Calzaghe Haters: What Is It You Don't Like?

[IMDAZED]

Calzaghe doesn't come across as arrogant at all. In fact, I think it's the contrary. But he's good at what he does and he knows it. That's not arrogance, especially when you compare it to the Mayweathers, Jones', Hopkins, Toney's, Tarver's and even Hatton's of the world. Not at all.

I'm an American but I've always liked Calzaghe, ever since I first saw him on Showtime - around 1999, I believe. I was impressed by his fast hands, size, strength and polish. Some of you laugh at him as a slapper but even Roy Jones said that was a ruse; that he slipped some nice straight lefts square on Hopkins' jaw when BHop wasn't expecting it.

You can't argue with the results. I tabbed him to beat Lacy because, unlike a lot of my American counterparts, I had seen Joe fight several times before. I saw Lacy too and realized his only shot was a lucky one. I picked Joe to beat Kess & Hops as well. I think he's real good. In my eyes, a first ballot Hall of Famer and unquestionably #1 or 1a on every p4p list today. Those are phenomenal accomplishments.

With that said, my beef is with those who want to rewrite history, those who want to claim Calzaghe was on par with the Jones' & Hopkins back then or that he was better in his prime than they were. Those who are giving newcomers misinformation. He wasn't on par with them. And judging from his actions, he knew it too. I'm being objective here - look at the facts.

In the end, Calzaghe's inability to face a fellow great in his prime will hamper his legacy, especially since there were several all around him. Not blaming him, just a fact. Jeff Lacy & Mikkel Kessler do not qualify. But it's still Hall of Fame worthy. And that's all that matters.

[Domain]

Americans like Hatton....

[abadger]

Calzaghe doesn't come across as arrogant at all. In fact, I think it's the contrary but he's good at what he does. And he knows it. That's not arrogance, especially when you compare it to the Mayweathers, Jones', Hopkins, Toney's, Tarver's and even Hatton's of the world. Not at all.

I'm an American but I've always liked Calzaghe, ever since I first saw him on Showtime - around 1999, I believe. I was impressed by his fast hands, size, strength and polish. Some of you laugh at him as a slapper but even Roy Jones said that was a ruse; that he slipped some nice straight lefts square on Hopkins' jaw when BHop wasn't expecting it.

You can't argue with the results. I tabbed him to beat Lacy because, unlike a lot of my American counterparts, I had seen Joe fight several times before. I saw Lacy too and realized his only shot was a lucky one. I picked Joe to beat Kess & Hops as well. I think he's real good. In my eyes, a first ballot Hall of Famer and unquestionably #1 or 1a on every p4p list today. Those are phenomenal accomplishments.

With that said, my beef is with those who want to rewrite history, those who want to claim Calzaghe was on par with the Jones' & Hopkins back then or that he was better in his prime than they were. Those who are giving newcomers misinformation. He wasn't on par with them. And judging from his actions, he knew it too. I'm being objective here - look at the facts.

In the end, Calzaghe's inability to face a fellow great in his prime will hamper his legacy, especially since there were several all around him. Not blaming him, just a fact. Jeff Lacy & Mikkel Kessler do not qualify. But it's still Hall of Fame worthy. And that's all that matters.

Terrific post. Don't agree with everything of course. I'll admit that talentwise Joe is not on a par with Jones, but with Hopkins I don't see any really coherent reason to make him the better of the two fighters in their primes. Their careers are very, very similar and if anything Joe isthe more naturally gifted. Equally I can't say for sure that Joe is better than Hopkins, but it isn't misinformation to say he is if that's what I think, and the same the other way around. Bottom line, that one is a matter of opinion.

[LOLORSKATES]

Let's talk about his punching power, thats where I have a problem.

[abadger]

Let's talk about his punching power, thats where I have a problem.

OK. You don't like him because he doesn't punch hard. There is a hell of a lot more to boxing than just punching hard, most of which calzaghe is amongst the best at, so surely as a boxing fan you can find something to appreciate. Bernard Hopkins is not a renowned puncher either, and doesn't load up on his shots, same with loys of other boxers.

If punching hard is a requirement for you though, thats cool, I like my boxers to have great speed and movement, thats what impresses me.

[IMDAZED]

Terrific post. Don't agree with everything of course. I'll admit that talentwise Joe is not on a par with Jones, but with Hopkins I don't see any really coherent reason to make him the better of the two fighters in their primes. Their careers are very, very similar and if anything Joe isthe more naturally gifted. Equally I can't say for sure that Joe is better than Hopkins, but it isn't misinformation to say he is if that's what I think, and the same the other way around. Bottom line, that one is a matter of opinion.

Thanks man.

I think a lot of people get caught up in the numbers game but I like to look at names. They both fought numerous tough fighters in their prime but I think Hopkins' were a tad better.

The same way a lot of people don't really know how tough an Omar Sheika was (at the time Joe fought him) or how good Charles Brewer was, even LESS know anything about Bernard Hopkins' resume before Felix Trinidad. In fact, they are comparing his resume post-Tito (which begins at age 36) to Calzaghe's whole career.

Hopkins fought tougher middles than Calzaghe did supermiddles. Names like Kessler stick out but there were quite a few excellent 160lbers who never even got a chance to make a name because a prime Hopkins just RUINED them. I mean, destroyed them. Not like the super middle contenders who were recycled by every champ (the Markus Beyer's of the world). How long did it take Glen Johnson to resurface? Guys like John David Jackson never came back. I'm not even bringing up Tito, who rates above nearly everyone Calzaghe faced.

Not to mention his leaping up to 175 to beat a man coming off wins against Jones & Johnson. I saw signs that he was slipping against Winky so I knew the end was near. But he still performed admirably against Calzaghe, perhaps exposing some flaws another fighter will capitalize on.

[Burner]

I am often puzzled by the amount of hate Calzaghe gets on here, and have been wondering what is the root cause.

Its easy to say that his haters, usually Americans are biased because of nationality, but that doesn't explain much really. Even if you are a little nationalistic you still must have an opinion as to why Calzaghe does not deserve your respect.

My theory is you all actually just don't think he's a very good boxer, so if I'm right, could some of you please enlighten me as to why you feel this way? If not, then please share you hate and enlighten me anyway.

Thanks

Hes never ofught anyone...and then him fighting a 43 year old Hopkins and Jones instead of Dawson...and Pavlik dont help his case.

[bsrizpac]

Only in America is inbreeding such a significant problem that you legally have to take a blood test before you get married. Over here, we just don't try to marry our cousins.

http://www.naitazi.com/2008/02/15/uk-leaders-question-british-pakistani-cousin-marriage-practice-after-shariah-flap/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442646.stm

[dfwtx]

Because as an amateur if I were to pull anything along the lines of his form I would without a doubt get a nice mitt to the face. It's irritating as hell to watch a grown man and a professional in the sport punch with the technique of a 12 year old girl. That, and the hype that his fans surround him with, I just want to watch him get dethroned.

[Clegg]

The hate that Calzaghe gets makes it hard to have a reasonable discussion about him. I'm very disappointed that he chose to fight Roy Jones rather than Pavlik, but any thread about the issue seems to descend into "over-protected his whole career, always overrated, ducked challenges his entire life etc." and so then I end up defending the guy simply because the critics are coming out with such crap.

Sometimes you see people say that Lacy and Kessler weren't/didn't look that good. I disagree, but they're entitled to their opinion. What I have a problem with though is that those same people are often the ones who act as if fighting Pavlik would be radically different to those fights.

Calzaghe-Lacy and Calzaghe-Kessler were fights that many predicted him to lose. Right now though Calzaghe is p4p#2 in most people's eyes, whereas many do not have Pavlik in the top 10. If you look at the 3 fighters pre-Calzaghe, then on paper Pavlik is the one that Calzaghe has the least to fear from, not the most.

I have no doubt that those who criticise Calzaghe for fighting Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins all picked him to lose those fights. But does he get credit from them for winning? No, instead they act like the wins are meaningless. I've no doubt that many of these people are on their 3rd and 4th account, so as to avoid their previous ******ity being brought up.

I assume that Xplosivo used to be xfiles? Not sure who fightingfigs is, but when you see a Calzaghe hater say "I expected him to demolish Hopkins" and you see that the join date is May 2008...you have to wonder.

Most of them refuse to learn from their mistakes, which is why Kball is so certain that Taylor and Pavlik would beat Calzaghe. He picks against Calzaghe is almost every fight. Sorry, but if you picked Manfredo to beat Calzaghe then you should probably be in rehab rather than making more fight predictions.