What Makes Joe Calzaghe's Resume Great?

Dude you are too harsh on him. I understand where some of your contempt for him and his resume comes from but you have to be more rational about it. I am not a Calzaghe fan either but the fact is that his resume is not as poor as some ppl make out and, whilst it is overrated, going undefeated for so long does require some credit. Lacy may have been over-hyped but ther are still a lot of good 168ers that would have been beaten by him at the time he fought Calzaghe. Also, Kessler is a class fighter. I know his resume is weak as shit right now but I can assure you that is going to change. That man is the real deal. BHop, although old, was still near the top of the pile of LHWs when Joe beat him. I think this post says it all. When I first started watching Joe C. on Showtime I was an instant fan. How could you not be? He was fast, threw nice combinations and wasn't a wuss. Over time he's beaten some solid fighters and I think that makes him great. Particularly, his win over Omar Sheika impressed me. It looks like a journeyman name on his resume but, at the time, Sheika was arguably the most dangerous 168lber in the world. Calzaghe sliced him up early. Those are the little things that impressed me. It's unfortunate he wasn't in the mix from 99-04, when the top dogs were on fire but he's lasted long enough to earn his proper due. And he can still create an ATG legacy if he so chooses.

Any pretty good 168lber would have gone undefeated in Calzaghe's shoes. And I do mean any. He literally fought nobody his entire career. 3 good fighters, 2 of them waaaaaay past their best, almost to the point of being unable to even fight 4 hard rounds (Hopkins and Eubank). Kessler is the other good fighter he fought, but even Kessler has zero good wins on his resume. So he knocked out a fellow overprotected Euro champ. Big deal. He has done absolutely nothing with his time as champion Dude you are too harsh on him. I understand where some of your contempt for him and his resume comes from but you have to be more rational about it. I am not a Calzaghe fan either but the fact is that his resume is not as poor as some ppl make out and, whilst it is overrated, going undefeated for so long does require some credit. Lacy may have been over-hyped but ther are still a lot of good 168ers that would have been beaten by him at the time he fought Calzaghe. Also, Kessler is a class fighter. I know his resume is weak as shit right now but I can assure you that is going to change. That man is the real deal. BHop, although old, was still near the top of the pile of LHWs when Joe beat him.

Sometimes I get sick of it, but I just seem to get drawn into these arguments. Maybe I will give it up for a bit and post only about Nonito Donaire from now on. BTW, have you watched Alexander Alexeev? He looks a really good prospect and has shades of Calzaghe and Kessler both about him. One of those fighters that when you watch them you immediately go, "hello, who's this guy?" Yeah he looks like he has some very good skills. Need to wait to see him in there against some better competition to make a proper judgement though.

Badge, you know I love you and all but do you ever get sick of typing out Joe essays? I mean you gotta be repeating yourself an awful lot. Can't you just sig one of them? If there's room that is. Sometimes I get sick of it, but I just seem to get drawn into these arguments. Maybe I will give it up for a bit and post only about Nonito Donaire from now on. BTW, have you watched Alexander Alexeev? He looks a really good prospect and has shades of Calzaghe and Kessler both about him. One of those fighters that when you watch them you immediately go, "hello, who's this guy?"

Any pretty good 168lber would have gone undefeated in Calzaghe's shoes. And I do mean any. He literally fought nobody his entire career. 3 good fighters, 2 of them waaaaaay past their best, almost to the point of being unable to even fight 4 hard rounds (Hopkins and Eubank). Kessler is the other good fighter he fought, but even Kessler has zero good wins on his resume. So he knocked out a fellow overprotected Euro champ. Big deal. He has done absolutely nothing with his time as champion

Badge, you know I love you and all but do you ever get sick of typing out Joe essays? I mean you gotta be repeating yourself an awful lot. Can't you just sig one of them? If there's room that is.

Random crap? maybe, but the point wasn't even about Jones or Toney. It was about Calzaghe and all that he has going for him is he is UNDEFEATED record. You following? This is not true. Being undefeated is only one of the things that Calzaghe has on his resume, but it is a very good one. Calzaghe has on his resume: being a SMW world champion, defending that title 21 times, victories over 8 former/ actual world champions, unification of the SMW division and a Ring belt at 175. Now lets say Calzaghe had been stopped by Byron Mitchell and lost his title, then fought exactly the same career as he did. Would his career be bad? No, it would still be excellent. Lets say he lost to Hopkins? Calzaghe was rated P4P #3 or 4 at that time, would losing that fight have erased that accomplishment? No. It would still have happened. Now you take that away, what is left? A few old legends, and a few young untested names? lol ok As I've described, had Calzaghe lost some random fight, Byron Mitchell in my example, he would still hold victories over all the other opponents he beat. The 'untested names' you mention, presumably meaning Kessler and Lacy, were SMW world champions. Your description of them is just spin designed to make them look bad, calling Kessler untested is borderline ludicrous, though Lacy it is true never fought the strongest opposition. The 'old legend' is Hopkins, and he was the consensus #1 LHW, on the P4P and the Ring champ. 'Old legend' is just an exaggeratedly negative view taken solely in order to discredit Joe. Ali, SRR, SRL etc... those guys all lost and are WELL respected. If Joe Calzaghe lost JUST once. His resume would be nothing to brag about. You clearly think I hate the dude. NO in fact I don't. I'm just pointing out that no matter what happens he will never be respected like REAL legends of the sport. Win or lose... I agree with you that Ali, SRL, SRR will always be more respected than Joe. Who in their right mind wouldn't? They are three of the most talented boxers in history and all have tremendous resumes, Calzaghe is not a match for them in either regard IMO. The problem I have is that comparing Joe to these guys and then denouncing his career as meaningless by comparison is simply dishonest. To be a great boxer you do not have to match them, you do not even have to match Roy Jones, you merely have to have talent and accomplish exceptional things in your career. Joe has the former and has accomplished the latter. Being undefeated is one of the exceptional things he has done, it may even be THE best, but his other accomplishments are his number of defences, his unification, his titles at two weights, his P4P status, his longevity....

what are you guys arguing about. summarize it in one sentence for me. Ur Joking aint ya bro? lol I tried reading that shit theres at least 2 novels worth there

He means that if Calzaghe had a 1 in his loss column, a lot of his hype would be gone, and not nearly as many people would be considering him an ATG. which is true. The same exact thing could be said of Floyd Mayweather. undefeated fighters are overrated by certain people, and thats the truth. Im not accusing you of being one of those certain people though, cause you respect Calzaghe mostly for his good wins, not so much his undefeated record. at least thats the impression I got. yea, pretty much!

This is just random crap. What does "But REAL greats and REAL legends that are well respected and will always be respected have lost." even mean? Are you suggesting that the careers of Roy Jones and James Toney are somehow better because of their upset losses to inferior opposition? How does that work exactly? You also say that "Joe's the type of fighter that if lost just once, his hype wagon is finished. Hatton for Ex." What type of fighter is this? A British one? If Calzaghe lost to Jones, would that mean that he had not reigned as champion for ten years, unified his division, won the linear at LHW, been P4P #2 etc etc? No, it would just mean he had lost a fight he shouldn't have, just like nearly everyone else. Not good, but not enough to erase his former acomplishments. It seems to me you are taking your own animus against Calzaghe and apparent dislike for his sucessful status and substituting that for boxing objectivity. You also say that "perfect careers don't mean anything", but this isn't really true, they mean you never lost. If you fought bums your whole career then thats one thing, but claiming this about Calzaghe is a wild exaggeration. He has fought elite opponents, good opponents, middling opponents and poor opponents, and he could have lost to any of them, at any time, but didn't. This is more than most of his supposed betters managed. If Calzaghe is criticised for having one of his better wins being say, Byron Mitchell, how does that compare with James Toney who managed to lose to Thadzi? Calzaghe's detractors would love to be able to write off Calzaghe's undefeated status because if he retires that way, in reality it will be the one thing he hase done that few others have managed. Pretending that is easy, or that it somehow doesn't count is the last act of the critic who cannot and will not accept a fighter they do not like achieving something none of their favourites could manage. Like it or not, calzaghe's achievements are here to stay. Random crap? maybe, but the point wasn't even about Jones or Toney. It was about Calzaghe and all that he has going for him is he is UNDEFEATED record. You following? Now you take that away, what is left? A few old legends, and a few young untested names? lol ok Ali, SRR, SRL etc... those guys all lost and are WELL respected. If Joe Calzaghe lost JUST once. His resume would be nothing to brag about. You clearly think I hate the dude. NO in fact I don't. I'm just pointing out that no matter what happens he will never be respected like REAL legends of the sport. Win or lose... Again, Joe is Joe and its his and Warrens fault. Don't be mad at me player!

Clegg, now you're talking to me baby!!! Well MY post was solely about the fact that Hopkins was the best possible opponent. 1. Someone criticised him for fighting Hopkins 2. I responded with why I felt Hopkins was the best possible opponent 3. You want to break down each line of my post to say something else. YOU are the one going elsewhere, not me. I wouldn't criticize him for fighting Hops...and never did. What I said that it was an unimpressive victory against a man who is ****ing old. Period. I defend Calzaghe when I think he is being unfairly criticised. Which is what I did in the post you initially replied to. You responded with comments that criticised him for something else. When I then replied, attempting to make my original point, it all becomes a bit messy. Agreed. However, the question of this THREAD is his resume. So my response was completely in line. You seem to think that I'm saying that the Hopkins win was something that should make the whole world excited. Nope. I think it's his best win. Which, sadly, isn't saying much. Right now Pavlik is the best fighter from 160-168. When a poll was put up, I voted that I'd rather see Calzaghe fight Pavlik than RJJ. When Calzaghe chose RJJ, I criticised him for it and debated the point with people on here. Honestly...good for you. At the time of Hopkins-Calzaghe being agreed, Pavlik was tied to a rematch with Taylor, which IMO was neccassary anyway because of the close, exciting nature of their first fight. Yup. Because of the above, I think Calzaghe should be criticised for fighting RJJ instead of KP, but not for fighting Hopkins instead of KP. Agreed. I consider you biased because you seem to interpret Calzaghe's actions in the worse possible way, as well as the fact the you often single out Calzaghe fans for criticism whilst ignoring the comments of Calzaghe haters which are far worse. 1. What actions have I interpreted the worst possible way? Specifically, please because I'm here to tell you that you're wrong. 2. My posts have always maintained the same position - and they are directed to all. Joe Calzaghe is a Hall of Famer and a pound for pounder. He is NOT the all-time great his fans wish he was. And that's my beef. Get it? Let me know where you see my bias. My opinions so far are in line with the views of the majority. I see your bias in your reading a whole post of mine and accusing me of trying to take the conversation to "Hopkins would've beaten him in his prime." It is MY opinion but was one line of a rather lengthy post. I find biased people tend to harp on those kind of things. I responded to every single point you made, then I commented on that one line. I didn't ignore your argument in any way at all and have already asked for you to let me know what you think I overlooked. Ok... By the way, the above is another personal comment you've made. Let me know in your reply if those are off the table or not, because you seem to be unsure. I think this post is a serious attempt to have a mature debate, so it's up to you how you respond. Actually, you turned the debate to me, not vice versa. You think I won't respond in kind? Please. Anyway, back to Calzaghe's resume. It is what it is. Perhaps he's satisfied with it - he should be - but it doesn't compare to his associates Jones, Hopkins & Toney. Ultimately, that is the crux of every debate regarding him.

what are you guys arguing about. summarize it in one sentence for me.

I think that Hopkins deserved to be rated in the P4P top 10. It's true that not everyone in the P4P top 10 deserves to be, but IMO Hopkins did. What a surprise. Maybe you have misunderstood (a bit slow?). I didn't mention anything about a single event that took place before 2008. As always, you see what you want to see. Maybe you misunderstood MY original post? Feel free to show where I mention Hops wasn't worthy? In fact, I'm sorry I went down that road with you because you completely took me elsewhere.What I said was that it wasn't much of a win. Well who do you think deserved to be rated above him then? You claim Hops is the man because he beat Tarver...well then what does that make Kelly Pavlik? The man who beat the man who beat the man? Just curious. Feel free to let me know what I've overlooked and I'll respond to it. I have made 3000+ posts and have never ducked a single point. If I'm wrong, I'll accept it. If I disagree, I'll say so. Some of you people don't know what bias is. I have consistently stated that Joe C. is a first ballot Hall of Famer. Where do you see my bias?? But I can see YOURS! You intentionally overlook clear and indisputable facts. Then when I point it out, you cry foul. Such as? I made a point, and you wanted to engage in "yeah well Hopkins would RUIN him if he was young, lamo, pwn" type discussion. Now you want to whine that I didn't uphold the fine NSB tradition or some crap. That was one line out of my post. Yet that's where I wanted to engage? Grow up, kid.

Settles what, exactly? That Hopkins is old? Yes, I've already said that. Along with saying that he was a pound for pounder. That's nonsense. Pernell Whitaker maintained his top slot up to the DLH fight even though everyone knew he was WAYY past it. Why? He hadn't lost - even though he looked absolutely mediocre versus Wilfredo Rivera twice and getting dropped twice by Dioblys Hurtado. In that same fashion, Hopkins kept his rankign even though he LOOKED 43 against Winky Wright. Well feel free to let me know of a better 168 fighter in April 2008 if you can think of one. Just 2008? How about we go through every year of Calzaghe's reign? You think anyone would be complaining if he fought Pavlik? Who beat Taylor? Who beat Hopkins? You are the one who is always going on about resume. According to resume, and I mean recent resume, Hopkins was the best at 175. Aside from being the linear champ, he beat Tarver, who held a clear win over Johnson. This to me establishes him as the best at 175, in line with the criteria that you seem to favour in most instances. He beat Tarver a long time ago. He hasn't fought a LHW since. Sorry, that doesn't qualify - especially when you're 43. I suppose if Hops didn't fight this year (like he did last year), he'd still be the best? You're entitled to your opinion on that one. You sometimes come across as quite bitter though. And you come across slow but hey, I won't get personal. For example I like Nigel Benn. But I don't feel the need to go on about how he could beat Steve Collins if he'd been in his prime when people discuss Collins' resume. Everyone acknowledges that Benn was past it, so there's no need for me to say "oh damn, Benn would've RUINED Collins if he was prime" in the middle of such a discussion. That's nice. I believe Benn was a better fighter prime vs prime. Some agree, some disagree. Doesn't bother me like it seem to bothers you when it comes to Hopkins-Calzaghe. Where do you get this from? Those two instances aren't identical, but do you see my point? No. You should read NSB more often. Actually, you've posted in threads where people shit on his resume. But you like to overlook posts like that, eh? Actually, you like to overlook my posts on THEIR posts. Hmmm... Truthfully, I'm not going to look at the rest of your crap because the conversation has somehow turned to me. Let me know when you get back to defending Joe's honor.

From who? You've lost me, seriously. I have said that Hopkins was the best possible opponent, which is what I believe. I don't have blinkers on, nor do I need them to say something that almost everyone said before the fight. Some have claimed otherwise now because it suits their argument. Fair enough but i asked a simple question of what you think about Calzaghe's resume because you said i was tryng to 'shit on it'.

Justify what exactly? Surely you would have to say "he's an ATG" or "he's a bum" before you have something to justify? Or are you suggesting that he should be ashamed and have to justify himself? Just an honest opinion of his resume without the Calzaghe blinkers on would be nice. Honestly is the best policy.

Joe Calzaghe has a good resume to me, not great. HOF worthy? Well, he has the accolades. I may object, but one has to wrestle with turning away someone that did all the work he did at SMW. So I can concede to a HOF body of work. ATG? If he can finish his career with a couple of Kelly Pavliks on there. That will at least remove the bad taste in my mouth about hearing these stories of him not having confidence in himself, that pitiful excuse of being afraid to get on a goddamn plane for not leaving home turf to get big fights, oh and of course - DUCKING GLEN JOHNSON who people constantly use to belittle Roy Jones Jr's accomplishments. It's a damn shame he stayed in Wales for so long. I wouldn't be so hard on him if it didn't look like he was a protected fighter to a degree. The christening by his fans on here given these holes in the armor drives me nuts. AND.. it doesn't help that I think he lost to old Hopkins, when I expected him to blow B-Hop away.

To be fair it is pretty hard to make excuses about a fighter that has never lost. it is when u fought lesser opponents your whole career then step up 2 a 43 year old legend & lose...

Yes, he was past his best, but as no one claims otherwise I'm not sure if that's as relevant as you think it is. If you beat an excellent fighter, then you beat an excellent fighter. What matters is how good he is, and old Hopkins was still better than anyone at 168 or 175. As for him being Calzaghe's best opponent, the performance in their match-ups suggest that he was the best opponent of Tarver or Glenn Johnson as well, and the fact that Hopkins was rated so highly going into the Calzaghe fight suggests that he would be the hardest opponent, P4P, for anyone above 147. So no, much as you try to spin it, no great shame really. You want to shit on his resume, but the fact is that Hopkins was the hardest opponent available. What happened? Calzaghe fights him. That's a fact, isn't it? Joe's resume speaks for itself. It's hard to justify it? I'd like to see someone try?

Yes, he was past his best, but as no one claims otherwise I'm not sure if that's as relevant as you think it is. Well that pretty much settles it - especially since Joe himself said hopkins will lose his next fight because he's too old. :dunno: If you beat an excellent fighter, then you beat an excellent fighter. What matters is how good he is, and old Hopkins was still better than anyone at 168 or 175. That is VERY, VERY debatable. Hopkins never even defended his title against a SMW, let alone a LHW prior to facing Joe. But we'll find out how old he is in a couple weeks (for those who don't comprehend what 43 means). As for him being Calzaghe's best opponent, the performance in their match-ups suggest that he was the best opponent of Tarver or Glenn Johnson as well, and the fact that Hopkins was rated so highly going into the Calzaghe fight suggests that he would be the hardest opponent, P4P, for anyone above 147. You're repeating yourself. But if there was anything to be gleaned from the Hopkins-Calzaghe fight, it's that a 33yr old Hopkins might've ruined Joe. You want to shit on his resume, but the fact is that Hopkins was the hardest opponent available. What happened? Calzaghe fights him. That's a fact, isn't it? No one is shitting on his resume, but what else needs to be said when a 43yr old ranks as your best win? And you barely accomplished that? Case closed.