- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 17,810
- Reaction score
- 6,981
so i was looking at another boxing forum and someone brought up a very interesting point about joe calzaghe career as a whole. this is what the guy said and i thought it would be an interesting discussion. To be honest i agree with a lot of his points. I agree with his assessment that hes not a top 100 fighter but for other reasons.
HERE IS WHAT THE GENTLEMAN SAID
The guys isnt even a top 100 fighter all time. Dead serious
Joe Calzaghe is overrated and has a padded record. Being undefeated is not impressive when you fight in your backyard vs bums for 95% of your career. He wasn't trash, but he wasn't exactly good either. Let's look at his "noteworthy" career.
1) Chris Eubank - this is not a notable win. Eubank was in the end of his career and a shell of his former self. If anyone considers this a great win than they should stop reading because you don't know shit about boxing.
2) Jeff Lacy - A washed up version of Roy Jones finished this guy. That shows how unimpressive this win is.
3) Sakio Bika - a belt holder with no notable wins.
4) Manfredo Jr - another easy win. Not impressive
5) Kessler - best win of his career the only notable one in fact
6) Roy Jones - of course when Calzaghe fights Roy Jones, Jones is a shell of his former self. Roy already got viciously KOd twice before this, and he was not anything close to resembling a world class fighter. And he still knocked down the overrated pillow-punching/slapping bum Calzaghe.
7) Bernard Hopkins - Calzaghe did not win that fight. He got gifted a decision. His father was screaming at him in the corner before the last round - telling him he needed a knockout. From the look on Calzaghe's face before the judges' announcement he knew he didn't deserve to win the fight. Then Calzaghe was extremely surprised and excited when he found out he got gifted the win he didn't earn. Calzaghe got whipped and knocked down by a 43 year old man. So much for Calzaghe being an all time great fighter. Is it coincidence that when a man with a padded record finally faced real competition that he had such a difficult time? No. It proves Calzaghe's incompetence as a wannabe top-level boxer.
I know certain sheep that are following the herd have prepared pitiful arguments to defend the mediocrity that is Calzaghe's career, and I will dismantle them here.
1) Calzaghe beat Hopkins legitimately - NO he didn't. Just like Oscar DLH in his fights vs Pernell and Floyd (in which Oscar clearly lost both times despite what the judges said), Calzaghe was the ineffective aggressor while his opponent was the more effective counterpuncher. Calzaghe threw pitter-patter slaps on Bernard's arms and shoulders, and complained about Hopkins faking a low blow (which he probably did) - while forgetting all the times he hit Bernard in the back of the head without being penalized. On no planet did Calzaghe win more than 6 rounds, and because of the knockdown from Bernard there is no way he legitimately won the fight.
2) Well on compubox Calzaghe outstruck Bernard - Compubox stats almost always are innacurate - even glancing blows or blows that completely miss can be counted on the punch stats as an effective shot, so if the compubox stats are your reasoning for Calzaghe's legitimacy then you are a fool. On top of that, matches are scored round by round - not based on who landed more overall shots. If fighter a breathes on fighter b that counts as 10 landed shots.
3) Calzaghe is undefeated - Calzaghe fought 44 nobodies (including Eubank). The other 2 were a washed up past-prime RJJ and a 43 year old man that he lost to, but received a gift. It's not about the number of fights you win. It's about who you win against and how you win. Brian Nielsen was 49-0 at one point. Would you take Brian Nielsen over Muhammad Ali (56-5), Evander (44-10-2), etc? I would hope not. Undefeated doesn't necessarily mean good.
Having a 43 year old as your best "win" and ONLY impressive opponent - in a fight that you clearly lost, does not make you worthy of top 100 status.
What has been written is IRREFUTABLE, UNDENIABLE, UNCONTESTABLE, INDISPUTABLE, UNQUESTIONABLE, flawless FACT. Not opinion or conjecture. Not even the fact that Bernard Hopkins legitimately won (but got robbed by the judges) is an opinion. Nor is it an opinion that Calzaghe is nothing close to an all time great fighter by any stretch of the imagination. I challenge any human being to try and disprove the mastery of wisdom that has been displayed. If someone can do so, I will respond to acknowledge their superior knowledge. Unfortunately for delusional Calzaghe fans, no one can refute the irrefutable. Therefore, the chances of receiving a response from me are negligible.
HERE IS WHAT THE GENTLEMAN SAID
The guys isnt even a top 100 fighter all time. Dead serious
Joe Calzaghe is overrated and has a padded record. Being undefeated is not impressive when you fight in your backyard vs bums for 95% of your career. He wasn't trash, but he wasn't exactly good either. Let's look at his "noteworthy" career.
1) Chris Eubank - this is not a notable win. Eubank was in the end of his career and a shell of his former self. If anyone considers this a great win than they should stop reading because you don't know shit about boxing.
2) Jeff Lacy - A washed up version of Roy Jones finished this guy. That shows how unimpressive this win is.
3) Sakio Bika - a belt holder with no notable wins.
4) Manfredo Jr - another easy win. Not impressive
5) Kessler - best win of his career the only notable one in fact
6) Roy Jones - of course when Calzaghe fights Roy Jones, Jones is a shell of his former self. Roy already got viciously KOd twice before this, and he was not anything close to resembling a world class fighter. And he still knocked down the overrated pillow-punching/slapping bum Calzaghe.
7) Bernard Hopkins - Calzaghe did not win that fight. He got gifted a decision. His father was screaming at him in the corner before the last round - telling him he needed a knockout. From the look on Calzaghe's face before the judges' announcement he knew he didn't deserve to win the fight. Then Calzaghe was extremely surprised and excited when he found out he got gifted the win he didn't earn. Calzaghe got whipped and knocked down by a 43 year old man. So much for Calzaghe being an all time great fighter. Is it coincidence that when a man with a padded record finally faced real competition that he had such a difficult time? No. It proves Calzaghe's incompetence as a wannabe top-level boxer.
I know certain sheep that are following the herd have prepared pitiful arguments to defend the mediocrity that is Calzaghe's career, and I will dismantle them here.
1) Calzaghe beat Hopkins legitimately - NO he didn't. Just like Oscar DLH in his fights vs Pernell and Floyd (in which Oscar clearly lost both times despite what the judges said), Calzaghe was the ineffective aggressor while his opponent was the more effective counterpuncher. Calzaghe threw pitter-patter slaps on Bernard's arms and shoulders, and complained about Hopkins faking a low blow (which he probably did) - while forgetting all the times he hit Bernard in the back of the head without being penalized. On no planet did Calzaghe win more than 6 rounds, and because of the knockdown from Bernard there is no way he legitimately won the fight.
2) Well on compubox Calzaghe outstruck Bernard - Compubox stats almost always are innacurate - even glancing blows or blows that completely miss can be counted on the punch stats as an effective shot, so if the compubox stats are your reasoning for Calzaghe's legitimacy then you are a fool. On top of that, matches are scored round by round - not based on who landed more overall shots. If fighter a breathes on fighter b that counts as 10 landed shots.
3) Calzaghe is undefeated - Calzaghe fought 44 nobodies (including Eubank). The other 2 were a washed up past-prime RJJ and a 43 year old man that he lost to, but received a gift. It's not about the number of fights you win. It's about who you win against and how you win. Brian Nielsen was 49-0 at one point. Would you take Brian Nielsen over Muhammad Ali (56-5), Evander (44-10-2), etc? I would hope not. Undefeated doesn't necessarily mean good.
Having a 43 year old as your best "win" and ONLY impressive opponent - in a fight that you clearly lost, does not make you worthy of top 100 status.
What has been written is IRREFUTABLE, UNDENIABLE, UNCONTESTABLE, INDISPUTABLE, UNQUESTIONABLE, flawless FACT. Not opinion or conjecture. Not even the fact that Bernard Hopkins legitimately won (but got robbed by the judges) is an opinion. Nor is it an opinion that Calzaghe is nothing close to an all time great fighter by any stretch of the imagination. I challenge any human being to try and disprove the mastery of wisdom that has been displayed. If someone can do so, I will respond to acknowledge their superior knowledge. Unfortunately for delusional Calzaghe fans, no one can refute the irrefutable. Therefore, the chances of receiving a response from me are negligible.
