View Full Version : History Section: Lets Discuss Joe Calzaghe's Legacy/Achievements?


Perfect Plex
10-06-2011, 10:52 PM
Right once & for all.

Post your opinions on Joe Calzaghe's legacy, greatness, resume, title reigns & overall career achievements.

Overrated?, Underrated?, Not given enough credit? To much credit?

Discuss, Discuss & Discuss :)

ghns1133
10-06-2011, 11:19 PM
excelent fighter

but he is overated by many

Zarco
10-07-2011, 12:38 AM
I used to hate on him, now that hes gone I have learned to appreciate him. Not ATG because of his resume. Who knows what he could of done if he would of burst out of the UK sooner.

Scott9945
10-07-2011, 01:07 AM
Joe had a great boxing mind and excellent skills. He always figured out his opponent and took them out of their game while dictating the pace. His opposition could have been better, but anyone who doesn't recognize him as a top fighter is kidding themselves. He'd be a difficult fight for anyone.

Welsh Jon
10-07-2011, 05:31 AM
Right once & for all.

Post your opinions on Joe Calzaghe's legacy, greatness, resume, title reigns & overall career achievements.

Overrated?, Underrated?, Not given enough credit? To much credit?

Discuss, Discuss & Discuss :)

"Once and for all" If only!

There'll always be some people who call him a fraud, and others who think he's an ATG.

He had awesome hand speed and fantastic workrate. I don't see how anyone who has watched Calzaghe v Lacy or v Kessler can doubt his skill. His wins over those 2 were very good victories in the context of the Super-Middleweight division and his win over B-Hop at light-heavy is looking better with each new triumph for old man Bernard. And yes I do think his win over Hopkins was a fair call.

He had far too many fights against poor quality opposition though the likes of Rick Thornberry and Tocker Pudwell should never have had title shots and Mario Veit should certainly have not had 2. And this was made worse by the fact he often fought down to the challengers level, he would often look at his worst against guys that were not a threat to himBut he did have victories over former champions Robin Reid, Richie Woodhall, Charles Brewer, Byron Mitchell and a past his best but still competetive Chris Eubank. He had decent wins over solid guys like Sakio Bika and the gatekeeper-type Juan Carlos Gimenez Ferreyra as well.

He's certainly the greatest Super-Middle of all-time, but I do realise that is not really saying a lot. He had the WBO Super-middleweight belt for a decade, and added the IBF, WBC and WBA belts. He was Ring Champion at Super-Middleweight and Light-Heavy.

There was an earlier thread on this board showing all his dodgy early KO wins. Yes most of these were stopped to early. But all but one of these (the Byron Mitchell fight) came in fights that Joe had no chance of losing. They don't have any real baring on how Calzaghe should be ranked, cos no-one ranks him as a big puncher anyway.

It really annoys me when Joe gets compared to Sven Ottke. In none of his fights did Ottke display skills comparable to Joe. Ottke's title reign was built on a succession of hometown decsions. The same can not be said of Joe. He had 2 controversial judging decsions in his career, against Robin Ried and B-Hop and 1 of those was against an Englishman in England and the other against an American in America. He had several early stoppage wins, but only 1 in a fight there was actually any danger of him losing. These do not come close to the disgrace that was Sven Ottkes's reign.

Sugarj
10-07-2011, 05:59 AM
Without doubt a future hall of famer! An ATG? Its a difficult call, but he does have an argument based on his unbeaten record. History may be kinder to him than we think.......

There are very underated wins too. Robin Reid and Richie Woodhall were former champions with exceptional amateur pedigree for example. Chris Eubank was hardly a spent force.

The Hopkins and Kessler wins look better every year....

He would have been a superstar in the 90s if he had been based in America, hell, look at the support Pauli Mallignaggi gets from the Italian American fans!

Can anyone think of a Super Middleweight or Light heavyweight in the last two decades who would have handled Calzaghe easily?

Prime Jones or James Toney may have beaten him, but these two would be posed with problems......plus they are bonafide ATGs in my opinion.

wmute
10-07-2011, 07:39 AM
HoF? Easily. ATG? Not really.

The Surgeon
10-07-2011, 07:57 AM
I Hate him. I find it hard to take him seriously and its embarrassing to call him a great or a HOF'er when u see him missing windmills and slapping people, all those phoney stoppages too.

I have to admit he had some attributes though - A great engine and workrate, good speed (not gonna call it great coz im fast as **** when i throw pitty pat shots too, its not hard), a big heart when in battle, tough skin, and a great ability to adapt mid fight along with mental strength


There. Thats all the cunts getting out of me! :grumble:

D-MiZe
10-07-2011, 08:23 AM
Joe had a great boxing mind and excellent skills. He always figured out his opponent and took them out of their game while dictating the pace. His opposition could have been better, but anyone who doesn't recognize him as a top fighter is kidding themselves. He'd be a difficult fight for anyone.

On top of the fact he was fighting most of his career with bad hands. I think if he hadn't any hand problems everyone on this forum would've been on his dick. His best attribute was how well he could adapt and that's what took him to the top and the reason why he stayed there for so long.

NoLove
10-07-2011, 08:35 AM
An excellent talent but he never really proved his talent in the ring. He had only three big wins. Eubank, Kessler and Hopkins. Kessler also doesn't rank as great. Weather or not it was his fault or his promoter's, the fact is Joe is not proven as great.

Taylor, Froch, Pavlik, Johnson, Dawson, Wright, Prime Jones are all names Calzaghe could have fought to secure his legacy.

And we can't use the theory that 'Froch beat Kessler so that means Calzaghe beats Froch'. Styles make fights. If Calzaghe wants to prove he could beat all these guys he has to beat them himself. It was very clear that Calzaghe was ducking Pavlik when he was the big thing. He fought a shot Jones instead and let Hopkins expose Pavlik.

Personally, I don't think Calzaghe should be inducted into the hall of fame. Not on three big wins, two of which were past their prime.

RubenSonny
10-07-2011, 09:11 AM
Joe had a great boxing mind and excellent skills. He always figured out his opponent and took them out of their game while dictating the pace. His opposition could have been better, but anyone who doesn't recognize him as a top fighter is kidding themselves. He'd be a difficult fight for anyone.



What on earth do you base this on?

IronDanHamza
10-07-2011, 09:17 AM
Joe Calzaghe was a very taletned fighter. All time great ability.

He had the ability to beat most fighters of his era.

The problem is; his resume is very weak.

He's the epitome of an underachiever, IMO. He had so much skills and ability.

The fact is, atleast in terms of resume, he is not an all time great. It's just way too hollow. Consisting of almost nothing, with like 3 wins over Top ranked opposition his entire career.

Yeah, he had alot of title defenses. But so did Sven Ottke, so did Ivan Calderon, so did Johnny Nelson. Now, I'm not saying Calzaghe is no greater than them, he is. But, it means you can't put much stock into title defenses.

He will get into the HOF. But in my opinion, I'm not too sure if I would vote for him. That's just my opinion and honesty. He will get in. Should he? Personally, I'm not even sure.

Scott9945
10-07-2011, 09:46 AM
What on earth do you base this on?

His ring smarts, unique style, workrate, and skills.

The_Demon
10-07-2011, 09:47 AM
Joe had a great boxing mind and excellent skills. He always figured out his opponent and took them out of their game while dictating the pace. His opposition could have been better, but anyone who doesn't recognize him as a top fighter is kidding themselves. He'd be a difficult fight for anyone.

Very well said

His resume is slightly lacking,but he was an incredible fighter who could pose anybody problems,he had a very good all round game and an awkward style,and a crowd pleasing style if his opponent engaged him

IronDanHamza
10-07-2011, 10:11 AM
Very well said

His resume is slightly lacking,but he was an incredible fighter who could pose anybody problems,he had a very good all round game and an awkward style,and a crowd pleasing style if his opponent engaged him

I think 'Slightly lacking' is a pretty big understatment.

wmute
10-07-2011, 12:01 PM
In all honesty, I don't think he would have "posed problems for anyone". Simply put, he was way too open for a right hand.

There are many fighters around his weight who I would put my money on in a heartbeat, because of that. Off the top of my head Charles, Moore, Toney and prime versions of Jones, Hopkins would all beat him without much of a problem. They are all great to atg, but that's enough to cut him out from ATG status IMO. Solid HoF it is.

Ziggy Stardust
10-07-2011, 12:15 PM
His ring smarts, unique style, workrate, and skills.

It's easy to look like you have awesome skills when you're fighting scrubs.

Poet

Scott9945
10-07-2011, 12:33 PM
It's easy to look like you have awesome skills when you're fighting scrubs.

Poet

I've never seen anyone else make Bernard Hopkins look that bad. Before or after.

Ziggy Stardust
10-07-2011, 12:41 PM
I've never seen anyone else make Bernard Hopkins look that bad. Before or after.

A well past-it Bernard Hopkins that has to be carefully matched to win. That wasn't the B-Hop of 2001. Even so the result is considered in many quarters to be controversial; so apparently he wasn't able to make a well past-it Middleweight look all that bad considering it's a disputed decision.

Poet

Scott9945
10-07-2011, 01:00 PM
A well past-it Bernard Hopkins that has to be carefully matched to win. That wasn't the B-Hop of 2001. Even so the result is considered in many quarters to be controversial; so apparently he wasn't able to make a well past-it Middleweight look all that bad considering it's a disputed decision.

Poet

It was still years before Hopkins entered a fight with Chad Dawson defending his lightheavyweight title at even odds. Like I said, Hopkins has never looked worse than against Calzaghe. Of course you could say the opposite is true as well. It was an ugly match between difficult fighters.

Welsh Jon
10-07-2011, 08:04 PM
An excellent talent but he never really proved his talent in the ring. He had only three big wins. Eubank, Kessler and Hopkins. Kessler also doesn't rank as great. Weather or not it was his fault or his promoter's, the fact is Joe is not proven as great.

Taylor, Froch, Pavlik, Johnson, Dawson, Wright, Prime Jones are all names Calzaghe could have fought to secure his legacy.

And we can't use the theory that 'Froch beat Kessler so that means Calzaghe beats Froch'. Styles make fights. If Calzaghe wants to prove he could beat all these guys he has to beat them himself. It was very clear that Calzaghe was ducking Pavlik when he was the big thing. He fought a shot Jones instead and let Hopkins expose Pavlik.

Personally, I don't think Calzaghe should be inducted into the hall of fame. Not on three big wins, two of which were past their prime.

Like fuk was Calzaghe ducking Pavlik! He would have done to Pavlik what he did to Lacey. I'm pretty sure both he and his Dad knew this. Enzo had said words to that effect in public. But he could make more money fighting Jones so he took it. I think it stinks that Joe chose RJJ as his last opponent, I think he should have fought Chad Dawson and I think he would have won if he did. But he's not the 1st boxer to take the biggest money fight rather than the biggest challenge, and he won't be the last.

In regards to Froch, by the time he had established himself as a worthy challenger to Calzaghe Joe had already decided to call it quits. And Calzaghe would have beaten Froch, I have no doubts about that. Not because Froch lost to kessler, but because Froch struggled with the speed of both Jermain Taylor and Andre Dirrell. Yep like you said styles make fights and Calzaghe's style would have been a nightmare for Froch.

IronDanHamza
10-07-2011, 09:20 PM
Like fuk was Calzaghe ducking Pavlik! He would have done to Pavlik what he did to Lacey. I'm pretty sure both he and his Dad knew this. Enzo had said words to that effect in public. But he could make more money fighting Jones so he took it. I think it stinks that Joe chose RJJ as his last opponent, I think he should have fought Chad Dawson and I think he would have won if he did. But he's not the 1st boxer to take the biggest money fight rather than the biggest challenge, and he won't be the last.

In regards to Froch, by the time he had established himself as a worthy challenger to Calzaghe Joe had already decided to call it quits. And Calzaghe would have beaten Froch, I have no doubts about that. Not because Froch lost to kessler, but because Froch struggled with the speed of both Jermain Taylor and Andre Dirrell. Yep like you said styles make fights and Calzaghe's style would have been a nightmare for Froch.

I agree with you.

I think Joe beats Pavlik, Dawson and Froch, easy.

I think he beats every SMW of his era H2H except for Roy Jones.

I think other than Ward, he would clean out today's SMW division with ease.

But sadly, that's the story of his career. Joe had the ability, but he retired severely lacking in resume.

Scott9945
10-07-2011, 09:25 PM
I agree with you.

I think Joe beats Pavlik, Dawson and Froch, easy.

I think he beats every SMW of his era H2H except for Roy Jones.

I think other than Ward, he would clean out today's SMW division with ease.

But sadly, that's the story of his career. Joe had the ability, but he retired severely lacking in resume.

Very reasonable analysis. :boxing:

crold1
10-07-2011, 09:42 PM
I agree with you.

I think Joe beats Pavlik, Dawson and Froch, easy.

I think he beats every SMW of his era H2H except for Roy Jones.

I think other than Ward, he would clean out today's SMW division with ease.

But sadly, that's the story of his career. Joe had the ability, but he retired severely lacking in resume.

He had a very top heavy resume. So did guys like Ricardo Lopez. There was enough to define what made Joe special (Scott and I agree on pretty much everything here so see his posts). To me there is enough there to see greatness. On the level of contemporaries Jones and Hopkins?

NO.

But he cleaned out his class at the end, beat the best rival he had there (I think Kessler was better than Ottke by a bit; Liles might have a case in era), and moved up to beat a Hopkins who was STILL GREAT (proven since) at a time where neither man was peak. It's an easy HOF career and, as 168 persists and its history grows, he will always be in the conversation for best there. Can't have the convo without him. That is a measure, and will be his measure, of ATG-ness.

Ziggy Stardust
10-07-2011, 09:57 PM
a Hopkins who was STILL GREAT

And what has Hopkins done since to prove he's still great? Beating a fraud like Pavlik? Or maybe getting a draw and a decision over a fraud like Pascal? Come on. That's just cheapening the meaning of the word great. People throw that word around like copper pence instead of the gold standard it's supposed to be.

Poet

PunchesNbuncheS
10-07-2011, 09:58 PM
I've never seen anyone else make Bernard Hopkins look that bad. Before or after.

You mean an older not prime version Of Bernard, plus Roy Jones made a prime Bernard look bad but Bernard also made Calzaghe look really bad too. It was to the point were many people felt the fight could have gone the other way or a draw at least so it goes both ways with Hopkins and Calzaghe, its a two way street!

crold1
10-07-2011, 10:06 PM
And what has Hopkins done since to prove he's still great? Beating a fraud like Pavlik? Or maybe getting a draw and a decision over a fraud like Pascal? Come on. That's just cheapening the meaning of the word great. People throw that word around like copper pence instead of the gold standard it's supposed to be.

Poet

If it was that easy to beat Pavlik or Pascal, other guys wouldn't have to work so hard against them. Rare men take younger, faster guys apart like Hopkins did Pascal. Though flawed, he was rocked bad a couple times in both fights with Pascal and endured and his defense is still impeccable. Hopkins still has greatness in him.

crold1
10-07-2011, 10:09 PM
You mean an older not prime version Of Bernard, plus Roy Jones made a prime Bernard look bad but Bernard also made Calzaghe look really bad too. It was to the point were many people felt the fight could have gone the other way or a draw at least so it goes both ways with Hopkins and Calzaghe, its a two way street!

There weren't that many people who thought the fight could go the other way until well after. It was pretty widely seen as a Joe win among fans (check around on the various forums) with a split amongst factions of the press. The "Hopkins was robbed" crowd has been particularly noisy so the controversy has grown. Agree neither guy looked epic, but Calzaghe is the only guy I've seen since Jones 93 win the second half of a fight with 'Nard. (and Jones didn't make 'Nard look bad in that fight. It was just a pedestrian boxing match that Jones edged with speed)

PunchesNbuncheS
10-07-2011, 10:13 PM
Calzaghe was a good fighter but some people tend to criminally overrate him as this ATG who would have whooped a prime Jones, Hopkins, Toney and those caliber fighters and Im sorry but I just dont see it.

He was good and he could beat alot of fighters from 168 to 175 but he isnt what some people here hype him up to be. Im not saying he was a bad fighter because he had good ability and a good boxing brain that allowed him to adapt and adjust which in my opinion is a great great thing to have but he just didnt fight the people that he should have fought when it mattered the most, when it could have meant everything to his legacy.

Sadly his wins over 2 older and not prime ATG's in Jones and Hopkins will always be questioned because the majority of boxers, boxing writers and just boxing fans period believe that he couldnt have beaten them when they were in their prime and thats not gonna change.

To be honest with you, I think he beats everyone else at around his weight except Jones, Hopkins, Toney, and maybe Ward beats him too.

Ziggy Stardust
10-07-2011, 10:13 PM
If it was that easy to beat Pavlik or Pascal, other guys wouldn't have to work so hard against them. Rare men take younger, faster guys apart like Hopkins did Pascal. Though flawed, he was rocked bad a couple times in both fights with Pascal and endured and his defense is still impeccable. Hopkins still has greatness in him.

Hopkins' greatness was back in 2001. Now he's a cheap imitation of his former self who has to be carefully matched to win. Greatness isn't measured by being just good enough to beat guys who are just good enough to beat tomato cans.

Poet

crold1
10-07-2011, 10:18 PM
Hopkins' greatness was back in 2001. Now he's a cheap imitation of his former self who has to be carefully matched to win. Greatness isn't measured by being just good enough to beat guys who are just good enough to beat tomato cans.

Poet

Carefully matched? While I think Dawson might get him next week, I don't see the careful matching in total (I was critical when he didn't fight a genuine Light Heavy fir a couple years). His quality of comp since moving to 175 has been among the best and most consistent in the sport, if sporadic (Jones/Ornelas wasn't the worst dip between title reigns ever). His lone loss was competitive to another HOFer coming in hot. Our definition of tomato cans differs and I don't think Pascal, Wright, Pavlik, Calzaghe, or Tarver fit it.

New England
10-07-2011, 10:27 PM
If it was that easy to beat Pavlik or Pascal, other guys wouldn't have to work so hard against them. Rare men take younger, faster guys apart like Hopkins did Pascal. Though flawed, he was rocked bad a couple times in both fights with Pascal and endured and his defense is still impeccable. Hopkins still has greatness in him.

pascal's speed only impresses me to any real degree for four rounds or so

and in the latter half of fights he's literally taking the majority of every round off

in my humble opinion pascal had zero business even beating chad dawson, who was :
a: finally coming on
and b: responsible for being behind anyway because he cant let his damn hands go


i'd probably pick a less than great old fighter in glen johnson to outwork pascal
hell, adrian diacanu gave him a rough go. i thought he lost both fights to hopkins.
in short i don't think it really takes a great fighter to beat jean pascal (especially at 175)

you need a good chin to get past his early stuff and a 12 round pace



at bernard's age even being in the ring is impressive.
he's got the deepest bag of tricks in boxing. but one really shouldn't put a ton of stock into a win over jean pascal in my opinion





unrelated: anybody else think dawson has hopkins number for this one?
i've got a bad feeling that it might be bernard's last fight

Ziggy Stardust
10-07-2011, 10:30 PM
Carefully matched? While I think Dawson might get him next week, I don't see the careful matching. His quality of comp since moving to 175 has been among the best and most consistent in the sport, if sporadic (Jones/Ornelas wasn't the worst dip between title reigns ever). His lone loss was competitive to another HOFer coming in hot. Our definition of tomato cans differs and I don't think Pascal, Pavlik, Calzaghe, or Tarver fit it.

Carefully matched in order to win. He isn't beating Dawson. Jones was completely washed up so that's hardly a "great win". Wright is as past-it as Hopkins. Tarver was never a great fighter and even HE had slipped to past-prime status just like Hopkins. Ornelas? Who the hell did he ever beat? A washed up club fighter like McKart? Please. Pavlik and Pascal are just good enough to beat the tomato cans that make up their resumes. Neither has ever shown me anything against legitimate top opponents to make me think they're world beaters and anything more than the cookie cutter type of opponents that usually float around the bottom half of the top-10 in an average era. Pascal Vs Dawson was a fluke.

Poet

crold1
10-07-2011, 10:30 PM
pascal's speed only impresses me to any real degree for four rounds or so

and in the latter half of fights he's literally taking the majority of every round off

in my humble opinion pascal had zero business even beating chad dawson, who was :
a: finally coming on
and b: responsible for being behind anyway because he cant let his damn hands go


i'd probably pick a less than great old fighter in glen johnson to outwork pascal
hell, adrian diacanu gave him a rough go. i thought he lost both fights to hopkins.
in short i don't think it really takes a great fighter to beat jean pascal (especially at 175)

you need a good chin to get past his early stuff and a 12 round pace



at bernard's age even being in the ring is impressive.
he's got the deepest bag of tricks in boxing. but one really shouldn't put a ton of stock into a win over jean pascal in my opinion





unrelated: anybody else think dawson has hopkins number for this one?
i've got a bad feeling that it might be bernard's last fight

I picked Pascal to beat Dawson because I thought Dawson would be frozen too often by a guy who was quicker than him (and I've seen Pascal in too many brawls to think a miracle stop was coming). I would pick Dawson in a rematch and like him against 'Nard but hedge my bets because one never knows with the old man. A lot depends on how bad Dawson wants it and whether he is mentally strong enough to let his talent take over.

Ziggy Stardust
10-07-2011, 10:33 PM
unrelated: anybody else think dawson has hopkins number for this one? i've got a bad feeling that it might be bernard's last fight

I figure it goes one of two way: A) Hopkins gets beaten up bad and retires; or B) Hopkins plays the ugly spoiler and gets outworked to a decision loss. Either way Hopkins loses.

Poet

crold1
10-07-2011, 10:35 PM
Carefully matched in order to win. He isn't beating Dawson. Jones was completely washed up so that's hardly a "great win". Wright is as past-it as Hopkins. Tarver was never a great fighter and even HE had slipped to past-prime status just like Hopkins. Ornelas? Who the hell did he ever beat? A washed up club fighter like McKart? Please. Pavlik and Pascal are just good enough to beat the tomato cans that make up their resumes. Neither has ever shown me anything against legitimate top opponents to make me think they're world beaters and anything more than the cookie cutter type of opponents that usually float around the bottom half of the top-10 in an average era. Pascal Vs Dawson was a fluke.

Poet

I acknowledge Ornelas/Jones as a dip; just not the worst ever between reigns. I can also acknowledge some past prime cats (175 is full of that right now with youth coming along; Cloud with activity could take the division over). But, even past it, all those dudes can still fight and none were shot. I didn't think Pascal-Dawson was not a fluke; he matched well with Dawson that night for reasons stated above. Pascal is flawed but athletically gifted and has a lot of heart. He's not an easy out. It's why he keeps ending up in exciting brawls. Pavlik was hot coming in and even in losing to the talented Serg made it a tough night until late.

Oh, and Hopkins gives up close to two decades to these dudes. He's a genius who can still go.

IronDanHamza
10-07-2011, 10:39 PM
I just cannot see any logcial argument for Joe Calzaghe being an ATG.

His best wins are over a 43 year old fighter, a good but not great fighter and an overhyped fighter who got wasted by a shot to pieces Roy Jones Jr in embarrassing fashion.

And other than that his career consists of pretty much nothing at all. Those 3 mentioned being the only 3 fighters he fought that were ranked in the Top 5 of his division when he fought them in a reliatively weak division anyway.

I just cannot see it.

New England
10-07-2011, 10:41 PM
I picked Pascal to beat Dawson because I thought Dawson would be frozen too often by a guy who was quicker than him (and I've seen Pascal in too many brawls to think a miracle stop was coming). I would pick Dawson in a rematch and like him against 'Nard but hedge my bets because one never knows with the old man. A lot depends on how bad Dawson wants it and whether he is mentally strong enough to let his talent take over.


you said it brother. he's a solid fighter when he's letting his hands go

New England
10-07-2011, 10:45 PM
I figure it goes one of two way: A) Hopkins gets beaten up bad and retires; or B) Hopkins plays the ugly spoiler and gets outworked to a decision loss. Either way Hopkins loses.

Poet



do you think scenario b would still be his last fight?


obviously if chad really puts punches on him and he cant get out of the way and he gets stopped he's never fighting again, but i'm not sure what he'll do if he loses on the cards

he'll probably think he won if he stays on his feet

Ziggy Stardust
10-07-2011, 10:48 PM
do you think scenario b would still be his last fight?


obviously if chad really puts punches on him and he cant get out of the way and he gets stopped he's never fighting again, but i'm not sure what he'll do if he loses on the cards

he'll probably think he won if he stays on his feet

No, if the latter happens there will still be people saying he was "robbed" and what a genius he is and how he's better then he ever was ect ect ect. Then he'll line up a fight with someone who's perfectly matched to lose to him like Pavlik and will set himself up for another high profile fight he has no chance of winning. It's what fighters 10 years past their expiration dates do (see Joe Louis).

Poet

crold1
10-07-2011, 10:49 PM
I just cannot see any logcial argument for Joe Calzaghe being an ATG.

His best wins are over a 43 year old fighter, a good but not great fighter and an overhyped fighter who got wasted by a shot to pieces Roy Jones Jr in embarrassing fashion.

And other than that his career consists of pretty much nothing at all. Those 3 mentioned being the only 3 fighters he fought that were ranked in the Top 5 of his division when he fought them in a reliatively weak division anyway.

I just cannot see it.

The difference between top and bottom 5 during the Calzaghe years at 168 was negligible and he fought guys who could have been rated depending on who was asking (like Starie) along with some other guys who got rated later etc. It's a valid point, but you're mildly overthinking the Ring Ratings thing IMO. His comp had holes. he also fought most of the guys who mattered (missed Ottke but Ottke NEVER wanted that fight) and you're not giving him enough credit for utterly wrecking Lacy years before the Roy fight. That was as career altering an ass whooping as produced the last decade.

IronDanHamza
10-07-2011, 10:55 PM
The difference between top and bottom 5 during the Calzaghe years at 168 was negligible and he fought guys who could have been rated depending on who was asking (like Starie) along with some other guys who got rated later etc. It's a valid point, but you're mildly overthinking the Ring Ratings thing IMO. His comp had holes. he also fought most of the guys who mattered (missed Ottke but Ottke NEVER wanted that fight) and you're not giving him enough credit for utterly wrecking Lacy years before the Roy fight. That was as career altering an ass whooping as produced the last decade.

Did anyone Calzaghe beat ever end up in the Top 5 after he fought them? I can't remember. I know it wasn't many if there is any.

The fact is his resume has a severe lack of quality and is simply not to an ATG standard.

As for Lacy, yeah, it was a good win. His 3rd best win IMO.

Still doesn't change the fact that Jeff Lacy is a boarderline bum. And is possibly the most overhyped fighter of the last decade and frankly not very good, at all.

crold1
10-07-2011, 10:59 PM
Did anyone Calzaghe beat ever end up in the Top 5 after he fought them? I can't remember. I know it wasn't many if there is any.

The fact is his resume has a severe lack of quality and is simply not to an ATG standard.

As for Lacy, yeah, it was a good win. His 3rd best win IMO.

Still doesn't change the fact that Jeff Lacy is a boarderline bum. And is possibly the most overhyped fighter of the last decade and frankly not very good, at all.

I think Eubank, Woodhall, and Reid (while close) are better wins than Lacy in terms of quality. Lacy wasn't a borderline bum at that point though. Just a young fighter who didn't know how to duck and thought he was fighting some feather duster who couldn't hurt him. He paid with any hope of a career. I knew someone significant around the Lacy camp then who told me he didn't want the fight and got overruled. I thought Joe was a talent who let it get past him at that point. He kept telling me I didn't see what Joe really had. Lacy was eye opening. I was there at kessler and saw how he made adjustments against a young guy pouring it out. Now I'm pretty much with Scott.

I'll say the Jones Calzaghe beat wasn't even as good as Mitchell by that point (now there's a win not worth noting). We've had this debate before. Don't think anyone's mind is changing. :)

Ziggy Stardust
10-07-2011, 11:00 PM
And Calzaghe didn't wreck Lacy: My Grandmother's smacked me harder then Calzaghe hit Lacy. All Calzaghe did was expose Lacy for the fraud that he was.

Poet

PunchesNbuncheS
10-07-2011, 11:02 PM
There weren't that many people who thought the fight could go the other way until well after. It was pretty widely seen as a Joe win among fans (check around on the various forums) with a split amongst factions of the press. The "Hopkins was robbed" crowd has been particularly noisy so the controversy has grown. Agree neither guy looked epic, but Calzaghe is the only guy I've seen since Jones 93 win the second half of a fight with 'Nard. (and Jones didn't make 'Nard look bad in that fight. It was just a pedestrian boxing match that Jones edged with speed)

There were alot of people but they were drowned out by the overwhelming majority of people who took to the forums on not only BS but everywhere else because at the time Bernard didnt make any new fans or friends with his "I aint ever gonna let a whiteboy beat me" comment which just turned a hell of alot of people against him. Because of that comment anyone with half a brain knew that if the fight was close they were gonna give it to Calzaghe and when the fight happened and it was a close disputed decision a *****load of people who are white were all over the net just rubbing it in Bernards face that he lost. You cant deny that, was a big reason why the Calzaghe fans were so vocal about it. Correct me if Im making that up or if that isnt true!

As for the Jones comment at the end, you seem to be forgetting that Jones faced a prime Hopkins, something Calzaghe never did. Jones beat him with speed and with his unorthodox approach to fighting plus reflexes and that was a prime Hopkins while Calzaghe faced a past prime but still good Hopkins and was dropped in the 1st round and arguably lost the fight and never had the balls to rematch the guy.

crold1
10-07-2011, 11:04 PM
There were alot of people but they were drowned out by the overwhelming majority of people who took to the forums on not only BS but everywhere else because at the time Bernard didnt make any new fans or friends with his "I aint ever gonna let a whiteboy beat me" comment which just turned a hell of alot of people against him. Because of that comment anyone with half a brain knew that if the fight was close they were gonna give it to Calzaghe and when the fight happened and it was a close disputed decision a *****load of people who are white were all over the net just rubbing it in Bernards face that he lost. You cant deny that, was a big reason why the Calzaghe fans were so vocal about it. Correct me if Im making that up or if that isnt true!

As for the Jones comment at the end, you seem to be forgetting that Jones faced a prime Hopkins, something Calzaghe never did. Jones beat him with speed and with his unorthodox approach to fighting plus reflexes and that was a prime Hopkins while Calzaghe faced a past prime but still good Hopkins and was dropped in the 1st round and arguably lost the fight and never had the balls to rematch the guy.

Oh, that's it. It was white people. Uh huh. Could also be that most people watching on TV thought Calzaghe won only to find out there was a controversy later on. Some of the most educated followers on earth post at CyberBoxingZone...go check the opinions there from fight night. Guys like Ron Lipton usually come with strong cards.

Hopkins wasn't prime against Jones or Calzaghe. He was a smarter fighter by Calzaghe; younger and quicker v. Jones.

crold1
10-07-2011, 11:05 PM
And Calzaghe didn't wreck Lacy: My Grandmother's smacked me harder then Calzaghe hit Lacy. All Calzaghe did was expose Lacy for the fraud that he was.

Poet

Your grandmother must have been one tough broad because Lacy got the living hell beat out of him.

IronDanHamza
10-07-2011, 11:07 PM
I think Eubank, Woodhall, and Reid (while close) are better wins than Lacy in terms of quality. The Jones Calzaghe beat wasn't even as good as Mitchell by that point (now there's a win not worth noting). We've had this debate before. Don't think anyone's mind is changing. :)

Eubank was unranked and hand't won a legit fight in years at 168. Win was worthless in my book.

Richie Woodhall is just not good, man. He is not a good fighter at all. I have actually met Richie Woodhall a handful of times and if he was a good a fighter as he was a moron then he would be an ATG, that's for sure.

Robin Reid is a little bit better than Woodhall but not really by that much. And he was competitive with him.

I mean, we've established his Top 6 wins are in no order are;

Hopkins
Kessler
Lacy
Woodhall
Eubank
Reid

Let's face it, that is simply not ATG calibur or even anywhere near close to it.

But I agree it seems no one opinion on this matter is changing :lol1: So may aswell leave it. But, I think for Calzaghe to be considered an ATG, the criteria for ATG status must be set to a very low standard.

Ziggy Stardust
10-07-2011, 11:08 PM
Your grandmother must have been one tough broad because Lacy got the living hell beat out of him.

Yes she was :cool9:

crold1
10-07-2011, 11:09 PM
Yes she was :cool9:

Salud brah. We can agree to disagree. I gotta' go cover ShoBox for the site. :)

crold1
10-07-2011, 11:10 PM
Eubank was unranked and hand't won a legit fight in years at 168. Win was worthless in my book.

Richie Woodhall is just not good, man. He is not a good fighter at all. I have actually met Richie Woodhall a handful of times and if he was a good a fighter as he was a moron then he would be an ATG, that's for sure.

Robin Reid is a little bit better than Woodhall but not really by that much. And he was competitive with him.

I mean, we've established his Top 6 wins are in no order are;

Hopkins
Kessler
Lacy
Woodhall
Eubank
Reid

Let's face it, that is simply not ATG calibur or even anywhere near close to it.

But I agree it seems no one opinion on this matter is changing :lol1: So may aswell leave it. But, I think for Calzaghe to be considered an ATG, the criteria for ATG status must be set to a very low standard.

I predicate on his divisional status and think it iso's there. Greatness has tiers. He's at a lower one for sure.

Ziggy Stardust
10-07-2011, 11:11 PM
Salud brah. We can agree to disagree. I gotta' go cover ShoBox for the site. :)

Anybody interesting on it tonight?

Poet

crold1
10-07-2011, 11:15 PM
Anybody interesting on it tonight?

Poet

Bogere-Contreras; both undefeated; Lightweight prospects.

Obama
10-07-2011, 11:20 PM
Hopkins' greatness was back in 2001. Now he's a cheap imitation of his former self who has to be carefully matched to win. Greatness isn't measured by being just good enough to beat guys who are just good enough to beat tomato cans.

Poet

I liked this one. Almost agree with it too.

As for ShoBox, so far the opening card is far from thrilling.

Chino Madonna
10-07-2011, 11:25 PM
Like fuk was Calzaghe ducking Pavlik!

He 100% ducked a Pavlik fight before picking RJJ. It was at a time when KP was hot, and HBO, Team Pavlik and the fans were pushing for it. And he picked RJJ instead. Sure, he would've slapped Pavlik around but he didn't risk it.

I really dislike Calzaghe but recognise he was a very talented fighter. His style was ugly as hell and so sloppy but he would be a tough fight for anyone, though I am convinced prime RJJ, Toney and Hopkins would've beat him - just too technically skilled, and seasoned against better opposition.

His resume is goddamn awful for someone as good as him. I mean, seriously.....who's the best win on there? Hopkins? A 43 year old B-Hop, who he....what, outworked by the end? He went into that fight a big favourite, and just squeaked by in a pretty dreadful performance. I don't know how much credit I would give to that, really.

Kessler win/performance was good - but what has Mikkel done since? Beaten even worse by a (at the time) novice in Andre Ward? Go life and death with Carl Froch? Everyime Kessler has stepped up to the elite, he hasn't looked the world-beater his fans (mostly Calzaghe fans who adopted him) use to tell us all he was.

What else....Lacy? Eubank? Get out of here, man.

Look what Ward and Froch are doing at SMW right now, and then look at the quality of Calzaghe's opponents/wins. It's farcical.

Tbh, I don't think he gives a sh*t what hardcore fans think about his resume. He didn't really seek greatness, so it shouldn't be bestowed upon him. He made his money, can always point to his undefeated record, and has enough fans in the UK to reassure him that he was a great fighter. He's probably very happy with his career.

I saw an interview on YT that Enzo Calzaghe did......I think it was about Cleverly possibly fighter Maccarrinelli.......and he was saying it would be the wrong move for Cleverly to make, to take on a dangerous fight before he's made serious money, cos that was the name of the game.

And that to me confirmed that it was that same mentality that ruled Calzaghe's career - make your money, and don't take risks until you absolutely have to.

Kessler, to me, was the one big risk that he took, and even in that fight, he was favoured to win, and had it in his hometown.

PunchesNbuncheS
10-07-2011, 11:32 PM
Oh, that's it. It was white people. Uh huh. Could also be that most people watching on TV thought Calzaghe won only to find out there was a controversy later on. Some of the most educated followers on earth post at CyberBoxingZone...go check the opinions there from fight night. Guys like Ron Lipton usually come with strong cards.

Hopkins wasn't prime against Jones or Calzaghe. He was a smarter fighter by Calzaghe; younger and quicker v. Jones.

Look man, Im not trying to upset you and I can clearly see that my last post upset you. But what I said is true whether you want to admit it or not. There were alot and I mean alot of upset white people when Hopkins made that stupid comment and it came back to bite him in the ass. Of course he was gonna lose the decision if it was close and then the forums were just overloaded with Calzaghe fans afterwards that is true, Im sorry if it upsets you.

Could it be that just as much people saw Hopkins win but since he lost on the cards all the "new" Calzaghe fans just flooded the net to rub it in that he "lost" to a white boy and thats why your argument about opinions on fight night is even in here?

You said it yourself that the Hopkins won argument has gotten louder from the Hopkins crowd but yet the Calzaghe won crowd has gotten smaller. Hhmm, I wonder if what I said earlier as the reason for the pro Calzaghe fight night opinions might be true?

crold1
10-07-2011, 11:35 PM
Look man, Im not trying to upset you and I can clearly see that my last post upset you. But what I said is true whether you want to admit it or not. There were alot and I mean alot of upset white people when Hopkins made that stupid comment and it came back to bite him in the ass. Of course he was gonna lose the decision if it was close and then the forums were just overloaded with Calzaghe fans afterwards that is true, Im sorry if it upsets you.

Could it be that just as much people saw Hopkins win but since he lost on the cards all the "new" Calzaghe fans just flooded the net to rub it in that he "lost" to a white boy and thats why your argument about opinions on fight night is even in here?

You said it yourself that the Hopkins won argument has gotten louder from the Hopkins crowd but yet the Calzaghe won crowd has gotten smaller. Hhmm, I wonder if what I said earlier as the reason for the pro Calzaghe fight night opinions might be true?

Or could it be that, like Leonard-Hagler, the people who think Leonard won are over it and the people who think Hagler won bring a lot of animosity towards Leonard with them?

And note, the Hopkins crowd is louder, not much bigger. There's a vocal minority that is still pissed that Calzaghe won. again, the majority that scored for Joe moved on from that eyesore fight.

TBear
10-07-2011, 11:44 PM
I have respect for Calzaghe. Admittedly Lacy was overrated and the
Jones/B-Hop/Eubanks wins were after their prime but the Kessler win stands out as a very good win. If you rank him as an all time super middleweight he is up on or near the top. One thing that might hurt is the fighters the limited wbo chose to rank and perhaps Calzaghe should have went after a bigger "title" earlier. But Calzaghe did Wales proud as a titlist.

PunchesNbuncheS
10-07-2011, 11:55 PM
Or could it be that, like Leonard-Hagler, the people who think Leonard won are over it and the people who think Hagler won bring a lot of animosity towards Leonard with them?

And note, the Hopkins crowd is louder, not much bigger. There's a vocal minority that is still pissed that Calzaghe won. again, the majority that scored for Joe moved on from that eyesore fight.

You talk as if you know these crowds personally or something. I used something you said about the cowds against you and now youre claiming to know the size of the crowds and how loud they are too? The only thing I agree with you on is that the fight was ugly as hell, in that you are correct.

SCtrojansbaby
10-08-2011, 02:43 AM
B level fighter

RubenSonny
10-08-2011, 09:20 AM
His ring smarts, unique style, workrate, and skills.

I can think of several fighters that would dispose of him with no problems.

I didn't know beating a washed-up legend meant that you'd give anyone a tough fight.

Scott9945
10-08-2011, 09:41 AM
I can think of several fighters that would dispose of him with no problems.

I didn't know beating a washed-up legend meant that you'd give anyone a tough fight.


Of course that would be just your opinion. The fact is that he never lost a professional fight.

That "washed up legend" is still the lightheavyweight champion years later. And it's not the only notable credential on his record.

RubenSonny
10-08-2011, 10:14 AM
Of course that would be just your opinion. The fact is that he never lost a professional fight.

That "washed up legend" is still the lightheavyweight champion years later. And it's not the only notable credential on his record.

Which is only considered a great accomplishment because of how old and washed up he is, he didn't beat a quality opponent for the title. Calzaghe never proved to be great, and beating old man Hopkins and overrated Kessler doesn't mean you can hang with anyone, in fact the closeness of the Hopkins fight reaffirms how overrated Calzaghe is.

joseph5620
10-08-2011, 11:10 AM
pascal's speed only impresses me to any real degree for four rounds or so

and in the latter half of fights he's literally taking the majority of every round off

in my humble opinion pascal had zero business even beating chad dawson, who was :
a: finally coming on
and b: responsible for being behind anyway because he cant let his damn hands go


i'd probably pick a less than great old fighter in glen johnson to outwork pascal
hell, adrian diacanu gave him a rough go. i thought he lost both fights to hopkins.
in short i don't think it really takes a great fighter to beat jean pascal (especially at 175)

you need a good chin to get past his early stuff and a 12 round pace



at bernard's age even being in the ring is impressive.
he's got the deepest bag of tricks in boxing. but one really shouldn't put a ton of stock into a win over jean pascal in my opinion





unrelated: anybody else think dawson has hopkins number for this one?
i've got a bad feeling that it might be bernard's last fight




















I'm very confident that Dawson will beat Hopkins. I can't say this is Hopkins last fight but I have been saying since this fight was signed that Hopkins will lose to Dawson.


I think too many people are sleeping on Dawson and Hopkins age will show in this fight.

rorymac
10-08-2011, 11:13 AM
I have respect for Calzaghe. Admittedly Lacy was overrated and the
Jones/B-Hop/Eubanks wins were after their prime but the Kessler win stands out as a very good win. If you rank him as an all time super middleweight he is up on or near the top. One thing that might hurt is the fighters the limited wbo chose to rank and perhaps Calzaghe should have went after a bigger "title" earlier. But Calzaghe did Wales proud as a titlist.
This..................

Scott9945
10-08-2011, 07:48 PM
Which is only considered a great accomplishment because of how old and washed up he is, he didn't beat a quality opponent for the title. Calzaghe never proved to be great, and beating old man Hopkins and overrated Kessler doesn't mean you can hang with anyone, in fact the closeness of the Hopkins fight reaffirms how overrated Calzaghe is.

It's easy to degrade a fighter's accomplishments when you diminish every single opponent he beat. Sure, Hopkins was old, Kessler was overrated, Lacy was a fraud, etc. I can play that game too. What needs to be considered is that at the time he fought them there was plenty of money on the guy Joe was fighting. Yet he still never lost a fight.

And I don't go on resume when I've seen the fighter in action multiple times. I go on my own evaluation, which clearly makes my opinion more subjective than objective. But I'm not backing down from my comment that (almost) nobody would have an easy fight with Joe Calzaghe.

Kid McCoy
10-08-2011, 08:36 PM
Overrated and underrated depending on who's rating him.

I've always found Calzaghe's career had an interesting parallel with Hopkins'; both spent years making lots of forgettable mandatory type defences before finally unifying their division and then moving up to beat the Ring 175lb champion. In Calzaghe's case he unified against two younger champions who were favoured by many to beat him, so I give him credit for that.

I thought Hopkins was a clear win for Calzaghe, made to look less so by the early flash knockdown and Hopkins' spoiling/stalling tactics. Four years later Hopkins still holds a title and is still beating ranked contenders, so he can't have been that washed up against Calzaghe, who at 36 was not exactly a spring chicken either.

The real (and reasonable) criticism is he should have stepped up in class much sooner than he did. He had the talent to do more with his career. Going to Germany to beat Ottke would have ticked a few boxes. Compare for instance to the tough run of fights Carl Froch has taken in the last few years.

A very good fighter who had a good career with some excellent wins, though not the greatest British fighter ever and not an all-time great.

GJC
10-08-2011, 09:28 PM
Think he is one of those fighters who divide opinions more than most, he isn't as great as some rate him or as poor as others do. I thought he was a pretty solid fighter but I'd have liked him to have tested himself more, I have the feeling he might have suprised a few

RubenSonny
10-10-2011, 06:00 AM
It's easy to degrade a fighter's accomplishments when you diminish every single opponent he beat. Sure, Hopkins was old, Kessler was overrated, Lacy was a fraud, etc. I can play that game too. What needs to be considered is that at the time he fought them there was plenty of money on the guy Joe was fighting. Yet he still never lost a fight.

And I don't go on resume when I've seen the fighter in action multiple times. I go on my own evaluation, which clearly makes my opinion more subjective than objective. But I'm not backing down from my comment that (almost) nobody would have an easy fight with Joe Calzaghe.

The first bit is irrelevant.

Who you beat is important, beating a washed-up legend in a decision that could of gone either way doesn't mean you can give any fighter a good fight, there are many fighters that are so much better than the version of Hopkins Calzaghe fought.

IMDAZED
10-10-2011, 09:15 AM
Hall of Famer. Arguably the greatest SMW of all time although that means very little. At his peak, was a top pound for pounder. Certainly not an all-time great and generally overrated by a slew of his ardent fans.

Perfect Plex
10-11-2011, 06:56 PM
The first bit is irrelevant.

Who you beat is important, beating a washed-up legend in a decision that could of gone either way doesn't mean you can give any fighter a good fight, there are many fighters that are so much better than the version of Hopkins Calzaghe fought.

How can you call Hopkins washed up, when he was #1 number LHW at the time? And is still #1 LHW right now. Just because of his age dosen't mean he was automatically washed up.

Past his very best? Yes. Washed Up? No Way.

Scott9945
10-11-2011, 09:46 PM
How can you call Hopkins washed up, when he was #1 number LHW at the time? And is still #1 LHW right now. Just because of his age dosen't mean he was automatically washed up.

Past his very best? Yes. Washed Up? No Way.


Absolutely. I was hoping that someone else would make this point. I already tried.