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

[MWMerlino]

His standard of opposition: basically I have to say that you are underestimating it. You are completely prepared to dismiss really all of his opponents and only give limited credit for recent wins. Are you this harsh on all fighters?

We need to judge a fighter based on our expectations of them. If Joe wants to be the number one all time great in his hometown, he can have it, gladly. If he thinks he can break into the club with his current resume, he is mistaken.

The only old guy Joe has fought thus far is Hopkins, and he is no washed up shot fighter is he? He was coming off two great wins and held the Ring LHW belt. He was Joe's most credible opponent. Immediately prior to that he unified his division by beating the two younger champions in it, which surely is what you are supposed to do isn't it? Clean out your division?

There is no doubt that Hopkins is an incredible fighter. Even in his old age he made Calzaghe look very bad in the ring, but at 43 years old, we all saw what it took for him to compete. Faking low blows and using much of a 5 minute rest is not something you do unless you are exhausted. Hopkins would of won that fight with 25% higher output, and looked great doing it, except that he was 43 years old.

Whether you rate either of these guys or not, it doesn't change the fact that lacy was a heavy favourite and yet calzaghe took the fight,

Yes but why was Lacy the heavy favorite against Joe? Joe was 40-0 with the title, right?

That is proof that on a national stage, and in the world of boxing, Joe was not on the radar. His resume up until then did not garner him the kind of attention afforded to a respected boxer.

...and Kessler was a top 20 p4per and again, favoured by many to win. You can't just dismiss these wins after the event, these were the best fights out there for Joe and he won both in fine style. What else could he have done? Would you really dismiss these wins if it had been Jermain Taylor or Kelly Pavlik that had got them?

He fought masterfully against Kessler. But, lets not give too much importance to Kessler. He has yet to prove himself in many eyes. His best win? That would be a toss-up between Andrade and Sartison. Take some time to research these boxers and you will see why he lost handily to Calzaghe. There isn't much to Kessler at this point in the game and the way he ducked Miranda is proof. (Let's not bring up Mirandas KO loss, at the time Kessler ducked him, Miranda appeared a brutal and hungry fighter fresh off of a loss, Kessler wanted no part of him.)

Of course no one would dismiss wins against Taylor or Pavlik, and that is the problem, Joe wants no part of those fights and therefore will get no part of those victories.

[Left Hook Tua]

I leave out Mitchell because I expect people not to know who he is. Mitchell, Brewer, Sheika, Woodhall and Reid were all highly ranked by Ring during Joe's reign, but this is simply forgotten now.

reid was not bad.

don't know much about woodhall.

sheika was dangerous because i always thought he had nasty power. too bad he always gets cut in the fights i seen him in.

[bsrizpac]

Is his competition that much worse than Jones' and Hopkins'?

Than Jones? Yes.

Hopkins, you can debate that.

[Left Hook Tua]

Than Jones? Yes.

Hopkins, you can debate that.

i agree with this.

[Jim Jeffries]

not dumping on dariusz. but it's a fact he didn't want to fight roy in the u.s.

of course he'll fight anyone at 175 anywhere not named roy. dariusz was very good he had nothing to fear about anyone else. i know the blame for the fight not happening is on both......but as a biased roy boy , i'd like to blame dariusz.

Fair enough, I can't find enough footage on Dariusz to really determine how good he was, but I think his KO ratio was impressive and certainly distinguishes him from someone like Sven Ottke, who relied on the judges heavily in at least 4 or 5 important fights.

[rizkybizness]

It's Calzaghe's fans.

[them_apples]

Because he's annoying and delusional....in interviews all he keeps saying is "Mikkel Kessler...Jeff lacy..."Mikkel Kessler..Jeff Lacy" he acts like those two have earned him the right to pick easy fights now....

Also the fact that a 43 year old Hopkins almost beat him, I sometimes think the Calzaghe fans only watch him and don't see all the shots Calzaghe soaked up during that fight also..his face tells the true story.

simply the fact that he is overated..he needs one big win on his record to be taken seriously...and to be considered the best he needs to beat the best, the best would be Pavlik. It's a shame he waited so long to try and get a good match.

Calzaghe is a green contender. Taylor and Pavlik would beat him. ALSO, he's moved up one freaking weight class how the hell should he even be considered the best p4p. Maybe if he pulled a Roy Jones and hit the heavyweight division...

[Jim Jeffries]

It's Calzaghe's fans.

I agree, they're almost as bad as David Haye's.

[fightingfigs]

The fact that he didnt wanna fight a young hungry fighter who wanted to move a couple weight classes to fight him is another main reason.

[abadger]

We need to judge a fighter based on our expectations of them. If Joe wants to be the number one all time great in his hometown, he can have it, gladly. If he thinks he can break into the club with his current resume, he is mistaken.



There is no doubt that Hopkins is an incredible fighter. Even in his old age he made Calzaghe look very bad in the ring, but at 43 years old, we all saw what it took for him to compete. Faking low blows and using much of a 5 minute rest is not something you do unless you are exhausted. Hopkins would of won that fight with 25% higher output, and looked great doing it, except that he was 43 years old.



Yes but why was Lacy the heavy favorite against Joe? Joe was 40-0 with the title, right?

That is proof that on a national stage, and in the world of boxing, Joe was not on the radar. His resume up until then did not garner him the kind of attention afforded to a respected boxer.




He fought masterfully against Kessler. But, lets not give too much importance to Kessler. He has yet to prove himself in many eyes. His best win? That would be a toss-up between Andrade and Sartison. Take some time to research these boxers and you will see why he lost handily to Calzaghe. There isn't much to Kessler at this point in the game and the way he ducked Miranda is proof. (Let's not bring up Mirandas KO loss, at the time Kessler ducked him, Miranda appeared a brutal and hungry fighter fresh off of a loss, Kessler wanted no part of him.)

Of course no one would dismiss wins against Taylor or Pavlik, and that is the problem, Joe wants no part of those fights and therefore will get no part of those victories.

A nice, reasonable post, but I'm sorry to say I disagree with nearly everything in it. Basically it seems to me that under the disguie of reason you are simply dismissing everything Joe has achieved as well as being very harsh on European fighters in general.

You say Lacy being favourite shows that Joe was not respected. Maybe so, but the result proved that that lack of respect was simply wrong. You can't blame Joe if people were mistaken about him. Doesn't this error perhaps suggest that people may have been wrong in other areas, say their perception of the strength of his record.

How you can talk of Kessler ducking Miranda? Really how? Fighters don't duck opponents they are clearly better than. Kessler wanted a belt, which Miranda could not provide. How is coming off a loss a reason for Kessler to fear Miranda? I think this really shows how you are taking facts and turning them to suit your own viewpoint.

As for 'researching' Kesslers record I don't need too, I've seen all his recent fights as far back as Mundine. It looks to me like he beat every credible contender at SMW who wasn't Joe or Lacy and won two belts, without ever being close to defeat and looking excellent doing so. I'd say he lost to Joe because Joe was better, not because he is ****.

You misunderstood what I said about Taylor and Pavlik, I asked whether or not they would be criticised had they beat Hopkins, Lacy and Kessler, or whether in fact they would be lavishly praised. I think it is obvious that they would, especially since you show in your post that you inherently rate US-based fighters above Euros, who apparently cannot get any credit whatsoever in your eyes. You say no-one would question victories over Taylor or Pavlik and that Kessler ducked Miranda, despite the very real truth that all of those fighters in actual fact have massive question marks against them in the opinion of many.