Joe Calzaghe Is The Best Boxer In The World!

[RodBarker]

If you say so. I think my assessment of boxing and boxers is much better than yours is and that in comparison I am relatively free of bias. You are what I call wrong.

In your 20s and you know it all ha , like I said your a lolly pop fan

[ALT-Assassin]

I agree British media and fans are biased towards their fighters. Its is absolutely true. I have no problem admitting it. Why can't you do the same?Look at these boards, the evidence of what the fans are like is overwhelming! There are exceptions, but in general it is true. It is the same with the media, I gave you examples. It doesn't make America bad, indeed bias is an unavoidable outcome of any sports coverage. But why not just admit it, I mean what is the alternative? That American fans and media are at all times paragons of perfect impartiality?!

We are biased but sometimes it is taken to a new extreme when I see posts like"Kessler lost to another European so he won't get exposure in America"This is untrue considering how HBO commentators were talking up Kess and Cal.Kessler also recieved an offer to fight Miranda for more US exposure after the Cal fight.Another thing that iritates me is this Euro bum concept that gets thrown around whenever Calzaghe or any other British/European fighter is hated on by a ****** poster.

[abadger]

In your 20s and you know it all ha , like I said your a lolly pop fan

No, I don't know it all, at all. I think your mistake is thinking that you do. I do have confidence in my ability to judge a boxer though, because I have seen a lot. Not all, not even 1% of boxers considered greats I shouldn't think, but I watch boxing and I know what makes a good fighter.

I will even correct my previous comment for you. Thinking about it, it is misleading to say that Calzaghe has an exceptionally 'complete' game. He is wildly unorthodox and can be sloppy defensively. He is certainly not a traditional technician. However, he certainly has the most varied game, of any active boxer in that he does not rely on being able to do any one thing. He can mix up what he does better than anyone, maybe not ever, but certainly that I have seen, and I have my su****ions that I have seen enough to know what talent is when I see it.

[Vladimir303]

I agree British media and fans are biased towards their fighters. Its is absolutely true. I have no problem admitting it. Why can't you do the same?Look at these boards, the evidence of what the fans are like is overwhelming! There are exceptions, but in general it is true. It is the same with the media, I gave you examples. It doesn't make America bad, indeed bias is an unavoidable outcome of any sports coverage. But why not just admit it, I mean what is the alternative? That American fans and media are at all times paragons of perfect impartiality?!

The biggest problem you have is thinking that because people are biased, we are standing in the way of Joe's all-time greatness and failing to realize how truely special he is.

Couldn't it be just that he doesn't compare to some of the ATG's I already mentioned and that he isn't as special as you make him out to be????

That's not bias, that's fact. Then sooner you acknowledge that and stop trying to put him up the pedestal then sooner we can quit the partisan bickering.

[abadger]

We are biased but sometimes it is taken to a new extreme when I see posts like"Kessler lost to another European so he won't get exposure in America"This is untrue considering how HBO commentators were talking up Kess and Cal.Kessler also recieved an offer to fight Miranda for more US exposure after the Cal fight.Another thing that iritates me is this Euro bum concept that gets thrown around whenever Calzaghe or any other British/European fighter is hated on by a ****** poster.

I've said that before. I think that Kessler's loss to Calzaghe will provide Pavlik/ Taylor etc with an excuse to avoid facing him, it's not about the media. Hopefully I'll be wrong. I am undecided as to whether Kessler was smart or dumb to turn down Miranda. On the one hand he gets paydays for defences in Denmark, which are vital to him, but on the other hand it would have meant American exposure. I guess what happens next will be interesting.

[CaRnAgEViOLaToR]

^ do u really believe calzaghe is better p4p than pacman?

i odnt think he is.

[abadger]

The biggest problem you have is thinking that because people are biased, we are standing in the way of Joe's all-time greatness and failing to realize how truely special he is.

Couldn't it be just that he doesn't compare to some of the ATG's I already mentioned and that he isn't as special as you make him out to be????

That's not bias, that's fact. Then sooner you acknowledge that and stop trying to put him up the pedestal then sooner we can quit the partisan bickering.

Might it not be that he does and is? I don't care about ATG status really Vladimir, but I do like comparing and contrasting boxers and it happens that I rate Calzaghe very highly, and am quite happy to tell the truth about my assessment. I think the challenge for us all is to be able to talk about it without the competition becoming between us. Really, I totally understand why you think I'm crazy, and I don't state that its fact, its just my opinion. The problem here is that you believe that your assessment is factual, like lots of people here do, which is obviously very annoying for anyone arguing with you.

[Clegg]

If Pacquiao had fought Diaz first and then Marquez (with the results being the same) and Calzaghe had fought Hopkins and then Kessler (again, same outcome) then I think more people would have Calzaghe at number 1.

People tend to have short memories; a dominant win soon overshadows the split decision that preceeded it, and vice versa.

[abadger]

^ do u really believe calzaghe is better p4p than pacman?

i odnt think he is.

Pacman deserves his ranking as P4P #1 based on the level of opposition he's fought and beat, which IMO is little short of amazing. I place him at #1. However, I believe Calzaghe is a much more skilled boxer than Pacman will ever be, so in a P4P matchup and we say who beats who, I think Calzaghe wins.

[RodBarker]

No, I don't know it all, at all. I think your mistake is thinking that you do. I do have confidence in my ability to judge a boxer though, because I have seen a lot. Not all, not even 1% of boxers considered greats I shouldn't think, but I watch boxing and I know what makes a good fighter.

I will even correct my previous comment for you. Thinking about it, it is misleading to say that Calzaghe has an exceptionally 'complete' game. He is wildly unorthodox and can be sloppy defensively. He is certainly not a traditional technician. However, he certainly has the most varied game, of any active boxer in that he does not rely on being able to do any one thing. He can mix up what he does better than anyone, maybe not ever, but certainly that I have seen, and I have my su****ions that I have seen enough to know what talent is when I see it.

Off course you have confidence in your judgment from a keyboard and a handful of videos and a youthful mindset that is always right in your own mind , put the gloves on and have a go and your whole perception of boxing will change .

On one hand you pump your own tyres up with great assessments of fighters and on the other hand you state you have only seen Hagler Hearns and Leonard fight each other yet they had magnificent careers , that sir is proof of your limited knowledge base , you see what you want to see and dont have the experience to know the difference , thats a fact whether you like it or not !