..JOE CALZAGHE: What's Fair...

calzaghe is overrated. the only people that think he's an ATG are people in the UK. outside the UK he's just a decent fighter I'm outside of the U.K.... He's more then a decent fighter to me.

calzaghe is overrated. the only people that think he's an ATG are people in the UK. outside the UK he's just a decent fighter

It's not quite fair. I think Joe is a great fighter. Love him? No! That's reserved for my family, my girlfriend, etc. In the thread, there is no 'love him' option. It's Great fighter. I use the term because it simplifies things, or I hoped it would anyway. Lol.

this isnt an idiotic story.... calzaghe said this in his book that was written before the calzaghe fight.

regarding his slapps they are strategic: in his biography he explains this.... he does them to distract his opponents... look at against kessler..... he threw a bunch of slaps..... and then in the middle of the combinations.... he throws a hard body punch that kessler isnt expecting and lands it and stuns him and wins the fight,... perfect example of when they paid off yeah exactly someone who knows a little bit on here. makes a change to the idiots such as daggum who doesnt know shit.

An undefeated, HOF-bound, multi-division champion BOXER who doesn't know how to punch. Yes, that seems likely. I'd like to see him fight Dawson though.

regarding his slapps they are strategic: in his biography he explains this.... he does them to distract his opponents... look at against kessler..... he threw a bunch of slaps..... and then in the middle of the combinations.... he throws a hard body punch that kessler isnt expecting and lands it and stuns him and wins the fight,... perfect example of when they paid off yeah you could believe that fantastic story that he made up or maybe he just can't punch worth a damn. your decision!

regarding his slapps they are strategic: in his biography he explains this.... he does them to distract his opponents... look at against kessler..... he threw a bunch of slaps..... and then in the middle of the combinations.... he throws a hard body punch that kessler isnt expecting and lands it and stuns him and wins the fight,... perfect example of when they paid off Tarver does the same thing... well, the Tarver that could pull the trigger I mean.

regarding his slapps they are strategic: in his biography he explains this.... he does them to distract his opponents... look at against kessler..... he threw a bunch of slaps..... and then in the middle of the combinations.... he throws a hard body punch that kessler isnt expecting and lands it and stuns him and wins the fight,... perfect example of when they paid off

For those that said that the poll didn't have many options, I did that on purpose. This thread was to reach out to only his most extreme followers, be it those that hate or love him. It's not quite fair. I think Joe is a great fighter. Love him? No! That's reserved for my family, my girlfriend, etc. 100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

A lot of boxing fans, ESPECIALLY on this forum seem to be extremists about whatever topic they seem to be discussing. With Joe Calzaghe, it's no exception. What I want to know is, what's ACTUALLY fair. He was considered a protected European fighter, then he invited over two outside fighters in Jeff Lacy (U.S.A.) and Mikkel Kessler (Denmark) and beat them both convincingly. Both by comfortable unanimous decisions. Giving BOTH fighters their first losses, both while they were ranked LEGIT number one contenders. Then, people use the idea that he needs to fight outside of his comfort zone, meaning his own country. So, he comes over to America and fights Bernard Hopkins (12SD) and Roy Jones Jr. (12UD). When he beat both of them back-to-back, people said that he was only fighting old, faded fighters. Now, people want him to fight YOUNGER fighters. Chad Dawson, Lucian Bute Kelly Pavlik and Jermain Taylor being the names thrown around. Meanwhile, he's been going for a LONG time about leaving the sport for a long while now. Realistically, all of this is a bit unfair. Literally, every step of the way for him, he's always falling short in terms of what American fans want from him. They'll always want more from him. My question to the haters.. What could he possibly do to make you actually appreciate him? Now, as to his overzealous fans.... You seem to constantly mention that he has hand problems, therefore he has more of a slap then a powerpunch. But, Arturo Gatti had MAJOR hand problems, he threw (relatively) accurate punches, and his combinations we all actual punches. His style, while affective, can be hard to watch when he can't EXACTLY find his rhythm. You guys seem to blame Hopkins for the boring fight they had, but a fighter that wants to win big and CLEAN, makes the fight exciting by pressing. And while he threw a lot of punches and outlanded him, he didn't look spectacular. You also want to make the claim that he's the number one p4p fighter in the world. That's just wrong. Unless Marquez and Pacquiao have died this morning, Calzaghe sits at number three. Nothing wrong with that. He MIGHT be the best Super-Middleweight in the history of the division, but it's not liek the division is STACKED with this incredible history. Some of you make it seem like it's the welterweight division of the 80's. My question to the Calzaghe fans, why do you try to build him up SUBSTANTIALLY higher than he should be. He's a great fighter, is there neeed for the hype? Or, is he better than even I'M giving him credit for? My point to this thread is to get both sides of the debate with this guy. He's generally either loved or hated. It's hardly ever in between, so I wanna see what is so polarizing about the guy. Vote. Discuss. No need to debate, you put it perfectly. I'm a middle man myself but I tend to side with the Calzaghe fanatics over the haters. The fanatics at least will put their golden child against anyone! The haters don't have a leg to stand on because the same people they promote... have already been beaten by Joe.

For those that said that the poll didn't have many options, I did that on purpose. This thread was to reach out to only his most extreme followers, be it those that hate or love him. The Neutral was thrown in as simply something someone could vote on if he or she had read this but didn't happen to be a overzealous fan or a hater.

And the crying and insecurity about US fans continues. Get over it. Maybe it had to do with how old Hopkins was? If Calzaghe beat Pavlik in his prime at 43, the way Hopkins did, I'd be the first to say wow. Get a grip fanboy. I'm not going to dissect your post, it's a bit too easy, but I will say: SMW? The whole point has been that it's not a great division. But you must've missed that. fair enough, you make a good point thatJC was more or less in his prime when he beat lacy and that hopkins wasn't when he took on pavlik, but i bet that if JC had beat pavlik the talk would have been more about pavlik and him being overated rather than joe being a great fighter. oh and i argued a point that SMW is imo a better division than MW - maybe you missed that? its not always been the case but i think the talent in the SMW division is alot better. there was of course the period in the late 80's and early 90's and recent;y the division has looked strong as well.

no doubt he's very talented. his slapping is not good to watch at all. its a shame as he was good puncher back in the day. he's got too many bums on his record tho and thats not frank warrens fault. i think joe has only recently found confidence in himself.

It depends what you mean by P4P really. If you're talking about resume then he's not. If you're talking about ability he quite possibly is. The problem is few people can argue rationally on the internet. Someone might post a quite reasonable argument but will then be responded to be some idiot who'll argue the complete opposite with equally colourful language and then the original poster will tend to respond in kind. thats a good point its one of thos things that boxing fans say but is not clearly defined, like when someone says look at so-and-so's resume. do they mean fighters that theyve faced or fighters that theyve beaten? if i were to rank the fighters in term of their overall ability (speed, stamina, chin, power, strength), their ring smarts (defense, offense, adaptability) and their resume. then i think pacman comes first, calzaghe second and JMM a close third. if i was to rank them in terms of their ability and their style and ignore te resume then i think JC has a very good shout at coming first. alot of US boxing fans love to compare resumes, personally i think by doing so you overlook the fighters style and other issues as well. another thing this leads to is a circle of well known fighters who just continue to fight each other irrespective of their weight class or age, it makes it hard for other fighters to break through into the mainstream. look at DLH, tyson, RJJ for instance they mae it hard for other fighters to gain their credbility within the sport by hogging the big PPV's not because they were better boxers but bigger names.

It depends what you mean by P4P really. If you're talking about resume then he's not. If you're talking about ability he quite possibly is. The problem is few people can argue rationally on the internet. Someone might post a quite reasonable argument but will then be responded to be some idiot who'll argue the complete opposite with equally colourful language and then the original poster will tend to respond in kind.

calderon i think you make some good points no matter what joe does it will never be enough, when hopkins defeatd pavlik i remember thinking that if joe had out in a similar performance (which he had against lacy) the first thing the americans say is that the guy was overated and never that good in the first place. with hopkins it was the opposite - oh the guys so clever and ring savvy blah blah. its these double standards for UK and USA fughters that annoys me more than anything. i dont think JC is the best p4p fughter, i think pacman has that accolade and deserves it, i see JC being a 2nd with JMM close behind. another thing that really annoys me is the lack of recognition that his title defenses recieve. imo if you were to compare the history of the MW and SMW divisions over the last 20 years or so there is only one clear winner. the SMW fighters however are alot of the time europeans which is why i dont think it recieves its due credit especially from US fans. take it a step further and look at the quality of opposition that its 2 dominant champions (calzahe and hopkins) fought and again joes competition imo edges it. i can see ppl are hating on him especially from the US but think about it has the US produced any top class SMW's that joe ducked? RJJ had his mind on HW belts, toney never had the discipline to get down to 12 st and then of course theres hopkins. hopkins clearly ducked joe in 2002 and ended up going for another defnse that didn't make it half as much. the one time a US fighter came along in joes weight class we all kow what happened. imo joe is an ATG.

Emmanuel steward called him an ATG... What a joke. I seriously cannot see how beating a fighter who was past his peak for more than 5 years is a great victory, or a victory defining an ATG status. I seriously do not understand. And im not being biased against Calzaghe. Roy Jones has been seriously shot, so why does this fight claim Calzaghe being an ATG. If thats the case, why arent Tarver or Johnson claimed as being ATG'S, at least they knocked him out? Theres too many guys in the boxing world that are overrating him.

This article answers the question for me, I can't put it any better. http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=16920

Fair: best SMW so far, HoF surefire but probably not first balot unless the options are poor and I think he will retire in the same year as too many people better, outside top 100 P4P all time. Lacking resume, due too bluntly not many great fighters being around to fight, especially when RJJ and Bhop had bigger fish to fry.