Why do people have a problem with Joe Calzaghe?

I posted this is another thread..think about it.

For you Brits,

Ask yourself this question and think about it.

Essentially no one on earth discredits Lennox Lewis for his achievements.

Still, quite a few discredit calzaghe.

Why do you think that is? When or if you ever understand that answer you will understand why Calzaghe is not considered such an ATG.


Then look at the thread which rates the careers of Jones, Hop, Toney and Calzaghe and look at the notable fights, wins. If you still cannot deduce the answer,

"You might be a Nuthugger"

IMO the sad part of all of this is it didnt have to be this way. Hatton would be in the same boat had he not fought PBF. Even worse JC has better skills than hatton.

 

Probably because an ageing 43 year old ATG fighter pulls off an amazing victory, and there are thread after thread proclaiming that this proves Joe is even greater.

This amazing win should be all about Bernard - nothing to do with Joe and his scrappy debatable split decision the other month.

Lets all credit and praise Bernard for the amazing feat his win was.

 

Take any fighter at the top of their division and you will find a disturbingly large group of bitter people knocking them for being; over-hyped, overrated, glass-jawed, ducking the best, being a Euro bum/non-Euro bum, etc.
Look at the many threads and posts devoted to the bashing of the Klitschkos, Haye, Calzaghe, Hopkins, Pavlik, Kessler, Mayweather, Hatton, Pacquiao, Taylor, Margarito, Cotto, Williams, Dawson.....

 

True, but I will say this: Calzaghe would dismantle Pavlik even worse than Hopkins did. It could be like a second Lacy fight, or worse.

Anyone that watched the fight last night and doesn't come to that conclusion is, IMO, kidding themselves.

Joe is larger than Pavlik, and we have seen Kelly is nowhere near the same fighter when he goes over 160. But the most important aspect of what happened to Pavlik last night was that Hopkins' speed bothered him at 170.

If Hopkins' speed bothered him, as did Hopkins' activity level, Joe would eat Pavlik alive. It would be a beatdown, and if Joe wanted to, I don't think he would have much trouble stopping Kelly.

It's not that Kelly sucks, it's about how good Calz is and how poorly Kelly does when he moves up in weight.

 

edit

 

I have no issues with Calzaghe although i feel he lost to Hopkins.
His fans trying to ride this amazing Hopkins win is annoying though.
Saying he ranks ahead of Hopkins as a ATG is even more stupid, let Joe build a resume first n see how he does when he is 43.

Would be nice to see a Hopkins thread without a Calzaghe fan trying to hijack it.

 

Because, he's an undefeated non American white fighter who didn't fight much in America and has most of his victories against european fighters (who funnily enough, coinside with European dominance in boxing) - those are the reasons people love to hate Calzaghe.

Oh, and the fact that he throws funny looking punches, but **** me, I don't see why people dislike it, Calzaghe is all go, all the time, never backs down, always comes forward and is always throwing - he's an exciting fight maker and only a shrewd tactician like Hopkins could slow that down, but not enough to win

 

How anyone can feel Hopkins beat Calzaghe is beyond me. He landed three meaningful shots in the entire fight. One put Calzaghe down but for the rest of the fight, he was constantly on the back foot, he was out landed, out thrown, out countered and at points was being hit with three to four shot combinations.

For me, the only way you can score the fight for Hopkins is if you've got hatred for Calzaghe, not surprisingly, those that give the fight to Hopkins won't give Calzaghe any respect, what so ever.

 

I always thought Calzaghe would box Pavlik's ears off. Horrible style for Pavlik.

 

I give it to Hopkins cause he actually landed meaningful shots... if you watch the fight with the sound off and slowmo the action you see Joe hitting gloves n air, his entire offense completely neutralized.

How people score it for Joe is beyond me n must clearly be Brittish Patriots or are blinded by ineffective aggression ... the same people that thought Mayorga was ahead of Mosely on the scorecards.

 

Well, if you idiots hadn't completely torn Bernard apart after the loss, saying he was an old man who anyone could beat and was completely shot, therefore Joe should get no credit for the victory, perhaps people wouldn't be coming back to rub humble pie in your face, you dumb ****.

 

Actually, Hopkins wasn't "torn" apart after his loss to calzaghe. And no one said ANYONE could beat hopkins. No need to make **** up to further your point. Quite a bit of people, on the board and off, had hopkins winning. While I disagree with that, it WAS a close fight.

 

You can watch segments in slow mo and yes, Joe missed a lot of punches. Problem is, Joe throws a lot of punches and landed a lot, including shots you would have seen in the lead in to the Pavlik fight, where they were showing him adjusting and punching Hopkins and stating it was a key for Pavlik's victory.

How people score it for Joe? Because while he didn't land the three most clean punches in the fight (They were all Bernard) - he landed around 200-250 glancing punches and was the aggressor of the fight, all the while not being hit after four rounds by Hopkins.

Boxing is a round by round thing, you can knock down your opponent 2 times in the first 2 rounds and still lose the fight.

 

I have never ever stated that Bernard was shot when he faced Calzaghe, and I have always credited Joe's win as a good one. Check my posts. Also check my Vcash - I bet on Hopkins.

By the way, grow up.