Kessler's and Hopkins' dominating wins further elevate Joe Calzaghe's status

Lets see Calzaghe's great resume.

 

Exactly man, well said - a boxer's legacy/status is defined by the quality of his wins :nod :deal

This San Rafael clown derides Calzaghe's resume, but then refuses to acknowledge that the excellent performances of 2 of his recent opponents since they lost to Calzaghe boosts Calzaghe's resume.

What a ****ing idiot :-(

 

You a stupid ass mutha****a.

 

Then, what's the point of a resume?:huh Triangle theories do not work, you're right. But the whole point of a resume is that it shows you've beaten such and such. Hopkins has proved in the Pavlik fight he is far from shot. Yet you act like he didn't want to hit Calzaghe. As if he made a concious decision before/during the fight to not hit another man in a fight. How did you come to that conclusion really?

Calzaghe's win over Hopkins is much improved by Hopkins win over Pavlik. Same as Hopkins win over Johnson is improved by what he did later in his career. Same as why Jones win over Hopkins is looked on more kindly now.

 

Go look at Boxrec like you just did for Hopkin's resume :deal

No doubt you'll see a lot of names you don't recognise because they aren't American and therefore weren't all over the sports channels in the US, so therefore, they can't be considered good :-(

You guys wax on about how great Hopkins is and how bad Calzaghe is, but when you look at the big names on Hopkins' resume and break it down, it can be just as easily looked at negatively.

It could be said that Hopkins is a natural LHW, and therefore his record 20 title defences at MW and unification of same was spent beating up on smaller men, especially considering how many of those you named had moved up from lower weights :hey

 

Bull****, there are clearly defined, deeply seperated schools of thought on this. If you're a guy who likes to bury his awareness in a statsheet and jerk off to W's and L's knock yourself out. I'll stick with reality. That **** is pathetic to me. You're not 1/10,000th the boxing fan I am if that's what you believe. We have nothing to talk about.

 

Hopkins may not be shot, but he still ain't the same Hopkins of old, where joe is at his best right now. If Joe fought Hopkins 7 yrs. ago, it wouldn't even be a fight.

 

Great reply

Meanwhile you've posted nothing to prove me wrong.

What does that say? :hey

 

You are among the very worst posters on this forum. Hands down. I don't even need to bother with an insult or a clarification. You're a complete and total fool. Know your place.

 

what does ol' man hokes career have to do with a thread about calzaghe's greatness?

 

So what do you base your opinions of fighters on?

Gut feeling?

What the press say about them?

How many people nuthug them on ESB?

 

So why did Hopkins price himself out of a fight back then?

 

The crux of your assertion here is based around this "Hopkins was shot" excuse that certain people were making. That has nothing to do with anything I have ever said on this issue. Read my post again, I make it very clear.

 

what's really pathetic is you came back with such a response after I merely presented a perfectly sound argument

at least now we're all aware of what a ludicrously self righeousy and deeply flawed poster you are whose idea of reality is simply what you consider appropriate jerk off material

we have nothing to talk about because quite simply you're an imbecile who wouldn't be able to sensibly debate if your life depended on it

 

Yeah, I've seen you past this sort of **** before, acting like someone died and gave you a badge that made you sheriff of ESB

You're a ****ing idiot trying to act like you know something about all this here horse **** but you know sweet **** all :yep

I love the smell of retreat in the morning :hey