To assess Calzaghe unbiased you must not be a Brit

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 13 Sep 2006, 18:36

So listen to me, folks!

Cheers, P

SticknMove · Post by **SticknMove** » 13 Sep 2006, 18:42

pundit wrote:So listen to me, folks!

Cheers, P

Then go for it fella and give us your unbridled wisdom on him. 8)

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 14 Sep 2006, 04:24

whatever

on another note, Warren has issued challenges to Wright - whose rematch with taylor came to nothing - and Tarver.

Says they want to beat all American fighters.

Bit ignorant when there are quality Europeans (Kessler, Beyer, Adamek, Erdei, Woods) and Aussies (Mundine, Briggs) who will give tougher fights.

I have a feeling we will settle for Calzaghe-Glen Johnson.

Tarver says he wants to wait for Rocky 6 to come out before doing anything. & that he doesn't need Calzaghe and also wants "Hopkins to unretire".

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 14 Sep 2006, 04:40

Funnily enough you would think a Tarver fight taking place whilst Rocky 6 was actually screening would make absolute $$$$, the clueless punters and contender fans would lap up the PPV.

In fact a fight with Calzaghe would even have the Italian v Tarver angle, I should be a promoter!

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 14 Sep 2006, 05:23

Tarver needs ROCKY 6 to improve his battered image. As if we cannot distinguish between film & reality.

Tarver says he's been in a lot of "legendary type fights". Whereas calzaghe only fights "D-class".

Here's Tarver's legends:

Roy Jones
Montell Griffin
Lincoln Carter
Glen Johnson
Eric Harding (skilled non puncher who broke down Tarver but was KO'd in a rematch)
Reggie Johnson (inflated middleweight who couldn't hang out with top 5 light heavies)
Chris Johnson (already outclassed and ruined by Herol Graham, lost to Reggie J before Tarver fight)

No better than Calzaghe's 'D-class'
Robin Reid
Richie Woodhall
Charles Brewer
Jeff Lacy
Omar Sheika (beat Glen Johnson)
Byron Mitchell
Chris Eubank

Tarver gets way too much credit for fighting top contenders or titlists in his last 10 or 11 fights in a row.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 14 Sep 2006, 06:10

Tarver was a decent champion, and he deserves credit for handing Jones the draw and the loss, but he was never as good as he thought he was.

Christ, if an ancient Hopkins could outbox him with ease, it says it all about how great Tarver is.

Good as Hopkins is, I think Calzaghe would have beaten him. It's not that Calzaghe is a better fighter, but he would have done exactly what Taylor did, except with more authority.

Chambers2 · Post by **Chambers2** » 14 Sep 2006, 06:54

pundit wrote:So listen to me, folks!

Cheers, P

To assess Calzaghe unbiased you must not be a Calzaghe-hater

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 14 Sep 2006, 07:04

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Tarver was a decent champion, and he deserves credit for handing Jones the draw and the loss, but he was never as good as he thought he was.

Christ, if an ancient Hopkins could outbox him with ease, it says it all about how great Tarver is.

Good as Hopkins is, I think Calzaghe would have beaten him. It's not that Calzaghe is a better fighter, but he would have done exactly what Taylor did, except with more authority.

Tarver could be a decent name on Calzaghe's record.

AT was a good fighter but when he had some success, it just all went to his head. He saw his struggle to the top as some kind of legendary Holy Grail of a quest.

Taki... · Post by **Taki...** » 14 Sep 2006, 07:59

Chambers2 wrote:
pundit wrote:So listen to me, folks!

Cheers, P
To assess Calzaghe unbiased you must not be a Calzaghe-hater

Or a Kessler nuthugger.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 14 Sep 2006, 08:08

Is it just me or is this thread (especially the title and opening post) as dumb as shit?

Sweet P · Post by **Sweet P** » 14 Sep 2006, 10:11

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Tarver was a decent champion, and he deserves credit for handing Jones the draw and the loss, but he was never as good as he thought he was.

Christ, if an ancient Hopkins could outbox him with ease, it says it all about how great Tarver is.

Good as Hopkins is, I think Calzaghe would have beaten him. It's not that Calzaghe is a better fighter, but he would have done exactly what Taylor did, except with more authority.

I disagree with the Hopkins V Calzaghe, I think at 168 Hopkins would be a totally diffrent fighter than at 160 and would beat him by UD( only my opinion don't jump down my throat).
Tarver couldn't beat Calzaghe and was very lucky to get Jones at the time he did as a few years earlier he would have been made to look very ordinary.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 14 Sep 2006, 10:26

Well, I can see the logic, Hopkins is a canny feller after alll, but I think Calzaghe's handspeed and aggression would have made it difficult for Bernard to prevail. After all, Taylor didn't do anything incredible except throw lots of shots and pressure Bernard and he did enough to get the nod twice.

dumdane · Post by **dumdane** » 14 Sep 2006, 10:30

viciousmaussa wrote: Bit ignorant when there are quality Europeans (Kessler, Beyer, Adamek, Erdei, Woods) and Aussies (Mundine, Briggs) who will give tougher fights.

I'm not so sure ignorant is the right word. Wondering if it isn't a very deliberate choice.

Why take on the bigger risk if you can make just as much (or more)money taking the lesser risk.
This is business.

Andy Mac · Post by **Andy Mac** » 14 Sep 2006, 11:44

pundit wrote:So listen to me, folks!

Cheers, P

Or call for silly match ups like JC agajnst Carl Froch.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 14 Sep 2006, 11:58

Chambers2 wrote:
pundit wrote:So listen to me, folks!

Cheers, P
To assess Calzaghe unbiased you must not be a Calzaghe-hater

For a biased Brit, an fair, balanced, unbiased assessment -- such as mine -- will necessarily sound like coming from a Calzaghe-hater.

Cheers

P

J · Post by J » 14 Sep 2006, 12:09

well mate you thought Vlad schooled Peter so base on that comment I wouldnt think your boxing accumen is worth much anyway. Backed up by a petty thread.

ABA Boxing · Post by **ABA Boxing** » 15 Sep 2006, 05:35

While we the British like to support our Champions, the few we have! We are very hard and unforgiving on the boxers who do not perform.

Calzaghe, Hatton, Khan will all face the fire of the British press if they were to lose, so while they keep wining we keep cheering

If they happen to beat a boxer from across the pond its a bonus & we will shout it from the roof tops

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 15 Sep 2006, 08:29

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Well, I can see the logic, Hopkins is a canny feller after alll, but I think Calzaghe's handspeed and aggression would have made it difficult for Bernard to prevail. After all, Taylor didn't do anything incredible except throw lots of shots and pressure Bernard and he did enough to get the nod twice.

Well the last guy Hopkins would with simular handspeed to Joe was Jones.

Gitman · Post by **Gitman** » 15 Sep 2006, 22:01

Cool, what is this forum all about...never been over this way before...maybe I should check in more often. Am I allowed to share my views over here? Before you answer that...please note that I'm a fat, ignorant, lazy american - who knows very little about boxing...so...whatta ya say, blokes?

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 16 Sep 2006, 08:55

viciousmaussa wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:Tarver was a decent champion, and he deserves credit for handing Jones the draw and the loss, but he was never as good as he thought he was.

Christ, if an ancient Hopkins could outbox him with ease, it says it all about how great Tarver is.

Good as Hopkins is, I think Calzaghe would have beaten him. It's not that Calzaghe is a better fighter, but he would have done exactly what Taylor did, except with more authority.
Tarver could be a decent name on Calzaghe's record.

AT was a good fighter but when he had some success, it just all went to his head. He saw his struggle to the top as some kind of legendary Holy Grail of a quest.

If Hopkins has retired then I still think there is a strong argument that Tarver should be #1. Stronger than Johnson's and now Clinton Woods' claim. Personally, I think its is now time to seriously consider Edei a number 1.

Incidently James, Roy and Tarver have never drawn.... Jones beat him the first time, and Tarver won the two after.

Do you think Calzaghe would have beaten a prime Hopkins, or are you just of the though Joe would have beaten the Hopkins say since Howard Eastmann - who cannot fight for 3 minute rounds.

Freiheit · Post by **Freiheit** » 16 Sep 2006, 09:01

Speaking of Erdei, Ulrich vs Erdei will be on Eurosport tonight.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 16 Sep 2006, 12:31

pundit wrote:So listen to me, folks!

Cheers, P

Disagree with you on this... Calzaghe is hardly the most popular man in Britain... after all he's Welsh isnt he amongst other things!... :P

and thats almost as bad as him being Scottish. I 've criticised him a lot myself over the past few years but theres no denying that he's the best 168 fighter out there and amongst the mediority of many of his defences he has faced and beaten some top opposition... including ofcourse Jeff 'the next Hagler :x ' Lacy!... need I say more!!...

'El Magnifico' · Post by **'El Magnifico'** » 16 Sep 2006, 13:31

Whats wrong with the Beyer-Kessler winner?

That would make much more sense than fighting Winky Wright who was campaigning at 154 lbs not long ago or Tarver who is coming off an embarassing loss to Hopkins. With HBO showing Calzaghe's next defence alongside Beyer-Kessler, a match between the winners makes perfect sense. If Calzaghe was to prevail then he nobody could dispute that he is the best super-middle champ since Roy Jones.

Andy Mac · Post by **Andy Mac** » 16 Sep 2006, 13:49

Does anyone think that it is just possible that the reason JC doesn't get the recognition he expects is because he is a southpaw? Southpaws IMO are never as pleasing on the eye, no matter how technically good they are, or powerful for that matter.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 16 Sep 2006, 14:04

Andy Mac wrote:Does anyone think that it is just possible that the reason JC doesn't get the recognition he expects is because he is a southpaw? Southpaws IMO are never as pleasing on the eye, no matter how technically good they are, or powerful for that matter.

No, its because he's had too many periods of inactivity and too many mediocre low key defences!...

To assess Calzaghe unbiased you must not be a Brit

To assess Calzaghe unbiased you must not be a Brit

Re: To assess Calzaghe unbiased you must not be a Brit

Re: To assess Calzaghe unbiased you must not be a Brit

Re: To assess Calzaghe unbiased you must not be a Brit

Re: To assess Calzaghe unbiased you must not be a Brit

Re: To assess Calzaghe unbiased you must not be a Brit

Re: To assess Calzaghe unbiased you must not be a Brit