Tweet
This is like arguing with a child. There was no implication from what I wrote regarding juries that I was saying that 'internet forums and youtube vids' are something jthat uries 'work off'. The suggestion was in regards to your capacity to properly evaluate and weigh evidence. In regards to that you have shown yet again that incompetence, for you assert in the first part of your sentence something that is indeed true but in the second part of that very same sentence you assert that it is evidence of something that the videos - due to their length - cannot suitably establish. To spell it out for you, the videos do not show enough of the fight to give the appropriate context for the stoppage therefore they are pretty lousy evidence indeed for the view that Calzaghe was the recipient of unjust premature stoppage victories.
-
-
you applied what you saw of me on the internet to my ability to work as juror. Do you think I would use these sources as a juror to come to these conclusions? Or not? Do I apply your nuthugging abilities to your proficiency to rack up your muscles up in the gym? Both require a degree of committed blindness, but no I'm not going to generalise like that about you.
Simple question then about you applying my abilities on a forum to a jury setting, something inextricably different. YOUR answer is yes you do think I would apply this approach to a jury session. The truth is I wouldn't. Its jury, its a whole different kettle of fish. People think in different ways in different settings when working out different problems, sorry if that's something you cant accept, but brain surgery and jurisprudence and town planning all require different approaches, its as sure as sugar. But you think its the same?
And in fact there is direct evidence that people utilise their skills differently in jury service as they do in their jobs and in real life situations, which is why jury service is elected so free of occupational ability, contrary to your thinking. Jury service is selected to achieve a median decision of society, not from university boffins who can draw logic gates till xmas comes.
Have you even been on a jury?
they are made by a Calzaghe nuthugger to show great his hero is, yet they reveal the opposite of that intention. Thus is the blindness of nuthugging revealed to you. Or isn't revealed to you, you can chose which path you please.To spell it out for you, the videos do not show enough of the fight to give the appropriate context for the stoppage therefore they are pretty lousy evidence indeed for the view that Calzaghe was the recipient of unjust premature stoppage victories.
And I would like to add that I didn't put those videos up, I am merely referring to them, so don't pin that on me. I am VERY happy to keep this a JC Appreciation thread, if you would be so kind, and I have REPEATEDLY made an effort to share in that aim.Last edited by DreamFighter; 09-02-2013, 06:48 PM.Comment
-
Comment
-
Calzaghe was a good fighter, but his resume is weak
give him props for beating up Lacy and Kessler to unify
ho hum credit for the Hopkins win, both guys looked like crap
the guy coulda done more but waited too long to step upComment
-
I think if he was an Italian American and fought 30-40 years ago, he would have been revered. He was a genuinely great fighter. I sometimes feel the same sentiment as Barry McGuigan. "When are the Americans going to get it? Joe Calzaghe can really fight".
I will let you read the following quote before I reveal who said it.
"I knew the first time I saw Calzaghe that he really had something, he went in there completely unfazed against (Chris) Eubank which nobody else had done. Eubank was the guy who usually seemed to have control of everything around him but the way Calzaghe went in there and manhandled him like that...
"I was watching it in Italy, it was the same night England beat Italy to qualify for the soccer World Cup.
"Calzaghe showed and proved power, speed, strength, workrate, stamina, chin, heart and every tangible and intangible that night and that's why I'm not suprised that he's not lost since.
"Sometimes it's like watching a welterweight or junior-middleweight in a super-middleweight's body because he's so nimble and sharp handed. I would never bet against him."
That is none other than Marvin Hagler. I would take the word of these guys over anyone here. So many great fighters and trainers have such a high opinion of him, I don't know why American fight fans in particular cant see it.
Clearly Joe Calzaghe could have done more, his resume is light, but he often gets ALL the blame for this, and I dont think that is fair at all. He also has some premature stoppages, no one disagrees with this, but is that his fault?
He was a genuine great fighter who would have been near the top in any middleweight-lightheavyweight era. Is he as great as Bernard Hopkins, or Roy Jones? Hell no!!! Do I think he would have beat them prime for prime? Slim chance. But the hate he gets is unjustified. To class him in the same league as Sven Ottke is a joke.
He was genuinely heavy handed as well, no one gives him credit for this, the guy used fast flurries, sometimes questionable technique, and later in his career he adapted to protect his hands, he concentrated more on scoring and racking up points, with a few hard shots mixed in, but in his earlier career he punched with a lot more intent. There are plenty of testimonials to his heavy hands, Chris Eubank desribed it like being hit with a stone.
This is what Charles Brewer had to say about him, a fighter who one way or another has stepped in the ring with most of the top fighters in and around 160-175 over the last two decades.
"The hardest puncher I fought (long pause) that’s a real tough one. I dished out a lot more punishment than I ever took. But I’d have to say Joe Calzaghe. Joe was not a one-punch KO kind of guy, but he overwhelmed guys; he had those ridiculous combinations! And I deviated from my game-plan that night, and we just warred; we went two-to-toe for 12-rounds. It was a battle of heart and guts. Joe was just a great technical, mentally draining, puncher."
I just don't get the criticism, to be honest from the Americans it will never stop. I was on NSB when he was going to get crushed by Lacy. I was on NSB when he was going to get outboxed and taken out by Kessler. You would be surprised at how many people here were picking against him vs Jones. He was scared of Pavlik. There will always be an extreme opinion on him one way or another, but the reality is he falls somewhere in between. For me he is first or second ballot HOF and its that simple.Comment
Comment