WHAT ABOUT TARVER.....Calzaghe is a fraud!

Good point Ceej.

I would expect both Calzaghe and Mayweather to beat the aforementioned names, but proof is in the pudding.

Apparently England has some of the best football players - just a shame our team isn't in the top 16 in Europe :deal.

 

perhaps it would help if you would look up at tarver's record.. i already posted his notable wins. So what if he'd never ever dominated the division? Do you think calzaghe has dominated the division when he only had one ****ing fight at LHW? You already said "win one, lose one" how would we know about calzaghe at LHW if he only did one?

And stallone is not a boxer, don't try to be ridiculous..by your logic, arnold swarzenegger should also have a shot at a HW title:nut hahahaha

 

yes, its about proving things.. certainly tarver is a good name to add in calzaghe's resume

so as mayweather with cotto, margo as names to be added...

What kind of fan now would not want their guy to increase their legacy? :deal

 

i've done calzaghe's resume before and i'm not going into it again.

i was simply picking you up on your bull**** line about tarver being "the top" at LHW which is evidently not the truth seen as he was the man when he got tooled by hopkins who went onto lose to calzaghe.

that is that, whatever you think happens in mythical H2H matchups don't mean ****, calzaghe is the man at 168 & 175, tarver ain't ****.

 

you've completely and utterly missed the point of my post, as did the guy i was replying to.

 

your whole point was calzaghe was the man at 168 and 175.. when he beat hopkins who beats tarver thus the chain and the famous fighter A beats B who beats C logic

 

No it wasn't.

 

umm..was i talking to you?

 

oh sweet mother****ing jesus. :-(

right....

RJJ lost to tarver, who lost to glencoffe, he then beat glencoffe before losing to nard who went onto lose to joe.

hence joe being "the man" in the division.

 

What has that got to do with you completely missing his point?

 

what is your point then? can you please just tell what your point is then. I hope i am not asking too much:yep

 

so just please tell me the point then?

 

The statement was "Tarver is the best LHW."

It was then pointed out repeatedly that in fact, Tarver USED to be recognised as the Ring champ/the man at LHW.

He then lost to Hopkins. Making Hopkins the Ring champ/man at LHW.

Hopkins in turn, lost to Calzaghe, making Calzaghe the top LHW.

 

Tarver beat a prime Jones apparently.

Tarver has done nothing really. He sucks and lives off his victory over a unmotivated, drained, and depleting Jones whose reflexes had eroded.

What has Tarver done since then besides lose to Johnson, lose to a old B-Hop, and win a lackluster decision over Woods who Jones destroyed when he was close to prime. He is only still whispered around by virtue of his win over an old Jones.

Calzaghe is a fraud for not fighting someone who has done nothing special and has been riding his KO win over Jones.

 

Balboa was robbed.