Fantastic showing from Calzaghe tonight, and props are due.
However my big problem is hearing a bunch of gloating and raving like some misconception about Calzaghe has been lifted and eveyone that ever doubted him was wrong.
One good win doesn't change the fact he's been a fight dodging homer who's wasted his entire career up until now.
Great win for him today, but it's one of the 1st significant wins in years, or in his whole career.
It's a shame it took him until he was 34 to make some kind of statement.
This thread isn't about the dismal Heavyweight division.
Stop bringing everyone down remiding us of how bad it is.
Ok, Joe Calzage beat lacy tonight and now he will go back to fighting mediocre opponents.
Are you kidding me? Even if the heavies fought each other it still wouldn't make them legitimate fighters.
Joe Louis would beat Rahman, Toney, W. Klitschko and Valuev all on the same night.
If they fought each other the divison would be alot better. DKP really slowed things down when all of his fighters held the belts.
Are you kidding me? Even if the heavies fought each other it still wouldn't make them legitimate fighters.
Joe Louis would beat Rahman, Toney, W. Klitschko and Valuev all on the same night.
As relative as things can be with the over all and sorry state of the Heavyweight division.
It just takes to long for the good ones to fight each other. Seems to me like everyone is too busy ducking each other.
I saw you made the comment about WBO title defenses and I wanted to see if Brewsters defenses were realitive.
As relative as things can be with the over all and sorry state of the Heavyweight division.
Almost everyone currently at Heavyweight is soft. But of the current title holders, he's faced the best opposition as of late.
What does this have to do with the topic of this thread?
I saw you made the comment about WBO title defenses and I wanted to see if Brewsters defenses were realitive.
Do you agree his opposition has been soft?
Almost everyone currently at Heavyweight is soft. But of the current title holders, he's faced the best opposition as of late.
What does this have to do with the topic of this thread?
I wouldn't call 3 fights a string of defenses. Brewster has been the most impressive of the title holders in the last year or so at heavyweight. I don't think you'd find too many who'd disagree with that considering who the the others have been fighting and how infrequently.
Do you agree his opposition has been soft?
Even Lamon Brewster??
I wouldn't call 3 fights a string of defenses. Brewster has been the most impressive of the title holders in the last year or so at heavyweight. I don't think you'd find too many who'd disagree with that considering who the the others have been fighting and how infrequently.
I'm not overly impressed with anyone who runs up a string of WBO title defenses, all in europe. Not just Joe, but anyone who's had that similar set of circumstances.
As far as I'm concerned, he's just now proved he's the top at 168 with one of his first significant wins.
It's a clean slate, and if he travels for fight Kessler or moves to Lt Heavy to seek bigger fights, he'll win me over.
Even Lamon Brewster??
You sir, are weak minded.
You sir, are a shell of someone who resembles inner enlightenment.
Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
Oh and on a side note.
I thought Lacy was god. After watching the fight tonight....I think Calzaghe is god.
As pathetic and naive as that sounds, I've never been more impressed by a single victory. Ever.
You sir, are weak minded.
I agree with you 100% Bozo,I didnt want to post this because I didnt want to get flamed or look like I was making excuses since my money was on Lacy.
But its like this,Joe's best all time win came against a green fighter,at least Hatton's was against Tszyu.
There's not much difference between any of the major 4 belts anyways. It's just a matter of perspective and how you look at it.
The fight today proved how bad the current crop of fighters we have today truly are. In no way, shape or form do these guys even compare to the oldies. No fcking way.
There's no difference bozo.
There's no difference in the WBO's rankings and the IBF?
Don't be naive.
And again, it's really beside the point, because we both agreed they were stiffs no matter which way you look at it.
What's the difference between having 20 defences against IBF stiffs and 18 defences against WBO stiffs?
Answer: Nothing.
Keyword: Stiffs.
Thank you.
The differnce is the WBO has far worse and undeserving fighters ranked highly for no reason.
But you hit the nail on the head. Stiff was the keyword.