"Nothing left to prove" - Joe Calzaghe

[Clegg]

oh im ****** now?????? cause i dont right joe's **** backwards????well let me be stuopid..guess you're a genious in that case

Yeah of course, I ride Calzaghe's **** so hard that I've been picking Chad Dawson to beat him for months now

Now, let me give an example of the kind of viewpoint you come out with.

Calzaghe is criticised for not wanting to fight Dawson. Hopkins is then praised, apparently because he would never feel that he has nothing left to prove. Then, when it's pointed out that Hopkins doesn't want to fight Dawson, you say

atleast he said he didnt wanna fight him

which is meaningless. Are we now saying that the real way of evaluating a fighter is whether or not he says that he is going to fight someone?

Hopkins states clearly that he will not fight Dawson.
Calzaghe says that he isn't sure if he will fight on or not.

Because of this, you defend Hopkins, but spam the board with illogical criticism of Calzaghe?

Posters like yourself look for any reason possible to be anti-Calzaghe. Logic doesn't come into it.

[larryx]

Yeah of course, I ride Calzaghe's **** so hard that I've been picking Chad Dawson to beat him for months now

Now, let me give an example of the kind of viewpoint you come out with.

Calzaghe is criticised for not wanting to fight Dawson. Hopkins is then praised, apparently because he would never feel that he has nothing left to prove. Then, when it's pointed out that Hopkins doesn't want to fight Dawson, you say



which is meaningless. Are we now saying that the real way of evaluating a fighter is whether or not he says that he is going to fight someone?

Hopkins states clearly that he will not fight Dawson.
Calzaghe says that he isn't sure if he will fight on or not.

Because of this, you defend Hopkins, but spam the board with illogical criticism of Calzaghe?

Posters like yourself look for any reason possible to be anti-Calzaghe. Logic doesn't come into it.

defend hopkins???spam???i didnt even make this thread clegg..but joe has alot to prove imo.....but you called me dumb..instead of pointing out what you disagree with me about...lets be grown here

[Mr. Philadel]

Real all time greats like Hopkins always feel they have something left to prove.

Exactly

[daggum]

joe calzaghe needs to fight sven ottke. this would be a special fight in my opinion. the 2 greatest fighters ever. COME ON PROVE IT!

[Clegg]

defend hopkins???spam???i didnt even make this thread clegg..but joe has alot to prove imo.....but you called me dumb..instead of pointing out what you disagree with me about...lets be grown here

Because people don't listen. They say something, you point out the flaw in that viewpoint, so then they go and say it in another thread instead. But if you insist, here are my thoughts on some of your comments:

weak ass supermiddleweight..and he's not the #1 lightheavy..he hasnt proved that at all..you cant fight in a division 1 or 2 times and claim to be the best

So, what you're saying here is that Calzaghe proved nothing by beating the best at 168, because the best were not good enough. Therefore, you are also saying that anyone with a lesser resume that Calzaghe has proved nothing.

So now let's look through Mayweather's opponents. How many had a better resume than Calzaghe at the time that Floyd fought them? Let's discount ODLH, who wasn't prime. Judah and Baldomir? Their resumes are inferior to JC's IMO. Ditto for Hatton, Corley, Mitchell...hell, let's skip to the guys who might have a better resume:

Corrales and Castillo. In my opinion, Calzaghe is a better fighter than both, and has a better resume than both. I'm not sure how many people would agree with me on that, but following your logic, Floyd Mayweather has proven nothing and is a joke, because his best win is over someone who has proven less than Calzaghe (who has proven nothing and is a joke).

joe has no great prime fighters on his resume..none..

Surely you judge someone by their abilities, not their age?

Age is a big indicator, but Pavlik is prime, Hopkins isn't. A win over Hopkins is worth more. So, looking at how good the people actually were, Hopkins is rated among the very best in the sport. That makes Calzaghe's win over him a very good one.

This "he beat no great, prime fighters" debate has been had before, and I've grown bored of seeing people like yourself ignore logic. Marciano, Dempsey, Tyson, Joe Louis, Holyfield...considered some of the greatest of all time, but tell me which great, prime opponent they beat and we'll have a discussion about it if you like.

Hasim Rahman beat a prime Lennox Lewis. Let's see how he gets ranked compared to the names listed above. How about Buster Douglas...

joe has no world titles

Neither does Hatton. Not having an alphabet belt doesn't mean that you aren't the best in the division.

and fought 2 40 year olds at lightheavy

Whereas Dawson on the other hand...oops, nevermind.

...dawsons been cleaning out the division..

He hasn't beaten the #1 guy. He hasn't beaten the #2 guy. His resume is impressive, and he wants to fight the best available. But Hopkins was the recognised #1 guy in the division. Calzaghe beat him, and therefore is considered the #1 guy. The fight was so close that you have to have Hopkins at #2 after that. This is not just my opinion, this is what most people will tell you.

you cant fight 2 fights in a division and be the best..

See, now where does this come from? Some random rule you just made up or what? Of course you can be the best after 2 fights in a division.

If Abraham beats Kessler and Taylor, he is the #1 supermiddleweight. If Forrest beats Pavlik and Abraham, he is #1 middleweight. Floyd was the considered the best welterweight because he beat Judah and Baldomir. Are you saying that, if he hadn't beat Mitchell at 147, he wouldn't have been the champ after beating Baldomir?

dawson would mop the floor with joe..and joe knows it

Ok, now this. What is there to debate here? I'd rather discuss real events, rather than try and talk about how good we are at mind reading. Fact is, more people gave Lacy a chance against Calzaghe than they would give Dawson. Ditto for Kessler and Hopkins.

So Calzaghe had no problem facing guys who a large number believed would beat him, but he is considers it a fact that Dawson (who would be a bigger underdog than any of those guys) would beat him? That doesn't really add up.

As for your fight predictions, they've been wrong before, right?

I don't bother addressing points like this because it's pointless fanboy crap.

"My guy is better"
"No my guy is better"
"Yeah, well your guy KNOWS that my guy is better"
"Damn, your physic abilities are too much for me, you win the debate!"

[ßringer]

Yet he is refusing to fight Chad Dawson. Odd.

Shiiiiiiiiiiit, Hopkins will spark that kid and I'll bet the bank on it.

[sl333py]

Because people don't listen. They say something, you point out the flaw in that viewpoint, so then they go and say it in another thread instead. But if you insist, here are my thoughts on some of your comments:



So, what you're saying here is that Calzaghe proved nothing by beating the best at 168, because the best were not good enough. Therefore, you are also saying that anyone with a lesser resume that Calzaghe has proved nothing.

So now let's look through Mayweather's opponents. How many had a better resume than Calzaghe at the time that Floyd fought them? Let's discount ODLH, who wasn't prime. Judah and Baldomir? Their resumes are inferior to JC's IMO. Ditto for Hatton, Corley, Mitchell...hell, let's skip to the guys who might have a better resume:

Corrales and Castillo. In my opinion, Calzaghe is a better fighter than both, and has a better resume than both. I'm not sure how many people would agree with me on that, but following your logic, Floyd Mayweather has proven nothing and is a joke, because his best win is over someone who has proven less than Calzaghe (who has proven nothing and is a joke).



Surely you judge someone by their abilities, not their age?

Age is a big indicator, but Pavlik is prime, Hopkins isn't. A win over Hopkins is worth more. So, looking at how good the people actually were, Hopkins is rated among the very best in the sport. That makes Calzaghe's win over him a very good one.

This "he beat no great, prime fighters" debate has been had before, and I've grown bored of seeing people like yourself ignore logic. Marciano, Dempsey, Tyson, Joe Louis, Holyfield...considered some of the greatest of all time, but tell me which great, prime opponent they beat and we'll have a discussion about it if you like.

Hasim Rahman beat a prime Lennox Lewis. Let's see how he gets ranked compared to the names listed above. How about Buster Douglas...



Neither does Hatton. Not having an alphabet belt doesn't mean that you aren't the best in the division.



Whereas Dawson on the other hand...oops, nevermind.



He hasn't beaten the #1 guy. He hasn't beaten the #2 guy. His resume is impressive, and he wants to fight the best available. But Hopkins was the recognised #1 guy in the division. Calzaghe beat him, and therefore is considered the #1 guy. The fight was so close that you have to have Hopkins at #2 after that. This is not just my opinion, this is what most people will tell you.



See, now where does this come from? Some random rule you just made up or what? Of course you can be the best after 2 fights in a division.

If Abraham beats Kessler and Taylor, he is the #1 supermiddleweight. If Forrest beats Pavlik and Abraham, he is #1 middleweight. Floyd was the considered the best welterweight because he beat Judah and Baldomir. Are you saying that, if he hadn't beat Mitchell at 147, he wouldn't have been the champ after beating Baldomir?



Ok, now this. What is there to debate here? I'd rather discuss real events, rather than try and talk about how good we are at mind reading. Fact is, more people gave Lacy a chance against Calzaghe than they would give Dawson. Ditto for Kessler and Hopkins.

So Calzaghe had no problem facing guys who a large number believed would beat him, but he is considers it a fact that Dawson (who would be a bigger underdog than any of those guys) would beat him? That doesn't really add up.

As for your fight predictions, they've been wrong before, right?

I don't bother addressing points like this because it's pointless fanboy crap.

"My guy is better"
"No my guy is better"
"Yeah, well your guy KNOWS that my guy is better"
"Damn, your physic abilities are too much for me, you win the debate!"

Calzaghe had no problem facing guys like who?? Lacy???? Or Bernard? who clocked his melon, landed the cleaner shots and many people had winning? Now Floyd...Floyd fought Corrales when he was a unstoppable force...Floyd fought Zab Judah and the world seen the sharpest Zab Judah to date until he stopped fighting..He fought Hatton and did what he was supposed to do.Beat Castillo with one hand and beat him again to leave no doubt of the first W .I dont understand how people can knock mayweather for stepping away when he is in (or around) the most packed division in boxing, every weekend theres a new up and coming WW star...Now the LHW divison? whos there????? HOw can you knock Dawson for fighting Tarver and Johnson when those are the toughest fights in that division??? I just can't respect JC man...I've seen every fight he's had since Lacy which was the only win i really give him credit for besides Kessler...He's a good fighter and all but i mean..Just no....Not when theres fighters out like Paul williams, Margarito Cotto, Pacquaio they all show me something Calzaghe doesn't, they want the best of the best and they wont stop until they cant fight anymore i guarantee...

[Underdog82]

Joe Calzaghe can retire when he feels like it. He doesn't give a **** if you care.