Tweet
I really have trouble understanding the reasoning behind deminishing the OBVIOUS skills a fighter displays in the ring by criticizing his record. If Pernell Whitaker never destroyed Chavez, never fought McGirt, never humiliated Azumah Nelson, and never put on a clinic against Jose Louis Ramirez, he would STILL be Pernell Whitaker. He would STILL be one of the greatest defensive fighters ever, and he would STILL be an ATG fight.
The same goes for Mikkel Kessler. It DOESNT matter who he has fought, he has skills. Watch his fights, they are there for everyone to see. You don't need to pick apart his record and why he hasn't fought anyone. 70% of you had not even heard of Kessler before talks about Calzaghe came about. Being good, and unknown is not exactly a recipe to getting the big name fight.
Same goes for Calzaghe. If Roy Jones anounced he was fighting Calzaghe back when he was at 168, most of you would have trashed Roy Jones for fighting an over protected paper champion (he wasn't even champ yet). Yet the same people are today criticizing Calzaghe for not having the exposure or the name to Make the big fights feasible earlier in his career.
James Toney, the only fighter that would realistically take a fight against Calzaghe back when Calzaghe was an up and coming champion was fighting at Cruiserweight at the time Calzaghe won his title. CRUISERWEIGHT.
Why didn't he fight with Bernard? Bernard was as big a Nobody as Calzaghe was in 1997. The man was a 3-1 underdog against a Felix Trinidad in 2001, his first true mainstream exposure. He was perfectly happy defending his alphabet belt and calling out Roy Jones.
Do you know how long Roy Jones Stayed at 168? Two fights... in 1996, a year before the beginning of Calzaghes 1997 title reign. If you try to tell me Calzaghe had a chance in hell of getting a fight with Roy Jones, Id refer you to a doctor.
Calzaghe is a GREAT fighter, who until recently, has not had the name to get big fights with big name fighters, thats it. He wasn't over protected, he wasn't ducking fighters, he was simply lacking in opportunities. Frank Warren or the general American opinion of British boxing didn't help matters either.
The same goes for Mikkel Kessler. It DOESNT matter who he has fought, he has skills. Watch his fights, they are there for everyone to see. You don't need to pick apart his record and why he hasn't fought anyone. 70% of you had not even heard of Kessler before talks about Calzaghe came about. Being good, and unknown is not exactly a recipe to getting the big name fight.
Same goes for Calzaghe. If Roy Jones anounced he was fighting Calzaghe back when he was at 168, most of you would have trashed Roy Jones for fighting an over protected paper champion (he wasn't even champ yet). Yet the same people are today criticizing Calzaghe for not having the exposure or the name to Make the big fights feasible earlier in his career.
James Toney, the only fighter that would realistically take a fight against Calzaghe back when Calzaghe was an up and coming champion was fighting at Cruiserweight at the time Calzaghe won his title. CRUISERWEIGHT.
Why didn't he fight with Bernard? Bernard was as big a Nobody as Calzaghe was in 1997. The man was a 3-1 underdog against a Felix Trinidad in 2001, his first true mainstream exposure. He was perfectly happy defending his alphabet belt and calling out Roy Jones.
Do you know how long Roy Jones Stayed at 168? Two fights... in 1996, a year before the beginning of Calzaghes 1997 title reign. If you try to tell me Calzaghe had a chance in hell of getting a fight with Roy Jones, Id refer you to a doctor.
Calzaghe is a GREAT fighter, who until recently, has not had the name to get big fights with big name fighters, thats it. He wasn't over protected, he wasn't ducking fighters, he was simply lacking in opportunities. Frank Warren or the general American opinion of British boxing didn't help matters either.
Comment