BoxRec

Evander wrote:1 - Ricky Hatton
2 - Joe Calzaghe
OMG

On 2008?

How could wins over Lazcano and Malignaggi be better than wins over Hopkins and Jones?

gobbles wrote:

Evander wrote:1 - Ricky Hatton
2 - Joe Calzaghe
OMG

On 2008?

How could wins over Lazcano and Malignaggi be better than wins over Hopkins and Jones?

I dont know, maybe because Calzaghe survived against the 43 year old, taking a very dodgy SD.
And then beat a washed up RJJ who was 3-3 in his last 6 bouts.

I guess he is trying to say it does not take much to do better than Calzaghe.

observer1 wrote:

gobbles wrote:

Evander wrote:1 - Ricky Hatton
2 - Joe Calzaghe
OMG

On 2008?

How could wins over Lazcano and Malignaggi be better than wins over Hopkins and Jones?

I dont know, maybe because Calzaghe survived against the 43 year old, taking a very dodgy SD.
And then beat a washed up RJJ who was 3-3 in his last 6 bouts.

I guess he is trying to say it does not take much to do better than Calzaghe.

That's pathetic. Most people made Calzaghe a clear winner over Hopkins, face it. Go trawling through some US sites and see what they thought. The only people saying Hopkins won are Hopkins, Dan Raphael (who had him 1 point up) and all the haters on here and BBC 606, most of whom did not even score the fight and I imagine none of whom were ringside.

Jones wasn't nearly as washed up as Lazcano, who came out of retirement to fight Ricky, while Malignaggi was hopeless against Ngoudjo and N'Dou. Even if you discount the win over Trinidad, which most won't (if you look in the Calzaghe-Jones programme half the US experts were tipping Jones), the wins over Hanshaw and Ajamu were as good as any wins Malignaggi and Lazcano had managed in their whole careers. Malignaggi's best win was over N'Dou (who had lost to Witter), Lazcano's was over a completely shot Stevie Johnson.

To say either of those come even close to the achievement of beating Hopkins or Jones shows what a joke the opinions of people on here are. Boxing is about levels. Hopkins and Jones are a mile above Lazcano and Malignaggi.

How you have the front to give your opinion to any audience under some sort of smug "let's put down Calzaghe, that will make me sound really big" shows how poor this forum is.

You're knowledge of boxing is a total joke.

JDC wrote:1. Calzaghe
2. Hatton
3. Haye
4. Froch
5. Cook
6. Witter
7. Macaranelli
8. Woods
9. Mitchell
10. Munroe/Brook/Skelton

that's about right.

few changes of position.

witter at 5.
woods at 6.
enzo at 7.
cook at 8.
skelton at 10.

MatthewS wrote:

JDC wrote:Why is Ian Napa's name popping up on all these lists.

Seriously, what has he done other than loose everytime he goes in the ring with a decent fighter. Hes lost 6 times for gods sake. Yeah he's European Champ, but the quality of competition within Europe is substand in the lower weight classes. He hasn't even beat anyone good at all.

Record 18 wins 6 loses

Its a list based on 2008 performances, in 2008 he is 2-0, with a succesful defence of his British Title (Moffet, rated 4/10 in Britain and 99th in World) and a succesful challenge for the European Title (Ballone, 24th in World).

To be fair, Moffett was one of the poorest fighters ever approved to fight for a British title.

gobbles wrote:That's pathetic. Most people made Calzaghe a clear winner over Hopkins, face it. Go trawling through some US sites and see what they thought. The only people saying Hopkins won are Hopkins, Dan Raphael (who had him 1 point up) and all the haters on here and BBC 606, most of whom did not even score the fight and I imagine none of whom were ringside.

I think that's a little bit harsh, because it was a fairly difficult fight to score. I certainly don't hate Calzaghe as a boxer and there was no bias in the way I scored his fight with Hopkins. You could've gone for Joe's workrate and half-landing shots, or Bernard's precise countering. I went for the latter and scored it 114-113 for Hopkins. I could see it as clear as 117-111 to Calzaghe but I feel that Hopkins landed the better shots, not many of them, but the better ones all the same. He fought a perfect tactical fight and Joe did get a little lucky I think. Still, that's no reason to be a numpty with people who scored it against Joe, because, after all, it was a close fight.

gobbles wrote:

observer1 wrote:[quote="gobbles

Evander wrote:1 - Ricky Hatton
2 - Joe Calzaghe
OMG

On 2008?

How could wins over Lazcano and Malignaggi be better than wins over Hopkins and Jones?

I dont know, maybe because Calzaghe survived against the 43 year old, taking a very dodgy SD.
And then beat a washed up RJJ who was 3-3 in his last 6 bouts.

I guess he is trying to say it does not take much to do better than Calzaghe.

That's pathetic. Most people made Calzaghe a clear winner over Hopkins, face it. Go trawling through some US sites and see what they thought. The only people saying Hopkins won are Hopkins, Dan Raphael (who had him 1 point up) and all the haters on here and BBC 606, most of whom did not even score the fight and I imagine none of whom were ringside.

Jones wasn't nearly as washed up as Lazcano, who came out of retirement to fight Ricky, while Malignaggi was hopeless against Ngoudjo and N'Dou. Even if you discount the win over Trinidad, which most won't (if you look in the Calzaghe-Jones programme half the US experts were tipping Jones), the wins over Hanshaw and Ajamu were as good as any wins Malignaggi and Lazcano had managed in their whole careers. Malignaggi's best win was over N'Dou (who had lost to Witter), Lazcano's was over a completely shot Stevie Johnson.

To say either of those come even close to the achievement of beating Hopkins or Jones shows what a joke the opinions of people on here are. Boxing is about levels. Hopkins and Jones are a mile above Lazcano and Malignaggi.

How you have the front to give your opinion to any audience under some sort of smug "let's put down Calzaghe, that will make me sound really big" shows how poor this forum is.

You're knowledge of boxing is a total joke.[/quote]

ESPN, Yahoo Sports and Associate Press all hate 114-113 to B Hop.
So did i
Is their "Knowledge of Boxing a joke" too?

gobbles wrote: That's pathetic. Most people made Calzaghe a clear winner over Hopkins, face it. Go trawling through some US sites and see what they thought. The only people saying Hopkins won are Hopkins, Dan Raphael (who had him 1 point up) and all the haters on here and BBC 606, most of whom did not even score the fight and I imagine none of whom were ringside.

Jones wasn't nearly as washed up as Lazcano, who came out of retirement to fight Ricky, while Malignaggi was hopeless against Ngoudjo and N'Dou. Even if you discount the win over Trinidad, which most won't (if you look in the Calzaghe-Jones programme half the US experts were tipping Jones), the wins over Hanshaw and Ajamu were as good as any wins Malignaggi and Lazcano had managed in their whole careers. Malignaggi's best win was over N'Dou (who had lost to Witter), Lazcano's was over a completely shot Stevie Johnson.

To say either of those come even close to the achievement of beating Hopkins or Jones shows what a joke the opinions of people on here are. Boxing is about levels. Hopkins and Jones are a mile above Lazcano and Malignaggi.

How you have the front to give your opinion to any audience under some sort of smug "let's put down Calzaghe, that will make me sound really big" shows how poor this forum is.

You're knowledge of boxing is a total joke.

Whether Calzaghe deserved the decision over Hopkins or not, it is totally inaccurate to say that Calzaghe was 'a clear winner' of that fight. This simply wasnt the case.

And if you genuinely think that there was any real credibility for Calzaghe to take from beating a washed-up 39 year old Roy Jones, then it is your knowledge of boxing that is a 'total joke'. Malignaggi was definitely a more live opponent for Hatton than Jones was for Calzaghe - no doubt.

liamlion wrote:

gobbles wrote: That's pathetic. Most people made Calzaghe a clear winner over Hopkins, face it. Go trawling through some US sites and see what they thought. The only people saying Hopkins won are Hopkins, Dan Raphael (who had him 1 point up) and all the haters on here and BBC 606, most of whom did not even score the fight and I imagine none of whom were ringside.

Jones wasn't nearly as washed up as Lazcano, who came out of retirement to fight Ricky, while Malignaggi was hopeless against Ngoudjo and N'Dou. Even if you discount the win over Trinidad, which most won't (if you look in the Calzaghe-Jones programme half the US experts were tipping Jones), the wins over Hanshaw and Ajamu were as good as any wins Malignaggi and Lazcano had managed in their whole careers. Malignaggi's best win was over N'Dou (who had lost to Witter), Lazcano's was over a completely shot Stevie Johnson.

To say either of those come even close to the achievement of beating Hopkins or Jones shows what a joke the opinions of people on here are. Boxing is about levels. Hopkins and Jones are a mile above Lazcano and Malignaggi.

How you have the front to give your opinion to any audience under some sort of smug "let's put down Calzaghe, that will make me sound really big" shows how poor this forum is.

You're knowledge of boxing is a total joke.

Whether Calzaghe deserved the decision over Hopkins or not, it is totally inaccurate to say that Calzaghe was 'a clear winner' of that fight. This simply wasnt the case.

And if you genuinely think that there was any real credibility for Calzaghe to take from beating a washed-up 39 year old Roy Jones, then it is your knowledge of boxing that is a 'total joke'. Malignaggi was definitely a more live opponent for Hatton than Jones was for Calzaghe - no doubt.

If people genuinely had Hopkins ahead, fine. But Iole, Rafael and the AP guy were the only ones ringside out of about 30 that did and those only by a round. Harold Lederman had it by 5 for Calzaghe, I had it by 3.

I do believe Malignaggi was a live opponent, my problem with the comment that annoyed me was the line "I guess he is trying to say it does not take much to do better than Calzaghe." This is, of course, ridiculous. Like it or not, weighed up against the history of British boxing, Calzaghe has had a pretty amazing year and the constant gripes and putdowns on here are wearisome.

gobbles wrote: If people genuinely had Hopkins ahead, fine. But Iole, Rafael and the AP guy were the only ones ringside out of about 30 that did and those only by a round...

I take your point. But lets no forget another important person at ringside who scored the fight in favour of Hopkins, Fight Judge Adalaide Byrd.

gobbles wrote: I do believe Malignaggi was a live opponent, my problem with the comment that annoyed me was the line "I guess he is trying to say it does not take much to do better than Calzaghe." This is, of course, ridiculous. Like it or not, weighed up against the history of British boxing, Calzaghe has had a pretty amazing year and the constant gripes and putdowns on here are wearisome.

This is the exact problem... forget weighing up the Hopkins and Jones results against history, and instead look at what actually took place.

IMO Calzaghe scrapped by a 43 year old Hopkins and then refused a legitimate call for a rematch by stating that he "didnt do rematches". Clearly the lad has forgotten the name of Mario Veit. Given that Hopkins was the age that he was, I genuinely expected more from Calzaghe and was really disappointed with his performance. Sure he got the decision, but it wasnt a great performance and that surely has to reflect on how Calzaghe is viewed in the grand scheme.

Calzaghe then fought Roy Jones, who doesnt have any credibility left as a top-level fighter. This fight should have taken place 8 years ago and then the result would have actually meant something to the boxing landscape. Due to the severe decline of Roy Jones in the last 5 odd years, any win by Calzaghe will be diminshed as a result of what Jones fails to offer these days. You cannot expect Calzaghe to receive anywhere near the amount of credit for beating Jones in 2008 as he would have done for beating him from 1998 - 2003.

I genuinely dont think Calzaghe has physically achieved a lot this year, albeit on paper his achievements look tremendous. I put more achievement on Calzaghe's performance in beating Kessler (who im sure is gonna clean up the super-middleweight division in the next few years) than i do in relation to his performances against Hopkins and Jones.

Trust me, nobody is going to rate his DOdgy SD win over a 43 year old Hopkins, and win over a wahed up RJJ (who was 3-3 in his last 6 fights)

Remember Larry Holmes and Berbick beating and old Ali?
Remember Holyfield beating and old Foreman?
Remember Brian Nielson and Olver Mccal beating an old Larry Holmes?
John Ruiz beating an old Holyfield?

etc. etc.

These wins have no merit no meaning.
Likewise, the only people who are rating these Calzaghe "wins" are the casual British "Boxing Fan". Who's intrest in boxing will probably end in a few months.

observer1 wrote:Trust me, nobody is going to rate his DOdgy SD win over a 43 year old Hopkins, and win over a wahed up RJJ (who was 3-3 in his last 6 fights)

Remember Larry Holmes and Berbick beating and old Ali?
Remember Holyfield beating and old Foreman?
Remember Brian Nielson and Olver Mccal beating an old Larry Holmes?
John Ruiz beating an old Holyfield?

etc. etc.

These wins have no merit no meaning.
Likewise, the only people who are rating these Calzaghe "wins" are the casual British "Boxing Fan". Who's intrest in boxing will probably end in a few months.

Now you are being either stupid or, more likely, completely disingenuous.

To compare Jones now to Holmes then is ridiculous to say the least. Jones was 39 and still, many American experts would say, still boxing in a very high class. At the very least it was five years after Claude Abrams declared him the best boxer in history after he beat Ruiz.

Holmes was 45, (47 when he faced Nielson) 30lb over his best weight and 10 (or 12) years after he lost his world title to Michael Spinks, by which time he was already considered past it. If you consider that Holmes was at his peak probably about the time of the time of the Cooney fight, he was 13 (or 15) years past his peak. Your analogy is therefore ridiculous and shows little understanding of boxing. For instance, to continually bang-on about Jones being 3-3 going into the Calzaghe fight misses the point. Holyfield was 4-3 in his last seven going in against Tyson. Was Stracey's win over Napoles meaningless because Napoles was washed up? Joe Louis was way more washed up than Jones when he lost to Marciano, but that was seen as a great win. Ali had of course retired twice, had had two fights in 3 years and would, the following year, be revealed to be suffering from Parkinson's Disease, so such an analogy is just sick.

But that seems to be the way of most of the anti-Calzaghe stuff on here. Call Hopkins a 43-year-old man, say Jones was shot. Yet when Hopkins showed he was still a top-level performer by beating Pavlik, no one gives Calzaghe credit for beating him and you just come out with "he deserves a rematch", even though the fight was terrible, HBO has never expressed interest in a rematch and he would be a 44-year-old man by the time such a rematch happened and would slam him for that. Jones is likely to continue boxing so, say he beat Chad Dawson, would that change your opinion of Calzaghe? Of course not. Indeed, whatever he did you would always find something bad in it, because you approach it with a negative point of view.

I would suggest that Calzaghe and Hatton have done a huge amount for boxing in this country. Widening its appeal in the mainstream media, raising the standing of British boxing in the world, attracting millions to the sport who may have written it off as barbaric, inspiring younger boxers, attracting television companies and sponsors to invest in the sport. We are going to see the benefit of that for years to come.

As I don't know you, I have no idea if you genuinely care about British boxing, or even ever watch it live. The majority of Calzaghe attackers strike me as people who sit behind their lap-tops and feel very self-important by putting other people's achievements down. Your statement about "only people who give it credit are casual fans" is so loaded with self loathing, I feel quite sorry for you. I am not a casual fan. I work in the sport and would happily put my knowledge against yours any day of the week.

Rather than trying to pick holes in everything, and come up with completely ignorant comparisons, why don't you actually give some people some credit?

I think people have a problem with Joe fighting Jones is because there were more competitive fights out there for Joe to go after. As much as I don't like to say it, Tarver was probably a better opponent if Joe wanted to enhance his legacy. He had just come off a good win against a British world champion in Clinton Woods (hence, he was a world champion), and had beat Jones twice, once by brutal knockout. And then, Pavlik's name came up quite often, and I truly believe that Kelly wanted the fight, whereas Calzaghe thought differently - the cheek of Enzo Calzaghe when he said that Kelly didn't deserve a shot was unbelievable.

I wouldn't say Froch deserved a shot before Jones though - he was still unproven, had never really had a big fight, and wasn't know at all by HBO. I feel that's changed now, but we all know, deep down, that Calzaghe won't fight him, because it's Joe's nature.

Don't get me wrong, because I don't dislike Joe as a boxer, maybe as a man I feel differently, but what I have to say holds no negative bias for Joe at all. It's just that he seems to want the easier challenges when there are better ones out there. In the vast majority of his fights, especially the big ones, he's had big advantages. Against Lacy and Kessler, he was at home. Against Hopkins and Jones, it was age. I would've loved to see Joe go to Atlantic City or one of the big Las Vegas casinos and do what Hopkins did to Pavlik, but it was never going to happen, mainly because Joe wanted the low-risk/high-reward nonsense.

If Joe did have one more fight then it would be against Johnson. He wouldn't entertain the thought of Dawson at 175lbs, Froch at 168lbs (I still think he can make it), or a Hopkins rematch. All because he might lose, whereas with Johnson, that won't happen.

The fact is though Gobbles - Glen Johnson hammared Roy Jones for 8 rounds, then KO'd him so he was down for minutes in the 9th. Glen Johnson is a good fighter, but hardly a great and Roy hasn't done any improving - despite what you or Steve Bunce think.

and as for the common myth that Hopkins did NOTHING after the 4th of their fight. I'd forgotton that the extremely pro Calzaghe commentary on Setanta gave 10th to Hopkins and even the 12th was hard to score (fight was repeated again) - Hopkins won that fight.

stujones wrote:The fact is though Gobbles - Glen Johnson hammared Roy Jones for 8 rounds, then KO'd him so he was down for minutes in the 9th. Glen Johnson is a good fighter, but hardly a great and Roy hasn't done any improving - despite what you or Steve Bunce think.

and as for the common myth that Hopkins did NOTHING after the 4th of their fight. I'd forgotton that the extremely pro Calzaghe commentary on Setanta gave 10th to Hopkins and even the 12th was hard to score (fight was repeated again) - Hopkins won that fight.

Stu, you have to know the difference between fact and opinion. The fight between Jones and Johnson was close until Johnson knocked him out, you may think Johnson hammered him for 8 rounds, but that's your opinion. A fact is that Jones won his last three fights before going in against Calzaghe.

Hopkins did plenty after round 4 v Calzaghe, mostly with the top of his head. With his fists, he was completely outworked. Setanta gave the fight a draw or to Calzaghe by a round, HBO scored in by 5 to Calzaghe. Hopkins had better ties with HBO than Calzaghe, so why would they be pro Calzaghe. I gave Hopkins the tenth, for his spurt after he had dived on the floor and rolled around to buy time. If Setanta was pro Calzaghe, but that doesn't mean the scoring was.

Why do you have this belief that everyone was biased on Calzaghe's side? The only judge that gave it to Hopkins, Adalaide Byrd, comes from Philadelphia. Maybe you scored it wrong? Accept the verdict.

lol how things change in just 5/6 years!! Froch is the only one still going strong.