BoxRec

Re Calzaghe vs Jones first preview show.

At the start of the preview show Bunce says "I'm almost glad this fight didn't happen 3-4 years ago as it would have been a completely different fight"

But then says the Jones vs Trinidad was the Jones of old and he could tell that from the first minute of the first round.

Hang on - so if Jones is as good as ever, how come its not going to be the same result as 3-4 years ago?

Also, in the segment of the Trinidad vs Jones fight that they showed, Jones took more punches in those segments alone than in pretty much his first 12 years as a pro (full fights) - you could see he was visibly slower. Jones will never score a KD with both hands behind his back again. Its not a joke fight, but this isn't a prime Jones and I really don't know who they are trying to kid.

stujones wrote:Re Calzaghe vs Jones first preview show.

At the start of the preview show Bunce says "I'm almost glad this fight didn't happen 3-4 years ago as it would have been a completely different fight"

But then says the Jones vs Trinidad was the Jones of old and he could tell that from the first minute of the first round.

Hang on - so if Jones is as good as ever, how come its not going to be the same result as 3-4 years ago?

Also, in the segment of the Trinidad vs Jones fight that they showed, Jones took more punches in those segments alone than in pretty much his first 12 years as a pro (full fights) - you could see he was visibly slower. Jones will never score a KD with both hands behind his back again. Its not a joke fight, but this isn't a prime Jones and I really don't know who they are trying to kid.

I'm getting bored of Bunce's Calzaghe fetish. Did you see them sat in a limo on Inside Sport. He did a similar thing with Hopkins, and I remember what he was like with Audley a few years ago.....

Not one probing question.....the only probing was up Joe's arse.

Bunce is getting plenty of exposure now, on BBC etc.. I admire his enthusiasm, but he frustrates me. Then again he has to appeal to the armchair fan. If he went steaming in to a debate with JC, Ricky etc then he probably wouldn't get their time and Inside Sport would be covering more of other sports. Aaah, the politics...

But it is people like Bunce, who I appreciate is saying these things to appeal to the casual fan, who make my trips to the pubs all the more frustrating (re my other threads on this fight) - I mean you could have watched todays preview show and come to the conclusion "Joe underestimated a prime Hopkins and still beat him" - there wasn't even a hint that the fight was close - let alone many people thinking Bernie won and even Joe saying that he can see why people scored it for Hopkins.

But because Bunce is like a "man of the people" and talks to a level that everyone understands - that is not a criticism, thats a compliment.... its seems to be casual fan who then think they are the bible of knowledge when it comes to the debate. People were telling me how the Joe vs Jones fight would go and they admitted never seeing a Jones fight. Apparently I am tipping Joe only cause I have a "nothing to lose" debate - if Joe wins I can say "told you so", if Joe loses I can say "well told you he was shit".

Because Bunce hasn't really highlighted how crap Jones is now - people are saying "Jones beat Hopkins, must be better than him still".... Did you notice how he skimmed over his loses in the preview.

stujones wrote:But it is people like Bunce, who I appreciate is saying these things to appeal to the casual fan, who make my trips to the pubs all the more frustrating (re my other threads on this fight) - I mean you could have watched todays preview show and come to the conclusion "Joe underestimated a prime Hopkins and still beat him" - there wasn't even a hint that the fight was close - let alone many people thinking Bernie won and even Joe saying that he can see why people scored it for Hopkins.

But because Bunce is like a "man of the people" and talks to a level that everyone understands - that is not a criticism, thats a compliment.... its seems to be casual fan who then think they are the bible of knowledge when it comes to the debate. People were telling me how the Joe vs Jones fight would go and they admitted never seeing a Jones fight. Apparently I am tipping Joe only cause I have a "nothing to lose" debate - if Joe wins I can say "told you so", if Joe loses I can say "well told you he was shit".

Because Bunce hasn't really highlighted how crap Jones is now - people are saying "Jones beat Hopkins, must be better than him still".... Did you notice how he skimmed over his loses in the preview.

Exactley.

That's the problem with British people and British Sport in general.

In sports where you MUST compete against the best, like Football, Cricket etc. England always get whooped first to the "Shock" of British/English Fans.
Face it, Brits just plain suck at sport.

You can get away with Boxing quite easily, as the "Best" can pick and choose whom they wish to fight to defend their title.

Calzaghe has had a very engineered career thanks to allegedly.

The fact that Calzaghe was schooled by a 43 year old Hopkins, and now the fans are showing their desperation by saying Hopkins was infact in his prime (lol) shows the ignorance of Calzaghe and his fan base.

Face it, Brits just plain suck at sport.

Yep, that's why we won 19 gold medals at the Olympics(our best in 100 years) we also have our very first world amateur boxing champion(Frankie Gavin) two of the best motorcycle racers in the world(Toseland, Byrne not to mention up and comers with world class potential like Crutchlow, Sykes, Camier) two of the best racing drivers in the world(Hamilton and Wheldon).
Calzaghe was the best super middleweight in the world, Haye was the best cruiserweight in the world and Hatton is the best light welter in the world.

Not bad for a country that "plain suck at sport"

banjo wrote:

Face it, Brits just plain suck at sport.

Yep, that's why we won 19 gold medals at the Olympics(our best in 100 years) we also have our very first world amateur boxing champion(Frankie Gavin) two of the best motorcycle racers in the world(Toseland, Byrne not to mention up and comers with world class potential like Crutchlow, Sykes, Camier) two of the best racing drivers in the world(Hamilton and Wheldon).
Calzaghe was the best super middleweight in the world, Haye was the best cruiserweight in the world and Hatton is the best light welter in the world.

Not bad for a country that "plain suck at sport"

Good post.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

banjo wrote:

Face it, Brits just plain suck at sport.

Yep, that's why we won 19 gold medals at the Olympics(our best in 100 years) we also have our very first world amateur boxing champion(Frankie Gavin) two of the best motorcycle racers in the world(Toseland, Byrne not to mention up and comers with world class potential like Crutchlow, Sykes, Camier) two of the best racing drivers in the world(Hamilton and Wheldon).
Calzaghe was the best super middleweight in the world, Haye was the best cruiserweight in the world and Hatton is the best light welter in the world.

Not bad for a country that "plain suck at sport"

Good post.

Indeed. Relative to the size of its population in global terms the UK punches massively above its weight. Contrast that with a country like India...

stujones wrote:
At the start of the preview show Bunce says "I'm almost glad this fight didn't happen 3-4 years ago as it would have been a completely different fight"

But then says the Jones vs Trinidad was the Jones of old and he could tell that from the first minute of the first round.

Hang on - so if Jones is as good as ever, how come its not going to be the same result as 3-4 years ago?

Couldn't he have meant that Jones is better than he was 3-4 years ago - and that the fight will be more competitive now?

I'm not watching any previews etc leading up to the fight, because some of what's being said - or more importantly, not said - will lead me to throw my tv through the window

I also will not engage in boxing conversations with my mates any more, because they seem to have this opinion that Joe Calzaghe is the best boxer britain has ever produced, and the best in the world at the moment - as well as Ricky Hatton being some kind of demi-god etc. Why is it the media are incapable of putting things in their true perspective.

If one person tells me after saturdays fight that Joe proved he's better than Jones, and would have beaten him at any time, they're likely to follow my TV through the window.

Oh, and on a side-ish note, Boxing News don't help with quotes like;

Editor Claude Abrams looks ahead to the big showdown between arguably the best two fighters of their generation, Joe Calzaghe and Roy Jones Jnr, and reveals his all-important pick.

Jones, yes. Calzaghe - get f@cked.

....its was the all-important than got me. Interesting and worthy, but all-important? Wouldn't that be the actual performances of JC and RJ?

I also will not engage in boxing conversations with my mates any more, because they seem to have this opinion that Joe Calzaghe is the best boxer britain has ever produced, and the best in the world at the moment - as well as Ricky Hatton being some kind of demi-god etc. Why is it the media are incapable of putting things in their true perspective.

While I agree that the medias over the top perspective of things is cringeworthy, more and more kids are getting involved in boxing now due to seeing the likes of Hatton and Calzaghe all over the papers and news, and that can only be a good thing.

When I was younger, all my mates wanted to be footballers and they had no interest in boxing but over the last year or so 2 new boxing gyms have opened up here and a lot more kids are involved.

stujones wrote:Re Calzaghe vs Jones first preview show.

At the start of the preview show Bunce says "I'm almost glad this fight didn't happen 3-4 years ago as it would have been a completely different fight"

But then says the Jones vs Trinidad was the Jones of old and he could tell that from the first minute of the first round.

Hang on - so if Jones is as good as ever, how come its not going to be the same result as 3-4 years ago?

Also, in the segment of the Trinidad vs Jones fight that they showed, Jones took more punches in those segments alone than in pretty much his first 12 years as a pro (full fights) - you could see he was visibly slower. Jones will never score a KD with both hands behind his back again. Its not a joke fight, but this isn't a prime Jones and I really don't know who they are trying to kid.

True, it's not a joke fight. It is a legend who has sort of built himself back from disaster, into a contender.

I don't hold any regard for RJJ-Tito. It's the Hanshaw fight that maybe gives me some optimism. Hanshaw was quite young & strong (if a bit bloated at 175) and he kept pressing RJJ. I thought Jones would have folded, but he fought well off the ropes and finished a hard fight strong.

It was a sort of Toney-like performance. Obviously, Jones still has some handspeed but the legs are gone. So Jones may have something. If not, then it's another Lewis-Tyson, Norris-Leonard/Curry, RJJ-McCallum, and boxing is full of those.

Bunce can be very OTT. I suppose, if fights like this do well, then he has a job for longer. The rhetoric is cringe worthy.

Jones probably deserves another chance. I mean what are the alternatives for JC? Glen Johnson's fighting a 10-rounder next Tues, which says everything about his titanic lack of box office pull. Tarver's been beaten by Hopkins AND Dawson. Pavlik looked useless in the catvh weight between 168/175, etc etc.

I would say (& I hope I won't regret saying this afterward), Calzaghe-Jones is one of the few bankable & interesting fights in a pretty turgid weight class that won't really come to life until Dawson v Cloud (a fight that Dawson's going to duck anyway) and the rise of Beibut Shumenov.

EddieShredder wrote:I'm not watching any previews etc leading up to the fight, because some of what's being said - or more importantly, not said - will lead me to throw my tv through the window

I also will not engage in boxing conversations with my mates any more, because they seem to have this opinion that Joe Calzaghe is the best boxer britain has ever produced, and the best in the world at the moment - as well as Ricky Hatton being some kind of demi-god etc. Why is it the media are incapable of putting things in their true perspective.

If one person tells me after saturdays fight that Joe proved he's better than Jones, and would have beaten him at any time, they're likely to follow my TV through the window.

Oh, and on a side-ish note, Boxing News don't help with quotes like;

Editor Claude Abrams looks ahead to the big showdown between arguably the best two fighters of their generation, Joe Calzaghe and Roy Jones Jnr, and reveals his all-important pick.

Jones, yes. Calzaghe - get f@cked.

Come on, be fair, Joe did unify super middle & is a 2 weight champ as recognised by Ring mag. For all the things we don't like about his career - and I would think there's lots - he did win two massive fights in the UK to grab all the belts.

The best thing I can say is that RJJ is a top 10 contender, and that Joe is at least defending vs a light heavyweight (something Hopkins never did). It's not a mega fight, but both men are big names & Joe will probably learn something fighting a counter puncher in America again.

Autobarn wrote:

EddieShredder wrote:I'm not watching any previews etc leading up to the fight, because some of what's being said - or more importantly, not said - will lead me to throw my tv through the window

I also will not engage in boxing conversations with my mates any more, because they seem to have this opinion that Joe Calzaghe is the best boxer britain has ever produced, and the best in the world at the moment - as well as Ricky Hatton being some kind of demi-god etc. Why is it the media are incapable of putting things in their true perspective.

If one person tells me after saturdays fight that Joe proved he's better than Jones, and would have beaten him at any time, they're likely to follow my TV through the window.

Oh, and on a side-ish note, Boxing News don't help with quotes like;

Editor Claude Abrams looks ahead to the big showdown between arguably the best two fighters of their generation, Joe Calzaghe and Roy Jones Jnr, and reveals his all-important pick.

Jones, yes. Calzaghe - get f@cked.

Come on, be fair, Joe did unify super middle & is a 2 weight champ as recognised by Ring mag. For all the things we don't like about his career - and I would think there's lots - he did win two massive fights in the UK to grab all the belts.

The best thing I can say is that RJJ is a top 10 contender, and that Joe is at least defending vs a light heavyweight (something Hopkins never did). It's not a mega fight, but both men are big names & Joe will probably learn something fighting a counter puncher in America again.

I am being fair. Joe is a very good fighter, and has achieved far beyond what most fighters have, and ever will. I don't particularly like the guy, and especially his attitude - BUT I have a great amount of respect for what he's achieved.

That said, he could have achieved so much more - and genuinly been a great - genuinly been the best fighter of his generation. Thats my issue with him - he runs his mouth off talking about a legacy etc, but for 90% of his career actively avoided the biggest challenges and best fighters. Great fighters simply don't do that.

"Arguably the best fighter of his generation" ?? There's many fighters of this generation that were, and even are, better than JC... as said in Davids other thread.

I've always thought that, that he should have done more.

He should have fought many other fighters - BUT if his record wasn't padded, he wouldn't have been around for the Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins and RJJ fights.

In other words, his biggest wins would have been prime versions of Brewer, Mitchell, Beyer & Ottke if an effort had been made to get these fights straight away, and while we would all have had more respect, a lot earlier, I don't think anyone outside the UK would really know or give a damn about Calzaghe.

In a perverse way I think it's worked out properly. That doesn't make up for the Pudwills and McIntyres. I;m just trying to be a bit more optimistic.

I really wanted the Pavlik fight, I objected to the Jones fight on these grounds, but Pavlik was so useless v B-Hop (and shortsighted in taking the fight for the money the money the money - where's the next big money coming from?) - the man is massively unproven above middleweight.

Hopefully Calzaghe-RJJ is a good, lively fight between a champ and a top 6 or 7 contender on a big stage.

Autobarn wrote:I've always thought that, that he should have done more.

He should have fought many other fighters - BUT if his record wasn't padded, he wouldn't have been around for the Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins and RJJ fights.

In other words, his biggest wins would have been prime versions of Brewer, Mitchell, Beyer & Ottke if an effort had been made to get these fights straight away, and while we would all have had more respect, a lot earlier, I don't think anyone outside the UK would really know or give a damn about Calzaghe.

In a perverse way I think it's worked out properly. That doesn't make up for the Pudwills and McIntyres. I;m just trying to be a bit more optimistic.

I really wanted the Pavlik fight, I objected to the Jones fight on these grounds, but Pavlik was so useless v B-Hop (and shortsighted in taking the fight for the money the money the money - where's the next big money coming from?) - the man is massively unproven above middleweight.

Hopefully Calzaghe-RJJ is a good, lively fight between a champ and a top 6 or 7 contender on a big stage.

Good points, especially on the time frame - but for me, there were still far too many gimmes in there, when there were much better, live opponents available - even if you discount RJJ, Toney etc.

A lot of my problem with Joe, is that he talks about being the best, and fighting the best in the world relentlessly - but has never backed it up.

Pavlik being a prime example. Forget what happened in Pavlik-Hopkins.... if JC really practiced what he preached - he'd have signed to fight Pavlik and proved he's the man, rather than a fading RJJ.

Now ofcourse, he goes with the line "I knew he was shit, I beat the man who beat him blah blah blah...." when the reality is that he wouldn't risk his "0" to prove he is what he says he is... "the best".

EddieShredder wrote:

Autobarn wrote: A lot of my problem with Joe, is that he talks about being the best, and fighting the best in the world relentlessly - but has never backed it up.

Pavlik being a prime example. Forget what happened in Pavlik-Hopkins.... if JC really practiced what he preached - he'd have signed to fight Pavlik and proved he's the man, rather than a fading RJJ.

Now ofcourse, he goes with the line "I knew he was shit, I beat the man who beat him blah blah blah...." when the reality is that he wouldn't risk his "0" to prove he is what he says he is... "the best".

I don't agree. I think the current version of Joe has been quite open about this phase of his career being about making money. See the televised phone call from Froch. Good luck to him, he earned it with the Lacy and Kessler fights.
His point about Pavlik is valid. There is always a young undefeated contender to fight. He fought and beat two of them to unify.

Now he wants to make some money and good luck to him. Its not like he is hanging onto any of the alphabets. He's given them up so the young guns can fight for them.

Joe is the best marketed fighter of all time! For me, I think he has far and away over achieved compared to his talent. I honestly don't think he would have beaten a prime Hopkins, Jones and Toney. I think Simon, Wright, Ottke and a few others would have given him fits. I honestly think if he had the career plan of David Haye (if David Haye seriously attempts to do his bold 2 year plan) then Joe would have been dethroned in the year 2000 and would have been long forgotton about.

You've got to be good to beat the likes of Woodhall, Lacy etc - I aint convinced he beat Reid or Hopkins, and I did score the Kessler fight a draw and think Kessler will win more times say if they fought 10 times. However, I honestly can say I don't think he would have done anything against a prime Hopkins, Toney and Jones - and thats nothing against Joe - if they were British I'd have them as 3 of the top 4 of all time - only Jimmy Wilde compares.

I just think Joe's struggles against the likes of Reid, Bika, Brewer (who had his moments), Mitchell, Woodhall - good fighters all of them, but hardly all time greats mean that he should never be called one of the greatest of their generation - mainly cause we might not have had the heavyweights, but elsewhere we have been blessed.

Floyd, Roy, Hopkins, Oscar, Ricardo Lopez, Holyfield (I include his total longevity), Barrera, Manny, Mosley, Trinidad, Too Sharp Johnson, Morales - they are the greatest of the generation.

Joe is probably in the bottom half of the group that includes - Lennox, Tszyu, Casamayor, Jaun Manuel Marquez, Winky Wright, Naz, Castillo, Vasquez, Alvarez, Chico, Hatton, etc.

Calzaghe's defeat of Kessler entitles him to be regarded as one of the best of his generation in my view.

Joe's very talented, big and strong at 168, fast hands but a bit slappy. I don't see him as an overachiver, more of an underachiever up to 2006. Has that flailing style which can be ugly vs certain styles, but what impresses me is the way he's been able to adapt on big stages when in trouble (Hopkins and Kessler).

Light middles Wright and Simon couldn't have got much going vs Joe. Simon was a tiny middleweight (see his fight vs Kranj) & his physical strength wouldn't have meant much at 168.

I actually appreciate the win over Hopkins a bit more, as you have to do it ugly if a man's just going to be defensive and spoil. Joe found a home for a straight left numerous times (something Tarver and Wright couldn't do) and forced a pace that Hopkins, for all his canny single punch "traps", couldn't cope with.

I agree, if Joe had gunned for all the big fights ala Haye, something could have gone wrong. Still, he had a few defences where the challenger had a lot of fight in him (Woodhall, Reid, Brewer, Mitchell) and then cashed in on his own terms.

Not always enjoyed his career, always been frustrated by it, but he deserves to get in the HOF for his longevity, for finally overcoming his anonymity and winning on pretty big stages.

I think a big problem is that broadcasters are milking every last drop out of old, big names instead of properly developing the up and comers. Sadly, to boxing fans, the biggest money for Calzaghe seems to be Hopkins (coming off stinkers) and RJJ (damaged goods).

The biggest fights, post Kessler/Lacy, should have been Taylor and Pavlik. Exciting fights with young fighters that America likes. But IMO Taylor made too much money before achieving anything, and didn't seem to have the hunger to match his athletic abilities. And had that graggy, unpopular title reign that prevented middleweight from being hot. Pavlik was prevented from moving on from beating Taylor - immediate rematch - and was tempted away from a lukewarm middleweight class into a money fight with Hopkins, just because of the closeness between Hopkins' promoter and HBO.

The fighters who should be shit hot aren't, and the best fights don't happen.

It's a shame that Hanshaw never made it to the top. Due to family tragedy, he took about two years off, which cut off his development. When he came back, he got every chance, the ShoBox tourney, the RJJ fight, but the layoff stopped him growing into what he was going to.

stujones wrote:Joe is the best marketed fighter of all time! For me, I think he has far and away over achieved compared to his talent. I honestly don't think he would have beaten a prime Hopkins, Jones and Toney. I think Simon, Wright, Ottke and a few others would have given him fits. I honestly think if he had the career plan of David Haye (if David Haye seriously attempts to do his bold 2 year plan) then Joe would have been dethroned in the year 2000 and would have been long forgotton about.

You've got to be good to beat the likes of Woodhall, Lacy etc - I aint convinced he beat Reid or Hopkins, and I did score the Kessler fight a draw and think Kessler will win more times say if they fought 10 times. However, I honestly can say I don't think he would have done anything against a prime Hopkins, Toney and Jones - and thats nothing against Joe - if they were British I'd have them as 3 of the top 4 of all time - only Jimmy Wilde compares.

I just think Joe's struggles against the likes of Reid, Bika, Brewer (who had his moments), Mitchell, Woodhall - good fighters all of them, but hardly all time greats mean that he should never be called one of the greatest of their generation - mainly cause we might not have had the heavyweights, but elsewhere we have been blessed.

Floyd, Roy, Hopkins, Oscar, Ricardo Lopez, Holyfield (I include his total longevity), Barrera, Manny, Mosley, Trinidad, Too Sharp Johnson, Morales - they are the greatest of the generation.

Joe is probably in the bottom half of the group that includes - Lennox, Tszyu, Casamayor, Jaun Manuel Marquez, Winky Wright, Naz, Castillo, Vasquez, Alvarez, Chico, Hatton, etc.

I think this is one of the most misguided arguments I have ever read. Joe's strugglrs against Bika (didn't he win just about every round), Woodhall and Brewer??????? The idea is to win, not win every round.

How can you criticise Calzaghe and big up Ottke? How can you criticise Calzaghe's opponents yet push forward Lopez? Can you even remember one guy Lopez fought? For that matter, can you name (without looking it up) anyone Jimmy Wilde fought?

And then you chuck in "Too Sharp" Johnson. You really must be taking the piss. How can you even rate him above Rafael Marquez, let alone Calzaghe??

Winky Wright is the most over-rated fighter of the past ten years - he couldn't even beat Jermain Taylor

I don't "big up" Ottke. I think Ottke is an underated boxer yes, but Ottke and Calzaghe legacy are two completely different things. Has there been ANYONE who has labelled Ottke "a legend", or among the greatest of all time. Now, if people did I would be among the first to criticise them... but we don't. Ottke's standing is just about correct, Dariuz Michelswecki standing is just about correct - but is there an awful lot between Ottke's "Joke" resume and Calzaghe's legendary resume.

I put Winky in the Joe category - off the key elites.... but he did practically shut out Mosley and Trinidad, not bad wins. But yes, he too fails to have key wins to get into the Jones, Floyd class. Jermain Taylor beat Hopkins - so is he crap also?

Ricardo Lopez and Resondo Alvarez were fantastic fighters. When both Julio Cesar Chavez and Marco Antonio Barrera call you the best of a generation then you can't be bad.

Mark Johnson was over the hill when he faced Marquez, but okay I'll conceed that was just me being a fan of him. Prime for Prime Johnson would have beaten Marquez.

As for going for considering ONLY wins and not the manner of wins, come on...... when you simply have only fought 1 HoF fightr, you have to not only did the guy win, but how he won. If Roy looked bad and didn't have his own way against the likes of Reggie Johnson, Otis Grant and faded Mike McCallum - then yes, I would be critical.

When Joe fought only a limited number of decent challengers (not good but acceptable) then you have to look at how he faired....

Interesting perspectives from StuJones and Gobbles.

Ali struggled like hell with Norton over three fights and was pummelled from pillar to post by Foreman. Norton never won a title fight was sparked out by punchers and Foreman only fought over the hill fighters, lost to Young and was beaten by an ageing Ali.

You can dissect anything if you try hard enough, in the end you have to look at the win, sure sprinkle the manner of victory on it, but ultimatley, who did he beat is the key question.

In some ways, and because of entirely different circumstances, Calzaghe's career has proven similar to Lennox's, in that credibility will be disproportionatley applied for victories over two fossilised greats 5-10 years after the bouts should have been made at the end of his career.

Imagine the esteem Lewis would have been held in had he been matched with Vander (Hopkins) and Iron Mike (Jones) in the mid 1990's and not been ducked by Bowe (Ottke). Victories over Ruddock (Eubank) and Golota (Brewer) grow more appreciated I suppose but fights with Mercer (Kessler) and Grant (Lacy) arguably tell us more. Both came through against rugged fighters like Klitschko (Bika) and overcame solid Europeans like Bruno (Woodhall) but there was still a few Botha (Veit), Mavrovic (Salem), McCall (Reid) and Rahman (Mitchell) thrown in.

And I'm sure someone somewhere will point out Chris Byrd (Ottke), Ike Ikeabuchi (Echols), Wladimir Klitschko (Tarver), Riddick Bowe (Mundine), Vitaly rematch, John Ruiz (Beyer)........were all avoided......

Lewis had the luxury of heavy hands, something Calzaghe lost toward the end.

I'll close by saying, I waish I had a pound for every Calzaghe debate I've contributed too.....

fornicating boxrec forum morons are their very best


Good god, take a fornicating day off, please

Steve Bunce works for Setanta, who have paid a lot of money to broadcast this fight. Steve, therefore, has a responsibility to hype up this fight as much as he can, and is doing just that.

What sort of company has its presenters, in the build up to a big fight, sat looking mournfully into the screen, saying "This fight isn't as big as it would have been 5 years ago, if i were you I'd go out on Saturday and not watch this fight, if you want to know what really going down in boxing, head on over the the boxrec forum where a bunch of opinionated ne'er-do-well's will tell you that every fight and every fighter of the last 10 years is a joke