducktionary - a career of ducking examined

I did not claim Bika was better than Froch. I said Bika had accomplished more on the international stage than Froch had in 2006. When Bika was fighting Beyer for the WBC Title - and winning all four rounds on the scorecards before the fight was stopped and declared a draw - Froch was fighting Brian Magee for the British and Commonwealth title. Froch had yet to graduate to the World Stage by that point.

That was the only point I made on that issue. Your agenda blinded you. You saw me say Bika accomplished more on the international stage by that point and decided in your mind that I didn't mean what I was saying but instead meant it to mean Bika was better than Froch. That is all a result of you reading a hidden meaning in my words where there was none.

Most of what follows in your post is not worth responding to because its all based on that falsehood that you've talked yourself into thinking I believe.

You say that as if it was an immediate choice between Calzaghe or Hopkins. After Eastman turned down the offer to fight Calzaghe he had four fights before he fought Hopkins. I dont deny Calzaghe's camp could have offered more and that VVarren deliberately offered a smaller amount than he could have, but it still doesn't change the fact that it was Eastman's camp who turned it down only to fight lesser opposition for two more years before meeting Hopkins.

I dont deny he said that, only that it cannot apply fully to his career between 2006 and 2009 when he fought some of the best fighters in his weight class and the best fighter in the division above during that period.

And I exculded Jones from that list because it was only a big payday and mean nothing, it was a fight Calzaghe took because Jones still had drawing powers because of his name and was the most lucrative fight available and Calzaghe himself was set on retiring at the end of 2008.

Ashira fought Calzaghe in 2005. So he wasn't relevant to the period of time I discussing. Pre-2006 Calzaghe took easy fights for easy money - I have never denied this, in fact, I openly admitted repeatedly on this website - but post-2006 he took some of the toughest fights available. Anyone who denies that clearly has their own agenda

Stieglitz allowed Calzaghe to fight Bika first because he couldn't get TV coverage in Germany for the fight for October 2006 and had an agreement in writing that the winner of Calzaghe/Bika would fight Stieglitz in December of that year. Calzaghe was all set to keep that agreement before HBO stepped in and declared that they were not prepared to show Calzaghe/Steiglitz and wanted Calzaghe to fight an American instead. Calzaghe and VVarren weighted up the potential paydays and decided HBO and Manfredo would be more lucrative so took that instead. They made no secret about this as evidenced here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/6161430.stm

Calzaghe had been contemplating retirement since before his fight with Kessler. He told the BBC in 2007 that he would have one more year in boxing then he'd walk away for good. The link here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/7064179.stm and quotes from the article:

He told BBC One's Inside Sport: "I realise the end is near. I'm not going to be an Evander Holyfield and fight at 44, getting my head punched in.

"I'm giving myself a 12-month span to keep at the top and then I'll let it go. There'll be no comebacks."

"I realise I'm getting to that point in my career where you're not going to improve and you slowly decline, that's nature," he said.

I didn't say it was 100 percent true, only that you cannot accuse Calzaghe of avoiding all the tough fights when he fought Lacy as the underdog, Kessler at a time when people were debating whether it was Calzaghe or Kessler who was the best Super Middleweight and moved up a division to fight Hopkins when Hopkins was considered the Light Heavyweight King.

 

So you admit Froch was better than Bika?

And I proved to you in the last response, just because you fight for a World title it does not mean you are a worthy world title contender. Froch had proved himself to be more worthy of a shot at the title than Sakio Bika, however because Bika was seen as the cheaper/easier alternative, aswell as boxing politics Bika was given the shot before Froch had. Had Froch stepped into the ring with Markus Beyer he would have, IMO, knocked Beyer out. Lets continue.

Bika did not win all four rounds, the scorecards at the time were 38-38, 38-38, and 40 -36 in favour of Beyer. And I will go into proving just because you fight for the world title does not make you a worthy contender, Froch was more worthy of a world title shot than Sakio Bika was at the time, but boxing politics gave Bika the shot beforehand.

So you consider Dimitry Salita more accomplished at the world stage than Lucas Matthyysse?

Do you consider Chisora more accomplished at the world stage than Tyson Fury?

Do you consider Paul McClocksley more accomplished at the world stage than Kell Brook?

Does that mean they are more worthy of a title shot?

It dont mean ****, today we have a SMW champ Carl Froch just like we had a SMW champ in the past Joe Calzaghe.

And we have a domestic level prospect today George Groves, just like we had a domestic level prospect in the past Carl Froch.

And we have a fighter that has fought for a world title today Mehdi Boudla, just like we had a fighter than had fought for a world title in the past Sakio Bika.

So according to your logic, a Froch vs Boudla fight is more legitimate than Froch vs Groves, because Boudla is more proven at the world stage than Grovesatsch

Then simply agree on the following points:-

1. Froch was better than Bika
2. Froch was more worthy title contender than Bika

Same **** different toilet. You say Bika was more worthy than Froch of the title shot because he had fought at the world stage, you just ducked it because it defeated your whole ideology.

That above proves Carl Froch was a better opponent for Calzaghe than Sakio Bika was, there is no justification. You have to accept defeat here and just swallow your pride, Froch was more worthy opponent, Bika was just a cheap Austrailian Middleweight who promoters saw easy money from.

Eastman was in the title contention when he already fought for the title against William Joppy and had established a decent name at the MW scene for himself. You think it was worth for him to sacrifice a whole weight division move up, be the underdog and get paid peanuts?, or do you think it was more worth for him to remain where he was and be patient until another shot at a MW title comes?

I believe Eastman camp made the correct decision, and Warrren did a sly bit of business/duckage by offering a low sum.

Calzaghe's quote applies more in the latter part of his career, just look at the quote in detail:-

"I don't want tough fights, I just want big money."

Between 2006 and 2009, fights with Dawson, Pavlik, Froch, Tarver, Johnson and a few others were on the horizon, however he instead chose to fight a shot RJJ, Bika and Manfredo. Regardless, Calzaghe could have continued to fight on as he finally made it to a stage where he was accepted by both sides of the Atlantic, however when he finally reached that level he chose to become a cokehead.

Its understandable, but that quote which Calzaghe said regarding Roy Jones Jr, check it out:-

"I'm not chasing after Roy Jones. Be honest, Roy Jones is a good fighter and I don't want tough fights, I just want big money."

Ironically he then chose to fight Roy Jones Jr for Big money because he was not tough anymore. So that quote did apply in 2008.

Froch was a better opponent, or should I say a more worthy opponent than Evans Ashira was. But if you don't want to discuss pre Lacy, so be it

Thanks for the details/link. HBO seemed to be a big factor in this, I still believe Froch was a more worthy contender than Bika and Manfredo, and I have given my proofs for this above and in the last response.

Calzaghe saw what was ahead, Dawson, BHop II, Froch, Pavlik, and chose to retire.

After the Hopkins fight he started avoiding all the tough fights, you agree with that at least?

 

In 2008, Calzaghe saw Roy to be a relatively easy fight, against a great name and a good cashing out payday.. That much can't be debated.

 

I say all 3 three of those fighters are of the same calibur that Calzaghe is , Joe is nowhere near that Special fighter that his "fans" envision to be .

 

atsch

You are saying Evans Ashira was a bigger fight than Carl Froch. Froch was also a bigger fight than Sakio Bika.

 

Another false statement said by bailey:-(

 

Another bull**** statement, , all these false statements you make is why you are known as failey.

Froch vs Kessler > Calzaghe vs Manfredo

 

Froch WAS Joe's mandatory, for the WBC belt. He vacated instead.

 

You finally accept, Calzaghe never wanted tough fights. :deal that explains his avoiding off Johnson, Froch, Dawson, Pavlik.......

 

His main rivals before moving up were Lacy and Kessler and Calzaghe beat them both

 

So you admit he had rivals other than Lacy and Kessler, therefore you previous statement:-

Has been proven bull****, not only by myself, but you also accepted he did not beat "all" his rivals at SMW.

 

The fact that you are cutting down my sentences says it all .
My comment

How many will be in attendance for Froch/Kessler and how many were in attendance for Calzaghe/Manfredo.

Nows thats pwnage as well as brutal self pwnage by shortening sentences because you cant answer

 

Why do you deny Johnson twice lost eliminators to face Calzaghe and that Johnson said he was no longer interested in the fight?
Why do you deny that :huh. This is where I lose interest because you start clutching at straws when you try and ignore certain facts