Calzaghe is overrated

[Clegg]

The premise of the original poster of this thread's argument stands. The fact is, Calzaghe hasn't beaten a great fighter. How to you become an established 'great' fighter? You beat other great fighters.

What great fighters did Tyson beat? A light-heavyweight and a man who was once very good, but was years past his best, coming off two defeats and two years of inactivity. That isn't very impressive.

For the record I do think Joe is...a great fighter. But he has to prove it on Saturday night by beating another great. Something he's never done.

Hopkins will outpoint him.

This makes no sense. You're saying that you need to beat a great fighter in order to be a great fighter, but that Calzaghe hasn't beaten one and won't do so on Saturday, and yet he you say he is a great fighter.

[Jim Jeffries]

The premise of the original poster of this thread's argument stands. The fact is, Calzaghe hasn't beaten a great fighter. How to you become an established 'great' fighter? You beat other great fighters. You prove yourself. Kessler has beaten a bunch of bums from Europe, he's a methodical and mechanical fighter with no style. His 39 record is almost entirely comprising of CHUMPS. Jeff Lacy is where I give Calzaghe some credit, but he is not great either, horribly one-dimensional (Tsypko beat him).

For the record I do think Joe is...a great fighter. But he has to prove it on Saturday night by beating another great. Something he's never done.

Hopkins will outpoint him.

You give Calzaghe credit for beating Lacy, but none for Kessler?

Interesting.

[hardmanbrit]

If anything Joe Calzaghe is under-rated, surely?

All he ever gets labelled is "crap" or "a f**king slapper" thanks to his hand condition.

He has never, ever been beaten and he has been a World Champion for well over a decade, beating the likes of Eubank, Lacy, Reid and Kessler along the way.

He is a great fighter, as is Hopkins, and we will see who is the best on Saturday night.

[Fox McCloud]

WOW!

Congratulations on a making a 500 post thread about an actual meaningful topic KSwizzy!

[Chunk..]

It's a bit annoying when people keep bring up that Eubank fight

* Eubank took that fight on short notice.

* It wasn't a prime Eubank.

Carry on.

[Jim Jeffries]

WOW!

Congratulations on a making a 500 post thread about an actual meaningful topic KSwizzy!

I think the dumber the thread, the more the responses.

I could start a thread "Floyd Mayweather is a bum and has never fought anyone" and it would get a bunch of responses.

[Jim Jeffries]

It's a bit annoying when people keep bring up that Eubank fight

* Eubank took that fight on short notice.

* It wasn't a prime Eubank.

Carry on.

So the opponent has to be prime for a fighter to get any credit?

Mike Tyson is in trouble, he never beat a single live body then.

[Chunk..]

This thread is filled to the brim with Calazghe nutthuggers scarping the barrel more like.

[Fox McCloud]

I think the dumber the thread, the more the responses.

I could start a thread "Floyd Mayweather is a bum and has never fought anyone" and it would get a bunch of responses.

At least it's good for discussion. The amount of posts proves that at the very least.

[Kilrain]

As I said, I do consider Calzaghe to be a great fighter. But if you're talking about, you know, inarguable greatness, I think that has to come by beating other great fighters. Thats the only watermark. Otherwise it's all subjective. That's like me seeing a 9-0 prospect no one has ever seen and saying, This guy is a great fighter. How does he prove it? He beats a great fighter. It's not rocket science. It's a universal language. You can't beat up chumps all your life and be considered a great fighter.

With regards to Tyson, he fought in a piss-poor era of HW's, though his greatness was plain to see, and in reality the subjectiveness was fairly negated by the fact that EVERYONE attested to his skill. In any case he proved it by beating Razor Ruddock...twice.

What great fighters did Tyson beat? A light-heavyweight and a man who was once very good, but was years past his best, coming off two defeats and two years of inactivity. That isn't very impressive.



This makes no sense. You're saying that you need to beat a great fighter in order to be a great fighter, but that Calzaghe hasn't beaten one and won't do so on Saturday, and yet he you say he is a great fighter.