Tweet
i'm not downgrading calzaghes loss over bernard hopkins. he tried really hard at least you can say that but couldn't land anything and still made it a close fight. props to calzaghe.
-
-
funny how the only ones saying that are floyd fans. that means it has a lot of weight behind it
*sarcasm*
people could easily apply the logic you guys are using and say Floyd shouldn't get credit because of the way he beat Baldomir. For many people, it wasn't impressive. Floyd showed no heart and no intent to take risks and get Baldomir out of there. but you guys will say it was a masterful boxing clinic pulled out by an undersized, underpowered mayweather.
like i said, the hypocrisy is incredible. Calzaghe won, beat the man who beat the man who beat the man. get over it.Comment
-
He beat an old man unimpressively.Comment
-
Great post. There's so much hyperbole on this message board.
And what's more you can't post a contrary opinion without some half-wit calling you a "hypocrit" or saying that "you don't know **** about boxing." Give me a break. We're not all going to agree. Some people thought Calzaghe was amazing against Hopkins...others weren't so impressed. It's all perception.Comment
-
I don't know one person who thought his performance was amazing.
His performance against Lacy was impressive, but Calzaghe will never get a good rep in America, anyone he beats will either be instantly branded a bum or shot.
Notice it's mainly the people with Hopkins as there avi or sig that hate Calzaghe aswell.Comment
-
The reason why I'm saying it is because what you think is hypocrisy is not actually hypocrisy, but a divergence in opinion and perception. What is in many cases accurately defined as pragmatism, YOU believe to be criticism.
I'm of the opinion that not everyone goes into a fight with an ability to win by KO. So, if they're able to win the fight by landing a lot of punches and not taking much punishment from a guy who is big enough to seriously hurt them then that's impressive.
However, in the case of Calzaghe-Hopkins, it might have been possible for Calzaghe to stop Hopkins or at least shut him out. Instead, he got hit a lot and dropped. So, I'm not particularly impressed. It's just my perception and it's a pragmatic view (which is obviously obscured ever so slightly by my inclinations).
That is pragmatism, sir. Not hypocrisy. Just as not every boxer is going to deliver every punch with full force not every poster on this forum is going to deliver every statement with full conviction. You may not like it, but there's nothing wrong with it.Comment
-
no sir thats hypocrisy. when your favorite fighter can do no wrong, yet you criticize other fighters for experiencing like events, thats hypocrisy. and for the record genius, i wasnt impressed with calzaghe's preformance and i've stated it many times.
and take a look at who my favorite fighter is. you're last little paragraph doesn't apply to me.Comment
-
Absolutely, Americans think that because the Hopkins win was in th US it automatically qualifies as his best win and that all the Calzaghe fans are creaming their pants over it. I can't speak for everyone, but I knew he would beat the 43 year old Hopkins and was not particularly amazed or impressed when he did. Kessler and Lacy were better performances, though I'm happy Joe got the LHW ring belt.Comment
-
Do you remember when you called me a hypocrit because I said Larry Merchant is more likely to know if Mayweather-Cotto is going to happen than any one of us?
Then you tried to prove that I was a hypocrit by quoting a post where I criticized Larry Merchant for ****ting on Shane Mosley after his fight with Adrian Stone because that wasn't the opponent Larry Merchant wanted to see Mosley in against that night?
The two post had nothing to do with each other aside from the fact that I criticized Merchant in one post and cast him as someone with more knowledge than us of inside dealings in the other.
You were very adamant that I was waffling in my opinion of Merchant and that it centered around Floyd Mayweather. In fact, Mayweather had nothing to do with it. It was a difference in opinion that I have with Merchant in terms of what we should expect from fighters and whether it is ok for a fighter who has not captured the hearts and minds of the boxing public to take a lesser opponent on tv.
That's not hypocrisy in any way shape or form. But you're too dense and hyperbolic to understand that.Comment
Comment