BBC Home

Explore the BBC

Browse: Boxing

36 comments

user rating: 1 star

What do Carl Froch, James Toney........

by TheBigChilli (U9699280) 12 December 2008
comment on the article

.....Montell Griffin, Antonio Tarver, Glengoff Johnson, Kelly Pavlik, Jermain Taylor, Ronald Winky Wright, a peak Roy Jones Junior, a peak Bernard Hopkins, Mike Macallum and Clinton Woods all have in common?

Latest 10 comments

Read members' comments or add your own

posted Dec 12, 2008

I fear I may have been unclear in my previous post. i do not consider that Joe has ducked anyone and I do not consider that there should be any pressure on Calzaghe to fight Froch.

My post of the he ducked... was a copy of a thread that used to do the rounds here. Hasn't been seen in a while so I thought I'd bring it back up to remind people of happier times...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 15, 2008

Fisty...

You say Joe's only been in Tarver's division a few years, so what? That's his fault.
---------------------------------------
Its nothing to do with fault, Tarver wasnít even a name until he beat RJJ coming down for heavy. Around that time Joe had finally got off his arse fighting Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins. Joe has just been busy the past few years trying to make up for it. If he carries on there is still a good chance he will face him.


Hopkins managed to get a fight with him and he was even lighter than Joe!
---------------------------------------
Credit to Hopkins for going after him, yet funny how he spent no time in joeís division?


Yes, hand injuries delayed the Johnson fight, why was it never picked up again? Why fight people like Bika and Manfredo instead?
---------------------------------------
Johnson wasnít interested (understandably) at being messed around the past two times, so his interest in the fight vanished. Iím just not as happy with Joe facing that joke Manfredo, but it was a PR exercise for him in the states.


Winky - you say nothing materialised. So that's an excuse is it? End of story.
---------------------------------------
No excuse. Donít blame either fighter myself.. or shall I use your sarcastic response with Tarver about it being Winky's fault for not going up to Joe division?

---------------------------------------
I'll put Hopkins in with Jones since you suggest Hopkins ducked him and since I believe it didn't happen for the same reason you state for Jones - Joe not a big enough name.

(lol Ė Joe fault again eh!!! So howís he supposed to get all these big fights you mention if he aint a big enough name??)

---------------------------------------
Well that's the whole point people are trying to make, Joe should have raised his game. Ricky Hatton wasn't a big enough name for Mayweather even after unifying Light Welter against Kostya. But he went to America, took some tough fights and made himself a name.

Yes Hatton done it a few years before Joe, and its good to see Joe has finally seen sense.

Hopkins never ducked anyone.
---------------------------------------
Yes thatís right he fought in Joeís division didnít he winkeye oh no waitÖ jooeeeee not a big enough name so Hopkins is allowed to avoid any champion he doesn't want to fight isnít he!

Conn man, Itís a no brainer that Joe could of perused other fights more early on in his career. Personally I couldnít see a way he could have realistically got a fight with RJJ even if he went over to America earlier. I just think RJJ was already many years ahead with popularity, ranking etc... and I donít think there where the fighters around to elevate Joe to a level to make the American public/promoters interested back then IMO.

One fighter I would of likes to see him face would have been Sven Ottke, as I feel even in Germany with the bias judges he would of beaten him.

Though I understand some of your points in your summary I find it pathetic with you being very one sided in your argument constantly using an excuses to defend fighters who could of tried themselves to face Joe, only to turn those excuses around on Joe to have a go at him.

Pity, as you made some valid points then ended up ruining it by been bias against Calzaghe.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 15, 2008

No mate, you're just over stating your point and getting personal, I'm maintaining a balance.

Like I said, Ricky, Naz and Lennox all went to America to make a name for themselves, so Joe is guilt of not having done so.

The American fighters were all getting massive pay days against each other, why did they need to chase Joe in Cardiff?

Why not chase Ottke too for that matter?

Why not go down under to face Mundine?

It's pointless, that's why.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 15, 2008

comment by the_conn_man (U10650882)

posted 6 Hours Ago

No mate, you're just over stating your point and getting personal, I'm maintaining a balance.
_________
no mate... your just been far to bias against one fighter.

I agreed with some points you made. I also pointed out how you will use one point to have a go at joe then use the same point to defend another fighter.

There was also other fighter i brought up with joe could of fought like Ottke, (which you've repeated?)

You had an agenda all this thread to slate joe ala ceej.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 16, 2008

Sorry to tell you fisty but you're very wrong.

I'm a huge Calzaghe fan, I'm Welsh, I've met him a few times and I've followed his career since he turned pro.

I think he's one of the most talented fighters to ever come out of Britain, maybe the world. His speed, heart and chin are second to none.

That doesn't alter the fact that his ambition was lacking for a large part of his career.

It's you with the agenda my friend, I've always maintained a perfectly balanced view.

You can't see past your own bias mate, no need to accuse me of doing the same...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 16, 2008

It's you with the agenda my friend, I've always maintained a perfectly balanced view.

You can't see past your own bias mate, no need to accuse me of doing the same...
________
laugh

I'll happy slate joe for many things just as i will defend him.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 16, 2008

Err, yes mate, you clearly don't comprehend the point of a balanced opinion because you're too biased to see truth.

You've proved my point nicely with that comment...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 16, 2008

My point about slating Joe or defending him will be based on my own opinion.

For example, recently he's been slating Froch in the press, and moaning about how boxing is dying, yet Joe was happy to sit on his WBO for ages not trying to go after bigger fights sooner. Personally i think he should shut up and try to make more big fights or retire.

And in your initially reply to me you picked on a number of fighters Joe hadnít faced. Not a problem for me ...but... the fact that you would change your argument around for different fighters to suit your point meant that I had to respond. That reply of yours was not balanced.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 16, 2008

No, because Tarver, Jones, Hopkins, Woods and Johnson all managed to face one another (well not all, but they each faced a few of the others in that list).

Joe wasn't in the mix at all but he should have been, that's his fault.

I agreed that Taylor and Pavlik were not in Joe's league, maybe the others weren't either (Jones and Hopkins certainly were).

That's my opinion. I don't need to change it to fall into line with your views and I haven't once contradicted myself, they're separate opinions.

Opinion 1 - Joe is a great boxer.

Opinion 2 - Joe didn't do enough to face the big names.

Opinion 3 - he would have hammered Taylor, Pavlik, Tarver and Johnson.

Opinion 4 - he would have struggled with Jones and Hopkins.

I don't need to fit into the stereotype of a Joe hater just because I say something negative about him, maybe you need me to fit into that mold because it's a convenient way to rehash your old arguments and attempt to shout people down with false vitriol rather than actually debating the point with something new.

I don't see how you see that as an "unbalanced" argument and I'm bored of proving myself to you mate.

So long fisty...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 16, 2008

Sorry sunshine but accusing Joe of not going up to facing Taver sooner then flipping it and using against him for Winky a division below is not a balanced argument Iím afraid, which we both know as you avoided those points Iíve made many times in my previous posts.

TBH I feel a little embarrassed for you now as obviously your out of you depth with this so Iíll stop posting on this topic.

add comment | complain about this comment

Comment on this article

Sorry, you can only contribute to 606 during opening hours. These are 0900-2300 UK time, seven days a week, but may vary to accommodate sporting events and UK public holidays.

RATE THIS ARTICLE

Rate Breakdown

  • 5
    0 votes
  • 4
    0 votes
  • 3
    0 votes
  • 2
    0 votes
  • 1 100.00%
    5 votes

average rating:
1.00 from 5 votes