Why do some people hate Calzaghe? (The real poll not that biased one one here now.)

I dont hate or even dislike calzaghe... i think he's a good fighter... but i HATE his nuthugging fans who make him out to be a modern ali or something... he's good...his resume is a bit filled with unworthy competition, but he is exciting to watch and i want to see him fight the best the sport has to offer him before retirement. i'd really also like to see his nuthuggers SHUT THE **** UP... i like calzaghe...i just havent been a fan of him fighting hopkins and jones and trying to sell it as legitimate opponents...they are two greats but far past their prime and his nuthuggers need to recognize and accept that.

I think in most people's thought either you're an ATG or not.... but ATG ability is an opinion...

Joe's obviously a talented boxer... very good and probably HOF bound but not ATG. This is where the divide is. well ability wise atg yes maybe not with resume thought is what you mean ye

good post wait for the dumb yanks to hate it Joe's obviously a talented boxer... very good and probably HOF bound but not ATG. This is where the divide is.

i cant pick just one. overrated fighting style (slaps) resume is thin ( kessler, lacy are nothing to brag about, hopkins is 43, jones is 40) ducks prime fighters (dawson) and this has nothing to do with him being from the UK. if he was american i would still feel the same way his ability aint overrated

This thread could go a 1000 pages LMAO! I think because deep down people realize the man has talent, it's just painful for them to admit it. Love to hate sort of thing. People see him as a vulture, looking across the pond for the right time to strike the aging greats. The reality is Joe has been a victim of the politics of the sport. Frank Warren does no fighter favours, he is only interested in lining his pockets with the wages of his fighters and if that means protecting his fighter in his locality he will do it. Joe should have split with him a long time ago and gone stateside to prove himself. It makes me wonder, how would Joe be seen today if the 2002 Hopkins fight went ahead, he won, and continued to fight in the States against the best? At the end of the day Joe Calzaghe has been the victim of his own secrecy. Joe was the champion and if people want to fight the champ he should be approached, not the other way around, regardless of the geographical location. Who wants to fight a dangerous fighter nobody has heard of? A loss against an unheralded European and your stock would fall quicker than 1929. The risk does not match the potential reward. It makes me wonder if in 2002 Hopkins realised all of this at the 11th hour. good post wait for the dumb yanks to hate it

MacChamp why have you put up a picture of your boyfirend? I keed, I keed.

I don't know I hate them, because they're jack asses and they hate anyone who is a joe calzaghe fan. I wish I could meet some of the people in here in real-life, so I could bash there skulls in. Shit, I work hard for my body. I'm not genetically gifted.

there appears to be a perception that if a title contender fights a Euro and losses he's a bum, all the while disregaurding that the same level of contender are littering the American fighters resume and are refered to as decent opposition. Good point. Hopkins fought competition in his title defenses at 160 that was slightly worse than what Joe fought. But that fact is too hard for some of these people to comprehend.

It's not that he's not American, it's that he fought his prime away from American TV. What we learned in the Lacy fight is that the best fighter of his generation hadn't appeared on TV here. The consequence of that for an honest individual is that our television networks don't have a monopoly on boxing, that a career in Europe is as good as a career fighting in Vegas on HBO. That's too hard to admit for people who aren't yet ashamed that we call our domestic champions in baseball and basketball 'world champs'.

The people on this forum are off there trolley.

I agree with Crust in the main. His resume is fairly weak, not awful but weak, the difference between Calzaghe's and Jones's resume are 2 great fighters and how well known the rest where. there appears to be a perception that if a title contender fights a Euro and losses he's a bum, all the while disregaurding that the same level of contender are littering the American fighters resume and are refered to as decent opposition. Example: Virgil Hill is touted as evidence that Jones fought decent people yet Eubank was old, shot and rubbish. Reality: Eubank was younger, had as good a resume as Hill and was a damn sight more durable. But to be honest the only thing that bothers me and it's not just when talking about Calzaghe, is when some young punk who's beaten no one of any note get pushed forward straight after said fighter has won a fight. Prospects do not beat Champions if they do not have the required experiance. FFS i read some chumps saying Otiz would KTFO Hatton on sunday 3 hours after he battered the No2 in his division.

Isnt It funny that the people who say "big deal,Hopkins is 43",are exactly the same people who want to see a rematch? yeah, but it's also funny that the same people who say hops beat up pavlik are exactly the same people who don't want to see the rematch.

Actually Calzaghe admitted Eubank was the toughest fight of his career(Which i don't agree with, Reid did!), but that's besides the point. Hopkins didn't give Calzaghe the toughest fight of his career. The fight was awful, not close. yeah, but i'm pretty sure calz said hops was his toughest fight right after the fight.

Its not about triangle theory though. You imply that Hopkins age is what kept him from putting on a fight. Pavlik fight proved otherwise. yeah, but maybe a prime hops KTFO pavlik instead of just dominating him.

nah, calz admitted that hops was his toughest fight ever. Actually Calzaghe admitted Eubank was the toughest fight of his career(Which i don't agree with, Reid did!), but that's besides the point. Hopkins didn't give Calzaghe the toughest fight of his career. The fight was awful, not close.

yeah, but I thought it was a rule on boxingscene forums that triangle theories don't work? Its not about triangle theory though. You imply that Hopkins age is what kept him from putting on a fight. Pavlik fight proved otherwise.

The same 43 year old who punished Kelly Pavlik who beat the man who beat Hopkins. yeah, but I thought it was a rule on boxingscene forums that triangle theories don't work?

First off, Hopkins didn't give Calzaghe the toughest fight of his career! Robin Reid did. And secondly prime Hopkins ducked Calzaghe in 2002. Carry on. nah, calz admitted that hops was his toughest fight ever.

and also hopkins is 43 years old, knocked down calzaghe and gave calzaghe the toughest fight of his entire career, which makes you wonder what would've happend if hopkins was in his prime. The same 43 year old who punished Kelly Pavlik who beat the man who beat Hopkins.