sorry calzaghe your resume is weakest ever.

Bernard Hopkins is a Hall of Famer. But he fought him when B-Hop was 43 years old. Well past his best. Is RJJ the other one you're referring to? If you're trying to defend Calzaghe, you should be trying to play that sham down, not bringing it up.

Some fillers? Try about 11 years of fighting barely adequate opposition with only TWO great wins. Guys like Cotto and Pacquiao can have 2 great wins in one ****ing year never mind over a decade.

And by mentioning '23 title wins, 22 wins', all I hear is Sven Ottke Sven Ottke Sven Ottke. Those are just numbers mate, it's the NAMES on the resume that mean something.

 

No more laughable than knocking Joe for not fighting JMW's and retired fighters.

 

ALL JOE HAD TO DO WAS MAKE THE OFFER AND HE COULD HAVE LEGALLY KILLED STEVE COLLINS!!!!1111

 

Far more laughable. That never happens. Fighters go chasing big fights in the weights around them all the time. Fighters make retired fighters offers to come out of retirement and fight all the time.

 

Eubank is arguably hall of fame. Hopkins definitely is. Roy Jones will be, but is far more removed from his prime, to the extent he is actually shot unlike the other two, but I'm sure fitz disagrees.

You can cry all you like. Hopkins was old. Eubank was old. Kessler was unproven. Lacy was a hypejob. Bitter, bitter, bitter. Just appreciate a great fighter :yep

 

I think people must just start these threads for attention. Either way I'm fed up to the back teeth of hearing about Calzaghe. The sooner he retires the better.

 

Arguable Hall of Fame? I argue he isn't then.

Eubank was old and past his prime anyway.
Hopkins was old and past his prime.
The RJJ fight is a ****ing joke.

Hence, he never fought an HOFer in their prime.

Lacy was a hypejob but it was still a very good win over a dangerous opponent.

Kessler is the standout on the resume, but even he isn't yet proven to be a great fighter.

This is not evidence of a comparatively strong resume.

 

Its fun to discredit all his wins, yet write out lists of about 20 fighters (some of which being completely absurd) which he should of fought

These aren't the signs of a hater at all!

 

Chris Eubank is a hall of famer ...

 

eubank in his next 2 fights fought a dangerous and hard punching cruiserwight in carl thompson giving him all the trouble he could handle,the same thompson who knocked out david haye,he wasn't that faded.he fought hopkins and not tarver because hopkins beat tarver to win the title,or didn't you know?

 

Eubank has 24 championship fights ... campaigned at 3 weight classes ... and had over 50 total fights.

out of those 24 title fights he lost 5 and had 2 draws ... he fought Calzaghe, Benn, Collins, and Carl Thompson ... he actually beat Benn.

I think those are Hall of Fame credentials ...

so that Eubank and Hopkins on his resume which = 2 Hall of Famers

 

He may well be worthy of HOF, but he isn't a HOF at this moment in time is he.

 

I don't think you can discredit Calzaghe for his more recent victories ... he beat 2 undefeated fighters ... and 3 reigning champions ... he unified titles at his weight class - became the undisputed champion of the supermiddleweight division ... i'm not sure if that division has had an undisputed champion .... he held all 4 major belts ... 3 of the 4 at the same time ... along with the linear title/ ring magazine title ...

Now like I said before i'm not a big Calzaghe fan but this guy does deserve respect and his resume should be seen in the same light as a Bernard Hopkins ...

Hopkins was also the product of a weak division yet he gets more clout than Calzaghe?

 

Ha ha!

The thread is about his weak resume. By discussing that very resume in detail, and suggesting fights that could have possibly been made and make the resume in question better, those are the signs of hatred?!
Pipe down.

 

Nah.