Joe Cazaghe's resume: very impressive

[The Hammer]

Thanks, man. Perfect example of how records don't mean ****.

That guy was brutally KOed by Arthur Cook.

There is no active heavyweight who has a record of 42-0, you made it up.

[IMDAZED]

That guy was brutally KOed by Arthur Cook.

There is no active heavyweight who has a record of 42-0, you made that up.

I'm pretty sure he can beat that impressive 12-0 guy Calzaghe fought. What's his record now?

And the point is, RECORDS DON'T MEAN ****. It's who you fight. END OF STORY.

[T-97]

Are you serious?

Bernard Hopkins started as a cruiserweight, first of all. A really, really fat one. So what are you saying?

So is Glen Johnson still a journeyman now that he has 10, 11 losses?

Loser.

Im pretty sure that Hopkins first fight was at lightheavyweight...He lost.

Then moved down and the rest is history...

[IMDAZED]

Im pretty sure that Hopkins first fight was at lightheavyweight...He lost.

Then moved down and the rest is history...

His first fight was at 177 - cruiser. And he moved down because he had **** at that weight. Had no idea how to train until Bouie Fisher began working with him. So let's not act as if he was some HUGE man because he started at 177. ****, he weighed 150-something for Oscar.

[T-97]

His first fight was at 177 - cruiser. And he moved down because he had **** at that weight. Had no idea how to train until Bouie Fisher began working with him. So let's not act as if he was some HUGE man because he started at 177. ****, he weighed 150-something for Oscar.

Ok. I heard that he started as lightheavyweight, if your correct he was just over. I must say though, i am not an expert on the early stages of his career so your probably correct.

I believe he was around 156 or 158 for the De La Hoya fight. I may be wrong about that as i am going on memory

[abadger]

Ok. I heard that he started as lightheavyweight, if your correct he was just over. I must say though, i am not an expert on the early stages of his career so your probably correct.

Borec says 174 1/4. Light Heavy.

[The Hammer]

I'm pretty sure he can beat that impressive 12-0 guy Calzaghe fought. What's his record now?

And the point is, RECORDS DON'T MEAN ****. It's who you fight. END OF STORY.

Again, your showing you have poor reading comprehension.

You've picked the least significant detail I mentioned about Joe's resume, and implying I said it was impressive.

You seem to have difficulty in understanding that it's the summation of Joe's resume that's very impressive, not so much any single win, although Kessler and (the complete domination of) Lacy are definitely good wins.

[Kris Silver]

What point are you trying to make. Didn't BOXREC tell you that? Isn't that where you get your knowledge? LMAO.

You make a thread on Hopkins-Mercado when it's obbvious you never saw the fight, and then you make a thread on the many robberies Glen Johnson went through when you never saw those either.

You know what? I'm done with you. You know very little about any of the fights you wanna discuss and you know even less about boxing.

You've clearly not seen even 25% of Calzaghes fights and haven't answered on that, yet use not seeing fights in your argument. Find that very rich and hypocritical.

Here lies a fundamental area and reason for such debates like this. On your side of the argument, in the greatest respect, you seem to judge with WAY to much emphasis on names. If you've not heard of the fighter, or most in your country, circle or whatever hasn't, you clearly do and are, writing them off as bums, or at best low grade opposition. Boxing fans of a certain part of the world are often ignorant to just how really good boxers are out of they're continent. Were all guilty of it, but if polled must would say it's truest most of America, sorry, just true. Don't make it into something it's not.

Many in the US don't consider Kessler a big name for the most part which is ridiculous considering his standing in a division now, he's clearly on the level of that of Calzaghe and Hopkins, yet isn't half the name. Well that's going to be truer more so of previous Calzaghe opponents, hence your view of Calzaghes resume ok at best. This is one great example of not determining a resume good, because you a) haven't heard of some of the fighters b) they're not big names where your from c) you assume there low-med grade fighters.

That is a very big mistake indeed, because it shows you placing far too much trust in the media, population, friends, experts that they're always right, well shock horror, they're not. You sent Lacy over with much of the population, many boxing fans, experts high hopes to beat Calzaghe, I bet even at the time you gave him a good shot, not that you'll admit it. The gap in form was huge. Calzaghe didn't school must of his opponents years before that quite so much, and those are the supposed bums, or low-med grade no name fighters as you make out? So why didn't Calzaghe school the majority of them, as much as he did the much bigger name and entry on the resume, than Lacy?

It's reasonable to say previous opponents of Calzaghe whom you consider to be bums, low-med grade, were infact better than Lacy because Calzaghe didn't beat several of them so convincingly as he did Lacy. That's a perfectly reasonable statement, other fighters did better against Calzaghe, when he had better speed and hands, yet Calzaghe beat him easier than even Reid or Brewer. They just weren't as big names to you.

Truth is your a little argumentative just for the sake of it I'm afraid, and that's been apparent before, sorry to say. Your a fairly good poster but just won't accept points to the contrary of your subjective posts, and resort to a "they're not big names" excuse when you run out of decent objective points.

Being quite honest that's been shown with several responses to your posts, and I think further here. It's also a reason why there's unlikely to be a compromise because no matter how blatantly logical and solid the points are put to you, you rarely see them that way and compromise one bit, so it'll never be resolved. The "they're not names thus top fighters, thus not a good resume" amongst other stuff will come out all over again. If anything demonstrating the above argument as true time and time again.

[TheGreatA]

Borec says 174 1/4. Light Heavy.

His opponent was 174 1/4, Hopkins was 177 lbs. It could be possible that the fight was scheduled to be a LHW bout but Hopkins could not make the weight.

Hopkins weighed 156 lbs against De La Hoya.

[~Lucky13~]

Many of his opponents have held world titles:

Eubank (WBO twice, at 160 and 168)
Reid (WBC at 168)
Hopkins (IBF, WBC, WBO, WBA, Ring at 160, and IBO, Ring at 175)
Kessler (WBA and WBC at 168)
Lacy (IBF at 168)
Mitchell (WBA twice at 168)
Brewer (IBF at 168)
Veit (interim WBO twice at 168)
Woodhall (WBC at 168)
Thornberry (IBO at 168)

Some of the others were strong opponents too:

Bika (contender champion 2007)
Sheika (was coming off a win over Glen Johnson)

Some were undefeated:

Kessler (39-0)
Lacy (21-0)
Veit (30-0)
Hughes (12-0)
Delaney (21-0)

Calzaghe currently holds the prestigious Ring title in two different weight classes, super middleweight and light heavyweight, at the same time!

It's a very good resume by any standards.

that's just astonishing!
calzaghe will go down in history with the likes of ali, lewis and marciano!