Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 14 Jan 2021, 06:40
Yeah I thought that’s why RJJ looked apologetic, it wasn’t actually a punch.
BoxRec
Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Page 13 of 22
Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 14 Jan 2021, 06:50
Why was Lennox’s cv insane? Tucker, the Croatian bloke, Tua, Morrison, getting chinned twice, a past it Tyson. The one fighter we all wanted to see he never boxed!
Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 14 Jan 2021, 08:04
Ruddock, Holyfield, Mercer, Bruno, Mason, McCall, Biggs, Tucker, Golota, Vitali, Tua, Grant, Bowe in Oly final, Briggs, Tyson - insane.
Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 14 Jan 2021, 08:24
But he wasn't brave enough to face Eubank... there will always be that mark against him...coghaugen11 wrote: ↑14 Jan 2021, 08:04 Ruddock, Holyfield, Mercer, Bruno, Mason, McCall, Biggs, Tucker, Golota, Vitali, Tua, Grant, Bowe in Oly final, Briggs, Tyson - insane.
Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 14 Jan 2021, 08:35
Whatever the shot in their contest - A Roy Jones' with a hint of ambition would have followed it up. I honestly believe that was was the most hurt / buzzed Calzaghe was in his career, legal shot or not. Jones though after the Tarver rematch always seemed to be more content in going the distance and proving to fans / critics he had a chin as opposed to winning the big fights. Did something similar vs Trinidad the fight before. The 24/7 in the build up was not good viewing, Jones' seemed more content to enjoy the "last few fights" - play sparring with his fat friend.
Re Hopkins - can see the point, but I will disagree - as you probably know I scored the fight for Hopkins and I think that extra bit of youth and critically speed of Hopkins of the late 90s, turn of the millenium would have been too much for Joe - especially as Joe was dogged with injuries at that time himself. Whilst their fight was a super bore, I think it the corner work was very telling that night. Enzo had completely lost it and they needed the guile of Dean Powell to really get back some control and get Joe back on track..... on the other side, tellingly IMO, Freddie Roach (whether you agree or not) really thought Bernard had in the bag and there was no urgency there...... basically I felt Roach thought all Hopkins' needed to do was survive from about the 10th and the title was his - Roach was furious at the decision..... I honestly think had that had been RIchardson in the corner, Hopkins would have won beyond doubt that night also - always open to debate though. Whilst Joe has been interviewed since and seems give an air that he knew it was always in the bag, his reaction post fight was not one of someone who thought he won (whether it was down to fighting abroad or whatever). Just my feeling that Hopkins had lost more than Calzaghe at that stage of their career, still both were exceptional fighters but Hopkins' needed to dictate the pace in the tail end of his career and for the most part he did - but when he didn't, he struggled. I just think in 2001 etc there was a little bit more speed and stamina in his tank than in 2008. The extra weight also probably suited Joe more than Bernard.
You make a valid point re Calzaghe also not being a constant - I guess the fact he put a career best display so late in his career makes it harder to really pin point when his peak was - similar to Hopkins and Holyfield also for that matter. The biggest question mark around Calzaghe was his own power. When you watch his amateur fight against Dean Francis you can see there was some real potential in terms of his power - but the sad aspect was that his early pro career were against some real poor opposition and when he stepped up, that's when the damage to his hands really became apparent also. So I think the one massive question mark will always be - what would have happened had his hands not played up. Would he have been KOing the likes of Robin Reid or was the fact he was stepping up always going to impact on his number of KO's - that's the big question I will always have about Calzaghe.
Re Hopkins - can see the point, but I will disagree - as you probably know I scored the fight for Hopkins and I think that extra bit of youth and critically speed of Hopkins of the late 90s, turn of the millenium would have been too much for Joe - especially as Joe was dogged with injuries at that time himself. Whilst their fight was a super bore, I think it the corner work was very telling that night. Enzo had completely lost it and they needed the guile of Dean Powell to really get back some control and get Joe back on track..... on the other side, tellingly IMO, Freddie Roach (whether you agree or not) really thought Bernard had in the bag and there was no urgency there...... basically I felt Roach thought all Hopkins' needed to do was survive from about the 10th and the title was his - Roach was furious at the decision..... I honestly think had that had been RIchardson in the corner, Hopkins would have won beyond doubt that night also - always open to debate though. Whilst Joe has been interviewed since and seems give an air that he knew it was always in the bag, his reaction post fight was not one of someone who thought he won (whether it was down to fighting abroad or whatever). Just my feeling that Hopkins had lost more than Calzaghe at that stage of their career, still both were exceptional fighters but Hopkins' needed to dictate the pace in the tail end of his career and for the most part he did - but when he didn't, he struggled. I just think in 2001 etc there was a little bit more speed and stamina in his tank than in 2008. The extra weight also probably suited Joe more than Bernard.
You make a valid point re Calzaghe also not being a constant - I guess the fact he put a career best display so late in his career makes it harder to really pin point when his peak was - similar to Hopkins and Holyfield also for that matter. The biggest question mark around Calzaghe was his own power. When you watch his amateur fight against Dean Francis you can see there was some real potential in terms of his power - but the sad aspect was that his early pro career were against some real poor opposition and when he stepped up, that's when the damage to his hands really became apparent also. So I think the one massive question mark will always be - what would have happened had his hands not played up. Would he have been KOing the likes of Robin Reid or was the fact he was stepping up always going to impact on his number of KO's - that's the big question I will always have about Calzaghe.
Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 14 Jan 2021, 08:37
Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 14 Jan 2021, 09:12
Yeh, he dropped Tito twice as well, but was happy coasting to a decision win.stujones wrote: ↑14 Jan 2021, 08:35 Whatever the shot in their contest - A Roy Jones' with a hint of ambition would have followed it up. I honestly believe that was was the most hurt / buzzed Calzaghe was in his career, legal shot or not. Jones though after the Tarver rematch always seemed to be more content in going the distance and proving to fans / critics he had a chin as opposed to winning the big fights. Did something similar vs Trinidad the fight before. The 24/7 in the build up was not good viewing, Jones' seemed more content to enjoy the "last few fights" - play sparring with his fat friend.
Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 14 Jan 2021, 09:16
Weird.Deserter wrote: ↑14 Jan 2021, 08:24But he wasn't brave enough to face Eubank... there will always be that mark against him...coghaugen11 wrote: ↑14 Jan 2021, 08:04 Ruddock, Holyfield, Mercer, Bruno, Mason, McCall, Biggs, Tucker, Golota, Vitali, Tua, Grant, Bowe in Oly final, Briggs, Tyson - insane.
Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 14 Jan 2021, 09:18
Wow, he was far more hurt and buzzed against Mitchell. Not even remotely close. Dropped like a sack of spuds and momentarily out.
Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 14 Jan 2021, 09:56
I agree he looked very buzzed when rising against Mitchell....but I thought he was buzzed for longer against Jones. At least Mitchell went for it.
Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 14 Jan 2021, 22:43
stujones wrote: ↑14 Jan 2021, 08:35 Whatever the shot in their contest - A Roy Jones' with a hint of ambition would have followed it up. I honestly believe that was was the most hurt / buzzed Calzaghe was in his career, legal shot or not. Jones though after the Tarver rematch always seemed to be more content in going the distance and proving to fans / critics he had a chin as opposed to winning the big fights. Did something similar vs Trinidad the fight before. The 24/7 in the build up was not good viewing, Jones' seemed more content to enjoy the "last few fights" - play sparring with his fat friend.
Re Hopkins - can see the point, but I will disagree - as you probably know I scored the fight for Hopkins and I think that extra bit of youth and critically speed of Hopkins of the late 90s, turn of the millenium would have been too much for Joe - especially as Joe was dogged with injuries at that time himself. Whilst their fight was a super bore, I think it the corner work was very telling that night. Enzo had completely lost it and they needed the guile of Dean Powell to really get back some control and get Joe back on track..... on the other side, tellingly IMO, Freddie Roach (whether you agree or not) really thought Bernard had in the bag and there was no urgency there...... basically I felt Roach thought all Hopkins' needed to do was survive from about the 10th and the title was his - Roach was furious at the decision..... I honestly think had that had been RIchardson in the corner, Hopkins would have won beyond doubt that night also - always open to debate though. Whilst Joe has been interviewed since and seems give an air that he knew it was always in the bag, his reaction post fight was not one of someone who thought he won (whether it was down to fighting abroad or whatever). Just my feeling that Hopkins had lost more than Calzaghe at that stage of their career, still both were exceptional fighters but Hopkins' needed to dictate the pace in the tail end of his career and for the most part he did - but when he didn't, he struggled. I just think in 2001 etc there was a little bit more speed and stamina in his tank than in 2008. The extra weight also probably suited Joe more than Bernard.
You make a valid point re Calzaghe also not being a constant - I guess the fact he put a career best display so late in his career makes it harder to really pin point when his peak was - similar to Hopkins and Holyfield also for that matter. The biggest question mark around Calzaghe was his own power. When you watch his amateur fight against Dean Francis you can see there was some real potential in terms of his power - but the sad aspect was that his early pro career were against some real poor opposition and when he stepped up, that's when the damage to his hands really became apparent also. So I think the one massive question mark will always be - what would have happened had his hands not played up. Would he have been KOing the likes of Robin Reid or was the fact he was stepping up always going to impact on his number of KO's - that's the big question I will always have about Calzaghe.
- Guess you weren't around then.
Popkins high pt was Tito post 9/11. After making gruel purses under DKing, he signed a big $ contract with Lou Dibella who lined up Joe and the Roy rematch when both near their high Pts.
Popkins balked to end up owing Lou $3mil broken contract by the court judgement. Enter Oscar who made Popkins his first $ enough to settle with Lou such that now Poppy a wealthy fella.
Curious you had him winning after Joe slapped his beltline that sent him down on all fours yelping like a kicked cur. Has a history of this kinda sissy behavior before and after until his last fight.
Before they all eventually fought, I watched just about ever Roy, Joe, and Popkins fight. Roy and Joe always impressed. Popkins propped up by King obviously inferior vs inferior comp who won his first title on an obvious error by the ref who admitted his mistake when shown the footage. That was his 3rd title fight after 2 miserable previous showings.
I could go on, but really, Popkins is embarrasing. If you want to claim him, no prob, just don't adulterate your facts.
Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 15 Jan 2021, 13:53
Hopkins had no real competition on his middleweight reign. The stacked era off of the 70s/80s conveyor belt had ended. The first useful young middle he faced in 12 years was Jermain Taylor.
Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 15 Jan 2021, 14:42
Thats always been my point when the quality of Frochs record is discussed: he simply had nowhere else to earn money.The Super Six forced him to fight these fighters, win, lose or draw! Paid very handsomely. Why wouldn’t he.....
Knowing now what an egotistic fella Froch is, its a certainty he would have taken the easiest route available for him to avoid having that nose job he required after he retired.
Also - Froch lost a few of those fights too. Proving he never was at the level Calzaghe was.
Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 15 Jan 2021, 15:01
Calzaghe was more inclined to the easy route than Froch ever was.
Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 15 Jan 2021, 15:10
Hopkins would have never tried to get JC disqualified if he thought he was winning.
Also there was an deal for Hopkins v JC years back but Hopkins doubled his price the night before.
Also there was an deal for Hopkins v JC years back but Hopkins doubled his price the night before.
Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 16 Jan 2021, 13:18
Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 16 Jan 2021, 13:59
He didn’t want to get beat by a white boy
Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 16 Jan 2021, 14:14
I don't see a question mark on joe. He wanted the big fights but they just weren't there. When they were he took advantage. Finished undefeated and his close win against bhop lools v impressive in light of bhops fights after.
Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 16 Jan 2021, 21:08
Did he lose to a white boi? Is Kovalev classed as a white boi?
How about before Calzaghe fight?
Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 17 Jan 2021, 08:24
Well I’m guessing not before Calzaghe otherwise shouting ‘I’d never let a white boy beat me’ in the middle of a huge crowd would sound fairly stupid wouldn’t it?Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑16 Jan 2021, 21:08Did he lose to a white boi? Is Kovalev classed as a white boi?
How about before Calzaghe fight?
Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 17 Jan 2021, 08:27
Only ones he lost to was after.. kovalev and Joe Smith who knocked his silly ass out the ring.jameswilson wrote: ↑17 Jan 2021, 08:24Well I’m guessing not before Calzaghe otherwise shouting ‘I’d never let a white boy beat me’ in the middle of a huge crowd would sound fairly stupid wouldn’t it?Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑16 Jan 2021, 21:08Did he lose to a white boi? Is Kovalev classed as a white boi?
How about before Calzaghe fight?
Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 17 Jan 2021, 09:00
jameswilson wrote: ↑17 Jan 2021, 08:24Well I’m guessing not before Calzaghe otherwise shouting ‘I’d never let a white boy beat me’ in the middle of a huge crowd would sound fairly stupid wouldn’t it?Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑16 Jan 2021, 21:08Did he lose to a white boi? Is Kovalev classed as a white boi?
How about before Calzaghe fight?
Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 18 Jan 2021, 17:34
Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 18 Jan 2021, 17:36
ya, just like everyone is so affectionate about froch and doesnt like to slag him off
Re: Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark
Posted: 18 Jan 2021, 17:45
I don’t think people necessarily liked Carl. We certainly enjoyed his career though.