Joe Calzaghe Is The Best Boxer In The World!

[abadger]

very ****** post... No wonder people are making " do you like abadger " threads. You post ****e, all you ever talk about is the kessler and lacy fight then say you dont want to hear about joes resume >?

is that becasue joes resume is ****e ? yes.... i watched the eubank calzaghe fight last night on nuts TV ... Eubank looked exhuastes from round 1 , getting old , loosing his touch , coming out of 2 losses im not suprised calzaghe did him.

calzaghe is an alright fighter but does NOT deserve to be in any p4p best list. He has not proved anything and never will as he is retiring after the jones fight. He speaks **** , you speak ****.. mabey thats why you love him so much ?

I said you should watch the Calzaghe - Kessler fight, not Eubank. I defy you to find another active boxer on earth today who is capable of the type of performance Joe Calzaghe put on in that fight. I have checked out the competition and it is lacking. This is the truth. Prove me wrong.

[Clegg]

Why do you think everyone that isn't a fan of Joe lacks intelect? Is it the haters on this board or maybe it is because Calzaghe puts his foot in his mouth everytime he opens his and gives the haters ammo.

It isn't so much the people that aren't fans, it's the ones who hate on a boxer irrationally and say ****** things on a regular basis.

I don't just think that because I like Calzaghe; I am not a fan of Mayweather, but the people who start hate threads about him often seem to be about 8 years old.

[ALT-Assassin]

It isn't so much the people that aren't fans, it's the ones who hate on a boxer irrationally and say ****** things on a regular basis.

I don't just think that because I like Calzaghe; I am not a fan of Mayweather, but the people who start hate threads about him often seem to be about 8 years old.

I agree the hate has amplified but the cause is Calzaghe contradicting himself at every turn.He must be related to Enzo because they both open their mouth without thinking first.

[T-97]

This is one helluva thread Badger. Props.

[OTSS]

...Compared to Charlie Zelenoff, yes Calzaghe is the greatest.

[abadger]

...Compared to Charlie Zelenoff, yes Calzaghe is the greatest.

I prefer to compare him to Hopkins.

[OTSS]

I prefer to compare him to Hopkins.

Why, Joe is not better than Hopkins.

[abadger]

Why, Joe is not better than Hopkins.

Joe is better than Hopkins, and always has been. Hopkins is good, but its more of a styles matchup than anything else. Although a lot of people like to hype both fighters as being massively more aggressive in their younger days, the reality is that they have both been fighting broadly the same way for quite a long time. Calzaghe has always been a high output swarmer who boxes when he has to and Hopkins has always relied on a mauling style that intimidates his opponents and overhand right counters when under pressure. Both guys are extremely tough. That being so I find it difficult to see how they matchup any differently at any point in their careers.

At the end of the day Hopkins style simply does not work on Joe Calzaghe. In any fight, at any time, it would be Calzaghe forcing the pace. Bernard's response to this is, as we saw, would be to launch one of his big counter shots, lunge in and follow up with those short punches he so specialises in. He's always done it. The problem with doing this against Joe is that it causes him to throw right back, he always meets fire with fire, and this is different than any other opponent Hopkins has faced. Hopkins mauling style is designed to make his opponents reluctant to engage and make them fight Bernard's fight, but making Calzaghe reluctant to throw is borderline impossible and Hopkins would find himself under pressure constantly.

Many will argue that here that a 'prime' Bernard, (and this is usually the argument used) would simply be 'too much' for Calzaghe, but this overlooks the stylistic argument I've just outlined. In order to get his best shots off and be 'too much' Bernard needs control of the fight and a cautious opponent, he wouldn't have it in Calzaghe. It should also be noted that in his prime Calzaghe was much faster than Bernard and was a much straighter and harder puncher than he is now, so Bernard would have plenty to think about when pressurised and find it much harder to get his counters and mauling punches off. It also overlooks the seldom mentioned fact that Calzaghe himself is one tough SOB and it is not clear what exactly being 'too much' for him would take and whether or not Bernard would actually have it.

I take Calzaghe in a tough and scrappy fight at any point in their careers.

[ALT-Assassin]

Joe is better than Hopkins, and always has been. Hopkins is good, but its more of a styles matchup than anything else. Although a lot of people like to hype both fighters as being massively more aggressive in their younger days, the reality is that they have both been fighting broadly the same way for quite a long time. Calzaghe has always been a high output swarmer who boxes when he has to and Hopkins has always relied on a mauling style that intimidates his opponents and overhand right counters when under pressure. Both guys are extremely tough. That being so I find it difficult to see how they matchup any differently at any point in their careers.

At the end of the day Hopkins style simply does not work on Joe Calzaghe. In any fight, at any time, it would be Calzaghe forcing the pace. Bernard's response to this is, as we saw, would be to launch one of this big counter shots, lunge in and follow up with those short punches he so specialises in. He's always done it. The problem with doing this against Joe is that it causes him to throw right back, he always meets fire with fire, and this is different than any other opponent Hopkins has faced. Hopkins mauling style is designed to make his opponents reluctant to engage and make them fight Bernard's fight, but making Calzaghe reluctant to throw is borderline impossible and Hopkins would find himself under pressure constantly.

Many will argue that here that a 'prime' Bernard, (and this is usually the argument used) would simply be 'too much' for Calzaghe, but this overlooks the stylistic argument I've just outlined. In order to get his best shots off and be 'too much' Bernard needs control of the fight and a cautious opponent, he wouldn't have it in Calzaghe. It should also be noted that in his prime Calzaghe was much faster than Bernard and was a much straighter and harder puncher than he is now, so Bernard would have plenty to think about when pressurised and find it much harder to get his counters and mauling punches off. It also overlooks the seldom mentioned fact that Calzaghe himself is one tough SOB and it is not clear what exactly being 'too much' for him would take and whether or not Bernard would actually have it.

I take Calzaghe in a tough and scrappy fight at any point in their careers.

Very good post I agree with most of it

[Winter]

If any one is better than Joe Calzaghe, then they should beat him, instead of just talking of beating him.