Shaun George: "Calzaghe, Why Not Fight Chad Dawson?"

[Roger Mellie]

how is it that the mere mention of joe calzaghes name by a bum with a 17-2-2(8ko) record can manage to bring ****tards like yourself crawling out from under their rocks? that to se****s out

[Roger Mellie]

I bet Calslappy is pissing in his pants right now because all the people wants him to fight Dawson or some other young contenders. Common calslappy stop running please!

Bell end .

[Zmlacksz]

Dawson is in the business of fighting old men. He;s 26 and lost against 40 year old Johnson then beat 40 year old Tarver. Good work Dawson.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Very truthful post again Clegg.

To the Calzaghe fans saying Dawson is a fraud for fighting old guys (Dirk and FRKO in particular) grow the *** up.

Show me where I said Dawson was a fraud dip****.

[SonOfCuba]

Damn, some people are such hypocrites.

So, old guy Calzaghe (almost 37) at the very end of his career gets slated for fighting older guys, and apparently needs to fight a young guy who beat nobody but two 40 year-olds deserves a fight with old guy Calzaghe and barely anyone even knows who the young guy is, and old guy Calzaghe doesn't even make the kind of money he is looking for at this stage in his career? And apart from that, old guy Calzaghe is almost certain to retire anyway?

Yeah, makes complete sense! Dawson wants a pay day by attempting to fight an old guy who's not far off 40, when really he should be concentrating on proving himself by AT LEAST rematching and beating old guy Johnson who arguably beat him and got robbed. And it's now old guy Calzaghe who needs to prove himself?

**** off Chad, you vulture.

Calzaghe old ? Were were Hopkins, Jones, Toney, Tarver etc when they were 36 ?

[Dirk Diggler UK]

He doesn't need to fight Johnson at all. Again Johnson was not any kind of mandatory, and it was Dawson's idea to give Johnson a title shot becase he wanted one of the big names in the divisions. I'll put it like this, if Dawson needs to fight Johnson, then Calzaghe needs to fight Bernard. That fight was even more controversial.

No.....it really wasnt.

Plus tell me when Chad makes 21 title defences and is on top of his game for over a decade then we can compare them in terms of what they need to prove.

[daggum]

No.....it really wasnt.

Plus tell me when Chad makes 21 title defences and is on top of his game for over a decade then we can compare them in terms of what they need to prove.

Yes........it really was but you can't see the light of day cause you have your head crammed so far up calzaghe's ass.

[Kris Silver]

Shaun who? The guy who just beat a ridiculously weight drained, over trained ruined Byrd, whom unlike Hopkins wasn't p4p, and unlike Roy Jones wasn't ranked so high or such a legend, but is 38?

Danc, FRKO and Dirt weren't really laying into Dawson were they, they were claiming double standards and hypocrisy and perhaps exaggerating it playing devils advocate, to help make the point. It's ironic that people find it offensive to even slightly criticise Dawson for fighting to old past it fighters yet find it fine for Calzaghe and often go over board.

Hopkins was a p4p guy whom never had so many punches land on him. Roy Jones was ranked, a name and was dominated. And Slick, the Hopkins-Calzaghe fight was not more controversial than Dawson-Johnson. The entire audience and most home viewers were appaled with the decision and disagreed with it. Most here even agree, there was immediate claims the decision was wrong and calls for a re match. Those two things were not so true either of Calzaghe-Hopkins.

Here's a twist. How about next we criticise more accomplished experienced fighters for picking on young in experienced boys? That turns it on it's head. There's some validity in it because the best in the LHW division are largely as such because of theyre being more accomplished experienced and tactical. I'm not claiming one or the other but sometimes people criticise too much.

[P4P Opinion]

I think Shaun George makes a valid point.

You can't complain that boxing is dying when you've just had a fight that many feel was bad for the sport, and you are probably going to turn down a fight that many feel is good for the sport.

And I don't see any problem with Calzaghe-Hopkins, Dawson-Johnson or Dawson-Tarver. Nothing wrong with beating a 40 year old guy if he's one of the best in the division. It's only a problem when the 40 year old guy in question is without a notable win in several years that I'd criticise the matchup(ie. Roy Jones).

Quoted for truth.

Hopkins was a very respectable opponent for Calzaghe, Johnson was a very respectable opponent for Dawson and Tarver was also a very respectable opponent for Dawson. The age of a fighter means nothing if they are still beating the best. In the case of Calzaghe people need to stop talking about his Hopkins victory and his Jones victory like they are the same. One was a true title fight against a Ring champion and the other was an exhibition bout.

Off Topic: Daggum has to be an Alt. I only ever see him posting in Calzaghe threads and it's truly inconceivable that someone could be legitimately that ******. I find it amusing that he posts like he has something interesting to say.

Why can't everyone talk as much sense as this?

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Shaun who? The guy who just beat a ridiculously weight drained, over trained ruined Byrd, whom unlike Hopkins wasn't p4p, and unlike Roy Jones wasn't ranked so high or such a legend, but is 38?

Danc, FRKO and Dirt weren't really laying into Dawson were they, they were claiming double standards and hypocrisy and perhaps exaggerating it playing devils advocate, to help make the point. It's ironic that people find it offensive to even slightly criticise Dawson for fighting to old past it fighters yet find it fine for Calzaghe and often go over board.

Hopkins was a p4p guy whom never had so many punches land on him. Roy Jones was ranked, a name and was dominated. And Slick, the Hopkins-Calzaghe fight was not more controversial than Dawson-Johnson. The entire audience and most home viewers were appaled with the decision and disagreed with it. Most here even agree, there was immediate claims the decision was wrong and calls for a re match. Those two things were not so true either of Calzaghe-Hopkins.

Here's a twist. How about next we criticise more accomplished experienced fighters for picking on young in experienced boys? That turns it on it's head. There's some validity in it because the best in the LHW division are largely as such because of theyre being more accomplished experienced and tactical. I'm not claiming one or the other but sometimes people criticise too much.

Finally.....someone gets it!

I wish you'd learn my name and stop calling me "Dirt" though