Calzaghe Haters: What Is It You Don't Like?

I don't like him because he fights like a god damn homosexual trying to swat hairspray out of his boyfriends face. Plus his male fans only like him so much because there attracted to him sexually and won't admit it... haahahahhahaaha.... i admit... the way he throws his punches... i cant stand it. its like a palms first gay swat

18 years of pro-slapping career.

I don't like him because he fights like a god damn homosexual trying to swat hairspray out of his boyfriends face. Plus his male fans only like him so much because there attracted to him sexually and won't admit it... :rofl::rofl:

I don't like him because he fights like a god damn homosexual trying to swat hairspray out of his boyfriends face. Plus his male fans only like him so much because there attracted to him sexually and won't admit it... And I screwed your Mom last night :)

whether you like calzaghe as a girly fighter or not you have to admit hes a hypocritical douchebag. calling himself the legend killer then turning around and saying hopkins is no legend the very next sentence. so which legends have you killed then calzaghe? kabary salem? then saying roy jones doesn't matter and is shot but now is pursuing the hell out of a fight with him.

It's all in good fun, son. Poet and i have been cool as well. Hes actually a very good and knowledable poster. I think its becuase i have learned to be unbiased and not get worked up so easy. The only poster that i still have problems with is Sweet Pete when we are over at East-side-boxing.

Don't be shocked because you don't like what you hear. I'm one of the more credible posters here with no time for nonsense so please refrain from calling me a hater. I told you I don't dislike him. Also, you will look at things completely in favour of Joe, which is fine with me, while i'm the least biased here. I give credit where its due, and i'm not affraid of coming out with some criticsm either. You say: compare him to "most" boxers, but you only bring up Hopkins every time when I'm the one that mentions OTHER boxers as well, such as the diffirence between a Pavlik and a Mayweather(as you may still remember, I said Calzaghe is somewhere in between which isn't that horrible). And Joe hardly refrains from 'trash talking' himself these days when his opponent is breaking his balls verbally. If my memory serves me correctly, Joe was quite hostile very consistently in his responses to Hopkins' comments. Granted that he probably wouldn't have said these things if Hopkins respected him, but tell me, would you see a guy like Pavlik ever respond to child ish stuff like white boy comments like Calzaghe did? No. A Mayweather, Mayorga or Miranda would talk trash about their opponent regardless of it being a response. So do you understand where i'm coming from now when I say Calzaghe is between Pavlik & Mayweather when it comes to arrogance/trash talking? Again, you don't mind it/don't notice it because you like hearing it. I look at it with no bias and I see that the question has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with how long he's undefeated, how he beat Lacy and Kessler. He simply loves to glorify his career when there is no need to. You probably think it annoys me(and will probably resort back to your child ish 'hater' accusations) but all i'm telling you is this: Joe Calzaghe is not humble. And overall he's arrogant. Or maybe he's insecure. We don't know. As much as you'd like to, I presume you don't know him personally and we can only judge him on what we see. This brings me to a good point that slicksouthpaw16 made. JC thinks his legacy is already sealed, and that he should be considered great like Marciano and others because he might retire undefeated despite the fact that everybody wants him to fight Pavlik and it's obvious he is not at that level of greatness at this time. Maybe you're right, but he still said those things. Again I have to ask you, a fighter that is always humble and respectful does not react in such tasteless manner, not even during a fight. I just don't see it often, if ever. But you make some good points though, props. I held you in higher regards as a poster untill you started to accuse a man of things you know nothing about, and resort back to your stereo types. This is always the clearest signs of losing an argument. I never said I disliked him, or that I liked the opponents he beat. Do you have any proof that I do? I always gave him credit when he won a fight and the only fighter he beat that I like is Hopkins. Let me guess, you think i'm bitter that Hopkins lost? I hope you're not that predictable buddy. Basically I don't agree with you that Joe is a particularly arrogant boxer, and I feel the examples you give are somewhat clutching at straws. Joe isn't a big league trash talker at all, so saying you dislike him because of his attitude just seems a little strange to me, thats all.

Joe Calzaghe----slap For Slap The Best Fighter In The World

lol i know. We were kind of enemies when i first came to this forum. It's all in good fun, son.

We finally agree on almost everything in a subject, lol. lol i know. We were kind of enemies when i first came to this forum.

I wouldn't look deep into Johnson/Sheika. Johnson is known for being tough and going out and fighting in other guys back yards. Johnson is another fighter that Calzaghe was accused of ducking. I didn't say that he hasn't beaten any good fighters, he just hasn't beaten any of the top recognized champions that were known to the public. Kessler and Lacy are both untested against the elite fighters in the division. Lets just take a look back, what wins does Kessler or Lacy have against a very good champion that stands out? None really. Mundine was never considered to be elite and Beyer was years past his true prime. Kessler was a great win for Calzaghe becuase he had two of the major titles, but he was not pound for pound quaility. I didn't say that beating them counts for nothing. On paper they are his best wins, which is saying something considering the fact that both were obviously past their primes. They were still good fighters but lets face it, they were not the same fighters that they use to be and many people pick a younger Eubank and younger Hopkins to beat Calzaghe. Eubank was never the same after the Michael Watson tragedy and never gave it his all since that fight. There was moments that he could have stopped Benn in their rematch but didn't quite pull the trigger becuase of the mental damage. You have to look at the circumstances of the fighters. Wilfred Benetiz was past his prime when he was only 24 years old. Hopkins giving Calzaghe one of his toughest fights doesn't look good for Calzaghe. Bernard was 43, had slowed down and didn't have the stamina that he use to have. He was still a very good fighter, but many people including me thought that Hopkins won. Hopkins had already lost to Jermain Taylor twice, had taken a two year lay off and was on the decline. If he had beaten Calzaghe, then Calzaghe would look really bad and would have been exposed for not fighting real opponents and threats. Like i have said, if he beat Dawson or Pavlik then he would get a lot of respect and would pretty much have a sealed lagacy. He really doesn't have a choice unless he wants to go out on a bad note with the critics. Also, i have already said that Calzaghe was a very good fighter and I'm also a fan so obviously i don't have anything against him. He is just in no position to pick and choose his opponents and seriously believe that his legacy is sealed. He is now being accused on ducking Pavlik(an elite pound for pound quality fighter). We finally agree on almost everything in a subject, lol.

Your one to talk julio cesar garcia fan. His resume is total shit compared to Calzaghe, I don't care if he fought lots of fights at a young age his opponents are ass. Most boxers could fightt that many opponents if they were fighting shitty opposition, so you love your crap boxer julio cesar garcia but not Calzaghe probably because he is white even though his opposition shits all over that clowns Garcia who couldn't even beat a 40 year old and then lied and said that he threw the fight for money purposes. Shitty bum bum is what you Garcia is www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=032499 What the fuck are you smoking? I'm a fan of JCG? That's news to me, I could've sworn I didn't give 2 shits about him.

Woah! You really don't like him do you? I have to say it seems to me that perhaps your dislike of Calzaghe comes first, and your dislike makes you interpret his actions as arrogant. I mean be real, compared to most elite boxers is a model of restraint, compare him to Hopkins before their last fight to see what I mean. Boxing is rife with trash talkers, but Joe isn't one. He used to be when he was younger, but not any more, for years.. Don't be shocked because you don't like what you hear. I'm one of the more credible posters here with no time for nonsense so please refrain from calling me a hater. I told you I don't dislike him. Also, you will look at things completely in favour of Joe, which is fine with me, while i'm the least biased here. I give credit where its due, and i'm not affraid of coming out with some criticsm either. You say: compare him to "most" boxers, but you only bring up Hopkins every time when I'm the one that mentions OTHER boxers as well, such as the diffirence between a Pavlik and a Mayweather(as you may still remember, I said Calzaghe is somewhere in between which isn't that horrible). And Joe hardly refrains from 'trash talking' himself these days when his opponent is breaking his balls verbally. If my memory serves me correctly, Joe was quite hostile very consistently in his responses to Hopkins' comments. Granted that he probably wouldn't have said these things if Hopkins respected him, but tell me, would you see a guy like Pavlik ever respond to child ish stuff like white boy comments like Calzaghe did? No. A Mayweather, Mayorga or Miranda would talk trash about their opponent regardless of it being a response. So do you understand where i'm coming from now when I say Calzaghe is between Pavlik & Mayweather when it comes to arrogance/trash talking? As for bringing up Lacy and Kessler, what on earth is wrong with this? He's a boxer and presumably in interviews he is expected to talk about his career, since those are two of not only his best, but most recent wins, of course he's going to talk about them. Seems to me that you just don't like hearing about Joe winning. Again, you don't mind it/don't notice it because you like hearing it. I look at it with no bias and I see that the question has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with how long he's undefeated, how he beat Lacy and Kessler. He simply loves to glorify his career when there is no need to. You probably think it annoys me(and will probably resort back to your child ish 'hater' accusations) but all i'm telling you is this: Joe Calzaghe is not humble. And overall he's arrogant. Or maybe he's insecure. We don't know. As much as you'd like to, I presume you don't know him personally and we can only judge him on what we see. This brings me to a good point that slicksouthpaw16 made. JC thinks his legacy is already sealed, and that he should be considered great like Marciano and others because he might retire undefeated despite the fact that everybody wants him to fight Pavlik and it's obvious he is not at that level of greatness at this time. Finally, Calzaghe calling Lacy shit: you're right he did, in his corner, to his trainer, during the fight. Its not like he did a press interview when he said that is it? Presumably Joe wanted to communicate to his corner how he felt about the fight, and what would you like him to say? "I feel that my opponent does not have the talent that we had been lead to expect?" be real! All kinds of shit gets said in corners, and besides, in this case it was about the most accurate thing he could have said, Lacy was shit. Maybe you're right, but he still said those things. Again I have to ask you, a fighter that is always humble and respectful does not react in such tasteless manner, not even during a fight. I just don't see it often, if ever. But you make some good points though, props. Anyhow, those are just my thoughts, you are perfectly entitled to hate Joe for any reason you like, I just think its less because he's arrogant, and more because he beats fighters you like I held you in higher regards as a poster untill you started to accuse a man of things you know nothing about, and resort back to your stereo types. This is always the clearest signs of losing an argument. I never said I disliked him, or that I liked the opponents he beat. Do you have any proof that I do? I always gave him credit when he won a fight and the only fighter he beat that I like is Hopkins. Let me guess, you think i'm bitter that Hopkins lost? I hope you're not that predictable buddy.

I think in this instance you are falling into "The American Trap" you seem basically to be prepared to write off Joe's entire career before he came to US prominence, this is a very dangerous thing to do, because glib dismissal of fights because they were long ago and don't contain any absolute superstars can lead to you making mistakes. First up, Byron Mitchell, Charles Brewer and Omar Sheika were good fighters all highly ranked by ring, likewise Reid and a bit earlier Woodhall. No-one claims these are the fights that make you into a superstar, but they are the fights you have to win if you want to get there one day and were all on paper tough defences for Joe. Omar Sheika beat Glen Johnson at SMW and Mitchell effectively ended Frankie Liles career. Had Mitchell in particular not run into Joe he would have been a much bigger name and one of the best SMWs of the era, but he did and so he wasn't. Look at the way Jeff Lacy is written off, same thing. American fans don't usually worship guys who lose to unknown Euros, but when that Euro is Joe Calzaghe, it doesn't mean they are bad fighters. I wouldn't look deep into Johnson/Sheika. Johnson is known for being tough and going out and fighting in other guys back yards. Johnson is another fighter that Calzaghe was accused of ducking. I didn't say that he hasn't beaten any good fighters, he just hasn't beaten any of the top recognized champions that were known to the public. Kessler and Lacy are both untested against the elite fighters in the division. Lets just take a look back, what wins does Kessler or Lacy have against a very good champion that stands out? None really. Mundine was never considered to be elite and Beyer was years past his true prime. Kessler was a great win for Calzaghe becuase he had two of the major titles, but he was not pound for pound quaility. Second, you sweepingly state that Eubank and Hopkins were 'washed up' as though beating them counts for nothing. This is absurd. Eubank was a great fighter in his day, and at the time he fought Joe was just 31 years old. He was not quite the fighter he had been, but he was nowhere near shot, his previous losses having come to the also excellent Steve Collins. At the time they fought, Joe was just 25 years old and the size of the step up in class that Eubank represented cannot be overestimated, it was massive. The young Joe, until that point untested at anything like world level beat him convincingly in an absolute war, a great achievemnt for a young british champion. I didn't say that beating them counts for nothing. On paper they are his best wins, which is saying something considering the fact that both were obviously past their primes. They were still good fighters but lets face it, they were not the same fighters that they use to be and many people pick a younger Eubank and younger Hopkins to beat Calzaghe. Eubank was never the same after the Michael Watson tragedy and never gave it his all since that fight. There was moments that he could have stopped Benn in their rematch but didn't quite pull the trigger becuase of the mental damage. You have to look at the circumstances of the fighters. Wilfred Benetiz was past his prime when he was only 24 years old. As for Hopkins being shot, basically, be real. Hopkins gave Calzaghe one of his toughest fights, held the Ring belt at LHW and was coming off wins over Tarver and Winky. He had plenty left. But just like Eubank, Byron Mitchell, Jeff Lacy, Mikkel Kessler, Charles Brewer, Omar Sheika he lost to Calzaghe and guys like you immediately start saying, "oh well he wasn't any good". Ask yourself really, if that had been Chad Dawson in there with Hopkins would you say Hopkins was "washed up" I don't think you would. What if he had beaten Calzghe, which he wasn't so very far away from doing, would he be washed up then? It is commonly said that Hopkins destroys careers, but Calzaghe does it too. The reason you think that so many of the names on Calzaghe's record are no good, is because they lost to Calzaghe. Its just that Americans in general, including you in this instance, find it so hard to respect Calzaghe in the same way that you do US fighters that you overlook this fact and twist it into a stick to beat Calzaghe with. Hopkins giving Calzaghe one of his toughest fights doesn't look good for Calzaghe. Bernard was 43, had slowed down and didn't have the stamina that he use to have. He was still a very good fighter, but many people including me thought that Hopkins won. Hopkins had already lost to Jermain Taylor twice, had taken a two year lay off and was on the decline. If he had beaten Calzaghe, then Calzaghe would look really bad and would have been exposed for not fighting real opponents and threats. Like i have said, if he beat Dawson or Pavlik then he would get a lot of respect and would pretty much have a sealed lagacy. He really doesn't have a choice unless he wants to go out on a bad note with the critics. Also, i have already said that Calzaghe was a very good fighter and I'm also a fan so obviously i don't have anything against him. He is just in no position to pick and choose his opponents and seriously believe that his legacy is sealed. He is now being accused on ducking Pavlik(an elite pound for pound quality fighter).

This thread needs some music i reckon?

My answers to the question at hand are: His fans, his resume, and his style. His fans, like all good boxers make me hate them. It doesn't mean I only like underrated fighters or people others don't know about... but it certainly doesn't help me like a fighter if I despise their fans. His resume is weak, very weak, although getting stronger. I don't like the amount of praise he receives for what little he has done for supposedly such a great career. I hate his style. I hate this pretending to be in the amateur bullshit that he and some other fighters use. I'm 100% ok with not throwing only power shots, but when your "power shots" are basically weaker than Winky Wright's jab then you've got big issues. Ouma, Calzaghe, Solimon... they might be able to entertain me from time to time, but I'll be damned if I'm going to reward them rounds for tapping their opponents.

Woah! You really don't like him do you? I have to say it seems to me that perhaps your dislike of Calzaghe comes first, and your dislike makes you interpret his actions as arrogant. I mean be real, compared to most elite boxers is a model of restraint, compare him to Hopkins before their last fight to see what I mean. Boxing is rife with trash talkers, but Joe isn't one. He used to be when he was younger, but not any more, for years. As for bringing up Lacy and Kessler, what on earth is wrong with this? He's a boxer and presumably in interviews he is expected to talk about his career, since those are two of not only his best, but most recent wins, of course he's going to talk about them. Seems to me that you just don't like hearing about Joe winning. Finally, Calzaghe calling Lacy shit: you're right he did, in his corner, to his trainer, during the fight. Its not like he did a press interview when he said that is it? Presumably Joe wanted to communicate to his corner how he felt about the fight, and what would you like him to say? "I feel that my opponent does not have the talent that we had been lead to expect?" be real! All kinds of shit gets said in corners, and besides, in this case it was about the most accurate thing he could have said, Lacy was shit. Anyhow, those are just my thoughts, you are perfectly entitled to hate Joe for any reason you like, I just think its less because he's arrogant, and more because he beats fighters you like. Totally agree. What the fuck kind of fighter doesn't talk about their best wins? Although he's not my favourite fighter there is no doubt that Calzaghe receives some hate that the people doing the hating don't really have any justification for.

I think in this instance you are falling into "The American Trap" you seem basically to be prepared to write off Joe's entire career before he came to US prominence, this is a very dangerous thing to do, because glib dismissal of fights because they were long ago and don't contain any absolute superstars can lead to you making mistakes. First up, Byron Mitchell, Charles Brewer and Omar Sheika were good fighters all highly ranked by ring, likewise Reid and a bit earlier Woodhall. No-one claims these are the fights that make you into a superstar, but they are the fights you have to win if you want to get there one day and were all on paper tough defences for Joe. Omar Sheika beat Glen Johnson at SMW and Mitchell effectively ended Frankie Liles career. Had Mitchell in particular not run into Joe he would have been a much bigger name and one of the best SMWs of the era, but he did and so he wasn't. Look at the way Jeff Lacy is written off, same thing. American fans don't usually worship guys who lose to unknown Euros, but when that Euro is Joe Calzaghe, it doesn't mean they are bad fighters. Second, you sweepingly state that Eubank and Hopkins were 'washed up' as though beating them counts for nothing. This is absurd. Eubank was a great fighter in his day, and at the time he fought Joe was just 31 years old. He was not quite the fighter he had been, but he was nowhere near shot, his previous losses having come to the also excellent Steve Collins. At the time they fought, Joe was just 25 years old and the size of the step up in class that Eubank represented cannot be overestimated, it was massive. The young Joe, until that point untested at anything like world level beat him convincingly in an absolute war, a great achievemnt for a young british champion. As for Hopkins being shot, basically, be real. Hopkins gave Calzaghe one of his toughest fights, held the Ring belt at LHW and was coming off wins over Tarver and Winky. He had plenty left. But just like Eubank, Byron Mitchell, Jeff Lacy, Mikkel Kessler, Charles Brewer, Omar Sheika he lost to Calzaghe and guys like you immediately start saying, "oh well he wasn't any good". Ask yourself really, if that had been Chad Dawson in there with Hopkins would you say Hopkins was "washed up" I don't think you would. What if he had beaten Calzghe, which he wasn't so very far away from doing, would he be washed up then? It is commonly said that Hopkins destroys careers, but Calzaghe does it too. The reason you think that so many of the names on Calzaghe's record are no good, is because they lost to Calzaghe. Its just that Americans in general, including you in this instance, find it so hard to respect Calzaghe in the same way that you do US fighters that you overlook this fact and twist it into a stick to beat Calzaghe with. Omar Sheika beat Glen Johnson the Way Julio Cesar Chavez drew with Pernell Whitaker. Some examples are best left alone.

The only guys that Calzaghe is being respected for beating is Lacy and Kessler simply becuase they were young guys and a lot of people that were betting chose them to win the fight. That plus Calzaghe put on great performances in both fights. Eubank and Hopkins were both washed up and on paper, they are the best names on Calzaghe's resume. What i don't like about Calzaghe is the fact that he thinks that his legacy is already sealed and he doesn't have to fight any more top elite fighters, which is certainly not true. IMO Calzaghe has shown no evidence that he is past his prime and can still go after the elite. He is only 36 and has not really been in any wars. He will lose a lot of respect if he actually retires without fighting more younger threats. Like i have stated, he is a very good fighter but you can make a case for him being match carefully. I think in this instance you are falling into "The American Trap" you seem basically to be prepared to write off Joe's entire career before he came to US prominence, this is a very dangerous thing to do, because glib dismissal of fights because they were long ago and don't contain any absolute superstars can lead to you making mistakes. First up, Byron Mitchell, Charles Brewer and Omar Sheika were good fighters all highly ranked by ring, likewise Reid and a bit earlier Woodhall. No-one claims these are the fights that make you into a superstar, but they are the fights you have to win if you want to get there one day and were all on paper tough defences for Joe. Omar Sheika beat Glen Johnson at SMW and Mitchell effectively ended Frankie Liles career. Had Mitchell in particular not run into Joe he would have been a much bigger name and one of the best SMWs of the era, but he did and so he wasn't. Look at the way Jeff Lacy is written off, same thing. American fans don't usually worship guys who lose to unknown Euros, but when that Euro is Joe Calzaghe, it doesn't mean they are bad fighters. Second, you sweepingly state that Eubank and Hopkins were 'washed up' as though beating them counts for nothing. This is absurd. Eubank was a great fighter in his day, and at the time he fought Joe was just 31 years old. He was not quite the fighter he had been, but he was nowhere near shot, his previous losses having come to the also excellent Steve Collins. At the time they fought, Joe was just 25 years old and the size of the step up in class that Eubank represented cannot be overestimated, it was massive. The young Joe, until that point untested at anything like world level beat him convincingly in an absolute war, a great achievemnt for a young british champion. As for Hopkins being shot, basically, be real. Hopkins gave Calzaghe one of his toughest fights, held the Ring belt at LHW and was coming off wins over Tarver and Winky. He had plenty left. But just like Eubank, Byron Mitchell, Jeff Lacy, Mikkel Kessler, Charles Brewer, Omar Sheika he lost to Calzaghe and guys like you immediately start saying, "oh well he wasn't any good". Ask yourself really, if that had been Chad Dawson in there with Hopkins would you say Hopkins was "washed up" I don't think you would. What if he had beaten Calzghe, which he wasn't so very far away from doing, would he be washed up then? It is commonly said that Hopkins destroys careers, but Calzaghe does it too. The reason you think that so many of the names on Calzaghe's record are no good, is because they lost to Calzaghe. Its just that Americans in general, including you in this instance, find it so hard to respect Calzaghe in the same way that you do US fighters that you overlook this fact and twist it into a stick to beat Calzaghe with.

It's a reluctance to take on the dangerous opponents during their prime, which makes the legacy suspect and raises questions regarding the integrity of the fighter. He's good for sure. He might be great, he just hasn't earned that. Perfectly put. You can not be known as being great unless you prove it against the best and is willing to take risks. The only true threats that he fought where people expected him to lose were against Kessler and Lacy. Both fighters untested against the elite opposition. Calzaghe NEEDS to fight Pavlik or Dawson to help seal his legacy.