Why so much emphasis on how people do after other people defeat them.

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Talivar, Dec 22, 2009.


Page 2 of 2
  1. Devintea

    Devintea Active Member Full Member

    1,248
    3
    Sep 27, 2008
    Simply: People look for any reason to hate a popular fighter.
    Only the up and coming fighters can be without much "hate" posts. Once they make their first million or names are being spoken of too many times, they hate will come. Whatever they have accomplished will be relentlessly undermined.
     
    Devintea, Dec 22, 2009
    Devintea, Dec 22, 2009
    #16
  2. Rhino718

    Rhino718 M.O.B. Full Member

    3,739
    1
    Apr 29, 2008
    Calzaghe is overrated. Sorry but IMO hes not a ATG.:-(
     
    Rhino718, Dec 22, 2009
    Rhino718, Dec 22, 2009
    #17
  3. MattMattMatt

    MattMattMatt Guest

    Why are we even still discussing this? In the first reply I gave you a list of threads that were saying exactly what you were claiming people were not saying. I found all those threads on just two pages following the day of the fight, I guarantee there will be many more.
     
    MattMattMatt, Dec 22, 2009
    MattMattMatt, Dec 22, 2009
    #18
  4. PH|LLA

    PH|LLA VIP Member Full Member

    79,438
    2,646
    Feb 1, 2007
    everyone knows Hopkins' win over Pavlik helped Calzaghe's resume
     
    PH|LLA, Dec 22, 2009
    PH|LLA, Dec 22, 2009
    #19
  5. Talivar

    Talivar Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,022
    52
    Jan 22, 2008
    I thought the convo had evolved ok tbh. Most threads are proved right or wrong within a reply or two but that doesnt stop them going on for ages. No one is being disrepectfull.
     
    Talivar, Dec 22, 2009
    Talivar, Dec 22, 2009
    #20
  6. horst

    horst Guest

    Incorrect IMO. A boxing result is not a "fact". JL Ramirez was given a win over Pernell Whitaker, but anyone who has seen the fight knows that it is not a "fact" that Ramirez beat Whitaker. The result is a technicality decided upon by three fat elderly men in suits. The result they decide upon cannot be called a "fact" because they are human and subject to error and bias same as any other human being.

    It is perfectly valid and legitimate to have scored the very close Hopkins vs Calzaghe fight for Bernard, and therefore if you have done then Hopkins beating Pavlik would have no bearing on Calzaghe's legacy, as previously explained. I state again: you are searching for a conspiracy where there is not one. If Calzaghe had stopped or dominated Hopkins, then Joe would have been showered with acclaim after Hopkins whitewashed Pavlik. BUT, people who thought Hopkins beat Calzaghe would have no reason to acclaim Joe Calzaghe after the Pavlik victory, because to them Calzaghe was just another guy that Hopkins beat. All it would prove to them would be that Calzaghe was a more difficult opponent than Pavlik, but that isn't really worthy of a new outpouring of acclaim, is it?
     
    horst, Dec 22, 2009
    horst, Dec 22, 2009
    #21
  7. Talivar

    Talivar Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,022
    52
    Jan 22, 2008
    So i suppose if someone viewed the fight as a clear Calzaghe victory but didnt think much of Calzaghe then they could say Hopkins was overated and thus Pavlik even more overated and not worthy of the praise people give. I do see what your saying and i like the logic path you follow but it just feels to open to me and will cause endless debate as it is already doing lol :)
     
    Talivar, Dec 22, 2009
    Talivar, Dec 22, 2009
    #22
  8. Boom_Boom

    Boom_Boom R.I.P Boxing 6/9/12 Full Member

    38,291
    23
    Sep 21, 2006
    are u kidding? there was alot of peeps here who crowned jc P4P#1 AFTER bhop/Pavlik
     
    Boom_Boom, Dec 22, 2009
    Boom_Boom, Dec 22, 2009
    #23
Page 2 of 2