joe calazaghe on Newtalks Jones will be his last fight!

carlos30

Hi Boxing fans

just heard that excellent joe calazaghne interview tonight on Newstalk sorry i dont have a link

he said live on air , that his fight with Roy Jones will be his last there is no more after Jones. he said he offered Pavlik two fights in the past , he was offered a fight straight after the jeff lacy fight but pavliks team turned him down

he also discussed briefly his row with frank warren and how he is still owed millions from his last fight and high court seem evident

thats all really just posting incase anybody was interested

megadodge

he also discussed briefly his row with frank warren and how he is still owed millions from his last fight and high court seem evident

I didn't realise things were that serious.
I thought it was going to court cos Warren didn't want to lose out on the Jones fight.

nacho libre

I wonder what it due to money or Pavlik being yellow:D

cowzerp

nacho libre wrote: »

I wonder what it due to money or Pavlik being yellow:D

Pavlik is not yellow, back when lacy and joe fought he would of been offered brutal money as he was unknown then.

nacho libre

cowzerp wrote: »

Pavlik is not yellow, back when lacy and joe fought he would of been offered brutal money as he was unknown then.

I wonder why he didn't take the fight then.

King of Kings

PAVLIK prob wasn't at his peak then, he prob realised he wasn't at joe's standard then

contary to popular belief I believe neither fighter is obliged to fight the other - they are of different generations . joe on the way out and kelly on the way in.
simple as.

nacho libre

King of Kings wrote: »

PAVLIK prob wasn't at his peak then, he prob realised he wasn't at joe's standard then

So another words he avoided him. I think if your view was shared by many fighters, then a lot of past great fights would never have taken place where the new kid on the block took on the guy at the top to see who which of them was the best.

cowzerp

nacho libre wrote: »

I wonder why he didn't take the fight then.

Why should he fight for less money than he would now? He knew his value would go up once he kept winning.

nacho libre

cowzerp wrote: »

Why should he fight for less money than he would now? He knew his value would go up once he kept winning.

Well, the bottom line is we know Calzaghe offered to fight Pavlik and Pavlik turned him down.
I suppose Calzaghe maybe didn't fight some fighters you'd have liked to see him fight for the exact same reason. Why should he have fought for less money when he could keep winning and then get even bigger paydays towards the end of his career against Bernard Hopkins and Roy Jones.

cowzerp

Money talks, no doubt.

the difference between calzaghe not fighting the best out there is he is on his way out and if he wants to show how he's the best he needs to fight some peak decent fighters before he retires. he'll also get top money for this so money is not an excuse, he wants easy money at this stage.

Pavik was unknown and only building up, he's plenty of time to fight and beat the best out there, why risk ruining your name when your only building a reputation..

nacho libre

cowzerp wrote: »

Money talks, no doubt.

the difference between calzaghe not fighting the best out there is he is on his way out and if he wants to show how he's the best he needs to fight some peak decent fighters before he retires. he'll also get top money for this so money is not an excuse, he wants easy money at this stage.

Pavik was unknown and only building up, he's plenty of time to fight and beat the best out there, why risk ruining your name when your only building a reputation..

yes, that's a fair point about Pavlik. where i disagree with is that in my view Calzaghe has fought some good fighters over the years. You simply can't stay undefeated for 10 years without meeting some good fighters along the way. If i'm not mistaken him and Bernard Hopkins stayed undefeated for over 10 years. This puts them both in select company. In recent times Calzaghe fought Kessler and Lacey- two peak fighters who were expected to beat him by many of his critics. While it maybe fair to say Lacey was overrated. Kessler is a very good fighter.
He is no Bernard Hopkins at his peak, but as we now know Hopkins turned down a fight with Calzaghe several year by doubling his asking price at the last minute. So you can't really say Calzaghe avoided Hopkins.
To be honest I would love to see Calzaghe fight Pavlik because he is the most dangerous opponent out there Calzaghe would face today. So if Calzaghe were to win that fight you'll have to give him some credit for that. I think Calzaghe will fight him he's just playing up this being his last fight to make the fight with Pavlik even more lucrative.

cowzerp

nacho libre wrote: »

In recent times Calzaghe fought Kessler and Lacey- two peak fighters who were expected to beat him by many of his critics. While it maybe fair to say Lacey was overrated. Kessler is a very good fighter.

Kessler is unproven and in my opinion a potential good fighter, he also lacks stamina and joe was heavy favourite to beat him. Lacy, was just hyped up but is not great at all.

nacho libre wrote: »

To be honest I would love to see Calzaghe fight Pavlik because he is the most dangerous opponent out there Calzaghe would face today. So if Calzaghe were to win that fight you'll have to give him some credit for that.

I would give him credit for beating a genuine challenge, thats what i want to see, i think he gets stopped in 6 though.

eagle eye

Yet another thread about whether or not Joe Calzaghe is the man. Change the record lads. Its clear that there are those who dislike him and will use the 'he fought noboby' argument even if he could go back in time and beat Hagler, Leonard et al they would still have some argument against him.:rolleyes:

cowzerp

eagle eye wrote: »

'he fought noboby' argument even if he could go back in time and beat Hagler, Leonard et al they would still have some argument against him.:rolleyes:

Thats ridiculus, if he beat them he'd be the man, he did'nt beat anybody of note till hopkins, imo he lost this fight anyway, against a past it great.

if he beats reputable fighters genuinely it cant be argued.

megadodge

Kessler is unproven and in my opinion a potential good fighter, he also lacks stamina and joe was heavy favourite to beat him. Lacy, was just hyped up but is not great at all.

Kessler is an excellent fighter. You're the only person who thinks otherwise.

Can you show me any instance where his supposed lack of stamina was on display ?

Just because his stamina isn't as good as Calzaghe's unnatural stamina doesn't mean it's bad ! And Kessler still won the last round clearly !

Joe was NOT a heavy favourite to beat Kessler. He was a slight favourite at best, but in reality it was regarded as a real 50/50 fight between two very evenly matched boxers. There were an awful lot of people tipping Kessler.
I thought it was a very even contest and had it closer than the judges with Calzaghe nicking it by around 2 rounds at most and came away with a higher opinion of Kessler than I had going in.

The only heavy betting favourite of the contests mentioned was Lacey. The bookies and "experts" favoured him and when he was beaten suddenly he was "all hype". It's actually quite funny really the way no credit is given to Calzaghe for beating someone who was strongly favoured to beat him.

cowzerp

megadodge wrote: »

Kessler is an excellent fighter. You're the only person who thinks otherwise.

Can you show me any instance where his supposed lack of stamina was on display ?

In the calzaghe fight he showed a lack of stamina, and it was not exactly an all out war! and many of the lads on here agree with me on kessler's ability, good but not great, maybe he will develop his stamina more and become an excellent fighter!

nacho libre

megadodge wrote: »

Kessler is an excellent fighter. You're the only person who thinks otherwise.

Can you show me any instance where his supposed lack of stamina was on display ?

Just because his stamina isn't as good as Calzaghe's unnatural stamina doesn't mean it's bad ! And Kessler still won the last round clearly !

Joe was NOT a heavy favourite to beat Kessler. He was a slight favourite at best, but in reality it was regarded as a real 50/50 fight between two very evenly matched boxers. There were an awful lot of people tipping Kessler.
I thought it was a very even contest and had it closer than the judges with Calzaghe nicking it by around 2 rounds at most and came away with a higher opinion of Kessler than I had going in.

The only heavy betting favourite of the contests mentioned was Lacey. The bookies and "experts" favoured him and when he was beaten suddenly he was "all hype". It's actually quite funny really the way no credit is given to Calzaghe for beating someone who was strongly favoured to beat him.

Exactly. It's wrong to say Kessler was unproven. Kessler for the first four rounds was giving Joe Calzaghe real problems, it was only for Calzaghe's exceptional ability to figure an opponent out and change his style accordingly that changed the course of the fight. Kessler could not live with Calzaghe's hand speed and footwork. If Kessler looked not so good it was due to Calzaghe's class.
He is still a great fighter who would beat Taylor, and possibly Pavlik too, on points if his chin holds up.

eagle eye

cowzerp wrote: »

Thats ridiculus, if he beat them he'd be the man, he did'nt beat anybody of note till hopkins, imo he lost this fight anyway, against a past it great.

if he beats reputable fighters genuinely it cant be argued.

I won't say any more on the subject, I'll just ask you a couple of questions.

How many times has Lacy been beaten?
How many times has Kessler been beaten?
How many champions(past or present) have turned down fights with Calzaghe or kept upping their price to avoid him?
When you answer that one, why did all these guys avoid him?

megadodge

cowzerp wrote: »

In the calzaghe fight he showed a lack of stamina, and it was not exactly an all out war! and many of the lads on here agree with me on kessler's ability, good but not great, maybe he will develop his stamina more and become an excellent fighter!

I've a funny feeling you reckon his stamina is suspect because he did well in the early rounds and not so well in the later ones.

That had absolutely nothing to do with stamina !!

Nacho's post explains it perfectly.

T-K-O

I to was a Calzaghe "hater" until recent years. He has proven himself to be a world class boxer. But of course some people will never accept that and that is there problem.

Kessler himself is a top fighter and will more than likely dominate super middle now Joe has moved on. Calzaghe showed some balls in the fight. He kept on coming forward taking some great shots from Kessler eventually walking him down and disheartening the big dane.

Joe also ended the career of Jeff Lacey. Lacey was a huge prospect and tipped to teach Joe a lesson and will all know who went to school that day.

Ill be there in the garden in November, cant wait.

cowzerp

eagle eye wrote: »

why did all these guys avoid him?

Because they would get minimum money for a possible hard nights work against an unfancied unfashionable fighter, same happened to collins for years, fighting calzaghe was lose lose, if you won, so what!
and if you lost or had a hard time you where getting bad press and less money in all future fights.

There was always bigger fish to fry!

If RJJ can keep going properly for 12 rounds he'll KO Calzaghe, but we all know that RJJ was washed up about 5 years ago.