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

[Chuckguy]

hey re-usuck**** and ass
he is 45-0 because he hasnt fought the best out there and he until hopkis has always fought in his back yard. He ducked RJJ in his prime and even Hopkins back in the day. Now he is caling them out after hopkins is way over the hill and RJJ is no where near he once was. Why didnt he fight Roy back in the day, cause he is a ***** thats why. Joe is a smart fighter cause he is very picky when it comes to opposition. The only fight I give him credit for is the Kessler fight. He is really good but not the best. How can you come and BAREly beat up an old man and then talk all this trash afterwards. I want to see RJJ kick his overrated ass in Whales in front of 60,000!

[abadger]

First off, if you want to see the epitimy of arrogance go watch his behavior earlier in his career. I checked it out and it's the kind of unjustified behavior when you are in no position to hype up yourself.

He has definitely calmed down now, but he still comes across as arrogant. Comparing himself to the likes of Marciano because he might retire undefeated, bringing up his victories over Lacy and Kessler in every oppertunity to glorify himself, how often he mentions the fact that he's been unbeaten for so long etc etc. Or hey, maybe he's just insecure about his legacy if he has to bring these things up so often. He shouldn't have to.

A guy that is definitely not arrogant is Kelly Pavlik. The opposite is Floyd Mayweather JR. Calzaghe is in the middle.

But I respect the fact that he respects his opponents if they respect him as well, like with Roy who respects him, but not with Hopkins. But oh wait, that might fall out of the window after seeing him call Jeff Lacy's punching "****", his punching power "****", and him as a fighter "****".

Woah! You really don't like him do you? I have to say it seems to me that perhaps your dislike of Calzaghe comes first, and your dislike makes you interpret his actions as arrogant. I mean be real, compared to most elite boxers is a model of restraint, compare him to Hopkins before their last fight to see what I mean. Boxing is rife with trash talkers, but Joe isn't one. He used to be when he was younger, but not any more, for years.

As for bringing up Lacy and Kessler, what on earth is wrong with this? He's a boxer and presumably in interviews he is expected to talk about his career, since those are two of not only his best, but most recent wins, of course he's going to talk about them. Seems to me that you just don't like hearing about Joe winning.

Finally, Calzaghe calling Lacy ****: you're right he did, in his corner, to his trainer, during the fight. Its not like he did a press interview when he said that is it? Presumably Joe wanted to communicate to his corner how he felt about the fight, and what would you like him to say? "I feel that my opponent does not have the talent that we had been lead to expect?" be real! All kinds of **** gets said in corners, and besides, in this case it was about the most accurate thing he could have said, Lacy was ****.

Anyhow, those are just my thoughts, you are perfectly entitled to hate Joe for any reason you like, I just think its less because he's arrogant, and more because he beats fighters you like.

[slicksouthpaw16]

The only guys that Calzaghe is being respected for beating is Lacy and Kessler simply becuase they were young guys and a lot of people that were betting chose them to win the fight. That plus Calzaghe put on great performances in both fights. Eubank and Hopkins were both washed up and on paper, they are the best names on Calzaghe's resume. What i don't like about Calzaghe is the fact that he thinks that his legacy is already sealed and he doesn't have to fight any more top elite fighters, which is certainly not true. IMO Calzaghe has shown no evidence that he is past his prime and can still go after the elite. He is only 36 and has not really been in any wars. He will lose a lot of respect if he actually retires without fighting more younger threats. Like i have stated, he is a very good fighter but you can make a case for him being match carefully.

[Buckfever]

It's a reluctance to take on the dangerous opponents during their prime, which makes the legacy suspect and raises questions regarding the integrity of the fighter.

He's good for sure. He might be great, he just hasn't earned that.

[slicksouthpaw16]

It's a reluctance to take on the dangerous opponents during their prime, which makes the legacy suspect and raises questions regarding the integrity of the fighter.

He's good for sure. He might be great, he just hasn't earned that.

Perfectly put. You can not be known as being great unless you prove it against the best and is willing to take risks. The only true threats that he fought where people expected him to lose were against Kessler and Lacy. Both fighters untested against the elite opposition. Calzaghe NEEDS to fight Pavlik or Dawson to help seal his legacy.

[abadger]

The only guys that Calzaghe is being respected for beating is Lacy and Kessler simply becuase they were young guys and a lot of people that were betting chose them to win the fight. That plus Calzaghe put on great performances in both fights. Eubank and Hopkins were both washed up and on paper, they are the best names on Calzaghe's resume. What i don't like about Calzaghe is the fact that he thinks that his legacy is already sealed and he doesn't have to fight any more top elite fighters, which is certainly not true. IMO Calzaghe has shown no evidence that he is past his prime and can still go after the elite. He is only 36 and has not really been in any wars. He will lose a lot of respect if he actually retires without fighting more younger threats. Like i have stated, he is a very good fighter but you can make a case for him being match carefully.

I think in this instance you are falling into "The American Trap" you seem basically to be prepared to write off Joe's entire career before he came to US prominence, this is a very dangerous thing to do, because glib dismissal of fights because they were long ago and don't contain any absolute superstars can lead to you making mistakes. First up, Byron Mitchell, Charles Brewer and Omar Sheika were good fighters all highly ranked by ring, likewise Reid and a bit earlier Woodhall. No-one claims these are the fights that make you into a superstar, but they are the fights you have to win if you want to get there one day and were all on paper tough defences for Joe. Omar Sheika beat Glen Johnson at SMW and Mitchell effectively ended Frankie Liles career. Had Mitchell in particular not run into Joe he would have been a much bigger name and one of the best SMWs of the era, but he did and so he wasn't. Look at the way Jeff Lacy is written off, same thing. American fans don't usually worship guys who lose to unknown Euros, but when that Euro is Joe Calzaghe, it doesn't mean they are bad fighters.

Second, you sweepingly state that Eubank and Hopkins were 'washed up' as though beating them counts for nothing. This is absurd. Eubank was a great fighter in his day, and at the time he fought Joe was just 31 years old. He was not quite the fighter he had been, but he was nowhere near shot, his previous losses having come to the also excellent Steve Collins. At the time they fought, Joe was just 25 years old and the size of the step up in class that Eubank represented cannot be overestimated, it was massive. The young Joe, until that point untested at anything like world level beat him convincingly in an absolute war, a great achievemnt for a young british champion.

As for Hopkins being shot, basically, be real. Hopkins gave Calzaghe one of his toughest fights, held the Ring belt at LHW and was coming off wins over Tarver and Winky. He had plenty left. But just like Eubank, Byron Mitchell, Jeff Lacy, Mikkel Kessler, Charles Brewer, Omar Sheika he lost to Calzaghe and guys like you immediately start saying, "oh well he wasn't any good". Ask yourself really, if that had been Chad Dawson in there with Hopkins would you say Hopkins was "washed up" I don't think you would. What if he had beaten Calzghe, which he wasn't so very far away from doing, would he be washed up then? It is commonly said that Hopkins destroys careers, but Calzaghe does it too. The reason you think that so many of the names on Calzaghe's record are no good, is because they lost to Calzaghe. Its just that Americans in general, including you in this instance, find it so hard to respect Calzaghe in the same way that you do US fighters that you overlook this fact and twist it into a stick to beat Calzaghe with.

[IMDAZED]

I think in this instance you are falling into "The American Trap" you seem basically to be prepared to write off Joe's entire career before he came to US prominence, this is a very dangerous thing to do, because glib dismissal of fights because they were long ago and don't contain any absolute superstars can lead to you making mistakes. First up, Byron Mitchell, Charles Brewer and Omar Sheika were good fighters all highly ranked by ring, likewise Reid and a bit earlier Woodhall. No-one claims these are the fights that make you into a superstar, but they are the fights you have to win if you want to get there one day and were all on paper tough defences for Joe. Omar Sheika beat Glen Johnson at SMW and Mitchell effectively ended Frankie Liles career. Had Mitchell in particular not run into Joe he would have been a much bigger name and one of the best SMWs of the era, but he did and so he wasn't. Look at the way Jeff Lacy is written off, same thing. American fans don't usually worship guys who lose to unknown Euros, but when that Euro is Joe Calzaghe, it doesn't mean they are bad fighters.

Second, you sweepingly state that Eubank and Hopkins were 'washed up' as though beating them counts for nothing. This is absurd. Eubank was a great fighter in his day, and at the time he fought Joe was just 31 years old. He was not quite the fighter he had been, but he was nowhere near shot, his previous losses having come to the also excellent Steve Collins. At the time they fought, Joe was just 25 years old and the size of the step up in class that Eubank represented cannot be overestimated, it was massive. The young Joe, until that point untested at anything like world level beat him convincingly in an absolute war, a great achievemnt for a young british champion.

As for Hopkins being shot, basically, be real. Hopkins gave Calzaghe one of his toughest fights, held the Ring belt at LHW and was coming off wins over Tarver and Winky. He had plenty left. But just like Eubank, Byron Mitchell, Jeff Lacy, Mikkel Kessler, Charles Brewer, Omar Sheika he lost to Calzaghe and guys like you immediately start saying, "oh well he wasn't any good". Ask yourself really, if that had been Chad Dawson in there with Hopkins would you say Hopkins was "washed up" I don't think you would. What if he had beaten Calzghe, which he wasn't so very far away from doing, would he be washed up then? It is commonly said that Hopkins destroys careers, but Calzaghe does it too. The reason you think that so many of the names on Calzaghe's record are no good, is because they lost to Calzaghe. Its just that Americans in general, including you in this instance, find it so hard to respect Calzaghe in the same way that you do US fighters that you overlook this fact and twist it into a stick to beat Calzaghe with.

Omar Sheika beat Glen Johnson the Way Julio Cesar Chavez drew with Pernell Whitaker.

Some examples are best left alone.

[Dan...]

Woah! You really don't like him do you? I have to say it seems to me that perhaps your dislike of Calzaghe comes first, and your dislike makes you interpret his actions as arrogant. I mean be real, compared to most elite boxers is a model of restraint, compare him to Hopkins before their last fight to see what I mean. Boxing is rife with trash talkers, but Joe isn't one. He used to be when he was younger, but not any more, for years.

As for bringing up Lacy and Kessler, what on earth is wrong with this? He's a boxer and presumably in interviews he is expected to talk about his career, since those are two of not only his best, but most recent wins, of course he's going to talk about them. Seems to me that you just don't like hearing about Joe winning.

Finally, Calzaghe calling Lacy ****: you're right he did, in his corner, to his trainer, during the fight. Its not like he did a press interview when he said that is it? Presumably Joe wanted to communicate to his corner how he felt about the fight, and what would you like him to say? "I feel that my opponent does not have the talent that we had been lead to expect?" be real! All kinds of **** gets said in corners, and besides, in this case it was about the most accurate thing he could have said, Lacy was ****.

Anyhow, those are just my thoughts, you are perfectly entitled to hate Joe for any reason you like, I just think its less because he's arrogant, and more because he beats fighters you like.

Totally agree. What the **** kind of fighter doesn't talk about their best wins?

Although he's not my favourite fighter there is no doubt that Calzaghe receives some hate that the people doing the hating don't really have any justification for.

[Dirt E Gomez]

My answers to the question at hand are:

His fans, his resume, and his style.

His fans, like all good boxers make me hate them. It doesn't mean I only like underrated fighters or people others don't know about... but it certainly doesn't help me like a fighter if I despise their fans.

His resume is weak, very weak, although getting stronger. I don't like the amount of praise he receives for what little he has done for supposedly such a great career.

I hate his style. I hate this pretending to be in the amateur bull**** that he and some other fighters use. I'm 100% ok with not throwing only power shots, but when your "power shots" are basically weaker than Winky Wright's jab then you've got big issues. Ouma, Calzaghe, Solimon... they might be able to entertain me from time to time, but I'll be damned if I'm going to reward them rounds for tapping their opponents.

[Chunk..]

This thread needs some music i reckon?