-
-
I don't think the Brits have a very firm grasp on the general consensus in the boxing community. Calzaghe is respected but definitely not celebrated and that is because his best wins are not against impressive competition. Whether you like it or not--Lacy looked like complete garbage against a journeyman, 43 year old B-Hop dropped him in the 1st and exposed his weak offense all the way to a SD, and Mikkel Kessler is more concerned with the Hausslers and Sartisons of the world to even count.
Now Calzaghe wants to take on RJJ who is well past his prime?
As stout Calzaghe fans, I understand, you are behind him no matter what and are easily impressed with everything he does--but the boxing community is not so easily swayed.
Again, why would Lacy have held odds over Calzaghe?
Because the world saw him as a protected European champion who climbed out of obscurity in his mid-30's only to take on shot American HOF'ers that earned every inch of their career.
With that said:
RJJ W Calzaghe.
Good luck you British *******s.Comment
-
What consensus are we talking about here? The one that places Calzaghe at a solid #2 on the P4P list? I'd like to see what would constitute a favourable consensus from the boxing community!
Of course if by 'boxing community' you mean 'US fanboys who are unwilling or unable to accept that a UK fighter might be one of the world's best', then ****, you may have a point!
I don't know, maybe because Calzaghe was drastically underrated due to the US boxing community preferring to trust their preconceptions rather than actually taking a good look at the fighter and that same community just assuming that Lacy was the goods because he was a US champ?Again, why would Lacy have held odds over Calzaghe?Last edited by abadger; 09-13-2008, 05:21 PM.Comment
-
I don't think you understand at all (and most of what you've said isn't directly related to the subject at hand)
Like most people who are incapable of reasonable debate, you set up a strawman and attack it instead of dealing with the arguments of those you disagree with. Most of your post is ad hominem nonsense.
I look at Calzaghe, see qualities that I like, and therefore am a fan. According to you, I become a fan for no reason at all, and then lie about his attributes in order to show them in a positive light.
Which scenario is more likely?
It's shame how often certain people need to be told this: America is not the world.
Don't attempt to rationalise you ignorance by claiming that it was shared by many others.
Lacy was American and benefitted from that. Even though he was less impressive than Calzaghe against their shared opposition, Lacy had more hype and praise.
I pay attention to boxers regardless of where they fight or where they come from. You should try it.
What is this nonsense? Almost all boxers earn every inch of their careers. Lacy received more praise than Calzaghe coming up to their fight, but Calzaghe had done more to earn it. But I'm sure you overlook this.
I remember when I first discussed something with you. Unlike you, I don't insult people because of their nationality of because they dislike a boxer that I like. You were whining about Calzaghe fans giving you red K. I agreed that some can be idiotic, and asked who. You said it was Tunney. Then Tunney entered the thread and revealed that you had given him red K first, and he was only retaliating. You had no response.
Since then you've made several posts that are little more than nationalistic crap.
You seem quite sad and petty.Last edited by Clegg; 09-13-2008, 05:45 PM.Comment
-
You're one to talk.
I remember you saying that Dawson's performance against Adamek was the finest of the last few years, and dismissing the knockdown as unimportant.
But when it comes to Calzaghe, you claim that the KD he suffered amounted to a "boxing lesson".
It seems as if you're pretty biased yourself.Comment
-
Joe Calzaghe lose his last fight?
Pffff... I can't believe anyone's even debating this! When are people gonna understand -- this is Joe's time, not Jones' comeback. Roy has had his day. Now he's doing it for the payday. It's Joe's turn to seal his place in history, and that's how it's been written.
Recognize!
100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3Comment
-
It doesn't bother me that most believe Calzaghe will win, afterall that is the logical choice. What does bother me is how some act like Roy has no chance. The reason that bothers me is I feel people are hyping Calzaghe up too much. Calzaghe isn't Tyson of 1988. If I didn't know better, I would think he was. Joe Calzaghe is a great fighter, but he is beatable just as Jones was. He also only 4 year younger than Roy Jones and has had just about the same amount of fights. Is Roy the guy to beat Joe? Maybe not, but I just think the certainty in which people are writing Roy off suggests that Calzaghe is something unbelievable. I've seen Calzaghe, great fighter...but hes not unbelievable. I think its going to be an exciting fight, and honestly if Calzaghe wins fair and square I(and many others) will give him alot of credit. Let the best man win...Comment
-
I also want to say that I never said Jones was the fighter he once was.(I know abadger didn't direct that at me but I just want let it be known). I understand the Roy Jones Jr. of 1988-2003 is long gone. But what I've continued to say is that Roy Jones now is still a good fighter. Roy can still do some good things out there even now...Comment
-
This is all very well, but it neglects one simple fact: Calzaghe does not need to be 'unbelievable' to beat Jones, he merely needs to be himself. The pressure and intensity he showed against Hopkins will alone be enough to beat todays Jones, who is not very mobile and not very active. If Calzaghe is still capable of the type of movement he showed against Lacy and Kessler then he will dominate Jones from start to finish. Writing off Jones' chances is not about being a fan, but more, as you point out, about being logical.Comment
Tweet
Comment