Joe calzaghes boxing career to date:

[BRAVE-HEART]

Calzaghe has many underrated names like Richie Woodhall (great fighter, never achieved much though.

classic brah ! absolute classic hahaha

[.Mik.]

What a typically blinkered view.

Let me address these points one by one and if you dont respond within 10 minutes, I'll consider you silenced.

First of all, you can consider people he fought in his first 22 fights bums if you want. They had losing records you say, I cant be bothered to look that up to make sure, so I'll take your word for it. So people with losing records are bums...okay? I'll accept that.

Eubank, great fighter, I'll accept that too. He had lost 2 of his last 6 fights, but then so has Roy Jones, Hopkins has lost more, Taylor has now last 2 of his last 6 fights too. Doesnt mean that he's not a scalp. So I'm taking that as a credible fighter and a credible victory in a first title shot.

'For another 17 fights he fought absolute road bums'.

Wait wait wait there. So if you've got losing records you're a bum...if you've got WINNING records you're an absolute road bum? I'm sorry, but that doesnt really make sense there mate. Surely if you dont recognise people with losing records, you at least do recognise those with winning records? Otherwise...where is your consistency? Or is it more just a case that you consider those to be 'absolute road bums' because in most cases you dont know who they are?

Branko Sobot - Winning record, but yeah...very average fighter.
Juan Carlos Gimenez Ferreyra - HUGE winning record, but still not a great fighter. Certainly not a 'bum' though.
Robin Reid - Please. A title holder. A great record at the time. A genuine prime scalp.
Rick Thornberry - Winning record, average fighter.
David Starie - Winning record, average fighter.
Rick Thornberry - Winning record, average fighter.
Omar Sheika - Winning record, fought for a number of titles which suggests that he is a title-fight quality fighter. You consider that being a bum, you go and try and get a title shot.

Hell...I could go through them all, they all have winning records, so none of them can be bums. So you're looking at a minimum of 17 average opponents there. Only thats not really true because Robin Reid, Richie Woodhall, Mario Veit and Byron Mitchell were all very good fighters.

How can you call Jeff Lacy an overhyped piece of **** who has fought nobody to date...and then class him as a credible opponent?

Mikkel Kessler has 'one of the worst boxing records I have ever seen'? How do you expect your points to be taken seriously? He was undefeated, he had beaten top 5 ranked people in his division for most of his last 10 fights (who is he supposed to fight) he was pushing the P4P list (you cant always fight other P4P boxers). If you've barely seen worse boxing records than that...you havent look at any boxing records other than Mikkel Kessler's. Even now he is considered to be one of the top guys for the future of boxing.

Now, this brings me onto the point of knock outs. Where in the rules of boxing does it say that you must knock out your opponent to win? Where does it say that knock outs are the only things that count as victories? It doesnt. Calzaghe does not rely on a single punch or an accumulation taking out his opponent, he has to beat them every minute of every round, he has to be on his toes and watchful for every second of 12 rounds to ensure victory. Why is this looked down upon?

Then you discount the Hopkins victory because a). He was old (though still ranked high on the P4P list, which is apparently all that you consider 'credible') and b). He didnt win anyway (although thats utter wank, because the judges said he did, the populance said he did, the scorecards said he did, the associated press said he did and this forum said he did). c). Because he was knocked down...and got back up again to win, again...should this be considered a bad thing that he showed heart and strength of character to come back from a early set back to win?


Now, in the argument for who has the better record out of Hopkins and Calzaghe...thats up for the record books to decide. Before the fight between the two of them, I'dve said Hopkins, now I think that its a lot closer. My reasons.

Look at the top 5 guys Hopkins has faced AT HIS WEIGHT:

1). Roy Jones.
2). Joe Calzaghe.
3). Jermaine Taylor.
4). Antonio Tarver.
5). Glen Johnson.

(Winky Wright, Felix Trinidad, ODLH...should not have been at that weight and are certainly not their best at that weight).

Out of those 5, Hopkins lost to three of them. Should he really get credit for the fights he lost?

Compared to Calzaghe's best 5 fighters at his weight.

1). Bernard Hopkins.
2). Mikkel Kessler.
3). Chris Eubank.
4). Jeff Lacy.
5). Robin Reid.

Now, undoubtedly they are inferior opposition to the Hopkins competition. BUT, Calzaghe won them all, including Hopkins himself.

10 minuites mate. Thats your opportunity to reply. If it doesnt happen, I will irritatingly and annoyingly ignore any response you make to this post.

[BRAVE-HEART]

What a typically blinkered view.

Let me address these points one by one and if you dont respond within 10 minutes, I'll consider you silenced.

First of all, you can consider people he fought in his first 22 fights bums if you want. They had losing records you say, I cant be bothered to look that up to make sure, so I'll take your word for it. So people with losing records are bums...okay? I'll accept that.

Eubank, great fighter, I'll accept that too. He had lost 2 of his last 6 fights, but then so has Roy Jones, Hopkins has lost more, Taylor has now last 2 of his last 6 fights too. Doesnt mean that he's not a scalp. So I'm taking that as a credible fighter and a credible victory in a first title shot.

'For another 17 fights he fought absolute road bums'.

Wait wait wait there. So if you've got losing records you're a bum...if you've got WINNING records you're an absolute road bum? I'm sorry, but that doesnt really make sense there mate. Surely if you dont recognise people with losing records, you at least do recognise those with winning records? Otherwise...where is your consistency? Or is it more just a case that you consider those to be 'absolute road bums' because in most cases you dont know who they are?

Branko Sobot - Winning record, but yeah...very average fighter.
Juan Carlos Gimenez Ferreyra - HUGE winning record, but still not a great fighter. Certainly not a 'bum' though.
Robin Reid - Please. A title holder. A great record at the time. A genuine prime scalp.
Rick Thornberry - Winning record, average fighter.
David Starie - Winning record, average fighter.
Rick Thornberry - Winning record, average fighter.
Omar Sheika - Winning record, fought for a number of titles which suggests that he is a title-fight quality fighter. You consider that being a bum, you go and try and get a title shot.

Hell...I could go through them all, they all have winning records, so none of them can be bums. So you're looking at a minimum of 17 average opponents there. Only thats not really true because Robin Reid, Richie Woodhall, Mario Veit and Byron Mitchell were all very good fighters.

How can you call Jeff Lacy an overhyped piece of **** who has fought nobody to date...and then class him as a credible opponent?

Mikkel Kessler has 'one of the worst boxing records I have ever seen'? How do you expect your points to be taken seriously? He was undefeated, he had beaten top 5 ranked people in his division for most of his last 10 fights (who is he supposed to fight) he was pushing the P4P list (you cant always fight other P4P boxers). If you've barely seen worse boxing records than that...you havent look at any boxing records other than Mikkel Kessler's. Even now he is considered to be one of the top guys for the future of boxing.

Now, this brings me onto the point of knock outs. Where in the rules of boxing does it say that you must knock out your opponent to win? Where does it say that knock outs are the only things that count as victories? It doesnt. Calzaghe does not rely on a single punch or an accumulation taking out his opponent, he has to beat them every minute of every round, he has to be on his toes and watchful for every second of 12 rounds to ensure victory. Why is this looked down upon?

Then you discount the Hopkins victory because a). He was old (though still ranked high on the P4P list, which is apparently all that you consider 'credible') and b). He didnt win anyway (although thats utter wank, because the judges said he did, the populance said he did, the scorecards said he did, the associated press said he did and this forum said he did). c). Because he was knocked down...and got back up again to win, again...should this be considered a bad thing that he showed heart and strength of character to come back from a early set back to win?


Now, in the argument for who has the better record out of Hopkins and Calzaghe...thats up for the record books to decide. Before the fight between the two of them, I'dve said Hopkins, now I think that its a lot closer. My reasons.

Look at the top 5 guys Hopkins has faced AT HIS WEIGHT:

1). Roy Jones.
2). Joe Calzaghe.
3). Jermaine Taylor.
4). Antonio Tarver.
5). Glen Johnson.

(Winky Wright, Felix Trinidad, ODLH...should not have been at that weight and are certainly not their best at that weight).

Out of those 5, Hopkins lost to three of them. Should he really get credit for the fights he lost?

Compared to Calzaghe's best 5 fighters at his weight.

1). Bernard Hopkins.
2). Mikkel Kessler.
3). Chris Eubank.
4). Jeff Lacy.
5). Robin Reid.

Now, undoubtedly they are inferior opposition to the Hopkins competition. BUT, Calzaghe won them all, including Hopkins himself.

10 minuites mate. Thats your opportunity to reply. If it doesnt happen, I will irritatingly and annoyingly ignore any response you make to this post.

long post, im tired, for the most part you speak alot of ****, but here we go anyway:

Jeff lacy was not a great boxer, wether you are going to argue about that or not.

I never said a KO is the only way to win a fight ?. But while we are on that topic. Alot of joe clazaghes fights are stopped prematurley because of his high workrate of slaps . Manfreddo is a perfect example where not a single punch hurt him and most of them missed when the referee called it off. Manfreddo wanted to go on.

The road bums comment was highly relevant. So no need to discuss that any further

And I never said anything about hopkins vs calzaghe either, so the bit about calzaghe having a better boxing rec than hopkins, is pointless and wrong. Hopkins is a legend.

anyway im tired. i have been at work all day and reading your reply was making me sleepy.

sorry for the spelling, i couldnt give a monkeys left testical

[Jim Jeffries]

Joe calzaghes boxing career :

his first 22 fights were to boxers with loosing boxing records ( look it up )

So by losing records you mean

9-3-1
11-1
21-0
17-2
21-8
12-0
44-2
among others?

Guess what? Even Floyd fought a guy 1-13-1 in his 9th pro fight. I guess according to you that makes him a protected bum.

[bsrizpac]

Second hand thread. Try searching the forum you'll see your thread covered at least 1000 times.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Sir_Joe]

long post, im tired, for the most part you speak alot of ****, but here we go anyway:

Jeff lacy was not a great boxer, wether you are going to argue about that or not.

I never said a KO is the only way to win a fight ?. But while we are on that topic. Alot of joe clazaghes fights are stopped prematurley because of his high workrate of slaps . Manfreddo is a perfect example where not a single punch hurt him and most of them missed when the referee called it off. Manfreddo wanted to go on.

The road bums comment was highly relevant. So no need to discuss that any further

And I never said anything about hopkins vs calzaghe either, so the bit about calzaghe having a better boxing rec than hopkins, is pointless and wrong. Hopkins is a legend.

anyway im tired. i have been at work all day and reading your reply was making me sleepy.

sorry for the spelling, i couldnt give a monkeys left testical

Typical response when a hater is faced with common sense.

Well done.

[.Mik.]

long post, im tired, for the most part you speak alot of ****, but here we go anyway:

Jeff lacy was not a great boxer, wether you are going to argue about that or not.

I never said a KO is the only way to win a fight ?. But while we are on that topic. Alot of joe clazaghes fights are stopped prematurley because of his high workrate of slaps . Manfreddo is a perfect example where not a single punch hurt him and most of them missed when the referee called it off. Manfreddo wanted to go on.

The road bums comment was highly relevant. So no need to discuss that any further

And I never said anything about hopkins vs calzaghe either, so the bit about calzaghe having a better boxing rec than hopkins, is pointless and wrong. Hopkins is a legend.

anyway im tired. i have been at work all day and reading your reply was making me sleepy.

sorry for the spelling, i couldnt give a monkeys left testical

Ahahahaha, what a ****ing idiot. I never said that Jeff Lacy was a great fighter at all. Never mind about your spelling, you should worry about your reading.

Manfredo wanted to go on? He should've tried throwing a punch sometime that round then.

I like how you start a thread on a DISCUSSION FORUM and then for some reason...do not want discussion. What were you hoping that everyone would post agreeing with you?

If you want people to agree with you, dont talk a load of ****.

[BRAVE-HEART]

Ahahahaha, what a ****ing idiot. I never said that Jeff Lacy was a great fighter at all. Never mind about your spelling, you should worry about your reading.

Manfredo wanted to go on? He should've tried throwing a punch sometime that round then.

I like how you start a thread on a DISCUSSION FORUM and then for some reason...do not want discussion. What were you hoping that everyone would post agreeing with you?

If you want people to agree with you, dont talk a load of ****.

i have taken what you have said into consideration and will get back to you in due cource

[.Mik.]

I'm not interested. You have been exposed for the idiot you are. Run along now.

[BRAVE-HEART]

I'm not interested. You have been exposed for the idiot you are. Run along now.

??? why the hate ?

you mad ?... you furious ?