Can we all agree that Calzaghe ****ed up in fighting RJJ and not Pavlik?

[cuzfozzy]

its time for him to retire anyway
besides , hopkins did all the hard work for him
like another poster said hopkins beating pavlik made
calzaghe's win look better - lol

[Mr. Philadel]

I think he ****ed up.....a win over an UNDEFEATED young fighter in his prime in America would've shut the critics up for good......but the door remains open for the critics to throw shots because there's too much visual evidence to see that RJJ is done and has been done for a while....since Kelly had just beat the tea outta poor Gary Lockett and it looked like Enzo told Joe "NO......not this guy"........thats what it seemed like.

[Abstraction]

I don't get the point you're trying to make.

You are saying Hopkins schooling Pavlik made Calzaghe look better. How?

a) Calzaghe won a dodgy SD against a 43 year old Hopkins.
b) Pavlik and Calzaghe were supposed to fight at SMW. Calzaghe did a runner and went to fight pensioners.

It's like saying there is no point George Foreman fighting Muhammed Ali after he beat Joe Frazier. Since Joe Frazier once beat Ali..

It's ******. if the guy is a Challenger, you got to face him yourself.
Pavlik was undefeated, and everybody wanted to see Pavlik v Calzaghe. Nobody wanted to see Calzaghe v Hopkins or Calzaghe v RJJ.

Instead it was Hopkins who took the 0 away from Pavlik.

This is what is wrong with boxing

[Porter's Dad]

I didn't say the Jones fight enhanced his legacy, I'm just saying it wasn't a **** up like you make it out to be because now his win over Hopkins looks much better than it did prior to Hopkins-Pavlik.

And a lot of people would have just called Pavlik overrated had Calzaghe beaten Pavlik, Hopkins gets a lot of credit for that win because he's 43 and was the underdog going into the fight, Calzaghe would have probably gotten quite a bit of criticism after the fight.

His win against Hopkins gets more credit, yes. But its essentially riding on the coat-tails of another man's win. He should have done it himself.

I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on whether it was a **** up or not.

I think it was.

Going for RJJ proved nothing. Even the detractors couldn't have argued that Slappy picking a young, prime opponent that everyone wanted him to fight was a bad thing.

[cuzfozzy]

its not calzaghes fault that pavlik could not beat hopkins
if he did that would have set up calzaghe pavlik
with both fighters beating legends ..
but pavlik is not on that level ...
now calzaghe has two legends on his resume

[Abstraction]

its not calzaghes fault that pavlik could not beat hopkins
if he did that would have set up calzaghe pavlik
with both fighters beating legends ..
but pavlik is not on that level ...
now calzaghe has two legends on his resume

Are you Serious?

Pavlik was undefeated. Everybody wanting Calzaghe to face Pavlik.

Fact of the matter is, if Pavlik beat Hopkins, Calzaghe still would have made an excuse.
No way does Calzaghe go Prime v Prime against an undefeated proven prospect like Pavlik. Not the Calzaghe way i guess.

It really irks me, Calzaghe has done this throughout his career. The guy has so much talent, but this is all he does. Ducks and Dodges.

[Silencers]

You are saying Hopkins schooling Pavlik made Calzaghe look better. How?

a) Calzaghe won a dodgy SD against a 43 year old Hopkins.
b) Pavlik and Calzaghe were supposed to fight at SMW. Calzaghe did a runner and went to fight pensioners.

It's like saying there is no point George Foreman fighting Muhammed Ali after he beat Joe Frazier. Since Joe Frazier once beat Ali..

It's ******. if the guy is a Challenger, you got to face him yourself.
Pavlik was undefeated, and everybody wanted to see Pavlik v Calzaghe. Nobody wanted to see Calzaghe v Hopkins or Calzaghe v RJJ.

Instead it was Hopkins who took the 0 away from Pavlik.

This is what is wrong with boxing

Again, I'm not saying there was no point in not fighting Pavlik, I just meant it wasn't a **** up, and a win is a win, SD or not, it's a win. It's like saying Pacquiao doesn't deserve credit for beating JMM in their rematch, they were both close fights and they both deserved the victory.

A lot of people wanted to see Hopkins-Calzaghe, there was quite a bit of hype for the fight, I didn't like Calzaghe vs Jones either, I always said Jones didn't deserve his shot but that fight wasn't a **** up.

Ali/Frazier/Foreman was a bit different too, Ali beat Frazier in their second fight to become Foreman's number 1 contender, Pavlik was not Calzaghe's number 1 contender.

[Abstraction]

A Win is a Win yes, but the difference between Pac v Marqeuez was that they were Prime v Prime.

Calzaghe was facing a 43 year old Hopkins.

All im saying is rather than facing Retireing Boxers, why not fight someone in their Prime for once?

And, Pavlik was the no.1 contender actually. After it took Calzaghe 10 years to unify the SMW division, Pavlik was going to move up and face Calzaghe, but Calzaghe ran to LH

[Mr. Philadel]

His win against Hopkins gets more credit, yes. But its essentially riding on the coat-tails of another man's win. He should have done it himself.
I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on whether it was a **** up or not.

I think it was.

Going for RJJ proved nothing. Even the detractors couldn't have argued that Slappy picking a young, prime opponent that everyone wanted him to fight was a bad thing.

exactly man .....when did it become cool to get credit for the next man's work? ......that junk about Calz's gift over B-Hop looks bigger because of his total destruction of Pavlik is BS.....I never feed into that, but alot of peeps base their ratings of fighters off that type of garbage...its wrong and unfair to the fighters.

[cuzfozzy]

minion you're right
but in the history books a win over hopkins and rjj looks alot better
people won't remember pavlik as much as hopkins & rjj
as good as pavlik was.
its a bit like lennox lewis beating michael grant or andrew golota
they were good wins but it was his victories over tyson and holyfield
that people remember.