What I don´t understand about people criticizing Calzaghe...

Well, i saw the Veit fights live on TV so i know how good a prime JC was but when you saw the JC - B-Hop fight then you saw that Bernard had the right plan to beat Calzaghe he just couldn´t make it happen due to him beeing 43. I think Hopkins would have beaten Joe clearly by UD or maybe by late TKO had they met somewhere from 1998 till 2006.
I have respect for Joe but like with Tyson or Hamed i feel betrayed because he could have given us so much more good fights but instead he guys like Pudwill. He still managed to become one of the greatest fighters of his generation that is an indication that he could have been even more.

 

this is such an excellent point luigi that people conventiently forget. joe is not as schooled and technically gifted a boxer and hopkins and relies so much more on his natural given gifts than bernard. physical ability erodes a lot quicker.

just look at how differently RJJ and hopkins have aged for instance.

 

I can't even be bothered wading into this orgy of Calzaghe, there is so much utter shite being spoken I wouldn't know where to begin! Carry on deluding yourselves you ill-informed people, carry on.

 

your favourite (or at least one of) is pacman ffs.

 

Good post

Calzaghe can't win with some people

 

I think what you wrote is wrong yes, but neither me nor I think anyone else on this forum wants me to write any more of my criticisms on Calzaghe. Not because they're particularly extreme, I do have the guy at #4 P4P just now and around #17 of his era, but because when the Calzaghe hoardes start on at me about it I can't let it go, I strongly believe he does not deserve the status and praise he gets and have been very vocal about this for quite some time, perhaps too vocal.

I reacted so strongly to this thread as I absolutely cannot work out how anyone, even Enzo ****ing Calzaghe, can say anything positive about the Hopkins fight. I've watched it many times, and to me it was perfectly obvious that Hopkins was streets ahead of Calzaghe, but at 43 he knew he did not have the stamina/energy/workrate to really go for it, hence his tactics to save energy.

- He knocked Joe down in the 1st, and Joe was hurt, but Hopkins knew if he went for the KO and couldn't find the killer blow, he would've used up too much of his limited amount of energy, so he didn't go for it. If he was even 4 or 5 years younger (the Hopkins of around 2004), he would have been confident enough in his ability to last 12 fast-paced rounds that he could've just went for it and not worried about the long haul.
- Hopkins landed every significant punch of the fight. He had Joe staggering at the end of one of the mid-late rounds and Joe was saved by the bell. Joe NEVER had Hopkins hurt, not remotely, not once. The judges made the wrong decision of going for quantity over quality, giving Calzaghe rounds for following Hop around pitter-pattering his elbows and arms.
- Hopkins's gameplan was the one that worked. I guarantee you at the end of the fight (watch it again and see) Enzo and Joe Calzaghe thought they had lost. Hopkins dictated the fight, he rendered Joe ineffective to the point of impotent, controlled Calzaghe, allowing him to chase, allowing him to flurry weakly against his defence, blunting and nullifying every single attack, and often getting through with his own shots. It was a superb display by Hopkins, it was marred only by a lack of energy and stamina which meant he had to hold and couldn't just go for it.
- The difference between 36 and 43 is huge. Maybe it isn't much when you compare a 21 year old to a 28 year old, but by their late 30s boxers are aging by the day. How many guys in history have shown the same stamina and workrate at 43 that they did at 36? I would argue none.
- Even if you do think Calzaghe won the fight (and it's fair enough if you do, it was a close fight and difficult to score), but even if you think he won, it cannot be viewed as a good performance or a positive display by Calzaghe. He could not hurt Hopkins, could not breach his defence, was outclassed, and had to rely on throwing loads of ineffective punches against a tired, 43 yr old opponent to try and fool the judges into thinking he was doing anything productive. I thought Calzaghe was a better fighter before the fight. It was alarming how little punch power he had compared to Hopkins.

I had it 7 rounds to 5 for Hopkins, with the KD making it a close but clear win for Hopkins. He is and always was a more talented, all round better, historically greater fighter than Calzaghe.

 

You can't be bothered and yet you make two posts in this thread and numerous other posts about Calzaghe all over this forum. Are you trying to show everyone that you are an idiot or did Joe bully you as a kid?
For someone who hates Calzaghe so much you seem to spend alot of time typing about him.

 

Ha ha, I tried to stay out but the starter of the thread asked me directly and I couldn't resist! I agree I should definitely lay off the Calzaghe debate for a while. But seriously, read my post here and my others anywhere, I am not a Calzaghe 'hater' as I have always said he is around #4 P4P and I have him #17 of his generation- I clearly do rate the guy, just not as highly as most of you.

 

3 posts later.....

Couldn't be bothered wading in or couldn't stop yourself?