Let's look at Joe Calzaghe's supposed "greatness"!

[New England]

Originally Posted by The Surgeon

Just lookin at ur sig there, id put money on G man knocking his ass out

probably the case and probably a safe bet with that casche

in the situations where joe got hurt and came back (pretty regularly for a top flight fighter with fast hands and feet) the g man would likely put him away with two handed punching power


fighting with your hands down against the g man would be borderline suicide

[New England]

Originally Posted by poet682006

I want to respond to this later on if I have time. You make some interesting points that are worth discussing

Poet

lol looking forward to it more than "you biased limey prick!" a la carlos G


**** happens when you're from detroit i guess

[CarlosG815]

Originally Posted by New England

didn't you notice that i said lacy was being touted as the next tyson by showtime?

do i look like showtime to you?

and i don't think i said a word about "how great lacy was"
i showed a short off the head list of solid fighters that he walloped
i'm certainly not going back through an entire long post to address your grievances




new england is in the united states

ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, RI

that's new england


you need a map
oh, and a clue!

A couple of things, son.

Here is a quote from you.

"he SMASHED jeff lacy
absolutely crushed him. essentially ended his career over 12 rounds. lacy was being billed by showtime as the next tyson, and he was knocking everybody out brutally (stopped vanderpool, robin ried, pemberton, other regular names at the top of the division at the time)
lacy pissed blood after that fight
and his face never looked the same"

Now why would you go into detail and put such great emphasis on what Jeff Lacy did prior to facing Calzaghe, even so far as listing off some bums he beat up, and then speak about him pissing blood and looking disfigured?

That's like talking about how great Tyson is and then mentioning the pasting he dished out to David Jaco. We do not do those things, because it doesn't mean ****.

You are embarrassed at how I have called you out. It's obvious that you know nothing about Jeff Lacy or his career, and after you did some research, you are trying to pawn off what you said as "Showtime said this, not me" yet you went on and on as if you were trying to emphasize that as a great win for Calzaghe. You were owned, and now you are trying to backtrack, but it isn't going to work. You thought Lacy was a good win, you obviously agreed with Showtimes "touting" or you wouldn't have mentioned it, and you believed that those guys you mentioned helped to back up YOUR case for Lacy being a solid fight. Don't be embarrassed, bud. Sorry I got you quoted before you could edit it upon learning the truth about Lacy.

Secondly, I am not aware of where you live, but I did not assume you were British, my comment was directed toward the board clown, JoeyZagz, not you. I did not look at you as somebody who was nationalistic, I honestly just looked at your post as a guy who had no idea what he was talking about. It is you who needs a clue, and I suggest you get one before you go using Lacy to justify the greatness of Joe Calzaghe.

[CarlosG815]

Originally Posted by New England

lol looking forward to it more than "you biased limey prick!" a la carlos G


**** happens when you're from detroit i guess

That's what you got from my post? Don't pretend that's what you got out of it - you were schooled on Jeff Lacy.

And exactly what "****" do you think happens when you are from Detroit?

[New England]

Originally Posted by CarlosG815

A couple of things, son.

Here is a quote from you.

"he SMASHED jeff lacy
absolutely crushed him. essentially ended his career over 12 rounds. lacy was being billed by showtime as the next tyson, and he was knocking everybody out brutally (stopped vanderpool, robin ried, pemberton, other regular names at the top of the division at the time)
lacy pissed blood after that fight
and his face never looked the same"

Now why would you go into detail and put such great emphasis on what Jeff Lacy did prior to facing Calzaghe, even so far as listing off some bums he beat up, and then speak about him pissing blood and looking disfigured?

That's like talking about how great Tyson is and then mentioning the pasting he dished out to David Jaco. We do not do those things, because it doesn't mean ****.

You are embarrassed at how I have called you out. It's obvious that you know nothing about Jeff Lacy or his career, and after you did some research, you are trying to pawn off what you said as "Showtime said this, not me" yet you went on and on as if you were trying to emphasize that as a great win for Calzaghe. You were owned, and now you are trying to backtrack, but it isn't going to work. You thought Lacy was a good win, you obviously agreed with Showtimes "touting" or you wouldn't have mentioned it, and you believed that those guys you mentioned helped to back up YOUR case for Lacy being a solid fight. Don't be embarrassed, bud. Sorry I got you quoted before you could edit it upon learning the truth about Lacy.

Secondly, I am aware that you are not British, my comment was directed toward the board clown, JoeyZagz, not you. It is you who needs a clue, and I suggest you get one before you go using Lacy to justify the greatness of Joe Calzaghe.

since when is going into detail or outlining the goings-on during a time period nut hugging? or proof of anything about my beliefs (that i bought into, and evidently still buy into jeff lacy showtime hype?)

seriously?

the intention was to illustrate that lacy was the favorite in that fight and that calzaghe exposed him and whipped his ass


and as for the bold part
what on earth are you even talking about?


i'm not embarrassed, or owned, rushed to edit inconsistencies about arguments i have no grasp of in some kind of conspiracy, etc



call me out all you want
i'm not going anywhere
... other than my monthly jeff lacy fanclub gatherings

we wear shirts that say:

"Left" on the front
and "Hook" on the back

[New England]

Originally Posted by CarlosG815

That's what you got from my post? Don't pretend that's what you got out of it - you were schooled on Jeff Lacy.

And exactly what "****" do you think happens when you are from Detroit?

lol it's your rock we're all just living on it!
thank you for making me laugh


the stars blot out the word s h i t
as in "****" happens when you're from detroit


do you seriously think detroit has a positive reputation these days?
do you really need me to fill in the blanks?



edit: i should not make sweeping generalizations about entire cities and apologize

[CarlosG815]

Originally Posted by New England

lol it's your rock we're all just living on it!
thank you for making me laugh


the stars blot out the word s h i t
as in "****" happens when you're from detroit


do you seriously think detroit has a positive reputation these days?
do you really need me to fill in the blanks?

Sure why not? Share with me what you know of Detroit, as you have in educating us all on Jeff Lacy and Joe Calzaghe. I am looking forward to it.

[crold1]

Originally Posted by Natedatpkid

People want to say Calzaghe has a great undefeated record, GREATEST SUPER MIDDLEWEIGHT EVER right? Well I took a look at the ring magazines top 10 super middleweights since 1997 when Joe first became a top super middleweight by beating a 31 Chris Eubank who arguably wasn't even a top fighter anymore. It was for a vacant title.

Feel free to check my research for yourself. Here. Just go down and check the annual rankings of the year.

1998: Joes ranked #2.
Fought: Branko Sobot(unranked), Juan Ferreyra(unranked)

1999: Joes ranked #2
Fought: Robin Reid(ranked #9, NEVER REMATCHED after controversial win), Rick Thornberry(unranked),

2000: Ranked #2
Fought: David Starie(unranked), Omar Shieka(unranked), Richie Woodhall(unranked)

2001: Ranked #2
Fought: Mario Viet(unranked), Will McIntyre(unranked)

2002: Ranked #1 because Svettes challengers got worse then Joes..
Fought: Charles Brewer(ranked #6), Miguel Jimenez(unranked), Tocker Pudwill(unranked)

2003: Ranked #1
Fought: Bryon Mitchell(ranked #6)

2004: Ranked #1
Fought: Mger Mkrtchyan(unranked), Kabery Salem(unranked)

2005: Ranked #1
Fought: Mario Viet(unranked rematch), Evans Ashira(unranked)

2006: ranked #1
Fought: Jeff Lacey(#3), Sakio Bika(unranked)

2007: Ranked #1
Fought: Peter Manfredo(unranked), Mikkel Kessler(#2)

2008: Moved to Light Heavyweight
Fought: Bernard Hopkins(#1), Roy Jones Jr(unranked seriously shot legend)

So were saying somebody who fought 5 top 10 ranked opponents in 21 defenses when he was ranked 1 or 2, and only 2 of them were top 5, is an ATG? 5 years of his prime were against unranked opponents.

Hopkins is his best win who was in his 40's. It's still a great win because of what Hopkins just did but Hopkins didn't have the speed he once had. Obviously lost a step, gave Joe the fight of his life and arguably beat him on technique alone. Then Joe never rematched to settle the score once and for all.

Instead he fought Roy Jones who was out of his prime after he got KO'd by Johnson. He was seriously shot, no speed or reflexes anymore, came off a win against shot blown up Trinidad.

So LMAO, is this really what you want to call ATG?

Just to add a bit, pulled some old Ring's and you're undercutting some, looking at the wrong listings for others (references included), and not addressing full context for others still:

Reid was actually 6 going in (Ring, 3/99) and the win was hardly controversial at the time. It's become a controversy years later because it was close.
Woodhall was rated 10 going into the fight with Calzaghe and had been rated as high as 2 prior to a very close loss to Beyer (Ring, 1/01); good fight where Woodhall closed hard after being decked early.
Manfredo was 10 going in (Ring, 4/07)
Mger Mkrtchya would go on to be rated as high as #6 (Ring, 1/07) after the Calzaghe loss
Sheika and Bika would both be rated (Bika still is) following losses to Calzaghe
Roy Jones was still rated going into the Calzaghe fight (#7 and stayed for a while after: click here); pointed out for accuracy; that win is meaningless beyond the rating.

So, yeah, still not awe inspiring in chunks but it would also be interesting to pull some old Boxing Monthly's from the UK and see where they regarded Starie who was well regarded before that eye-abortion he had with Joe (that was once an anticipated fight) and some other Euros. Ring can occasionally be argued as U.S. market biased.

[IronDanHamza]

Originally Posted by crold1

Just to add a bit, pulled some old Ring's and you're undercutting some, looking at the wrong listings for others (references included), and not addressing full context for others still:

Reid was actually 6 going in (Ring, 3/99) and the win was hardly controversial at the time. It's become a controversy years later because it was close.
Woodhall was rated 10 going into the fight with Calzaghe and had been rated as high as 2 prior to a very close loss to Beyer (Ring, 1/01); good fight where Woodhall closed hard after being decked early.
Manfredo was 10 going in (Ring, 4/07)
Mger Mkrtchya would go on to be rated as high as #6 (Ring, 1/07) after the Calzaghe loss
Sheika and Bika would both be rated (Bika still is) following losses to Calzaghe
Roy Jones was still rated going into the Calzaghe fight (#7 and stayed for a while after: click here); pointed out for accuracy; that win is meaningless beyond the rating.

So, yeah, still not awe inspiring in chunks but it would also be interesting to pull some old Boxing Monthly's from the UK and see where they regarded Starie who was well regarded before that eye-abortion he had with Joe (that was once an anticipated fight) and some other Euros. Ring can occasionally be argued as U.S. market biased.

Still, pretty shocking that his entire title reign consisted of only 2 fighters ranked in the Top 5 in Lacy and Kessler who are hardly world beaters.

[crold1]

Originally Posted by IronDanHamza

Still, pretty shocking that his entire title reign consisted of only 2 fighters ranked in the Top 5 in Lacy and Kessler who are hardly world beaters.

Not really. When there are four beltholders who typically hold it down and you've got market splits, top five guys are hard to come by. Guys like Mitchell and Woodhall and Reid could all have been in that range and in some cases were a hair off. It doesn't change much. Calzaghe's resume strength is in being top heavy and consistent. It's weakness is in being part of a split title era and reigning in between good eras at Super Middle generally. Hopkins had a similar problem in his reign prior to the tourney at 160. Hopkins's resume has exploded in awesomeness at Light Heavy, doubling the quality wins on his record.

It's one reason why Hopkins will likely end up regarded inside the top 30 fighters of all time and Calzaghe will end up somewhere low in a top 100 or just outside in a nod to his cleaning out a class.

Both great fighters. Both will be integral to all-time debates (one across board, the other in a class). They are the ultimate example of varying degrees of greatness inside even a single era.