BoxRec

Wrists wrote:Greats as in Hagler, hearns etc etc - no your right

The next level below definitely.

Makes me laugh that out three best guys, Calzaghe, hatton and Khan get such a slating on here.

Yet we positively get all vexed over Froch, Witter, Murray etc etc

Sad british trait

Wrists

Maybe. Or just a generalisation. Hatton and Calzaghe ARE our two top guys, with Haye fast approaching. That's pretty much a fact. Doesn't make them all-time greats, though. Doesn't mean they've done everything perfectly and are immune from criticism. Witter isn't half the fighter Hatton is and Froch isn't half the fighter Calzaghe is. Unless proven otherwise, that's pretty much fact, too. Khan and Murray are talented prospects, nothing more, nothing less.

To say it's a British trait is a weird one. I know what you mean by that, but I've never really felt that way. I love a winner. Calzaghe/Hatton are winners, but they also probably could have been even better - even bigger winners in my eyes. That's the only dissapointment.

17/18 fights is waaaaay too long to unify in my opinion, and he should've dropped that belt and moved up because there were a lot of "names" up at 175lbs, and Joe could've beat them all for me, baring Jones in his complete pomp.

Wrists wrote:Greats as in Hagler, hearns etc etc - no your right

The next level below definitely.

Makes me laugh that out three best guys, Calzaghe, hatton and Khan get such a slating on here.

Yet we positively get all vexed over Froch, Witter, Murray etc etc

Sad british trait

Wrists

It is, its a case of everyone here trying to prove how "hardcore" they are by slating our successful, famous fighters and following the small hall, low profile guys like Witter.

Yes, you can pick holes in Clazaghe and Hatton's records all day if you like, you can even use the same arguments about Ali and Sugar Ray (Both of 'em) but if you want to spend you days as a bitter, ne'er-do-well on an internet forum then go ahead....

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

Wrists wrote:Greats as in Hagler, hearns etc etc - no your right

The next level below definitely.

Makes me laugh that out three best guys, Calzaghe, hatton and Khan get such a slating on here.

Yet we positively get all vexed over Froch, Witter, Murray etc etc

Sad british trait

Wrists

It is, its a case of everyone here trying to prove how "hardcore" they are by slating our successful, famous fighters and following the small hall, low profile guys like Witter.

Yes, you can pick holes in Clazaghe and Hatton's records all day if you like, you can even use the same arguments about Ali and Sugar Ray (Both of 'em) but if you want to spend you days as a bitter, ne'er-do-well on an internet forum then go ahead....

I reiterate for those in the cheap seats, I have no problem with RJJ facing Joe. I even give Roy a decent chance. I have a problem with Team Calzaghe (not just Enzo, Joe has said it too) saying Kelly isn't a credible opponent and also Joe stating in his book in 2006 that RJJ isn't a worthy opponent after his KOs by Tarver and Johnson.

Perhaps wins over current P4P fighters like Ajamu, Hamshaw and Trinidad have made him a more credible opponent than Kelly with his rubbish wins over Zuniga, Miranda and Taylor (x2)?!

On the whole I agree with Emerson, it's fair enough if JC wants to fight RJJ instead of KP, but why is there the need to come out with the "Pavlik is not worthy" gobshite?? When he clearly is

Wrists wrote:So who did he not fight.

Ottke - you would have said 'light puncher' no chance bla bla bla
Beyer - glass jaw
Mundine - do me a favour.

In and around his weight he has in the main fought the best guys available amongst admittedly some awful fighters.

Listen, do you honestly think anyone else has sat down compliled a list of top 10 fighters and fought them all - bullshit

Take off the I hate JC specs

Wrists

PS. Why do most respected magazines and websites have JC as top 3/4 pfp??????

He has been very carefully matched and a counter puncher like Mundine would have found huge holes in Joe's defence.

Yes, he made himself a nice little earner beating Kessler and Lacy - and showed longevity before that - but ppl had to beg and beg for those fights.

The Hopkins fight ended up begging new questions, as Joe barely looked professional in there. Should those slaps really have been scored by the judges?

Let's not forget in 2004 and 2005 no one really classed him as a world champion.

Before that, Joe was giving messy performances defending his title. Remember the old Sky Sports coverage? "This time, Joe needs a good performance, like the one against Eubank; he's not really set the world alight since then."

Jay Larkin, top brass at Showtime in those days, said Joe wasn't ready for big fights, after seeing either the Reid or the Starie fight.

Dean Francis took Starie apart and Reid has been soundly outpointed by lesser names.

Let him have his "I'm too old & fat to make the weight" cash in, vs Jones, but if we actually believed any of the rhetoric we'd be silly buggers would'n't we?

Peter Hick wrote:So Peter Manfredo deserved a shot against Joe but Pavlik does not!?

Absolute garbage from Enzo! Truly pathetic!

Its no secret that Manfredo was chosen for one reason only - a platform to the general american public who will have seen the contender. Many US viewers had still not heard of Joe. However, when presented with Manfredo who they'd watched week in week out, get a shot at a world title, it meant exposure for Joe, with a view to getting bigger fights.

fist wrote:

Peter Hick wrote:So Peter Manfredo deserved a shot against Joe but Pavlik does not!?

Absolute garbage from Enzo! Truly pathetic!

Its no secret that Manfredo was chosen for one reason only - a platform to the general american public who will have seen the contender. Many US viewers had still not heard of Joe. However, when presented with Manfredo who they'd watched week in week out, get a shot at a world title, it meant exposure for Joe, with a view to getting bigger fights.

Whatever happened to "The Contender" series?

Was it cancelled due to poor ratings?

I don't think the series did too badly in the ratings, but ESPN have not renewed its contract. I believe SRL is looking at other stations to take on the format.

Eraserhead wrote:

Wrists wrote:Greats as in Hagler, hearns etc etc - no your right

The next level below definitely.

Makes me laugh that out three best guys, Calzaghe, hatton and Khan get such a slating on here.

Yet we positively get all vexed over Froch, Witter, Murray etc etc

Sad british trait

Wrists

Maybe. Or just a generalisation. Hatton and Calzaghe ARE our two top guys, with Haye fast approaching. That's pretty much a fact. Doesn't make them all-time greats, though. Doesn't mean they've done everything perfectly and are immune from criticism. Witter isn't half the fighter Hatton is and Froch isn't half the fighter Calzaghe is. Unless proven otherwise, that's pretty much fact, too. Khan and Murray are talented prospects, nothing more, nothing less.

To say it's a British trait is a weird one. I know what you mean by that, but I've never really felt that way. I love a winner. Calzaghe/Hatton are winners, but they also probably could have been even better - even bigger winners in my eyes. That's the only dissapointment.

I love a winner too, and I have never really bought into the British trait of loving losers.
British sports fans love a good story or a bloody good trier who happens to be a nice guy...who doesn't love that though? Surely 95% of the Worlds sports fans eat that up, not just the Brits.

Calzaghe is annoying because he had so much to give and could have achieved much more.
Big difference between holding that against him and holding hi being a "winner" against him.

I dont even think Brits love losers

Look at the hype that hamilton receieved for winning those races and being on the verge of ,. As soon as he contrived to lose the driver's championship they hype dropped considerably

Also, look at the last two winners of the sports personality award. Zara Philips and even more bizarrely Joe Calzaghe. If Britain loved losers last year one of Hatton and Hamilton would have won. The only reason why Joe won is because he was a winner, as he sure aint got a personality and probably still couldnt be picked out of a lineup by a majority of people

Lastly we come to the standard bearer, Tim Henman. This guy gets more abuse than a sex offender. Even though 12 out of the 15 Wimbledons he was eligble for were won by 'rubbish' like Federer and Sampras,the press still didn't give him a break

As for the England football team..........

Nah, not seeing the loser love. Not in recent times anyways


Back on topic

Enzo is talking bollocks for reasons already outlined in this thread. I can fully understand why Joe wants to take on Jones and I think it is harder than people think. However, no need to talk trash about Pavlik like that

But then Enzo to me has not regained his lost credibility from his diatribe in the immmediate aftermath of the Macca Haye fight so whatever he says, the parts I can understand anyways, I just brush off as the rantings of a man who is bit long in the tooth

lefthook82 wrote:I dont even think Brits love losers

Look at the hype that hamilton receieved for winning those races and being on the verge of ,. As soon as he contrived to lose the driver's championship they hype dropped considerably

Also, look at the last two winners of the sports personality award. Zara Philips and even more bizarrely Joe Calzaghe. If Britain loved losers last year one of Hatton and Hamilton would have won. The only reason why Joe won is because he was a winner, as he sure aint got a personality and probably still couldnt be picked out of a lineup by a majority of people

Lastly we come to the standard bearer, Tim Henman. This guy gets more abuse than a sex offender. Even though 12 out of the 15 Wimbledons he was eligble for were won by 'rubbish' like Federer and Sampras,the press still didn't give him a break

As for the England football team..........

Nah, not seeing the loser love. Not in recent times anyways


Back on topic

Enzo is talking bollocks for reasons already outlined in this thread. I can fully understand why Joe wants to take on Jones and I think it is harder than people think. However, no need to talk trash about Pavlik like that

But then Enzo to me has not regained his lost credibility from his diatribe in the immmediate aftermath of the Macca Haye fight so whatever he says, the parts I can understand anyways, I just brush off as the rantings of a man who is bit long in the tooth

C

Calzaghe hasnt got personality???

When i met him he was brimming full of it, about 12 pints worth of "personality" from what i could gather...

Fair enough@ galaxy I wont argue with someone who has met him in person

I'm going on the likes of Jonathon ross where I thought he was a bit boring

Joe seems like he struggles a bit when taken out of his normal surroundings.
May explain why he doesn't come across too well when on TV.

Still, everyone is a riot when they have had 12 pints though(some literally!)

Enzo is forgetting that very few people knew who Joe Calzaghe was until about 2006, thanks to Joe being tucked away in Wales & having 99.9% of his fights in Britain.

Joe should have fought Roy Jones EIGHT years ago.

A meeting in 2008 will just be a farce & a way to pad each others pension fund.

Did you know HBO have subtitles when Enzo is being interviewed.

And he wonders why SKY won't use him as an analyst. He does not speak English.

Are you serious?