Joe: "Screw Hopkins"

[Autobarn]

I think a defeat would have been good for Joe, as he would not go by the "no rematches" philosophy (hopefully). And it would have made him more determined, arguably.

I wish there was no money in the oldies tour. Boxing is milking the grandpas and not developing the younger fighters so well. Joe won a handful of good title defences, won two unifications, but there is a paucity of top contenders. Inkin, Froch, Balszay, whoever - a couple more of those type of fights would have strengthened his reign & provided a couple more compelling fights.

Someone will no doubt say, "those fights don't MAKE SENSE" (too risky, not financially rewarding enough". But it would be funny when he was HOF eligible that he didn't get inducted for fighting too many patsies.

[Captain Hook]

Inkin won't even face Froch, let alone Calzaghe.......as someone mentioned, there will always be someone there who people demand you face.

Inkin is no more of a name than Sheika was, or Brewer, Bika - even Starie.

[observer1]

People may not like Calzaghe or the way his career has been handled, but it is difficult to argue against that he is the best 160-168 pound fighter out there, and that he is not one of the best British fighters ever

That is the point though. A near ten-year reign. Guys like Tito, Hopkins, Jones, Toney and others all in nearby divisions (with Joe bleating about moving weight anymore year in and year out). He should have put it beyond doubt yonks ago. Instead there will always be huge question marks, not over his talent but over his career and his desire.

A wasted talent in my book, as well as one of the most consistently dull fighters to have laced on the gloves. Endless pointless fights, miscue performances and the odd decent fight thrown in to show what could have been.

Joe and Jones can have their end of the pier show, personally I will be glad to see both of them retire. Jones humiliated himself before/during the Tito fight.

Down the line I cannot see myself ever wanting to watch another of Joe's fights, not a personal slur, if you are talking Welsh boxing then give me a stack of Colin Jones fights any day of the week.

Exactley how i feel.

No, it's not me being a "Calzaghe hater" as some of the people like to put it. It's the truth. allegedly engineered his career to take the road with the least possible risk, after his eventual sack, allegedly is new beginning to shed some "light" onto the reality of his career.

[Autobarn]

Inkin won't even face Froch, let alone Calzaghe.......as someone mentioned, there will always be someone there who people demand you face.

Inkin is no more of a name than Sheika was, or Brewer, Bika - even Starie.

well that's the problem with these WBO gimps. They avoid each other, wait for titles to get vacated. Inkin can certainly fight - as seen in wins over Veit and Zuniga - but he is a pale shadow of what he could have been had he been pushed for the title shot.

Calzaghe hasn't fought a contender who can fight who was actually on his way up. That's my point.

[stujones]

Terry,

I think your previous post is spot on, but I would like to take it futher and say that although I can see your point that there is "no arguements over his talent" but I think because of his lack of desire you can argue over his talent. We just don't really know how good Joe was - which sounds daft in a 10 year championship career.

I'll re-word, we just don't know how GREAT Joe was. His wins in his reign obviously show he is pretty damn good. However, had he fought Hopkins/Jones etc etc etc when both around the peak - say 2001. Would he still be mentioned in Boxing forums or would he be a forgotton fighter not in anyones top 10 best Britains of all time and certainly not booked for the HoF.

You can call me a "Calzaghe hater" but personally, I think Jones/Hopkins/Toney and a fair few others would have finished Joe's championship career at the half way stage, POSSIBLY (the man doesn't know how to lose, so we don't know his reaction) retired him and he would be known more as a belt warmer than a great champion. Might be looking at him negatively, well not might it is, but personally I think in terms of talent these guys in their peak are at a different level and would have exposed Joe. They did so to plenty of other damn good fighters who probably would have beaten 90% of the title defences Joe made. I mean the likes of Keith Holmes, William Joppy, James Toney (vs Jones), Virgil Hill, Clinton Woods, Griffin, Eric Hardin, Reggie Johnson, Eric Lucas etc etc.... some of these have proven themselves greats in their own right after the loses - the likes of Toney, Hopkns, Hill etc.

Joe never fought them, so while no one can deny him not being very good - his standing and also his exact talent can be questioned. I've heard people this week saying because Hopkins said the Pavlik fight was his greatest performance, it must mean Joe fought and beat a prime Hopkins. Yet, Joe's OWN comments on how he can see how people thought Hopkins won is considered bollocks.

[banjo]

I watched Joe v Hopkins with pissed vision on the night. So earlier today I went out and bought the DVD(£3 bargain bin at HMV - shows how well it must've been selling eh ) I will now watch it sober and see what I think.

[banjo]

Just watched it again and I reckon 114-113 in favour of joe.

One of the scrappiest, uninspiring 'world' championship fights I've ever seen in my life and that DVD is going into a cupboard hopefully never to be seen again.

Hopkins landed the cleaner and more impressive punches but these were few and far between, both fighters hit thin air, gloves and arms with an awful lot of punches, the low blows in the 10th and 11th rounds were low blows as the replay clearly shows.

Hopkins only has himself to blame for the defeat, if he'd spent as much time punching as he did holding then he wouldn't be crying robbery, IMO Hopkins was very lucky not to have points deducted for holding, I remember Frank Bruno getting penalised for far less in the fight with Tyson in '89.

[Coco]

Inkin won't even face Froch, let alone Calzaghe.......as someone mentioned, there will always be someone there who people demand you face.

Inkin is no more of a name than Sheika was, or Brewer, Bika - even Starie.

well that's the problem with these WBO gimps. They avoid each other, wait for titles to get vacated. Inkin can certainly fight - as seen in wins over Veit and Zuniga - but he is a pale shadow of what he could have been had he been pushed for the title shot.

Calzaghe hasn't fought a contender who can fight who was actually on his way up. That's my point.

Lacy and Kessler are both obvious exceptions, both unbeaten highly touted champions
Mark Delaney was unbeaten tipped to win and fighting on home territory
Sheika was definetely on his way up and had beaten Glen Johnson in his previous fight
Starie and Reid had both only lost once and were certainly moving forwards
Veit was unbeaten, and the Germans were so confident they paid well over the odds to get him back to Germany for the rematch
Mitchell was a long standing world champion who had only lost on a split decision to Ottke in Germany in a unification in his last outing
Mkrtchian had only lost to Inkin, just knocked out long standing no.1 contender Barr, and came back to win the European title
Nobody wanted to fight Bika who has since won the contender and is being primed for a world title now
And you can add to that faded but very live champions in Eubank, Hopkins, Woodhall and Brewer

[stujones]

Lacy and Kessler are both obvious exceptions, both unbeaten highly touted champions
Mark Delaney was unbeaten tipped to win and fighting on home territory
Sheika was definetely on his way up and had beaten Glen Johnson in his previous fight
Starie and Reid had both only lost once and were certainly moving forwards
Veit was unbeaten, and the Germans were so confident they paid well over the odds to get him back to Germany for the rematch
Mitchell was a long standing world champion who had only lost on a split decision to Ottke in Germany in a unification in his last outing
Mkrtchian had only lost to Inkin, just knocked out long standing no.1 contender Barr, and came back to win the European title
Nobody wanted to fight Bika who has since won the contender and is being primed for a world title now
And you can add to that faded but very live champions in Eubank, Hopkins, Woodhall and Brewer

Joe? Is that you? LOL!.

Robin Reid - moving forward? He lost to Malinga, then beat some fella named Townsend, then lost to Joe, then lost to Branco - so he was on a run of 1-4 - moving forward?

Starie - yep, I was a fan of Starie. Its not a bad win, but he had been brutalised by Francis - it wasn't some controvesial decision. He did go on to beat a weight drained Woods, then struggled with Baker between the Francis and Calzaghe fights. He was good, but always more style over substance - an underated win in a stinker of a fight.

Omar Sheika - lost to Tony Booth, struggled with Toks Owoh and got a lucky decision vs Johnson. Lost EVERYTIME he stepped into world class. Lost to Lacy (which says enough).

Delaney was the favourite - something I could never understand, was he any good? Well subsequent performances show he wasn't even domestic title class.

Mitchell - Long standing Champion, well less than a 2 year reign. Oh and this split decision loss gets mentioned. I hate to know what fight that one judge was watching. Ottke won 10 of the 12 rounds.

Mr No Vowels - he didn't just lose to Inkin he got smashed by Inkin (who I don't rate that much). Oh his win over the "long standing" WBO #1 (as if that is some massive achievement) Freeman Barr saved us another mis match. He lost his EBU title Gogiya which says alot. If you would be happy for Ricky to defend his title against Ted Bami - then I guess No vowels was acceptable.

Bika is 0-2-1 against world champions. Bute beat him more convincingly, struggled with Soliman which shows his standing.

[thepocketrocket]

Excellent post by Coco, that says it all really....will just add that I'm sick of people questioning the Mitchell decision for Sven, its pure revisionism, Ottke, as Coco said won AT LEAST ten out of the twelve

[Coco]

Excellent post by Coco, that says it all really....will just add that I'm sick of people questioning the Mitchell decision for Sven, its pure revisionism, Ottke, as Coco said won AT LEAST ten out of the twelve

Lol Stu wrote that, not me!

[thepocketrocket]

Oh jesus, it was my birthday yesterday, im still not with it!! your the one talking cobblers, now I get it!!!

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Excellent post by Coco, that says it all really....will just add that I'm sick of people questioning the Mitchell decision for Sven, its pure revisionism, Ottke, as Coco said won AT LEAST ten out of the twelve

I always presumed the Mitchell win must have been 1 of Otkes many robberies. Which 1s werent legit other than Reid and Larson?? Anyone?

[thepocketrocket]

It was probably Ottkes greatest night. bar the Brewer matches, he just toyed with Mitchell, Mitchell barely landed a punch...I was on ESB reading the RBR, at the start of the night I joked they may rob Sven..the fight materialised and they damn sure tried!

Im actually not sure how man robberies Sven had, it has become fashionable to say these fights were fixed, but the only three I can think of as being iffy are Brewer(1) Larsen and Reid(and if you score the fight from the judges perspective it was a draw, its the ref who was a joke)

[Autobarn]

Lacy and Kessler are both obvious exceptions, both unbeaten highly touted champions
Mark Delaney was unbeaten tipped to win and fighting on home territory
Sheika was definetely on his way up and had beaten Glen Johnson in his previous fight
Starie and Reid had both only lost once and were certainly moving forwards
Veit was unbeaten, and the Germans were so confident they paid well over the odds to get him back to Germany for the rematch
Mitchell was a long standing world champion who had only lost on a split decision to Ottke in Germany in a unification in his last outing
Mkrtchian had only lost to Inkin, just knocked out long standing no.1 contender Barr, and came back to win the European title
Nobody wanted to fight Bika who has since won the contender and is being primed for a world title now
And you can add to that faded but very live champions in Eubank, Hopkins, Woodhall and Brewer

Joe? Is that you? LOL!.

Robin Reid - moving forward? He lost to Malinga, then beat some fella named Townsend, then lost to Joe, then lost to Branco - so he was on a run of 1-4 - moving forward?

Starie - yep, I was a fan of Starie. Its not a bad win, but he had been brutalised by Francis - it wasn't some controvesial decision. He did go on to beat a weight drained Woods, then struggled with Baker between the Francis and Calzaghe fights. He was good, but always more style over substance - an underated win in a stinker of a fight.

Omar Sheika - lost to Tony Booth, struggled with Toks Owoh and got a lucky decision vs Johnson. Lost EVERYTIME he stepped into world class. Lost to Lacy (which says enough).

Delaney was the favourite - something I could never understand, was he any good? Well subsequent performances show he wasn't even domestic title class.

Mitchell - Long standing Champion, well less than a 2 year reign. Oh and this split decision loss gets mentioned. I hate to know what fight that one judge was watching. Ottke won 10 of the 12 rounds.

Mr No Vowels - he didn't just lose to Inkin he got smashed by Inkin (who I don't rate that much). Oh his win over the "long standing" WBO #1 (as if that is some massive achievement) Freeman Barr saved us another mis match. He lost his EBU title Gogiya which says alot. If you would be happy for Ricky to defend his title against Ted Bami - then I guess No vowels was acceptable.

Bika is 0-2-1 against world champions. Bute beat him more convincingly, struggled with Soliman which shows his standing.

Somewhere between you and Coco's posts is probably the truth.

Just want to disagree on Sheika getting lucky vs Johnson. If Glen "Boy Who Cried Wolf" Johnson had won, I would class it as very lucky.

[stujones]

It was probably Ottkes greatest night. bar the Brewer matches, he just toyed with Mitchell, Mitchell barely landed a punch...I was on ESB reading the RBR, at the start of the night I joked they may rob Sven..the fight materialised and they damn sure tried!

Im actually not sure how man robberies Sven had, it has become fashionable to say these fights were fixed, but the only three I can think of as being iffy are Brewer(1) Larsen and Reid(and if you score the fight from the judges perspective it was a draw, its the ref who was a joke)

Yes,

Those are the only 3 and they are iffy. Larsen vs Ottke is as much of a robbery as Hopkins vs Calzaghe. A fair few thought Ottke won, I thought Larsen. Similar with Brewer 1, I thought Ottke won although I know lots who thought Brewer did. Ottke beat him clear in the rematch.

Personally, I thought Ottke deserved to beat Reid from the judges perspectives - I had it for him by 1, but Reid should never have had a point taken away and he did have Ottke down - so its should have been Reid by 1 - but it was hardly the crime of the century had the ref not been a joke and the judges still give it to Ottke - it was hardly crime of the century.

The rest - Ottke won clearly, with Mitchell being the best night. Although Mitchell did have Ottke in big trouble in the last, which might have been the only round he lost.