Who else here think that Roy Jones, Jr just deserved the beating..

Is your pussycat's name "Money" or "Pussymay" or "Primapussy" or "Fraudy"?.. just wondering.

 

He's the most feared pussycat in the neighborhood, I'll tell you that much.

 

Very possible too. There's so much complication involved in these things you never know till you LIVE at the time it happened and read carefully into it or remain confused with many questions. Calzaghe his self didn't help make some of these major fights and that came from Warren's mouth years before Calzaghe left him.

 

Must be an ugly Mofo!!... Does he look anything like the guy in your avatar? :yep

 

Last time you posted that Calzaghe had ducked him.

None of that matters a ****, and I've explained this before to YOU and others.

Is this groundhog day or what ?

Hopkins' rep was asked how much he wanted.

He indicated $3million, a good-sized purse at the time.

Everybody agreed on the $3m.

Then, Hopkins changed his mind and asked for $6M.

That's known in any arena as BARGAINING IN BAD FAITH. It doesn't matter how much you think you're worth. When you toss out a number and it's accepted and then you say NO, I want twice that, you are to blame for the fight falling through.

This content is protected

Again NO.

Hopkins indicated that the fight was to take place in the US. Joe's management agreed.


To summarize for you (for the last time):

In 2002, Hopkins named his price and location.

Calzaghe agreed to the amount and location.

Then Hopkins changed his mind and the fight fell through.



And still, we have loads of idiots and ****wits (as well as some decent posters like yourself) claiming that Joe ducked Bernard.


Fiction.

 

Calzaghe was excellent champion with talent to spare.

 

Calzaghe won against an over the hill RJJ. Prime to prime RJJ would win with one hand.

 

Exactly. That was my point.

I was responding to this:

And, as I mentioned in my response, there are just as many shitty decisions in the US as other jurisdictions (Europe).

Victor was telling us that all's good in America.

What have either of these bouts to do with bad judging decisions ?

Neither went to the judges.


We were discussing judges and decisions, not reffing.

Oscar/Sturm and especially Holy/Lewis were bad judging decisions.

Hatton/Tszyu was marred by poor reffing.

And McClellan's exit from the sport had little to do with reffing and more to do with a pre-existing condition that made itself manifest during that fight.


But none of that is the point.

I was merely countering the earlier poster's assertion that all was peachy in the good old USA.

No.

Can't say I do.

 

The same applies to you though. Ask Mexican fighters which belt they want to hold and they'll invariably say the WBC. Why? Because of the history and prestige that they feel comes with it. So regardless of what people on the internet think the fighters, the ones who actually get in the ring, pay more credence to certain belts. Ask Carl Froch if he recognises the WBO.

I never said Oscar unified two divisions, I said he unified belts in two divisions. Ie, he held more than one. He held WBO/IBF titles at 135 and WBC/WBA belts at 154.

 

Sure that can be the case as previously mentioned by you and others, still doesn't change the fact that there were other fights that could have happened but didn't because of Calzaghe's demands. Think you will also agree that Lacy and Kessler were the ones that pushed to make these fights happen and if they didn't nothing would have happened.

 

McClellan/Benn was clearly poor reffing, Benn was literally pushed into the ring by someone after being knocked down out of the ring and the referee allowed A LOT of rabbit punches pretty much like they allowed Hatton against Tszyu. The referee was clearly pro Benn and it was obvious from round one.

 

I believe that's what you did last time too ( a few months ago).

You first claimed that Calzaghe ducked Hopkins and demanded the fight be in Wales. When it was clearly shown that this claim was completely false, rather than acknowledge that you were mistaken, you make further claims that you don't substantiate.

(Last time, you claimed that he ducked Toney. I pointed out that there was never a time when a Calzaghe-Toney bout was a remote posssibility due to major weight differences and different stages of careers, you said pretty much what you are saying now:

Without specificity or back-up.

No.

I would most certainly NOT agree. Both fighters realized that Calzaghe was the man at 168 (as he showed in the bouts. In neither fight was officiating an issue) and both got fair terms and neither one suggested that they didn't.


The guy didn't have the most sterling of resumes, but it wasn't on account of ducking. He did clean out the 168 and did have a decent career.

 

Ask Mexican fighters ?

And even if they had a preference, that would prove what ?

They prefer Jose Suliman ?


As i've already stated, the quality of the belt is related directly to the quality of the champ holding the belt.


And No, I don't agree that the fighters give more credence to one belt over another.

It depends on which belt the fighter you ask hapens to hold.

 

If you go back to the beginning of this argument, once again, I was responding to Victor's claim regarding poor judging decisions.

I pointed out that there was just as many mystifying decisions in the US.

You introduced a whole new issue, reffing.

Not the substance of my reply to Victor.


However, if you wanted to go down that road, I could cite as many cases of poor reffing by American refs in the US.

You only have to read the unhappy posts of AMERICAN posters any week of the year to realize that they often feel the ref sucked.

 

Joe doin' what he did in that fight looked out of character. I think that's the biggest problem I have with it?