Hypocrisy in Calzaghe Criticism

[P4P Opinion]

if those harder younger champions were bernard hopkins and roy jones 6 years ago, this debate wouldnt even be happening..


but his best wins are against a 43 yr old bernard... and POSSIBLY a 40 yr old roy...

and thats what he wants to end his legacy on...

Those fights couldn't have been easily made.

This is the last time I'm gonna say it, because I'm sick of it, but Calzaghe would have had to bend over to get those fights six years ago. Hopkins accepted a $3m offer one day and then doubled his demand the next. What was Calzaghe supposed to do? Say "oh yes, thank you Mr Hopkins. I'll gladly take a **** payday for the chance to fight you, even though right now (2002), you aren't a big name"? Should Calzaghe have given up his belt, fought two or three ranking fights for smaller paydays, just for the chance of fighting Roy? That wouldn't have guaranteed anything either.

Calzaghe's best win will go down historically as Kessler anyway. Kessler will become a serious great himself in future.

[THE REED]

So he doesn't deserve any respect because he didn't fight those ppl years ago (not really his fault).

He deserves almost less respect for facing them now, even though they're noway near as past theyre prime as some conveniently make out?

It's like saying jump through this hoop and we'll respect you, then when he does saying, nope too late you might aswell have just not bothered.

i never once said, he should get no respect.

[THE REED]

Those fights couldn't have been easily made.

This is the last time I'm gonna say it, because I'm sick of it, but Calzaghe would have had to bend over to get those fights six years ago. Hopkins accepted a $3m offer one day and then doubled his demand the next. What was Calzaghe supposed to do? Say "oh yes, thank you Mr Hopkins. I'll gladly take a **** payday for the chance to fight you, even though right now (2002), you aren't a big name"? Should Calzaghe have given up his belt, fought two or three ranking fights for smaller paydays, just for the chance of fighting Roy? That wouldn't have guaranteed anything either.

Calzaghe's best win will go down historically as Kessler anyway. Kessler will become a serious great himself in future.

thats gonna be his best win? thats it?

kessler is a very good fighter.. but he is NOT great.... he just ISNT a GREAT fighter... so it isnt a GREAT win...



and as far as money getting in the way of the fights and blah blah... at the end of the day, at the end of the career...

who did you beat? what did you do? he will have to answer that.


im not gonna sit here and tell you joe calzaghe sucks, or doesnt deserve credit for his career...

but to the people who blow him up to be god and repeat his 45-0 record...


i say... he didnt fight 45 prime roy jones.. cuz if he did, hed be 0 and 45

[MELLY-MEL...]

the difference is....


HES ENDING HIS CAREER WITH THESE WINS.... and there the best ones he has.


if he continues to fight harder fights, younger champions, after roy... then thats a different story

good post reed.

[Kris Silver]

i never once said, he should get no respect.

No but many do, and your tone doesn't seem to be far off for some reason lately.

On the second reply, who has fought 45 prime Roy Jones? What a ridiculous thing to say, like it's some benchmark someone has to at least come somewhat close to to get any decent amount of respect.

You do seem somewhat ignorant to things as they were 5+ years ago outside of the Roy bubble. Joe faced some decent competition whom you don't seem to be up on or appreciating anywhere the level they deserve.

Whilst it might not have penetrated into the Roy bubble much, it doesn't make him any less of a fighter or his opponents. I don't care if some of them weren't massive names, they were legitimate top 10 contenders often, others have done far worse than that. Some are basing they're judgements far too much on names. Kessler hasn't fought many big names but neither has Pavlik. Yet ones great the others not.

[THE REED]

No but many do, and your tone doesn't seem to be far off for some reason lately.

On the second reply, who has fought 45 prime Roy Jones? What a ridiculous thing to say, like it's some benchmark someone has to at least come somewhat close to to get any decent amount of respect.

You do seem somewhat ignorant to things as they were 5+ years ago outside of the Roy bubble. Joe faced some decent competition whom you don't seem to be up on or appreciating anywhere the level they deserve.

Whilst it might not have penetrated into the Roy bubble much, it doesn't make him any less of a fighter or his opponents. I don't care if some of them weren't massive names, they were legitimate top 10 contenders often, others have done far worse than that. Some are basing they're judgements far too much on names. Kessler hasn't fought many big names but neither has Pavlik. Yet ones great the others not.

lol the 45 prime roy jones remark was a joke... remember floyd said it in the 24/7...


i know about his wins, eubank was a very good win.. although eubank was near the end of his career as well...

im merely talking about his best wins... i know it sounds like im sitting here bashing joe calzaghe just for the ****ssake of it... but thats not my intention... im merely pointing out... at least for me, his greatest wins, are coming at the end of his career, against aged, past prime, ONCE WAS, great fighters... and a kessler... who, although is a very good fighter.. he isnt great, and has no noteable wins...

and lacy shouldnt even be mentioned, and although i see your point on back when he fought lacy, all those people that said lacy would win, and then when he lost didnt give joe respect... well that comment, should be aimed at THOSE people...

lacy was a very good looking up and coming fighter... it was a very good win for joe... but not a GREAT win... why? because lacy is not a GREAT fighter...

now bernard and roy ARE great fighters... but if you beat them at 40 and 43... there not GREAT wins...

there not garbage wins either... roy and bernard can STILL fight... and beating them are still very good wins... just not great...

[P4P Opinion]

thats gonna be his best win? thats it?

kessler is a very good fighter.. but he is NOT great.... he just ISNT a GREAT fighter... so it isnt a GREAT win...

Right now, I agree with you. However at the end of Kessler's career, that win is going to look like a great win in my opinion. I believe Kessler will become a great champion once more and will be one for a long time. A bit like Roy's B-Hop win, good at the time, great in the future.

and as far as money getting in the way of the fights and blah blah... at the end of the day, at the end of the career...

who did you beat? what did you do? he will have to answer that.

He will have to answer for that and he'll be able to honestly say that he fought and beat who he could. Roy can hold his head up high, because the onus wasn't on him to make a fight with Calzaghe back in the day, but Hopkins will have to answer for the fact he didn't fight Calzaghe back in his prime.

[Kris Silver]

lol the 45 prime roy jones remark was a joke... remember floyd said it in the 24/7...

i know about his wins, eubank was a very good win.. although eubank was near the end of his career as well...

im merely talking about his best wins... i know it sounds like im sitting here bashing joe calzaghe just for the ****ssake of it... but thats not my intention... im merely pointing out... at least for me, his greatest wins, are coming at the end of his career, against aged, past prime, ONCE WAS, great fighters... and a kessler... who, although is a very good fighter.. he isnt great, and has no noteable wins...

and lacy shouldnt even be mentioned, and although i see your point on back when he fought lacy, all those people that said lacy would win, and then when he lost didnt give joe respect... well that comment, should be aimed at THOSE people...

lacy was a very good looking up and coming fighter... it was a very good win for joe... but not a GREAT win... why? because lacy is not a GREAT fighter...

now bernard and roy ARE great fighters... but if you beat them at 40 and 43... there not GREAT wins...

there not garbage wins either... roy and bernard can STILL fight... and beating them are still very good wins... just not great...

Well ok, but you've not really mentioned any other fight earlier than Lacy, other than Eubank. And I was talking about neither of those, but what happened between them. A long career which wasn't great, but was good and contained some good wins.

Brewer, Mitchell, Reid, Woodhall, Veit were all decent wins especially in the fashion they got beat. They're not far from his top 3 best win list, not far at all. So the margin is no way near as big as people either make out, or believe to be the case.

And no they're not the glossy names some ppl want, but I get sick of ppl justifying opponents as good wins for others, yet not Joe, when they're equally not major names.

Fact is regardless of age Hopkins was LHW #1, that means above Tarver, Johnson, Dawson the young up and comer.

Roy is still top 10 in the LHW division, he's above Woods in the Ring list respectively. He's noway near as past prime as many make out.

Kessler is kind of the opposite, in terms of he's just about to peak performance wise. Joe could kind of do with one in the middle to settle the doubters, not that it would there'd be something new for many. In any case who would that be? Pavliks not that tested, he's beaten one name and a bum by the same standards of this logic, and would be like watching Calzaghe vs Kessler 2 in many ways. Dawsons isn't that tested at the top level yet so ppl would undermine that would aswell.

Just how the scene is, and it's been turned into such a negative on Joe as if there's guys left right and centre that don't fall into either of these categories, when really there isn't. The top guys are either slightly un tested, or slightly past they're prime, that's just how it is for many of the top guys in SMW and LHW divisions.

[THE REED]

Well ok, but you've not really mentioned any other fight earlier than Lacy, other than Eubank. And I was talking about neither of those, but what happened between them. A long career which wasn't great, but was good and contained some good wins.

Brewer, Mitchell, Reid, Woodhall, Veit were all decent wins especially in the fashion they got beat. They're not far from his top 3 best win list, not far at all. So the margin is no way near as big as people either make out, or believe to be the case.

And no they're not the glossy names some ppl want, but I get sick of ppl justifying opponents as good wins for others, yet not Joe, when they're equally not major names.

Fact is regardless of age Hopkins was LHW #1, that means above Tarver, Johnson, Dawson the young up and comer.

Roy is still top 10 in the LHW division, he's above Woods in the Ring list respectively. He's noway near as past prime as many make out.

Kessler is kind of the opposite, in terms of he's just about to peak performance wise. Joe could kind of do with one in the middle to settle the doubters, not that it would there'd be something new for many. In any case who would that be? Pavliks not that tested, he's beaten one name and a bum by the same standards of this logic, and would be like watching Calzaghe vs Kessler 2 in many ways. Dawsons isn't that tested at the top level yet so ppl would undermine that would aswell.

Just how the scene is, and it's been turned into such a negative on Joe as if there's guys left right and centre that don't fall into either of these categories, when really there isn't. The top guys are either slightly un tested, or slightly past they're prime, that's just how it is for many of the top guys in SMW and LHW divisions.

then thats just the way it is, and i understand that, and if joe couldnt get the fights back 6-7 years ago, well then maybe its not his fault... but regardless of fault... he didnt fight them, he didnt beat them..

i didnt mention the other names because im talking about his best wins... your best wins define your career in my respective opinion.. and his best wins to me are lacy kessler and bernard, possibly roy...

lacy and kessler arent kind of proven fighters... they arent proven fighters...

kessler has a great record, but ricky hatton and diego corrales showed us that doesnt mean much...

and that doesnt mean im saying kessler isnt good, he is good, hes very good, he can fight... but hes not great...

and weve went over roy and bernard...

beating roy and bernard in their primes would be GREAT wins... beating them now would be very good wins...



and your right, if he were to beat pavlik.. a guy whose been the MW champ for about a year or less, jumping up two weight classes.. no joe probably wouldnt get much credit for it...

although me personally... i think it would be a great win for joe, if he were to beat pavlik... then again... when u go from MW to LHW in one fight, that severely ****s up your fight game, for some anyway, not all..

and chad dawson, yeah hes not exactly a great fighter, but he is young, he is a champion... but ur right, he isnt as proven as the aging greats...


im not blaming joe, joe very well might have gotten the short stick on great opponents, by the time he got the great fighters, they were well past their prime, and the other good fighters, werent proven yet... and that sucks for joe...


but regardless of whose fault it is, i still havent aeen a "great" win from Joe against a "Great" fighter...

im not blaming him for it, im just calling it like i see it

[rizkybizness]

None of this stuff matters, global warming is catching up to us.