LOL at people who says it's too late for Calzaghe to become great

So I take it I was right then? Come on Yanks! Expose me as a biased dickrider!

The thing about Joe is that, he's a young 36 and can still fight and compete with the best for a few more years, I hope he fights Pavlik next to make a statment

Its obvious that abadger ricky lucky13 are all biased, Joe Calzaghe cheerleaders aka dickriders.. they FLOOD the forums with recycled arguements of how calzaghe is great, but real fans know the deal.. hes comming out of his shell wayy too late. theres nothin he can do about it.. I want to ignore lucky13 but i cant b/c he is a MOD.. What a magnificent opportunity to quote myself, please read and explain to me how I am a biased dickrider without revealing yourself to be one: And you are becoming blindly one-sided in your assessment of the facts. Let me put it this way: Both Joe Calzaghe and Bernard Hopkins spent the majority of their 10 year reigns as champs beating good but not great challengers. For Hopkins read Eastman, Joppy, Echols, Johnson, Mercado for Calzaghe see Reid, Brewer, Mitchell, Sheika, Woodhall. But both have both faced a selection of supposedly stiffer competition but which it would be fair to say there were questions about. For Hopkins this is Jones, Taylor, Winky, De La Hoya, Trinidad and Tarver and Joe, for Joe it is Eubank, Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins himself. Hopkins has more of these stiffer tests, but he has also lost on four out the eight top guys he faced. Calzaghe has fought four and beat four, and has one or two fights left in him still. All of these 'name' opponents with the exception of Jones as I said have slight to big question marks against them, in BOTH cases, so they are even on that score too. Bottom line, there is NO huge difference between these resumes, unless somehow Bernard Hopkins is to be given unimaginable credit for losing fights, two of which he should have won. Personally I rate Calzaghe's big wins as better than Hopkins, but I'm sure with you it is the other way around. Thats the way it is, we're fans of different fighters. Lets stop acting like there is a clear and indisputable difference in quality between Joe and Hopkins, there isn't, and you, me, and everyone else should be able to admit it.

am i in the twilight zone???????? Its obvious that abadger ricky lucky13 are all biased, Joe Calzaghe cheerleaders aka dickriders.. they FLOOD the forums with recycled arguements of how calzaghe is great, but real fans know the deal.. hes comming out of his shell wayy too late. theres nothin he can do about it.. I want to ignore lucky13 but i cant b/c he is a MOD..

I thought Calzaghe said that he was retiring in the very near future? Most boxers dont actually stay true to their word about that...but still, if he only has say two fights left, then time IS kind of running out if he wants to add much more to his legacy. also, keep in mind that not everyone can fight into their 40s like Hopkins did, especially with that kind of success. Im not sure Calzaghe could

am i in the twilight zone???????? Lucky13 IS a boxing expert!

I know who had a better resume at 36 :lol1:

You are slowly morphing into the kind of monomaniacal Calzaghe fanboy that Ricky is. I'm disappointed. And you are becoming blindly one-sided in your assessment of the facts. Let me put it this way: Both Joe Calzaghe and Bernard Hopkins spent the majority of their 10 year reigns as champs beating good but not great challengers. For Hopkins read Eastman, Joppy, Echols, Johnson, Mercado for Calzaghe see Reid, Brewer, Mitchell, Sheika, Woodhall. But both have both faced a selection of supposedly stiffer competition but which it would be fair to say there were questions about. For Hopkins this is Jones, Taylor, Winky, De La Hoya, Trinidad and Tarver and Joe, for Joe it is Eubank, Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins himself. Hopkins has more of these stiffer tests, but he has also lost on four out the eight top guys he faced. Calzaghe has fought four and beat four, and has one or two fights left in him still. All of these 'name' opponents with the exception of Jones as I said have slight to big question marks against them, in BOTH cases, so they are even on that score too. Bottom line, there is NO huge difference between these resumes, unless somehow Bernard Hopkins is to be given unimaginable credit for losing fights, two of which he should have won. Personally I rate Calzaghe's big wins as better than Hopkins, but I'm sure with you it is the other way around. Thats the way it is, we're fans of different fighters. Lets stop acting like there is a clear and indisputable difference in quality between Joe and Hopkins, there isn't, and you, me, and everyone else should be able to admit it.

Joe C's one of those fighters people don't appreciate now, but probably will a lot more after he retires. Kinda like they did Lennox.

You are slowly morphing into the kind of monomaniacal Calzaghe fanboy that Ricky is. I'm disappointed.

And if Calzaghe would have retired in 2007 he'd have beaten a years-past-it, coming-in-at-short-notice Chris Eubank, an overhyped, one-dimensional bum in Jeff Lacy (struggled even with Manfredo, hot damn), a ton of other bums, and Mikkel Kessler (who has yet to beat anyone with a pulse) and Robin Reid, which was a Split Decision. Riiiight. Giving him, in fact, a better resume than Bernard Hopkins.

What Ricky says is basically true. Calzaghe already has as good a resume as Hopkins and all these discussions of "greatness" shouldn't come into it. My true hard nosed opinion is that "greatness" works like this. Boxing exists and a winning fighter comes along. TV show winning fighter because he is a marketing opportunity. Boxing fan watches winning fighter win on TV. TV starts saying winning fighter is great, because they want to make more money. Boxing fan agrees with TV. Hey Presto! Boxer is great. This applies to boxers on both sides of the Atlantic, but in general fight fans are only watching TV in one country, hence the differences of opinion we see on here.

And if Calzaghe would have retired in 2007 he'd have beaten a years-past-it, coming-in-at-short-notice Chris Eubank, an overhyped, one-dimensional bum in Jeff Lacy (struggled even with Manfredo, hot damn), a ton of other bums, and Mikkel Kessler (who has yet to beat anyone with a pulse) and Robin Reid, which was a Split Decision. Riiiight. Don't lose your patience. So far you're handling this with class and I'm enjoying it. :boxing:

If Hopkins was to have retired in 2005 he would have retired with 4 losses, 1 draw with his biggest names being Roy Jones (loss) Jermain Taylor (loss X2) and Felix Trinidad (Welterweight). And if Calzaghe would have retired in 2007 he'd have beaten a years-past-it, coming-in-at-short-notice Chris Eubank, an overhyped, one-dimensional bum in Jeff Lacy (struggled even with Manfredo, hot damn), a ton of other bums, and Mikkel Kessler (who has yet to beat anyone with a pulse) and Robin Reid, which was a Split Decision. Riiiight.

didn't you say pav is greater than popkins right now?????...........lol........ Yes, what's so funny about that?! Don't listen to these dudes, I'm a boxing expert.

At least you could agree that if he had not "Yori Boyed" for most of his career and decided to move to where the big boys fight, he would have had a better resumé.

You should forfeit these boards with immediate effect Why? He's right on point!

You should forfeit these boards with immediate effect