IN DEFENCE OF JOE - THE CONSIDERED UNBIASED OPINION ON JOE

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 10 May 2005, 11:07

Oh, and did it never occur to you that by that stage of his career, Eubank was struggling to get in under the SM limit? The move up in weight probably helped, and the short notice for the Calzaghe fight won't have helped. Of course, Calzaghe's hand speed was a big factor too.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 10 May 2005, 11:09

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Nobody is denying that Calzaghe is a big talent. That is just the problem. Big talent means big expectation and requires a big defining fight to bring it out.

I don't think Calzaghe would have beaten Eubank in his prime, Benn he probably would have done up like a kipper due to Benn's being so prone to being hurt. Collins I think would have been close, Collins had one hell of a chin, and he was getting near the end of a long career. I always thought he got decked in training and that's why he ended his career?

Calzaghe's career has been like dating an incredibly good looking girl who plays hard to get. Occasional glimpses of their wonderful form, but always stopping short of the real deal.

Yeah is has been frustrating, as most things involving the WBO tend to be.

As for Collins - I've no doubt he would've taken on Calzaghe in his prime. But he'd had a couple of soft touch defences ( after Benn ) and I think he saw Calzaghe looming on the horizon and realised he was gonna be in with a live one. Plus he'd been knocked down by a no hoper in his last defence.
And I don't think Roach deserves too much credit for Collins - that should go to the Petronelli brothers, who built up Steve into a world class middleweight in the 80's.

liamlion · Post by **liamlion** » 10 May 2005, 11:09

Wrists wrote: listen, i don't care about belts and organisations

But beating a Champion and taking his recognised World Title is evidence of achievement - whereas fighting an Egyptian journeyman in a WBO defence isnt.

MightyWarrior wrote: And I don't think Roach deserves too much credit for Collins - that should go to the Petronelli brothers, who built up Steve into a world class middleweight in the 80's.

Yeah perhaps, however Stevie Collins rates Freddie Roach very highly.

liamlion · Post by **liamlion** » 10 May 2005, 11:13

double posted - sorry

Wrists · Post by **Wrists** » 10 May 2005, 11:14

why is it different?

middle to welterweight is two weight difference

joe is SUPER middle and winky is SUPER welter same weight difference

the same rules should apply but don't because:

1. the downer that exists on any warren fighter

2. the but kissing we all do to american fighters

fact

J · Post by J » 10 May 2005, 11:14

Wrists wrote:you contradict yourself in one sentence there!!!

listen, i don't care about belts and organisations

just apply the same rules to all fighters regardless of whether they are american or whether they fight like gatti or ward

fornicate me change the record mate.

to compare hopkins to calzaghe both in terms of status, their records and what they have ahcieved and to come out with Calzaghe as anywhere close the the Undisputed middelweight champ is the talk of a man who knows fornicate all about anything.

Hopkins hall of fame, Calzaghe may visit it as a fan one day.

thats the way the career has gone much to our chagrin as we all back his skills but he has underachieved in the boxing publics eyes in terms of his capability, now do please take some of the points laboured to you on board, rather than just clinging on to Joe's left testicle with your molars..

J · Post by J » 10 May 2005, 11:18

Wrists wrote:why is it different?

middle to welterweight is two weight difference

joe is SUPER middle and winky is SUPER welter same weight difference

the same rules should apply but don't because:

1. the downer that exists on any warren fighter

2. the but kissing we all do to american fighters

fact

can someone take this guy to the woods strip him beat and leave him there.

Wrists · Post by **Wrists** » 10 May 2005, 11:19

no need to get personal

nah mate fair only joking - when joe beats winky and margarito will he then be the same as hopkins??

J · Post by J » 10 May 2005, 11:22

Wrists wrote:no need to get personal

nah mate fair only joking - when joe beats winky and margarito will he then be the same as hopkins??

no he wont mate. (though nice to see you have sense of humour bro

)

if he took on Lacy, then Johnson and tarver then he would be deemed a great succcess in fact one of the best from these shores ever but still not up there with BHop for my money.

he doesnt have enough time left I dont think to catch Bhop in terms of achievement.

dont get me worng id love to see JC end his career on a fantastic high I just got a bit bored waitnign in the meantime. I mean look at the shit he has been fighting for the past two years its appalling for a man of his talent.

For the record i dont slate warren fighters cos they are warren fighters, I wouldnt be spending a shed load of cash going up to see hatton would I in 3 weeks time. But if a fighter deserves constructive criticism then yeah I ll say it and Joe's opponents of late have been substandard.

Wrists · Post by **Wrists** » 10 May 2005, 11:26

granted salem mrchiyian and veit are not great

nor are hokkar, eastman and carl daniels

granted he needs a defining fight and i accept avhievement wise he is behind bhop

still think reid, brewer, mitchell, woodhall, sheika and eubank is a decent resume

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 10 May 2005, 11:30

Wrists wrote:why is it different?

middle to welterweight is two weight difference

joe is SUPER middle and winky is SUPER welter same weight difference

the same rules should apply but don't because:

1. the downer that exists on any warren fighter

2. the but kissing we all do to american fighters

fact

Christ almighty.

I'll write it in captials so you can understand.

BEFORE FIGHTING HOPKINS TITO TRINIDAD, A HUGE PUNCHING WELTERWEIGHT, KNOCKED WILLIAM JOPPY, WHO WAS KNOWN FOR BEING A DURABLE GENUINE MIDDLEWEIGHT TO BITS TO BECOME THE FAVOURITE IN THE TOURNAMENT.

IF CALZAGHE BEAT WINKY, HE WOULD BE BEATING AN UNPROVEN FIGHTER WITH NO PEDIGREE OUTSIDE OF LIGHT MIDDLEWEIGHT. WINKY WOULD HAVE TO BEAT SOMEONE LIKE KESSLER OR BEYER FOR THE COMPARISON TO BE ACCURATE!

HOPKINS BEAT A GUY WHO HAD JUST DESTROYED A CURRENT MIDDLEWEIGHT WORLD CHAMPION, DO YOU SEE HOW THAT WORKS?

HOPKINS IS A SMALL MIDDLWEIGHT - CALZAGHE IS A BIG SUPER MIDDLEWEIGHT.

THE WEIGHT DIFFERENCE ON FIGHT NIGHT WOULD BE BIG IF THE TWO MEN FOUGHT. WHEN TITO FOUGHT HOPKINS, I WILL BET THEY WEIGHED EXACTLY THE SAME ON FIGHT NIGHT. GENERALLY IF A FIGHTER WEIGHS IN UNDER THE LIMIT, HE IS NOT GOING TO BE MUCH, IF AT ALL, OVER THE LIMIT ON FIGHT NIGHT.

WHATEVER SPIN YOU PUT ON IT, CALZAGHE V WINKY IS NOT COMPARABLE TO HOPKINS V TRINIDAD. WINKY ISN'T PROVEN AT ANY WEIGHT EXCEPT LM AND ISN'T A PUNCHER.

You might say that belts don't matter, but they do.

The WBO belt allows champions to defend against piss poor campaigners like Salem and Veit, whereas the major three generally have a better level of competition.. the mandatory challengers for the WBO are often a joke.

This is nothing to do with allegedly or American or British. I'm not fornicating American, but I recognise fighters who defend big 3 title belts against top level competition as the real stars of the sport, and fighters who compile an endless string of WBO defences as lesser champions.

If Calzaghe beats Lacy, full marks to him and he will get the plaudits, but there are PLENTY of other fighters he hasn't shown interest in, Beyer, Mundine, Kessler, Green etc.

I'm not kissing anyone's arse mate. Hopkins has earnt his place at the top of the pile in the middleweight division, and there isn't a single person out there who can say that right now he isn't the best in the division.

Due to the failure of Calzaghe to ever fight another current champion, sadly, we cannot say the same about Joe. If that upsets you and shatters your illusions too bad, but for now, Joe is PROBABLY the best in the division, whereas Hopkins is DEFINETLY the best.

J · Post by J » 10 May 2005, 11:35

Eastman is a top ten ranked middelweight, thats not up for debate everyone woudl have howard in their top ten.

Calzaghe hasnt fought a top ten ranked super middelweight for 2 years since mitchell.

2 years waiting for a decent fight in fact longer wil be nearly 3 by the time he fights Lacy or reid.

too long.

Hopkins in that time has fought

Joppy (top ten)
robert allen (fringe)
De la hoya (legend)
Eastman (top ten)

so as you can see what you are saying doesnt add up.

Joe fought all his decent if ageing opponents when he burst on the scene everyone is waiting for him to push on and have been waitign and waiting and waiting etc etc etc

Wrists · Post by **Wrists** » 10 May 2005, 11:40

will consider myself chastised on this one!!!

Naseem hamed anyone he he!!!

actually - naz to me was criminally underappreciated

J · Post by J » 10 May 2005, 11:41

cant get into naz now nearly pub time mate!

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 10 May 2005, 11:43

chuckle....

The truth is I would have loved to have seen Calzaghe go to Germany and beat the fornicate out of Ottke. I always thought Ottke was shit, basically an amateur boxer who was able to box very negatively because he always got the decision if he finished on his feet.

I would still love to see Calzaghe clean up the SM division, and maybe win a title at LH, though the former would impress a lot more.

Anyone who thinks I don't want to see Calzaghe do well is crazy, he is easily one of the best fighters out there, and probably right now the best fighter in the country, depending on what Hatton is about to do.

If Joe batters Lacy and clears up the SM division and proves me wrong, I'll be more than happy to be wrong.

Look, that's me...smiling at being wrong.

Wrists · Post by **Wrists** » 10 May 2005, 11:50

ok change of emphasis

what do we think about joe against the following (well actually not a change of tack but rather opinions not including bhop!!)

LACY - think Joe outpoints Lacy easily, the guy is strong but not enough skill or variety to beat joe

KESSLER - easy fight, too many germans/dane type kohl fighters who are over rated

REID - joe on points without the broken hand therefore easier than last time

JOHNSON - massive respect for this guy but again more your solid type and more than that needed to beat joe - joe on points

WOODS - no contest, joe widely on points

TARVER - hardest fight for joe ans antonio is talented but again joe on points

MUNDINE - joe inside 4 rounds and i would love it

FROCH - don't get me started on this twat, joe inside 5 rounds

NOW JAMES AND J DONT SHOUT AT ME JUST OPINIONS AND I DIDN'T MENTION HOPKINS LOL

CHEERS

WRISTS

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 10 May 2005, 11:56

Wrists wrote:ok change of emphasis

what do we think about joe against the following (well actually not a change of tack but rather opinions not including bhop!!)

LACY - think Joe outpoints Lacy easily, the guy is strong but not enough skill or variety to beat joe

Calzaghe wins fairly close points win. Maybe gets decked but still wins.

KESSLER - easy fight, too many germans/dane type kohl fighters who are over rated

Not seen that much of Kessler, but from his record and what I've seen, close win for Calazghe, who has always had problems with counterpunchers.

REID - joe on points without the broken hand therefore easier than last time

Calzaghe wins on points fairly easy, Reid's workrate is poor these days.

JOHNSON - massive respect for this guy but again more your solid type and more than that needed to beat joe - joe on points

Johnson wins on points. Johnson is very tough, very busy, excellent chin, and has competed at the weight.

WOODS - no contest, joe widely on points

Close win for Calzaghe.

TARVER - hardest fight for joe ans antonio is talented but again joe on points

Tarver wins a close one if he boxes well. Has massive size advantage and is a real banger, but might get lazy and lose a decision.

MUNDINE - joe inside 4 rounds and i would love it

Calzaghe struggles for first few rounds to pin him down, but twats him late in fight.

FROCH - don't get me started on this twat, joe inside 5 rounds

Right now, annihilates Froch, who is too inexperienced, a year's time, we'll see.

NOW JAMES AND J DONT SHOUT AT ME JUST OPINIONS AND I DIDN'T MENTION HOPKINS LOL

CHEERS

WRISTS

RANT RANT ROAR, RANT ROAR RANT!

J · Post by J » 10 May 2005, 11:59

gpotta say im ore in alignment with James than you wrists.

sorry mate.

Wrists · Post by **Wrists** » 10 May 2005, 12:02

never in the world - you disagree with me!!!

mind thats boxing and i am baised

do you honestly think a solid fighter rather than a 'talented' fighter beats joe

styles make fights think johnson is good at everything but will be outboxed by joe in perhapes aboring but winning fight!!

who wins contender then??

i think alofnso

Manos de Oro · Post by **Manos de Oro** » 10 May 2005, 12:50

This thread sponsored by eastsideboxing.com.