Joe Calzaghe

[fist]

Same old rubbish being spouted on here... When the few shite talking critics are actually pushed to come up with these mythical names that Joe Calzaghe has dodged, we get the same old crap - either fighters in different divisions, fighters who were nothing special and are lesser than many of the better names on Calzaghe's resume, blah blah blah. Then RJJ and Hopkins are mentioned - different weights, and more importantly, both arguably ducked Calzaghe. It is common knowledge that Hopkins pulled out of the fight scheduled years ago and as for Jones, he himself referenced at the press conference months ago that they would have fought years ago had it not been for their managers.

You armchair so-called experts don't seem to realise that all these fighters have heart, they are brave, proud and arrogant. There is a difference between fights not being made because of politics and because a fighter is petrified.

Truth is, he's done himself and his country proud - he's unified, he's had all the belts, he's undefeated. The likes of Benn even go on record to say that Joe would have beat the likes of himself, Eubank and Watson had he been around a little earlier. He has nothing else to prove. His defining fight was against Kessler, who you all said he was too scared to fight lol (just like Lacy). These days it is a complete rarity to get two undefeated champions in the same division putting it all on the line. I dont give a shit whether that fight fits into your technical criteria for a superfight, I dont care whether the US were interested or not - the fight was huge simply in terms of two talented same division champs aiming to be number one. Forget all these so-called past it legends who lose to each other over and over again. Kessler will go on to be a dominant champ, and Joe's fight against him was defining.

It makes me laugh when so many of you were spitting your dummies out because he fought Bika, saying that it was a disgrace - when clearly Bika was a decent intermediary fight after Lacy, Bika was strong, dangerous and can handle himself at world level - thus it was a legitimate fight. But what happens is some of you prats come onto this forum, talking about how crap Bika is, and the rest follow suit who have never probably even seen Bika fight before the Joe fight. Likewise, times goes by and people's memories and opinions change again, and now Bika is considered half decent!

And dont get me started on Lacy... all you turn coats, banging on about Joe avoiding him, then the fight gets scheduled and Joe's gunna get hammered. Result comes and surprise surprise, Lacy was over rated.

The one you all struggle to criticise though is Kessler, cos you can't, so instead you start drivelling rubbish about it not being a super fight in some childish attempt to undermine or negate its worth.

And do the hundreds of world champs who have gone before get this level of petty critiscism in terms of who they have fought and not fought...? You can make the same arguments about them all. You lot love to mention Pudwell, who Otke also fought if I am not mistaken. Difference with many other champs past and present when compared to Calzaghe is that Joe has remained undefeated, has unified and claimed every belt. All that aside, he's more talented than most.

You know I saw someone on here the other day inferring that while Hatton is motivated to chase the top P4P fighters, that Calzaghe is scared to! Despite the fact that at Hatton's level his main foe is the P4P no. 1 and that previous to retiring, Mayweather was the no. 1. Where as Calzaghe has zero fighters above him in terms of P4P ratings. No one. Thus, these mythical top four P4P fighters cannot be targetted or indeed ducked - cos they do not exist. That exemplifies the level of bullshit spouted on here I think.

People talk about Hopkins being a legend, what a load of billocks - yes he is talented, athletic, super fit. But he is one deminsional in his style of fighting. He opts for spoiling and non-boxing tactics to help him steal wins on points. Horrible to watch a fighter clinging on, pot shotting, headbutting, elbowing, pretending to be hurt, all with the aim of trying to get to the end with more points. Thats not boxing and its not fighting. That's why Hopkins has about 4 or 5 losses on his record. A lazy past it Eastman illustrated his limitations. The truth is that had Hopkins been more aggressive when he fought Joe, there would have simply been more opennings for Joe, more scope for fluency - it would have simply meant an emphatic victory for Calzaghe.

Calzaghe has it all - versatility, speed, inteligence, heart, stamina, chin, and in days gone by, plenty of power.

How did Eastman show his limitation it was like 118-110 to Hopkins, being kind to Howard.

As Eastman said after the fight, he didnt think Hopkins fought like a champ cos he did so much running. Some of the judges scored it closer than you state; I think one of them had him just a few rounds behind. But regardless of the judges, the crowd booed Hopkins - they were pissed off with Hopkins approach. Eastman showed that he was strong and game, and for a good part of the fight he was doing well. But once again, Eastman showed his own limitations by not stepping up that extra gear. God knows why he let Hopkins recupperate after he stunned him with a couple of shots. My point was that Eastman could be lazy, yet showed that Hopkins could not hurt him and moreso, that he could mix it well, stunning Hopkins a number of times. Hopkins just did what he often does, which is counter well in parts, then run and tie up etc. Hopkins just isn't my cup of tea and although I am not denying his abilities and achievements, for me he is not a legend, and is over-rated. Just my opinion.

[stujones]

I personally disagree, Dioufy but we will never know.

As good as Kessler is/was and Lacy, more daunting than Roy Jones 2001? Nope. My honest opinion is that if Joe had done what Haye seems to be attempting to do - I'll still wait to see Vitali in the ring to be convinced..... then Joe would have been forgotton about by 2002.

Oh yes, and I do disagree with Joe being versitile and power.... sure I think he "slaps" are harder than alot of people give him credit, but I will repeat when did Joe ever score a true KO.... let alone a one punch KO. When did Joe last score a KO were there is no disputing the guy couldn't have continued or a cut wasn't involved... along time ago.

Versitile - still very open to the straight right hand.

[observer1]

I'm sorry, but the moment i begin to get some respect for Calzaghe, it's all thrown out of the window the moment Calzaghe fans mention "Kessler and Lacy". Sorry but Kessler and Lacy being the best win's is pretty disgraceful for a so-called undefeated fighter.

He said himself back in 2002 that he has beat good opponents, but never had a career-defining win. I dont, and im pretty sure calzaghe does not calling beating Lacy and Kessler career defining.

like i mentioned earlier, if Lacy went on to become undisputed champion of the division, then fair enough, but no, he has done nothing but become fodder. last i heard he was spanked by Jermain Taylor.

As for Kessler, imo, is Calzaghe's best win, but again, he is nothing special, especially after Calzaghe had the oppurtunity to fight a Prime RJJ and a Prime Hopkins. Shame he did not get over his "Fear of Flying" until RJJ and Hopkins were about to retire.

[Spud]

When the few shite talking critics are actually pushed to come up with these mythical names that Joe Calzaghe has dodged, we get the same old crap

I forgot the quote above - yet another patronising quote to fans who have a right to express an opinion on the sport!!!

With regards to Calzaghe dodging opponents - Lets face it in the cold light of day - I don't think he did - I just think the desire to seek out the "stronger" opponents was not there when he was getting paid so well for an easy nights work - there is a subtle difference there to actually "dodging" opponents.

You could actually state when reading what I have stated above "who can blame Calzaghe" for wanting to make a good living - I simply cannot in that context - but where I have strong opinions is when people start saying Calzaghe is the best boxer the UK has ever produced etc etc etc - I say to that "he could have been if he took the challenges just a few years back!!! "

Yes yes hindsight is a wonderful thing - I do not blame Calzaghe one bit for making his money not at all - Boxing is the cruelest and hardest sport of all to make a living in - but lets keep Calzaghes achievements in "reality" - he done fantastically well and done himself and the country proud - but if he got his finger out earlier he could have gone down not only as the best boxer in the UK but a boxing legend throughout the world.

Whether you like it or not with regards to "world" reputation - once he has retired - Calzaghe will soon be forgotten with the public - yes the boxing fan will always remember him but will people speak of Calzaghe in the same terms as Benn, Eubank, Hatton, or Lewis or Bruno or Cooper??

[fist]

I personally disagree, Dioufy but we will never know.

As good as Kessler is/was and Lacy, more daunting than Roy Jones 2001? Nope. My honest opinion is that if Joe had done what Haye seems to be attempting to do - I'll still wait to see Vitali in the ring to be convinced..... then Joe would have been forgotton about by 2002.

Oh yes, and I do disagree with Joe being versitile and power.... sure I think he "slaps" are harder than alot of people give him credit, but I will repeat when did Joe ever score a true KO.... let alone a one punch KO. When did Joe last score a KO were there is no disputing the guy couldn't have continued or a cut wasn't involved... along time ago.

Versitile - still very open to the straight right hand.

Joe doesn't hit like he used to, but he had a decent enough dig, as Eubank himself said - Joe was the only person to put him on his arse. Kessler and Lacy's face clearly indicate that Joe can do damge with them hands and that is what boxing is all about.

As for versatile, you dont go in to much detail, just the mention of a criticism. But one of his strengths is in his ability adapt within the midst of a fight. He loves to fight toe-to-toe, and as we know, relentless. On his day, his countering is spot on - see how he countered Kesslers counters. And of course, with Kessler, when things weren;t quite working out he started fighting in and out, in and out. Kessler admits he could not work him out that night - Joe was at his best. He's also good head movement and makes his opponents miss when he wants them to.

And as has been stated, you can only fight who is available and Jones has indicated that his manager would not have wanted that route. You reference 2001, well a couple of years later Joe gets his breakthrough with Lacy, but by that time JOnes is on the slide - not Joe's fault. Jones aged and deteriorated fast, whereas Joe developed and aged well. Its almost like comparing different eras in a sense in that Calzaghe is the best at his weight and till recently the best at SMW, and that that, no good saying but there were others years ago who could have beat him. Fact remains up till he relinqueshed his SMW belts he was the top man, thus effectievly stopping others from achieving greatness and being live competitors - Kessler being a prime example. If they had not have fought, Kessler would have continued his reign and his growing reputation, and others would have continued to say he was dodging Kessler, but he beat him and negated the presence of another world class champ.

See my other post about Eastman.

[Autobarn]

Kessler and Lacy are good names, and to beat them in that manner is impressive. But Joe didn't seem to take on a massive burden with the WBO title. No wonder he was still fresh when most of his challengers prior to that weren't up to much.

Joe has some good names for a British fighter - Reid, Woodhall, Starie, Eubank - but ppl outside of the UK don't really give a damn.

Has Joe proven much more than he's a good/very good, world class fighter? Yes, we need UK successes, he's been Setanta's #1 fighter for a couple of fights, given them some big succeses. But there's always that bloody great, "will he, won't he" whether he'll actually fight someone good. When you look at Dawson's more potted learning curve - he went from Jamie Hearn (easy work), to Eric Harding (a guy 1-1 with Tarver), Tomasz Adamek (then WBC 175 champ, now Ring mag/IBF cruiser king), a couple of tune ups, then Glen Jonson, and then Tarver.

Dawson, partly because the US broadcasters won't take any shit and because he's not a glamour boy, and partly because he has talent and ambition, is not so fussy.

Have to say I like Froch's mentality. Following the win over Pascal, he said "I don't believe in easy fights" and wants to go for the likes of Taylor, Kessler etc pretty soon.

[fist]

When the few shite talking critics are actually pushed to come up with these mythical names that Joe Calzaghe has dodged, we get the same old crap

I forgot the quote above - yet another patronising quote to fans who have a right to express an opinion on the sport!!!

With regards to Calzaghe dodging opponents - Lets face it in the cold light of day - I don't think he did - I just think the desire to seek out the "stronger" opponents was not there when he was getting paid so well for an easy nights work - there is a subtle difference there to actually "dodging" opponents.

You could actually state when reading what I have stated above "who can blame Calzaghe" for wanting to make a good living - I simply cannot in that context - but where I have strong opinions is when people start saying Calzaghe is the best boxer the UK has ever produced etc etc etc - I say to that "he could have been if he took the challenges just a few years back!!! "

Yes yes hindsight is a wonderful thing - I do not blame Calzaghe one bit for making his money not at all - Boxing is the cruelest and hardest sport of all to make a living in - but lets keep Calzaghes achievements in "reality" - he done fantastically well and done himself and the country proud - but if he got his finger out earlier he could have gone down not only as the best boxer in the UK but a boxing legend throughout the world.

Whether you like it or not with regards to "world" reputation - once he has retired - Calzaghe will soon be forgotten with the public - yes the boxing fan will always remember him but will people speak of Calzaghe in the same terms as Benn, Eubank, Hatton, or Lewis or Bruno or Cooper??

Fair dos, I can see that my references were patronising to some. But there really is some bollocks being spouted by some on here.

As for your question of whether Joe will be remebered in the same way as some other famous Brits, IMO yes absolutely. His achievements and talent are greater than some of those mentioned. In terms of public opinion, it was quite an achievement to win sports personality of the year after his win over Kessler, which wasnt even on terestrial. The boxing fans will continue to rate him, as do most old and present pros and champs. As Ive said, Benn reckons Joe would have had the beating of him, though Im not sure I agree. Those that wont speak about him in the same way are the few internet posters who talk rubbish on here.

[Autobarn]

Fist, Watson dropped Eubank. Benn did also in their 1st fight with a clubbing right. Collins had him down with a right to the body in one of their bouts, I believe.

Are ppl taling shite, or did Zig Zaggy leave himself open to it during his mostly uneventful title reign? Do two great unification wins wash away all the rubbish, etc.

[stujones]

So your point on Eastman sorry I don't understand... apparently Eastman buzzed him (something more Super Joe could do), and then goes on to lose widely - after Hopkins figured him out, out speeded and out worked him... so what he got booed. You trying to say that Joe has never been booed in a fight?

As for RJJ and Hopkins - well actually it was 4 not a couple of years from 2001 to 2005. 4 of the 10 "wonder" years, close to half of his magical reign. Fact is Joe had from 1997-2003 to fight a prime Jones and a similar period Ottke, Hopkins, Winky and several others - he didn't. Thats a long time.

Eubank obviously has a short memory, cause he cannot remember Steve Collins put him on his arse first fight... as did Benn, although hard to see if that was a slip.

[Spud]

When the few shite talking critics are actually pushed to come up with these mythical names that Joe Calzaghe has dodged, we get the same old crap

I forgot the quote above - yet another patronising quote to fans who have a right to express an opinion on the sport!!!

With regards to Calzaghe dodging opponents - Lets face it in the cold light of day - I don't think he did - I just think the desire to seek out the "stronger" opponents was not there when he was getting paid so well for an easy nights work - there is a subtle difference there to actually "dodging" opponents.

You could actually state when reading what I have stated above "who can blame Calzaghe" for wanting to make a good living - I simply cannot in that context - but where I have strong opinions is when people start saying Calzaghe is the best boxer the UK has ever produced etc etc etc - I say to that "he could have been if he took the challenges just a few years back!!! "

Yes yes hindsight is a wonderful thing - I do not blame Calzaghe one bit for making his money not at all - Boxing is the cruelest and hardest sport of all to make a living in - but lets keep Calzaghes achievements in "reality" - he done fantastically well and done himself and the country proud - but if he got his finger out earlier he could have gone down not only as the best boxer in the UK but a boxing legend throughout the world.

Whether you like it or not with regards to "world" reputation - once he has retired - Calzaghe will soon be forgotten with the public - yes the boxing fan will always remember him but will people speak of Calzaghe in the same terms as Benn, Eubank, Hatton, or Lewis or Bruno or Cooper??

Fair dos, I can see that my references were patronising to some. But there really is some bollocks being spouted by some on here.

As for your question of whether Joe will be remebered in the same way as some other famous Brits, IMO yes absolutely. His achievements and talent are greater than some of those mentioned. In terms of public opinion, it was quite an achievement to win sports personality of the year after his win over Kessler, which wasnt even on terestrial. The boxing fans will continue to rate him, as do most old and present pros and champs. As Ive said, Benn reckons Joe would have had the beating of him, though Im not sure I agree. Those that wont speak about him in the same way are the few internet posters who talk rubbish on here.

Fist,

I am not trying to shirk away from being very "vocal" about Joe Calzaghe - I could not stand the fact that the "Big" fights were always one fight away - and yes I overly criticised him which was wrong of me to do so.

As you have highlighted after the Kessler win and then Bernard Hopkins and yes even RJJ I think Joe Calzaghe rightly deserves to be called not only a world class boxer but one of the P4P best in the rankings at present.

Yet again you go on about people who spout sh*t on here - I stress I honestly believe these boxing sites regardless of the trash talking that goes on - it generates big interest in the boxing family from the promoter down to the fighter down to the fan - if boxing personalities whoever they didn't think the interent and these forums were worth nothing to them then why do court injunctions or solicitors letters go out by the bagful and why do all boxing programmes on TV quite happily refer to these sites and why do the press constantly use these places as a source of reference and in addition up to date info.

[gobbles]

When on a number of occasions Calzaghe's contract was up with W arren he could have stated he was not resigning or if he did he could have had significant clauses within his renewal which meant securing massive fights - but I get the impression Calzaghe in his own mind did not think he was ready for the genuine pound for pound massive fights despite the bravado to the contrary.

Not quite that easy. Didn't Ricky have it written into his contract with Warren that he would fight Witter within 3 fights? So what happened? US TV didn't want to know with Witter. Similar thing with Calzaghe, until the Lacy fight there wasn't really the backing for a big fight whatever side of the Atlantic it was on.

[observer1]

When the few shite talking critics are actually pushed to come up with these mythical names that Joe Calzaghe has dodged, we get the same old crap

I forgot the quote above - yet another patronising quote to fans who have a right to express an opinion on the sport!!!

With regards to Calzaghe dodging opponents - Lets face it in the cold light of day - I don't think he did - I just think the desire to seek out the "stronger" opponents was not there when he was getting paid so well for an easy nights work - there is a subtle difference there to actually "dodging" opponents.

You could actually state when reading what I have stated above "who can blame Calzaghe" for wanting to make a good living - I simply cannot in that context - but where I have strong opinions is when people start saying Calzaghe is the best boxer the UK has ever produced etc etc etc - I say to that "he could have been if he took the challenges just a few years back!!! "



Yes yes hindsight is a wonderful thing - I do not blame Calzaghe one bit for making his money not at all - Boxing is the cruelest and hardest sport of all to make a living in - but lets keep Calzaghes achievements in "reality" - he done fantastically well and done himself and the country proud - but if he got his finger out earlier he could have gone down not only as the best boxer in the UK but a boxing legend throughout the world.

Whether you like it or not with regards to "world" reputation - once he has retired - Calzaghe will soon be forgotten with the public - yes the boxing fan will always remember him but will people speak of Calzaghe in the same terms as Benn, Eubank, Hatton, or Lewis or Bruno or Cooper??

Did you hear what Warren had to say about it once he was given the sack from Joe? He was mentioning how Calzaghe was always wanting to pull out of bouts..

[banjo]

The likes of Benn, Eubank, Hatton, Bruno and Cooper had something which Joe doesn't - a personality. Which is why he isn't as popular as any of them, even Lewis who was quite a quiet guy most of the time had a more appealing side to him.

[observer1]

Don't forget Naseem too.

Bruno was not as succesful as these guys, but the guy was a genuine guy. Naseem was a charachter, made himself out to be the bad guy but managed to sell the tickets and get under his opponents nerve.

it's not even about personality, like you said with Lewis, he is a quite reserved guy, and people still respect him.

Calzaghe has not done himself any favours with some of the decisions he has made in the ring and outside the ring

[banjo]

Don't forget Naseem too.

Bruno was not as succesful as these guys, but the guy was a genuine guy. Naseem was a charachter, made himself out to be the bad guy but managed to sell the tickets and get under his opponents nerve.

Of course, a master ticket seller he was as well as a top notch fighter

[stujones]

Not quite that easy. Didn't Ricky have it written into his contract with Warren that he would fight Witter within 3 fights? So what happened? US TV didn't want to know with Witter. Similar thing with Calzaghe, until the Lacy fight there wasn't really the backing for a big fight whatever side of the Atlantic it was on.

Not quite the case, Hatton vs Witter was an all british affair (which is an important issue when it comes to US TV - US fight fans have nobody to follow), plus actually you are wrong. Larkin was very interested in Calzaghe he could have exploited his Italian roots and been a big star. Lets not forget that Calzaghe was shown on the Tyson vs Neilson bill on US TV - a bill that wasn't brought together by Warren.

Are you seriously suggesting the US TV would have blocked Calzaghe vs Jones, Calzaghe vs Hopkins, Calzaghe vs Tito etc. Difference between those and Hatton vs Witter is that there is a proven US name against Joe. Jones, Hopkins and Tito could have fought Peter Buckley and US TV would have accepted it.

US TV were not convinced that Hatton could carry a card and do massive ratings against such a negative fighter as Witter - whose only appearances on US TV were against bums or in stinkers.

[fist]

So your point on Eastman sorry I don't understand... apparently Eastman buzzed him (something more Super Joe could do), and then goes on to lose widely - after Hopkins figured him out, out speeded and out worked him... so what he got booed. You trying to say that Joe has never been booed in a fight?

Wasn't trying to say anything about Joe never being booed?!, I was talking about Eastman and Hopkins. Tried to explain my point as best I could. I dont rate Hopkins as highly as some, I dont like his style and I think it is a style that has its limitations, a style that was bound to bring about the number of losses he has incurred. You cant expect to steal points decision every time. My point about Eastman is that firstly it was not as one sided as you stated - at least one of the judges only had him a few rounds behind. Secondly regardless of the judges as a spectator wat I observed is this so called legend not managing to put up any major problems for a lazy Eastman. The point about the home crowd booing was simply to illustrate that those ringside were also pissed off, just as Eastman was with the way he ran that night like many a night. But to put this into perspective I am not saying Hopkins is no good, or not a supreme athlete, just that I think he is overrate and will always come way down my list of favourite and most talented fighters. Hope that explains it.

[stujones]

well depends on your definition of a few - 8 rounds to 4 is pretty decisive in my estimation and that was the closest one.

Also, are we talking prime Hopkins here - this was Hopkins last win as a Middleweight, he was weight drained and old.

If you judge Hopkins on his achievements/performances post 2003 ALONE then no he is not a legend... but add the 10 year reign at Middleweight in which no Middleweight challenge was avoided - then yes he was a legend.

He was a completely different fighter in the Joppy fight and earlier. COMPLETELY different.

Not putting up major problems for a lazy Eastman? well Eastman only won for rounds at best. If he didn't put up major problems Eastman wouldn't have lost a wide UD - fact is, Eastman couldn't land clean.

Ask pretty much all his opponents pre 2003 did he run away?

[Autobarn]

Not quite that easy. Didn't Ricky have it written into his contract with Warren that he would fight Witter within 3 fights? So what happened? US TV didn't want to know with Witter. Similar thing with Calzaghe, until the Lacy fight there wasn't really the backing for a big fight whatever side of the Atlantic it was on.

Not quite the case, Hatton vs Witter was an all british affair (which is an important issue when it comes to US TV - US fight fans have nobody to follow), plus actually you are wrong. Larkin was very interested in Calzaghe he could have exploited his Italian roots and been a big star. Lets not forget that Calzaghe was shown on the Tyson vs Neilson bill on US TV - a bill that wasn't brought together by Warren.

Are you seriously suggesting the US TV would have blocked Calzaghe vs Jones, Calzaghe vs Hopkins, Calzaghe vs Tito etc. Difference between those and Hatton vs Witter is that there is a proven US name against Joe. Jones, Hopkins and Tito could have fought Peter Buckley and US TV would have accepted it.

US TV were not convinced that Hatton could carry a card and do massive ratings against such a negative fighter as Witter - whose only appearances on US TV were against bums or in stinkers.

Calzaghe was in a stinker vs Starie on the Tyson undercard. Then Larkin said Calzaghe isn't ready for big fights. If Joe would have had big fights back then (perhaps fought Brewer/Mitchell sooner, or Frankie Liles when he had the IBF belt, whatever), it would no doubt have had to be on his terms (home advantage, etc) and maybe Larkin felt it wasn't worth the trouble building him up. Showtime apparently got stuck in a contract with Warren (and others), showing loads of "showcase bouts"/mismatches, one of the reasons they ended up with the "great fights, no rights" policy.

As to Jones, he was the HBO darling wasn't he. HBO was way over Joe's head until after he'd beaten Lacy.

[fist]

well depends on your definition of a few - 8 rounds to 4 is pretty decisive in my estimation and that was the closest one.

Also, are we talking prime Hopkins here - this was Hopkins last win as a Middleweight, he was weight drained and old.

If you judge Hopkins on his achievements/performances post 2003 ALONE then no he is not a legend... but add the 10 year reign at Middleweight in which no Middleweight challenge was avoided - then yes he was a legend.

He was a completely different fighter in the Joppy fight and earlier. COMPLETELY different.

Not putting up major problems for a lazy Eastman? well Eastman only won for rounds at best. If he didn't put up major problems Eastman wouldn't have lost a wide UD - fact is, Eastman couldn't land clean.

Ask pretty much all his opponents pre 2003 did he run away?

Well it sounds like youve gone and had a look at the score cards since your last post, and it seems as though your taking them as an absolute indication of the fight, rather than your own recollection. Hopkins was crap in that fight and 116 - 112 against a wily spoiling fighter like Hopkins away from home isn't too bad at all. Anyway, once again you miss my point - which was that Hopkins could not trouble Eastman in that fight, in fact at times it was the other way round. He's an ugly fighter to watch, ALWAYS was, and his style was made for the four or five losses he's incurred so far. Eastman showed that the man was no superhuman boxing legend, far far from it, and all those he has lost to further cement this point. Just my opinion :-)

[stujones]

Showtime did "believe" in Joe though IMO, at least a long time before 2005. He was also on the Tyson bill when he fought McIntyre.

Yes, I am not disputing Joe would have had to have given ground, but I do not believe that HBO would have rejected Jones vs Joe in the states, when they were accepting fighters like Kelly etc.

Also with Lilles he was a allegedly fighter, so while it might have been on US time - I think the fight would have taken place in the UK.

[stujones]

well depends on your definition of a few - 8 rounds to 4 is pretty decisive in my estimation and that was the closest one.

Also, are we talking prime Hopkins here - this was Hopkins last win as a Middleweight, he was weight drained and old.

If you judge Hopkins on his achievements/performances post 2003 ALONE then no he is not a legend... but add the 10 year reign at Middleweight in which no Middleweight challenge was avoided - then yes he was a legend.

He was a completely different fighter in the Joppy fight and earlier. COMPLETELY different.

Not putting up major problems for a lazy Eastman? well Eastman only won for rounds at best. If he didn't put up major problems Eastman wouldn't have lost a wide UD - fact is, Eastman couldn't land clean.

Ask pretty much all his opponents pre 2003 did he run away?

Well it sounds like youve gone and had a look at the score cards since your last post, and it seems as though your taking them as an absolute indication of the fight, rather than your own recollection. Hopkins was crap in that fight and 116 - 112 against a wily spoiling fighter like Hopkins away from home isn't too bad at all. Anyway, once again you miss my point - which was that Hopkins could not trouble Eastman in that fight, in fact at times it was the other way round. He's an ugly fighter to watch, ALWAYS was, and his style was made for the four or five losses he's incurred so far. Eastman showed that the man was no superhuman boxing legend, far far from it, and all those he has lost to further cement this point. Just my opinion :-)

No I have said my own recollection 118-110. One sided fight, boring but one sided. Hopkins had an answer for anything Eastman did, which wasn't alot admittedly.

Eastman had/has a good chin. Has he ever been floored? Only one fighter has ever had him in trouble - Miranda. Hopkins' doesn't have Miranda's power. But he fiddled his way to a comprehensive points win over what some people were calling the #2 Middleweight in the world (at the time) when he was weight drained and passed it.

AGAIN, I ask you to watch Hopkins' early championship fights. Watch his rematch with Echols, Watch his fight with Johnson and then ask was he a legend. Don't use the example when he was weight drained and past it.

Also, being critical of Hopkins isn't a good thing when defending Joe. This non legend when past it, gave Super Joe fits.

[gobbles]

Not quite that easy. Didn't Ricky have it written into his contract with Warren that he would fight Witter within 3 fights? So what happened? US TV didn't want to know with Witter. Similar thing with Calzaghe, until the Lacy fight there wasn't really the backing for a big fight whatever side of the Atlantic it was on.

Not quite the case, Hatton vs Witter was an all british affair (which is an important issue when it comes to US TV - US fight fans have nobody to follow), plus actually you are wrong. Larkin was very interested in Calzaghe he could have exploited his Italian roots and been a big star. Lets not forget that Calzaghe was shown on the Tyson vs Neilson bill on US TV - a bill that wasn't brought together by Warren.

Are you seriously suggesting the US TV would have blocked Calzaghe vs Jones, Calzaghe vs Hopkins, Calzaghe vs Tito etc. Difference between those and Hatton vs Witter is that there is a proven US name against Joe. Jones, Hopkins and Tito could have fought Peter Buckley and US TV would have accepted it.

US TV were not convinced that Hatton could carry a card and do massive ratings against such a negative fighter as Witter - whose only appearances on US TV were against bums or in stinkers.

All very well, but Jones had the HBO deal. If Jones had picked Calzaghe, he would have had to take a pay cut and give perhaps a 4 fight-option. Warren wasn't going to let him go and certainly not on the cheap. Why did the Tszyu fight happen? Because Hatton got to be IBF mandatory which meant the fight could be made with no options. It's not as easy as just accepting the short end of the purse. Joe's problem was that he had lacklustre diusplays at bad times on Showtime - v Starie and Jiminez. They liked the Brewer fight, but it was only really the fight against Mitchell that excited them again and the big fight only happened because Gary Shaw, who is tighter with SHowtim than anyone, was certain Lacy would beat him.

[whiskey]

He should leave boxing. He's only ever wanted to be wealthy and unbeaten. And he has achieved that.

Having read the attack on the sport, his withering attack on Froch's gutsy title win, plus all of the whinging attacks on Hatton, Degale, Pavlik and a raft of others - i'd rather see him go.

There aren't many fighters left who fit his blueprint anyway now.

And in truth, his slapping, cuffing, bum wiggling, gurning style which always ends up going the full 12 rounds, is not something that gets me turned on as a fan of boxing.

His reluctance to rematch Hopkins or Reid, yet he happily fought Mario Veit again after beating him inside a round previously, sums up his entire career to me.

And slagging off Roy Jones and saying that 'he'd prove nothing by being the third man to knock Jones out' ... then fighting him and NOT knocking him out was the cherry on his cake !

[stujones]

Of course it wasn't going to be easy, but there were ways if Joe wanted it. He didn't have to re-sign with Warren when he did, he could have taken the pay cut (and thought bigger picture). He could have tried to get a fight with Liles - which would have been easy to have done. All I was saying is that the US did see a bit of a "star" in Calzaghe, mainly due to his Italian roots, which they didn't see in Witter.

I'm not blaming Joe - in my opinion had he fought Jones in say 2000/2001. He would have taken a pay cut and also a heavy defeat which would have signalled end of his US profiling. Joe is a multi millionaire and forged an 11 year championship career, only facing two current champions in the process - nice work if you can get it.

If my son wanted to step into the ring and was world class. I would seriously tell him to follow the Calzaghe blue print.