Hypocrisy in Calzaghe Criticism

FAIL. Once again you miss the point. Calzaghe CAN take an easy money fight. That's fine. He's earned it. What is pissing rational people off are his douchebag fan and Joe propping up a shot to shit Roy Jones and saying this will be a great win and cement Joe as an ATG, and that this PROVES he was the best of his era. Gimme a fucking break. If he wants to take the easy fight, more power to him. Just stop sucking his balls. I honestly can't say I've seen anyone claiming beating Roy will cement Joe as an ATG. I see your point, but I don't see your evidence. Find me one example and I'll send you some points. I can't say fairer than that can I?

Kelly has 1 defence. You and Kris are right. I forgot the second Taylor fight was at a catch weight.

but regardless of whose fault it is, i still havent seen a "great" win from Joe against a "Great" fighter... im not blaming him for it, im just calling it like i see it Exactly. It doesn't matter WHY Joe never fought any great fighters in their primes, it just matters that the DIDN'T. As such, he simply cannot be ranked up there with the very best of the era.

But the investigation so late on down the road kinda beggers the question, why are you having to investigate sooo much now? Most didn't know the half of it before the Lacy fight. Theres a wide array of reasons as to why, it would have been different had the Johnson fight worked out, or Hopkins not doubled his wage last minute. Those 2 scenario's I have no doubt would have gotten Joe loads more exposure to ppl whom otherwise, don't know about him much thus are overwhelming suspicious and cynical down the road. Another is just plain ignorance I'm afraid. This is the one that gets me, there's ppl whom just don't know about Joe's career much, whether they bother to find out later or not. The attitude sometimes is one of "if I didn't get to hear, then he couldn't have been that good". As if it's some duty for news drops to be made to them from the media whom are exposing said person more. Another is lack of exposure in general, and I'm afraid a lot of the cynicism on Calzaghe comes from the states, where also, Calzaghe and many have said he's not had the exposure they felt he deserved. The media and networks haven't been great on covering his fights, and many boxing experts, commentators and more haven't mentioned Joe when in similar scenario's in other parts of the world, they would have. I mean recently hbo listed potential opponents for Wlad, omitting Haye, reason being he's often on Showtime. Think that's about right. I mean that's mega, just apply that to easier scenario's in Joe's history. Even Boxing Scene's p4p list previously commented, could the LHW #1 been right under our nose all this time in Joe Calzaghe, it's not out of reason". And that's the thing, Joe's at that level and ppl are only just coming to terms with it, let alone retrospectively. So the idea still seems radical to ppl, when it's not at all.

Kessler is not considered one of the two best fighters in the world. i was gonna say that... because joe is looked at as one of the best, and when your looked at as one of the best... people want to know why and how... and there going to investigate.

Good post and fair. I feel like we delving into excuses now, but it's more just trying to paint the bigger picture of the scene at certain times, and how a lot of other fighters aren't as different as made out. I mean even Kesslers getting some respect on the boards now, and to be fair, he hasn't fought as decent competition or out of his country as much as Joe. So why does Joe get a harder time on both these points. I'm sure even Calzaghe would've wanted bigger, greater wins, but in the grand scheme of things, he's done pretty good. The benchmark for respecting or crediting ppl significantly seems to be oddly high on some fighters, some times. As I said, you can put a negative spin on many fighters, even sometimes there best wins, just how it is. It's important to not over focus on certain aspects, but the wider picture, and comparisons however. And in doing that I think Joe's resume, greatest wins, and his top 10 wins, aren't half as bad as is often made out. There's lots on the plus that just never gets commented on, yet the negatives are, ppl read it, it spirals and so on. Kessler is not considered one of the two best fighters in the world.

Good post and fair. I feel like we delving into excuses now, but it's more just trying to paint the bigger picture of the scene at certain times, and how a lot of other fighters aren't as different as made out. I mean even Kesslers getting some respect on the boards now, and to be fair, he hasn't fought as decent competition or out of his country as much as Joe. So why does Joe get a harder time on both these points. I'm sure even Calzaghe would've wanted bigger, greater wins, but in the grand scheme of things, he's done pretty good. The benchmark for respecting or crediting ppl significantly seems to be oddly high on some fighters, some times. As I said, you can put a negative spin on many fighters, even sometimes there best wins, just how it is. It's important to not over focus on certain aspects, but the wider picture, and comparisons however. And in doing that I think Joe's resume, greatest wins, and his top 10 wins, aren't half as bad as is often made out. There's lots on the plus that just never gets commented on, yet the negatives are, ppl read it, it spirals and so on. seems like this would be a good time to conclude our debate then :fing02:

then thats just the way it is, and i understand that, and if joe couldnt get the fights back 6-7 years ago, well then maybe its not his fault... but regardless of fault... he didnt fight them, he didnt beat them.. i didnt mention the other names because im talking about his best wins... your best wins define your career in my respective opinion.. and his best wins to me are lacy kessler and bernard, possibly roy... lacy and kessler arent kind of proven fighters... they arent proven fighters... kessler has a great record, but ricky hatton and diego corrales showed us that doesnt mean much... and that doesnt mean im saying kessler isnt good, he is good, hes very good, he can fight... but hes not great... and weve went over roy and bernard... beating roy and bernard in their primes would be GREAT wins... beating them now would be very good wins... and your right, if he were to beat pavlik.. a guy whose been the MW champ for about a year or less, jumping up two weight classes.. no joe probably wouldnt get much credit for it... although me personally... i think it would be a great win for joe, if he were to beat pavlik... then again... when u go from MW to LHW in one fight, that severely fucks up your fight game, for some anyway, not all.. and chad dawson, yeah hes not exactly a great fighter, but he is young, he is a champion... but ur right, he isnt as proven as the aging greats... im not blaming joe, joe very well might have gotten the short stick on great opponents, by the time he got the great fighters, they were well past their prime, and the other good fighters, werent proven yet... and that sucks for joe... but regardless of whose fault it is, i still havent aeen a "great" win from Joe against a "Great" fighter... im not blaming him for it, im just calling it like i see it Good post and fair. I feel like we delving into excuses now, but it's more just trying to paint the bigger picture of the scene at certain times, and how a lot of other fighters aren't as different as made out. I mean even Kesslers getting some respect on the boards now, and to be fair, he hasn't fought as decent competition or out of his country as much as Joe. So why does Joe get a harder time on both these points. I'm sure even Calzaghe would've wanted bigger, greater wins, but in the grand scheme of things, he's done pretty good. The benchmark for respecting or crediting ppl significantly seems to be oddly high on some fighters, some times. As I said, you can put a negative spin on many fighters, even sometimes there best wins, just how it is. It's important to not over focus on certain aspects, but the wider picture, and comparisons however. And in doing that I think Joe's resume, greatest wins, and his top 10 wins, aren't half as bad as is often made out. There's lots on the plus that just never gets commented on, yet the negatives are, ppl read it, it spirals and so on.

The hypocrisy of late is underlined with Pavlik fighting Williams. Ppl say it's not on or good that Williams is jumping up 2 weight divisions to fight him. Yet it's ok for Kelly to do it, if he were to fight Joe. Another is the justification so often of so many fighters and fights, is there, fight at this weight to prove yourself first. Yet ppl think Pavlik after one defence against a bum, is worthy of just jumping up in probably 2 weight divisions to take on the #1 guy. What happened to work your way up? And then ppl say Calzaghe should have moved up to LHW to get into a position to fight the top guys at LHW. Well, erm, isn't that what Kelly should do if he wants to fight the big boys at different weights? 1) Pavlik has had two defenses. 2) You can't fault Kelly for wanting to fight Joe asap. Joe is an aging fighter and probably does not have all that much time in the sport. If Kelly doesn't get a shot now, he may never get one at all.

None of this stuff matters, global warming is catching up to us.

Well ok, but you've not really mentioned any other fight earlier than Lacy, other than Eubank. And I was talking about neither of those, but what happened between them. A long career which wasn't great, but was good and contained some good wins. Brewer, Mitchell, Reid, Woodhall, Veit were all decent wins especially in the fashion they got beat. They're not far from his top 3 best win list, not far at all. So the margin is no way near as big as people either make out, or believe to be the case. And no they're not the glossy names some ppl want, but I get sick of ppl justifying opponents as good wins for others, yet not Joe, when they're equally not major names. Fact is regardless of age Hopkins was LHW #1, that means above Tarver, Johnson, Dawson the young up and comer. Roy is still top 10 in the LHW division, he's above Woods in the Ring list respectively. He's noway near as past prime as many make out. Kessler is kind of the opposite, in terms of he's just about to peak performance wise. Joe could kind of do with one in the middle to settle the doubters, not that it would there'd be something new for many. In any case who would that be? Pavliks not that tested, he's beaten one name and a bum by the same standards of this logic, and would be like watching Calzaghe vs Kessler 2 in many ways. Dawsons isn't that tested at the top level yet so ppl would undermine that would aswell. Just how the scene is, and it's been turned into such a negative on Joe as if there's guys left right and centre that don't fall into either of these categories, when really there isn't. The top guys are either slightly un tested, or slightly past they're prime, that's just how it is for many of the top guys in SMW and LHW divisions. then thats just the way it is, and i understand that, and if joe couldnt get the fights back 6-7 years ago, well then maybe its not his fault... but regardless of fault... he didnt fight them, he didnt beat them.. i didnt mention the other names because im talking about his best wins... your best wins define your career in my respective opinion.. and his best wins to me are lacy kessler and bernard, possibly roy... lacy and kessler arent kind of proven fighters... they arent proven fighters... kessler has a great record, but ricky hatton and diego corrales showed us that doesnt mean much... and that doesnt mean im saying kessler isnt good, he is good, hes very good, he can fight... but hes not great... and weve went over roy and bernard... beating roy and bernard in their primes would be GREAT wins... beating them now would be very good wins... and your right, if he were to beat pavlik.. a guy whose been the MW champ for about a year or less, jumping up two weight classes.. no joe probably wouldnt get much credit for it... although me personally... i think it would be a great win for joe, if he were to beat pavlik... then again... when u go from MW to LHW in one fight, that severely fucks up your fight game, for some anyway, not all.. and chad dawson, yeah hes not exactly a great fighter, but he is young, he is a champion... but ur right, he isnt as proven as the aging greats... im not blaming joe, joe very well might have gotten the short stick on great opponents, by the time he got the great fighters, they were well past their prime, and the other good fighters, werent proven yet... and that sucks for joe... but regardless of whose fault it is, i still havent aeen a "great" win from Joe against a "Great" fighter... im not blaming him for it, im just calling it like i see it

lol the 45 prime roy jones remark was a joke... remember floyd said it in the 24/7... i know about his wins, eubank was a very good win.. although eubank was near the end of his career as well... im merely talking about his best wins... i know it sounds like im sitting here bashing joe calzaghe just for the fuckssake of it... but thats not my intention... im merely pointing out... at least for me, his greatest wins, are coming at the end of his career, against aged, past prime, ONCE WAS, great fighters... and a kessler... who, although is a very good fighter.. he isnt great, and has no noteable wins... and lacy shouldnt even be mentioned, and although i see your point on back when he fought lacy, all those people that said lacy would win, and then when he lost didnt give joe respect... well that comment, should be aimed at THOSE people... lacy was a very good looking up and coming fighter... it was a very good win for joe... but not a GREAT win... why? because lacy is not a GREAT fighter... now bernard and roy ARE great fighters... but if you beat them at 40 and 43... there not GREAT wins... there not garbage wins either... roy and bernard can STILL fight... and beating them are still very good wins... just not great... Well ok, but you've not really mentioned any other fight earlier than Lacy, other than Eubank. And I was talking about neither of those, but what happened between them. A long career which wasn't great, but was good and contained some good wins. Brewer, Mitchell, Reid, Woodhall, Veit were all decent wins especially in the fashion they got beat. They're not far from his top 3 best win list, not far at all. So the margin is no way near as big as people either make out, or believe to be the case. And no they're not the glossy names some ppl want, but I get sick of ppl justifying opponents as good wins for others, yet not Joe, when they're equally not major names. Fact is regardless of age Hopkins was LHW #1, that means above Tarver, Johnson, Dawson the young up and comer. Roy is still top 10 in the LHW division, he's above Woods in the Ring list respectively. He's noway near as past prime as many make out. Kessler is kind of the opposite, in terms of he's just about to peak performance wise. Joe could kind of do with one in the middle to settle the doubters, not that it would there'd be something new for many. In any case who would that be? Pavliks not that tested, he's beaten one name and a bum by the same standards of this logic, and would be like watching Calzaghe vs Kessler 2 in many ways. Dawsons isn't that tested at the top level yet so ppl would undermine that would aswell. Just how the scene is, and it's been turned into such a negative on Joe as if there's guys left right and centre that don't fall into either of these categories, when really there isn't. The top guys are either slightly un tested, or slightly past they're prime, that's just how it is for many of the top guys in SMW and LHW divisions.

thats gonna be his best win? thats it? kessler is a very good fighter.. but he is NOT great.... he just ISNT a GREAT fighter... so it isnt a GREAT win... Right now, I agree with you. However at the end of Kessler's career, that win is going to look like a great win in my opinion. I believe Kessler will become a great champion once more and will be one for a long time. A bit like Roy's B-Hop win, good at the time, great in the future. and as far as money getting in the way of the fights and blah blah... at the end of the day, at the end of the career... who did you beat? what did you do? he will have to answer that. He will have to answer for that and he'll be able to honestly say that he fought and beat who he could. Roy can hold his head up high, because the onus wasn't on him to make a fight with Calzaghe back in the day, but Hopkins will have to answer for the fact he didn't fight Calzaghe back in his prime.

No but many do, and your tone doesn't seem to be far off for some reason lately. On the second reply, who has fought 45 prime Roy Jones? What a ridiculous thing to say, like it's some benchmark someone has to at least come somewhat close to to get any decent amount of respect. You do seem somewhat ignorant to things as they were 5+ years ago outside of the Roy bubble. Joe faced some decent competition whom you don't seem to be up on or appreciating anywhere the level they deserve. Whilst it might not have penetrated into the Roy bubble much, it doesn't make him any less of a fighter or his opponents. I don't care if some of them weren't massive names, they were legitimate top 10 contenders often, others have done far worse than that. Some are basing they're judgements far too much on names. Kessler hasn't fought many big names but neither has Pavlik. Yet ones great the others not. lol the 45 prime roy jones remark was a joke... remember floyd said it in the 24/7... i know about his wins, eubank was a very good win.. although eubank was near the end of his career as well... im merely talking about his best wins... i know it sounds like im sitting here bashing joe calzaghe just for the fuckssake of it... but thats not my intention... im merely pointing out... at least for me, his greatest wins, are coming at the end of his career, against aged, past prime, ONCE WAS, great fighters... and a kessler... who, although is a very good fighter.. he isnt great, and has no noteable wins... and lacy shouldnt even be mentioned, and although i see your point on back when he fought lacy, all those people that said lacy would win, and then when he lost didnt give joe respect... well that comment, should be aimed at THOSE people... lacy was a very good looking up and coming fighter... it was a very good win for joe... but not a GREAT win... why? because lacy is not a GREAT fighter... now bernard and roy ARE great fighters... but if you beat them at 40 and 43... there not GREAT wins... there not garbage wins either... roy and bernard can STILL fight... and beating them are still very good wins... just not great...

i never once said, he should get no respect. No but many do, and your tone doesn't seem to be far off for some reason lately. On the second reply, who has fought 45 prime Roy Jones? What a ridiculous thing to say, like it's some benchmark someone has to at least come somewhat close to to get any decent amount of respect. You do seem somewhat ignorant to things as they were 5+ years ago outside of the Roy bubble. Joe faced some decent competition whom you don't seem to be up on or appreciating anywhere the level they deserve. Whilst it might not have penetrated into the Roy bubble much, it doesn't make him any less of a fighter or his opponents. I don't care if some of them weren't massive names, they were legitimate top 10 contenders often, others have done far worse than that. Some are basing they're judgements far too much on names. Kessler hasn't fought many big names but neither has Pavlik. Yet ones great the others not.

the difference is.... HES ENDING HIS CAREER WITH THESE WINS.... and there the best ones he has. if he continues to fight harder fights, younger champions, after roy... then thats a different story good post reed.

Those fights couldn't have been easily made. This is the last time I'm gonna say it, because I'm sick of it, but Calzaghe would have had to bend over to get those fights six years ago. Hopkins accepted a $3m offer one day and then doubled his demand the next. What was Calzaghe supposed to do? Say "oh yes, thank you Mr Hopkins. I'll gladly take a shit payday for the chance to fight you, even though right now (2002), you aren't a big name"? Should Calzaghe have given up his belt, fought two or three ranking fights for smaller paydays, just for the chance of fighting Roy? That wouldn't have guaranteed anything either. Calzaghe's best win will go down historically as Kessler anyway. Kessler will become a serious great himself in future. thats gonna be his best win? thats it? kessler is a very good fighter.. but he is NOT great.... he just ISNT a GREAT fighter... so it isnt a GREAT win... and as far as money getting in the way of the fights and blah blah... at the end of the day, at the end of the career... who did you beat? what did you do? he will have to answer that. im not gonna sit here and tell you joe calzaghe sucks, or doesnt deserve credit for his career... but to the people who blow him up to be god and repeat his 45-0 record... i say... he didnt fight 45 prime roy jones.. cuz if he did, hed be 0 and 45

So he doesn't deserve any respect because he didn't fight those ppl years ago (not really his fault). He deserves almost less respect for facing them now, even though they're noway near as past theyre prime as some conveniently make out? It's like saying jump through this hoop and we'll respect you, then when he does saying, nope too late you might aswell have just not bothered. i never once said, he should get no respect.

if those harder younger champions were bernard hopkins and roy jones 6 years ago, this debate wouldnt even be happening.. but his best wins are against a 43 yr old bernard... and POSSIBLY a 40 yr old roy... and thats what he wants to end his legacy on... Those fights couldn't have been easily made. This is the last time I'm gonna say it, because I'm sick of it, but Calzaghe would have had to bend over to get those fights six years ago. Hopkins accepted a $3m offer one day and then doubled his demand the next. What was Calzaghe supposed to do? Say "oh yes, thank you Mr Hopkins. I'll gladly take a shit payday for the chance to fight you, even though right now (2002), you aren't a big name"? Should Calzaghe have given up his belt, fought two or three ranking fights for smaller paydays, just for the chance of fighting Roy? That wouldn't have guaranteed anything either. Calzaghe's best win will go down historically as Kessler anyway. Kessler will become a serious great himself in future.

if those harder younger champions were bernard hopkins and roy jones 6 years ago, this debate wouldnt even be happening.. but his best wins are against a 43 yr old bernard... and POSSIBLY a 40 yr old roy... and thats what he wants to end his legacy on... So he doesn't deserve any respect because he didn't fight those 2 ppl years ago (not really his fault). And he deserves almost less respect some make out, for facing them now? Even though they're noway near as past theyre prime as some conveniently make out? It's like saying jump through this hoop and we'll respect you. Then when he does saying, "sigh, you might aswell have just not bothered and done something else".