Tweet
There is a lot of criticism going around for Calzaghe at the moment, predominantly from American posters and while I can accept some of the critcism as justified, I cannot accept the hypocritical nature of it.
Joe Calzaghe is not the first and nor will he be the last boxer to choose an easier, older fighter for better money. That's me accepting that Kelly Pavlik is a harder fight than Roy Jones Jr. He is, but not by the distance some of you seem to think.
Three famous examples:
* Larry Holmes fighting Muhammad Ali
* Marvin Hagler fighting Roberto Duran
* Manny Pacquiao fighting Marco Antonio Barrera (again)
Each of them had younger and/or more deserving opponents they could have fought, yet not one of them has had the harsh criticism Calzaghe has. Setting aside facing old 'name' fighters, what about the other fighters 'ducking' worthy opponents? Rocky Marciano 'ducked' Floyd Patterson, Riddick Bowe 'ducked' Lennox Lewis and in a very appropriate example, Roy Jones Jr 'ducked' Dariusz Michalczewski. Why haven't they had the same criticism?
You could argue that they have all escaped retrospective criticism by appeasing critics afterwards in other fights, with the exception of Marciano, but it doesn't change the fact that they either 'ducked' another fighter or fought an old 'name' fighter, and in some cases did both. Calzaghe should be criticised for fighting Roy Jones Jr and he may not appease the critics with a fight afterwards, but he has still only been guilty of this boxing crime once, the same number of times each of the legendary fighters I have listed above were guility. Don't forget that Calzaghe himself has been the victim of 'ducking' as well, in the now famous cases of Ottke and Hopkins.
This admittedly justified criticism is hypocritical and has been taken by some haters as fuel to attack Calzaghe; drudging up the same old-same old about his apparantly weak early career resume and his 'slapping', despite this all being ill-considered, ignorant bull****. The worst part is that some respectable posters critical of the Jones fight have been entangled in this, purely in anger at the decision. Calzaghe deserves criticism, but he doesn't deserve the hate he is getting.
I'm personally of the opinion that Calzaghe will fight Pavlik afterwards anyway, but even if he doesn't, the criticism needs to be detached from the hate.
Joe Calzaghe is not the first and nor will he be the last boxer to choose an easier, older fighter for better money. That's me accepting that Kelly Pavlik is a harder fight than Roy Jones Jr. He is, but not by the distance some of you seem to think.
Three famous examples:
* Larry Holmes fighting Muhammad Ali
* Marvin Hagler fighting Roberto Duran
* Manny Pacquiao fighting Marco Antonio Barrera (again)
Each of them had younger and/or more deserving opponents they could have fought, yet not one of them has had the harsh criticism Calzaghe has. Setting aside facing old 'name' fighters, what about the other fighters 'ducking' worthy opponents? Rocky Marciano 'ducked' Floyd Patterson, Riddick Bowe 'ducked' Lennox Lewis and in a very appropriate example, Roy Jones Jr 'ducked' Dariusz Michalczewski. Why haven't they had the same criticism?
You could argue that they have all escaped retrospective criticism by appeasing critics afterwards in other fights, with the exception of Marciano, but it doesn't change the fact that they either 'ducked' another fighter or fought an old 'name' fighter, and in some cases did both. Calzaghe should be criticised for fighting Roy Jones Jr and he may not appease the critics with a fight afterwards, but he has still only been guilty of this boxing crime once, the same number of times each of the legendary fighters I have listed above were guility. Don't forget that Calzaghe himself has been the victim of 'ducking' as well, in the now famous cases of Ottke and Hopkins.
This admittedly justified criticism is hypocritical and has been taken by some haters as fuel to attack Calzaghe; drudging up the same old-same old about his apparantly weak early career resume and his 'slapping', despite this all being ill-considered, ignorant bull****. The worst part is that some respectable posters critical of the Jones fight have been entangled in this, purely in anger at the decision. Calzaghe deserves criticism, but he doesn't deserve the hate he is getting.
I'm personally of the opinion that Calzaghe will fight Pavlik afterwards anyway, but even if he doesn't, the criticism needs to be detached from the hate.
Comment