Ho hum

[smoochp]

Originally Posted by Illmatic

Come on, Veit was a mandatory...twice. He lost the first time, won like 10 more fights, and the WBO ranked him #1 again.

THATS BULLSHIT HE SHOULD HAVE DROPPED THAT BELT AND FOUGHT SOME OTHER PERSON. But he had a goal and thats what mad him the man

[DanePugilist]

Originally Posted by smoochp

THATS BULLSHIT HE SHOULD HAVE DROPPED THAT BELT AND FOUGHT SOME OTHER PERSON. But he had a goal and thats what mad him the man

Warren had good influence in WBO, that is why they kept that belt more than any other belt that JC got. You can only blame Calzaghe for staying this long with Warren. However, they both earned alot of money.

Like it or not, Veit was at that time considered one of the best SMWs.

[Illmatic]

Originally Posted by smoochp

THATS BULLSHIT HE SHOULD HAVE DROPPED THAT BELT AND FOUGHT SOME OTHER PERSON. But he had a goal and thats what mad him the man

Ehhh, they said the same thing about Margo and he never did, and they were in similar situations. High risk, low reward fights for the best fighters in the world. And without a world title, the reward becomes even lower and he falls in no man's land. He fought top super middles, but super middle has historically been a division dominated by europeans, so wins over Reid, Woodhall, and Eubank resonate across the pond but not over here.

Also, if it wasn't for an injury, he would have moved to 175 much earlier. But back to the point of the Veit rematch...Calzaghe worked hard to get a world title, so, why drop it just b/c you have to fight an easy mandatory? It's not like he had some sterling alternative option available.

[DanePugilist]

Originally Posted by Illmatic

Ehhh, they said the same thing about Margo and he never did, and they were in similar situations. High risk, low reward fights for the best fighters in the world. And without a world title, the reward becomes even lower and he falls in no man's land. He fought top super middles, but super middle has historically been a division dominated by europeans, so wins over Reid, Woodhall, and Eubank resonate across the pond but not over here.

Also, if it wasn't for an injury, he would have moved to 175 much earlier. But back to the point of the Veit rematch...Calzaghe worked hard to get a world title, so, why drop it just b/c you have to fight an easy mandatory? It's not like he had some sterling alternative option available.

Right on.

[smoochp]

Thats Bullshit

[jecxbox]

Ask yourselves this. What does Calzaghe gain by fighting Hopkins again? Hopkins got CLEARLY beaten by Calazaghe wtf is the point of a rematch? Let Joe either retire or fight Chad Dawson, I really would NOT want Joe to waste his time with Bernard Hopkins its absolutely worthless.

The only way Calzaghe would get any credit would be to beat another young, undefeated fighter and thats Dawson

[DanePugilist]

Originally Posted by jecxbox

Ask yourselves this. What does Calzaghe gain by fighting Hopkins again? Hopkins got CLEARLY beaten by Calazaghe wtf is the point of a rematch? Let Joe either retire or fight Chad Dawson, I really would NOT want Joe to waste his time with Bernard Hopkins its absolutely worthless.

The only way Calzaghe would get any credit would be to beat another young, undefeated fighter and thats Dawson

Yeah, Calzaghe wouldn't gain anything at all - it would only be a favor towards Hopkins to give him a second chance.

If anything I think it is more valid to let Kessler-JC rematch each other. Kessler fought away from home in front of 60k JC fans.

[Benny Blanco]

Originally Posted by Illmatic

Ehhh, they said the same thing about Margo and he never did, and they were in similar situations. High risk, low reward fights for the best fighters in the world. And without a world title, the reward becomes even lower and he falls in no man's land. He fought top super middles, but super middle has historically been a division dominated by europeans, so wins over Reid, Woodhall, and Eubank resonate across the pond but not over here.

Also, if it wasn't for an injury, he would have moved to 175 much earlier. But back to the point of the Veit rematch...Calzaghe worked hard to get a world title, so, why drop it just b/c you have to fight an easy mandatory? It's not like he had some sterling alternative option available.

We as boxing fans can claim all day that the WBO title or anyother of the four major belts does'nt mean anything but they do to fighters who are trying to gain recognition, and trying to have something to offer when in negotiation deals to get bigger fights, and why drop the title. Calzaghe was'nt in the position that someone like Chad Dawson is in right now where Tarver is trying to exercise a rematch clause and everybody expects Dawson to drop his belt because Dawson has a major network behind him and has bigger fights that will happen in 2009. So Joe did the right thing in my view by keeping his WBO title.

Good post Illmatic.

[dan-b]

Jay. Let's say I agree with most of that, do you not think the WBO held him back in the first place? He held a belt that's not universally respected, gives poor mandatories and is practically run by his promoter.

I must take you up on what you said about him not being a light heavy though. The man himself said he was struggling to make 168 later on in his career so what division was he supposed to fight in?

I do apologise. I should have said the person whose post mine followed. I see he's been spreading his hate on here again recently. It's quite hilarious really.

Originally Posted by smoochp

We all hate the WBO

No need to hate them, just ignore them. I don't see how boxing benefits from recognising a fourth belt.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by dan-b

Jay. Let's say I agree with most of that, do you not think the WBO held him back in the first place? He held a belt that's not universally respected, gives poor mandatories and is practically run by his promoter.

I must take you up on what you said about him not being a light heavy though. The man himself said he was struggling to make 168 later on in his career so what division was he supposed to fight in?

I do apologise. I should have said the person whose post mine followed. I see he's been spreading his hate on here again recently. It's quite hilarious really.



No need to hate them, just ignore them. I don't see how boxing benefits from recognising a fourth belt.

I said it wasn't his best weight class. At the end of the day - it's a recognised world title belt. one of the FOUR recognised, even if it's considered the lesser of the 4.

Maybe it did hold him back - I'm personally of the opinion he was screwed from the start - until Lacy took the gamble - he was considered very dangerous, little reward, and no one really knew how good he was - he won some fights with ease, others he had no interest and it looked like he made hard work of it. - who the hell would want to risk a record and their standing by fighting him - one loss can nearly ruin a fighters career in this era, 2 and you're really really going to struggle. there are exceptions - who even if they lose 5 in a row can still be lined up for title shots (see Judah - not lost 5 in a row, but loses most fights lately, yet still getting big fight after big fight).

Imagine - for example, Bhop/Roy took a chance and fought Joe - they had little to gain, and a lot to lose. Now imagine Joe gave up the WBO and campaigned for Bhop/Roy - they'd not want to fight him, he was dangerous and had little to gain by winning. Suppose Joe had lost to one of them - his entire career would have been written off - and he would have been considered world class, but would have lost to any of the great fighters.

It's a very grey area, and I'm willing to bet, (similar theme now to kg's recent thread) that Joe's come better off of it now, than he would had he gave up everything to try to campaign for a fight that neither would really want, and would probably try to get out of.

[dan-b]

Originally Posted by Jay

I said it wasn't his best weight class. At the end of the day - it's a recognised world title belt. one of the FOUR recognised, even if it's considered the lesser of the 4.

Maybe it did hold him back - I'm personally of the opinion he was screwed from the start - until Lacy took the gamble - he was considered very dangerous, little reward, and no one really knew how good he was - he won some fights with ease, others he had no interest and it looked like he made hard work of it. - who the hell would want to risk a record and their standing by fighting him - one loss can nearly ruin a fighters career in this era, 2 and you're really really going to struggle. there are exceptions - who even if they lose 5 in a row can still be lined up for title shots (see Judah - not lost 5 in a row, but loses most fights lately, yet still getting big fight after big fight).

Imagine - for example, Bhop/Roy took a chance and fought Joe - they had little to gain, and a lot to lose. Now imagine Joe gave up the WBO and campaigned for Bhop/Roy - they'd not want to fight him, he was dangerous and had little to gain by winning. Suppose Joe had lost to one of them - his entire career would have been written off - and he would have been considered world class, but would have lost to any of the great fighters.

It's a very grey area, and I'm willing to bet, (similar theme now to kg's recent thread) that Joe's come better off of it now, than he would had he gave up everything to try to campaign for a fight that neither would really want, and would probably try to get out of.

See this is the problem with Joe though, it's all what ifs. I dislike Hatton greatly but he did step up a division and fight the best fighter in the world. Joe could have chased a similair situation five or so years back but was happy defending his strap against nobodies, a situation he now claims he wasn't happy about.

I think Hopkins was right not to fight Joe all those years ago and the offer made for him to come to Wales was an insult. Here we had an undisputed world champ, expected to step up a division, come to another country and fight for a Mickey Mouse belt. Maybe if Joe had been the undisputed champ at 168 it would have been a more tantalising proposition. The amount of time Joe took clearing out his division was ridiculous really.

As for the WBO, it's really not universally recognised. The Japanese still only recognise WBC/WBA titles and the HoF don't acknowledge it either. Notice when Pavlik came out for the Hopkins fight the screen flashed up that he was the WBC middleweight champ with no mention of the other strap.

[sues2nd]

I love how after the original fight, Calzaghe talked about how tough an opponent Hopkins was...and how it was his hardest fight. Talked about how Hopkins had him hurt in the first, about how Bernard is hard to figure out. Talked about how he knew the "white boy" comment was about hype, nothing more.

NOW, he kicked Hopkins ass....Hopkins tried to cheat to win....Hopkins is a racist...and Hopkins doesnt deserve a rematch.

Fucking classic.

Fact is, Calzaghe is a smart man. He knows another bout with Bernard (especially after how he looked the last time out and his comments about fighting only for the KO now) would be the toughest possible fight he could make. Joe is a supremely confident fighter (his cockiness is what makes him a great showman...), I do not feel for a second he thinks that he would lose...thats not in Calzaghe's nature. But this is a fight he does not want...a fight that would be too tough for the return in reward.

Because the rest of the shit he is spouting off is just that....shit. He knows it.

Fact...Bernard is higher rated than ANYONE else he can fight.

Fact...Bernard is a better fighter than ANYONE else he can fight.

Fact...Joe would make more money fighting Bernard than anyone else.

Fact...the first fight is almost universally (save for Amsterdam, CHJ, Dane and maybe 30 other people on the planet) considered razor thin...faintly arguably a loss for Calzaghe (tho I had Joe winning).

Fact...the first fight was Joe's toughest challenge...UNARGUABLY!

Fact...More people will turn out (PPV wise and ticket sale wise) for this fight than any other.

Fact...THIS IS THE FIGHT THAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE...from both a legacy and payroll outlook.

If he goes for Dawson...fine. Dawson is a great young fighter who deserves not only a shot, but a good payday. But if it happens...I am sorry, it will be considered by both Calzaghe haters (we know they exist) and Calzaghe fans as Joe ducking Bernard (remember how Setanta reacted to Kellerman's comments about Dawson...Im paraphrasing, but they basically said the Hopkins fight was the ONLY FIGHT THAT MADE SENSE!!!). Plain and simple.

You guys know I love Calzaghe...but this is horseshit...

[DanePugilist]

I don't agree with any of your "facts". The Robin Reid fight and the Kessler fight were tougher matches. The fight with Hopkins was tight, but simply because little happened. Hopkins didn't want to fight, and I would hate to see a rerun of this bout.

Calzaghe would make more money fighting Kessler, due to both has a larger fan base in Europe. Hopkins don't sell very well.

Fact is that Calzaghe don't like Hopkins very much and vice versa. There is little reason for a rematch - who wants to face a fighter that clinches with you 15 times per round? It was the smart thing to do, but I think Joe enjoys a boxing match more.

[Illmatic]

Originally Posted by DanePugilist

I would hate to see a rerun of this bout.
.

Yeah, I dont know why anyone who saw the first fight would pay to see the second. Id only see it if it was on friday night fights....and I hate to say it, but Hopkins acted disgracefully in that bout.

[smoochp]

I would never want to see Hop vs Calzaghe again. The first fight was boring as hell and I think sues and dan are the only ones calling for it. But I don't anything different that can happen in this fight.