Tweet
Not a couple weeks ago but in the Bronx...I'm not making up ****. Who are you kidding? We're supposed to be impressed because he beat some 12-0 Glass Joe? Get serious.
-
-
It's not about that man. Neither me nor anyone else expects you to be IMPRESSED by the fact that Joe Calzaghe beat people like Mario Veit. What we do expect you to realise is that guys like Mario Veit were good enough to have been world champions, and are far from being "bums". These types of wins are the routine victories that I, and probably you would expect any champ to make during his reign, and which the records of Hopkins, Jones etc etc are absolutely full of.
Denying Calzaghe status because he fought these guys is absolutely ludicrous, because Calzaghe posseses career victories over Eubank, Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins and has won each and every time. You are reduced to saying that the man who beat all those guys, in his biggest fights, is somehow a level down because he could have fought some better fighters in some of his many, many defences.Comment
-
What makes Mario Veit "good?" Because he won a title? Who the **** cares? It's about who you beat not what you get. And who exactly has Mario Veit beat?
That's so PATHETIC. This is a guy who Calzaghe fought TWICE! TWICE! And KO'ed in one the first time! Can you imagine if Roy Jones fought Richard Frazier again? Are you kidding?
And yes, Hopkins & co. have guys like that on their record but no one lists them as reasons why their resume is so IMPRESSIVE.
Finally, what status are we taking away from Joe C? He's one of the best today. He's a Hall of Famer. What he's not is all this ******, nuthugging crap I've been reading these past few days. No, he's not an all-time great - are you kidding me? And no he's not a top 25 fighter of the past 30 years.
But carry on.Comment
-
Calzaghe also beat people like David Starie who was coming off a win over unbeaten (at the time) Clinton Woods.
People make it out as if he didn't have a career before the Lacy fight and fought guys with 10 wins and 40 odd losses, he's fought very good competition over all.Comment
-
If Calzaghe fights and beats Kelly Pavlik, all this **** about his record is irrelevant. How many fighters can claim to have beaten three young, undefeated prime champions? His wins over Eubank and Hopkins won't matter very much either after that. Both Lacy and Kessler were hailed as the future of the division, both were legitimate undefeated champions. Add Kelly Pavlik to that and you have a superb record regardless of the rest of the fighters you faced.Comment
-
Come on, Calzaghe's resume is derided as being full of bums on a regular basis, maybe not by you, but by plenty of other posters. The point that Tunney is trying to make by posting the thread is simply that quite a lot of these supposed "bums" were good enough to win world titles of their own and were therefore perfectly solid mid-level opposition for Calzaghe. No-one, and I repeat no-one is trying to say that any of these wins alone makes Joe "great", and you are painting a picture of Calzaghe fans that suits your own hyperbolic, hyper-critical posting style when you claim that they do.
Likewise, you keep mentioning all time great, for the sole reason that in saying this you feel that you are on solid ground. I'm sure some people have posted that Joe is #1 ATG, but you're not arguing with them right now, you're arguing with me, and I don't share that opinion, in fact I agree almost perfectly with your assesment of Calzaghe as a good boxer and surefire HOFer. As for top 25 of last thirty years, who knows, I'm sure you'd agree that the question is at least debatable.
So please, don't assume that every Calzaghe fan is some sort of crazy nuthugger and that everything ever posted about him is intended to hype him up to high heaven. It isn't. In an environment where his entire career and record is derided on a regular basis, most posts about him are designed only to defend him from this kind of ludicrous criticism, and point out that in fact, he is one of the best boxers active today, an opinion which I know that you share.Comment
-
I follow the heavyweight division very closely, but there's no one with a record of 42-0 who fought a couple of weeks ago in the Bronx. In fact there's no one with a 42-0 record at all! You made that up.
Everything I stated about Joe in the opening post is accurate, I didn't need to make anything up. I did not say Joe's resume is impressive not because of any single win, although there's several very good one's like Kessler and the complete domination of Lacy.
It's impressive because of the summation of all those wins.
Comment
Comment