Joe calzaghes boxing career to date:

Joe is a good fighter, but I think he's been way over hyped by some fans. I wouldn't call him a great fighter, but a good fighter that could have done more in his career or should have done more. if he tried to do more he would have lost. kinda a catch 22 for lil joey.

Threadstarter, Your post would be not that bad, except you do what all Joe's critics do, which is write off the bulk of his career. The 17 absolute road bums, did in fact contain some bums, as all fighters careers do, but also contained a number of former world champions of that era as well as some other well regarded and Ring ranked SMWs. No-one claims that these guys were greats of boxing, but they were the best SMWs of the time and Joe beat all of them. These are the types of wins you have to get in order to get to where Joe is now. Please don't be ignorant.

Joe calzaghes boxing career : his first 22 fights were to boxers with loosing boxing records ( look it up ) He then beat chris eubank by UD. eubank a great boxer who had lost 2 of his last 6 fights due to getting old and loosing his prime status. http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php...=804&cat=boxer For another 17 fights he fought absolute road bums He then fights Jeff lacy. An overhyped shit boxer who has beaten no bodys even to this date: http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php...1593&cat=boxer So thats 2 credable opponents and counting, ( notice he hasnt knocked any of them out ) We then move onto mikkel kessler, who has one of the worste boxing records i have ever seen ,,, no wonder he was undefeated with almost all his fights before calzaghe being against loosing record boxers ( notice calzaghe fails to knock out a good boxer yet again ). : http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php...6951&cat=boxer so the count is now at 3 ok but not great boxers His final fight against bernard hopkins. he finally fights someone good >? or wait a mintue , has he chosen to fight another legend whos been on a loosing streak ? yes your right . he lost 2 of his last 4 fights before calzaghe. In this fight it was a very close UD. In many peopels eyes he didnt even win the fight. He got knocked on his ass in the first round http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php...1414&cat=boxer so there we go calzaghe not so great nut huggers... bet you didnt know any of that here its ok dont cry : :bottle::bottle::bottle::bottle: Joe is a good fighter, but I think he's been way over hyped by some fans. I wouldn't call him a great fighter, but a good fighter that could have done more in his career or should have done more.

well this is entertaining

Its generally understood by the boxing world that Joe didn't do a whole lot in the UK besides sit on his belt and make money fighting tomato cans. You can argue until you are blue in the face with these Joe C fans but they will keep telling you that Robin Reid, Omar Sheika, Mario Veit, etc. were great wins in Joe's division and the American Champions were ducking Joe his entire career. If Joe suffered some very real hand injury and was forced into retirement today, I don't think he even deserves HOF status with what he's accomplished, but he would get it out of respect.

You're leaving with your head down which one ? i thought you were going already but you seem to like speaking to me too much. To sum it up : you speak alot of shit and you dont know enough about boxing or joe calzaghe to argue in this thread . so if i could ask you kindly to leave. thanks alot cheif

Ahadahahdhdhsjafh. Look what you have resorted to. You came in here the big boy. You're leaving with your head down. Joke poster.

Oh the irony. I'm debating in a sensible style on a forum created to do that. You are not. Therefore we have no further need to carry on our conversation. You have proved your usefulness, I have proved your idiocy, you are backtracking, I'm not letting you. Ok brother. You keep telling yourself your special.

Oh the irony. I'm debating in a sensible style on a forum created to do that. You are not. Therefore we have no further need to carry on our conversation. You have proved your usefulness, I have proved your idiocy, you are backtracking, I'm not letting you.

I'm not interested. You have been exposed for the idiot you are. Run along now. ??? why the hate ? you mad ?... you furious ?

I'm not interested. You have been exposed for the idiot you are. Run along now.

Ahahahaha, what a fucking idiot. I never said that Jeff Lacy was a great fighter at all. Never mind about your spelling, you should worry about your reading. Manfredo wanted to go on? He should've tried throwing a punch sometime that round then. I like how you start a thread on a DISCUSSION FORUM and then for some reason...do not want discussion. What were you hoping that everyone would post agreeing with you? If you want people to agree with you, dont talk a load of shit. i have taken what you have said into consideration and will get back to you in due cource

long post, im tired, for the most part you speak alot of shit, but here we go anyway: Jeff lacy was not a great boxer, wether you are going to argue about that or not. I never said a KO is the only way to win a fight ?. But while we are on that topic. Alot of joe clazaghes fights are stopped prematurley because of his high workrate of slaps . Manfreddo is a perfect example where not a single punch hurt him and most of them missed when the referee called it off. Manfreddo wanted to go on. The road bums comment was highly relevant. So no need to discuss that any further And I never said anything about hopkins vs calzaghe either, so the bit about calzaghe having a better boxing rec than hopkins, is pointless and wrong. Hopkins is a legend. anyway im tired. i have been at work all day and reading your reply was making me sleepy. sorry for the spelling, i couldnt give a monkeys left testical Ahahahaha, what a fucking idiot. I never said that Jeff Lacy was a great fighter at all. Never mind about your spelling, you should worry about your reading. Manfredo wanted to go on? He should've tried throwing a punch sometime that round then. I like how you start a thread on a DISCUSSION FORUM and then for some reason...do not want discussion. What were you hoping that everyone would post agreeing with you? If you want people to agree with you, dont talk a load of shit.

Joe calzaghes boxing career : his first 22 fights were to boxers with loosing boxing records ( look it up ) So by losing records you mean 9-3-1 11-1 21-0 17-2 21-8 12-0 44-2 among others? Guess what? Even Floyd fought a guy 1-13-1 in his 9th pro fight. I guess according to you that makes him a protected bum.

What a typically blinkered view. Let me address these points one by one and if you dont respond within 10 minutes, I'll consider you silenced. First of all, you can consider people he fought in his first 22 fights bums if you want. They had losing records you say, I cant be bothered to look that up to make sure, so I'll take your word for it. So people with losing records are bums...okay? I'll accept that. Eubank, great fighter, I'll accept that too. He had lost 2 of his last 6 fights, but then so has Roy Jones, Hopkins has lost more, Taylor has now last 2 of his last 6 fights too. Doesnt mean that he's not a scalp. So I'm taking that as a credible fighter and a credible victory in a first title shot. 'For another 17 fights he fought absolute road bums'. Wait wait wait there. So if you've got losing records you're a bum...if you've got WINNING records you're an absolute road bum? I'm sorry, but that doesnt really make sense there mate. Surely if you dont recognise people with losing records, you at least do recognise those with winning records? Otherwise...where is your consistency? Or is it more just a case that you consider those to be 'absolute road bums' because in most cases you dont know who they are? Branko Sobot - Winning record, but yeah...very average fighter. Juan Carlos Gimenez Ferreyra - HUGE winning record, but still not a great fighter. Certainly not a 'bum' though. Robin Reid - Please. A title holder. A great record at the time. A genuine prime scalp. Rick Thornberry - Winning record, average fighter. David Starie - Winning record, average fighter. Rick Thornberry - Winning record, average fighter. Omar Sheika - Winning record, fought for a number of titles which suggests that he is a title-fight quality fighter. You consider that being a bum, you go and try and get a title shot. Hell...I could go through them all, they all have winning records, so none of them can be bums. So you're looking at a minimum of 17 average opponents there. Only thats not really true because Robin Reid, Richie Woodhall, Mario Veit and Byron Mitchell were all very good fighters. How can you call Jeff Lacy an overhyped piece of shit who has fought nobody to date...and then class him as a credible opponent? Mikkel Kessler has 'one of the worst boxing records I have ever seen'? How do you expect your points to be taken seriously? He was undefeated, he had beaten top 5 ranked people in his division for most of his last 10 fights (who is he supposed to fight) he was pushing the P4P list (you cant always fight other P4P boxers). If you've barely seen worse boxing records than that...you havent look at any boxing records other than Mikkel Kessler's. Even now he is considered to be one of the top guys for the future of boxing. Now, this brings me onto the point of knock outs. Where in the rules of boxing does it say that you must knock out your opponent to win? Where does it say that knock outs are the only things that count as victories? It doesnt. Calzaghe does not rely on a single punch or an accumulation taking out his opponent, he has to beat them every minute of every round, he has to be on his toes and watchful for every second of 12 rounds to ensure victory. Why is this looked down upon? Then you discount the Hopkins victory because a). He was old (though still ranked high on the P4P list, which is apparently all that you consider 'credible') and b). He didnt win anyway (although thats utter wank, because the judges said he did, the populance said he did, the scorecards said he did, the associated press said he did and this forum said he did). c). Because he was knocked down...and got back up again to win, again...should this be considered a bad thing that he showed heart and strength of character to come back from a early set back to win? Now, in the argument for who has the better record out of Hopkins and Calzaghe...thats up for the record books to decide. Before the fight between the two of them, I'dve said Hopkins, now I think that its a lot closer. My reasons. Look at the top 5 guys Hopkins has faced AT HIS WEIGHT: 1). Roy Jones. 2). Joe Calzaghe. 3). Jermaine Taylor. 4). Antonio Tarver. 5). Glen Johnson. (Winky Wright, Felix Trinidad, ODLH...should not have been at that weight and are certainly not their best at that weight). Out of those 5, Hopkins lost to three of them. Should he really get credit for the fights he lost? Compared to Calzaghe's best 5 fighters at his weight. 1). Bernard Hopkins. 2). Mikkel Kessler. 3). Chris Eubank. 4). Jeff Lacy. 5). Robin Reid. Now, undoubtedly they are inferior opposition to the Hopkins competition. BUT, Calzaghe won them all, including Hopkins himself. 10 minuites mate. Thats your opportunity to reply. If it doesnt happen, I will irritatingly and annoyingly ignore any response you make to this post. long post, im tired, for the most part you speak alot of shit, but here we go anyway: Jeff lacy was not a great boxer, wether you are going to argue about that or not. I never said a KO is the only way to win a fight ?. But while we are on that topic. Alot of joe clazaghes fights are stopped prematurley because of his high workrate of slaps . Manfreddo is a perfect example where not a single punch hurt him and most of them missed when the referee called it off. Manfreddo wanted to go on. The road bums comment was highly relevant. So no need to discuss that any further And I never said anything about hopkins vs calzaghe either, so the bit about calzaghe having a better boxing rec than hopkins, is pointless and wrong. Hopkins is a legend. anyway im tired. i have been at work all day and reading your reply was making me sleepy. sorry for the spelling, i couldnt give a monkeys left testical

What a typically blinkered view. Let me address these points one by one and if you dont respond within 10 minutes, I'll consider you silenced. First of all, you can consider people he fought in his first 22 fights bums if you want. They had losing records you say, I cant be bothered to look that up to make sure, so I'll take your word for it. So people with losing records are bums...okay? I'll accept that. Eubank, great fighter, I'll accept that too. He had lost 2 of his last 6 fights, but then so has Roy Jones, Hopkins has lost more, Taylor has now last 2 of his last 6 fights too. Doesnt mean that he's not a scalp. So I'm taking that as a credible fighter and a credible victory in a first title shot. 'For another 17 fights he fought absolute road bums'. Wait wait wait there. So if you've got losing records you're a bum...if you've got WINNING records you're an absolute road bum? I'm sorry, but that doesnt really make sense there mate. Surely if you dont recognise people with losing records, you at least do recognise those with winning records? Otherwise...where is your consistency? Or is it more just a case that you consider those to be 'absolute road bums' because in most cases you dont know who they are? Branko Sobot - Winning record, but yeah...very average fighter. Juan Carlos Gimenez Ferreyra - HUGE winning record, but still not a great fighter. Certainly not a 'bum' though. Robin Reid - Please. A title holder. A great record at the time. A genuine prime scalp. Rick Thornberry - Winning record, average fighter. David Starie - Winning record, average fighter. Rick Thornberry - Winning record, average fighter. Omar Sheika - Winning record, fought for a number of titles which suggests that he is a title-fight quality fighter. You consider that being a bum, you go and try and get a title shot. Hell...I could go through them all, they all have winning records, so none of them can be bums. So you're looking at a minimum of 17 average opponents there. Only thats not really true because Robin Reid, Richie Woodhall, Mario Veit and Byron Mitchell were all very good fighters. How can you call Jeff Lacy an overhyped piece of shit who has fought nobody to date...and then class him as a credible opponent? Mikkel Kessler has 'one of the worst boxing records I have ever seen'? How do you expect your points to be taken seriously? He was undefeated, he had beaten top 5 ranked people in his division for most of his last 10 fights (who is he supposed to fight) he was pushing the P4P list (you cant always fight other P4P boxers). If you've barely seen worse boxing records than that...you havent look at any boxing records other than Mikkel Kessler's. Even now he is considered to be one of the top guys for the future of boxing. Now, this brings me onto the point of knock outs. Where in the rules of boxing does it say that you must knock out your opponent to win? Where does it say that knock outs are the only things that count as victories? It doesnt. Calzaghe does not rely on a single punch or an accumulation taking out his opponent, he has to beat them every minute of every round, he has to be on his toes and watchful for every second of 12 rounds to ensure victory. Why is this looked down upon? Then you discount the Hopkins victory because a). He was old (though still ranked high on the P4P list, which is apparently all that you consider 'credible') and b). He didnt win anyway (although thats utter wank, because the judges said he did, the populance said he did, the scorecards said he did, the associated press said he did and this forum said he did). c). Because he was knocked down...and got back up again to win, again...should this be considered a bad thing that he showed heart and strength of character to come back from a early set back to win? Now, in the argument for who has the better record out of Hopkins and Calzaghe...thats up for the record books to decide. Before the fight between the two of them, I'dve said Hopkins, now I think that its a lot closer. My reasons. Look at the top 5 guys Hopkins has faced AT HIS WEIGHT: 1). Roy Jones. 2). Joe Calzaghe. 3). Jermaine Taylor. 4). Antonio Tarver. 5). Glen Johnson. (Winky Wright, Felix Trinidad, ODLH...should not have been at that weight and are certainly not their best at that weight). Out of those 5, Hopkins lost to three of them. Should he really get credit for the fights he lost? Compared to Calzaghe's best 5 fighters at his weight. 1). Bernard Hopkins. 2). Mikkel Kessler. 3). Chris Eubank. 4). Jeff Lacy. 5). Robin Reid. Now, undoubtedly they are inferior opposition to the Hopkins competition. BUT, Calzaghe won them all, including Hopkins himself. 10 minuites mate. Thats your opportunity to reply. If it doesnt happen, I will irritatingly and annoyingly ignore any response you make to this post.

Calzaghe has many underrated names like Richie Woodhall (great fighter, never achieved much though. classic brah ! absolute classic hahaha

Calzaghe has many underrated names like Richie Woodhall (great fighter, never achieved much though), Omar Shieka (coming if off win over Glen Johnson), David Starie (coming in off win over previously undefeated Clinton Woods). People over look these fighters because they have either never heard of them (Newb fans and/ or yanks) or they just try to degrade him anyway. I don't know ANYONE who thinks Byron Mitchell, Charles Brewer, Richie Woodhall, Omar Sheika and Sakio Bika and Robin Reid are bums, some more underrated fighters. When you add those to Jeff Lacy, Chris Eubank, Mikkel Kessler, Bernard Hopkins AND Roy Jones, you have yourself a great resume. i feel the same way about tye fields

:crackhead:op:Better resume than Hopkins, by far. :op:

Better resume than Hopkins, by far. yeah for sure calzaghe beat lacy!