Joe Calzaghe Is Most Underrated Champion

[IronDanHamza]

don't put all your faith in rankings as one win or won loss can move a boxer right up to number 3 or right down to number 9. i have even known it sometimes that, without even fighting the placement changes.
remember that styles make fights.
think of eubank vs benn. eubank dislocated benn with his style he confused him and got him agitated, yet if benn fought a straight up knock your head of style of boxer then benn would no doubt win.
rankings alone cannot answer it all. like horse racing a horse can be 20 to one yet he is good on soft ground and it rains loads the night before. that horse wins so stats show him as a winner for people studying the betting. in his next race he comes sixth on hard ground. styles make fights and rankings are not the lone metric for picking the winner.

That’s fine.

Just don’t lie and say he was Top 5 at LHW when Calzaghe fought him when he objectively wasn’t.

[THE REED]

we will have to agree to disagree my man.

He just told you it's easy to look good against competition that isn't ranked very high.

You just admitted not knowing really anything about his level of competition.

You don't get to agree to disagree.

[max baer]

He just told you it's easy to look good against competition that isn't ranked very high.

You just admitted not knowing really anything about his level of competition.

You don't get to agree to disagree.

oh but i do.
if you think i don't we'll have to agree to........

[Slugfester]

You can check the ranking places,other than that it's just personal opinion. Add to those I named ,Hopkins and Jones,and you have the following.
Mitchell no 5
Brewer no 8
Lacy no3
Bika no 8
Kessler no 1
He also beat
Reid
Eubanks
Woodhall

Hopkins Champ
Jones no6
6 ranked men and 1 worlds champion

Ottke .22 defences but only 8 were Ring ranked.

Despite any rankings that list is semi sewage to me for someone supposed to be an ATG. That is why I do not worship alphabet rankings. John Ruiz has been a heavyweight champion. Shot and semi-shot fighters become champions, ham & eggers get ranked. Calzaghe sought no challenges and his fans want full credit for their warrior. He gets gull credit for a mediocre to average ledger for a champion.

I admit he was a good fighter, but in my opinion does not have the list to prove himself an ATG. Roy Jones did not even count at that stage. The only thing he got from Jones was a ghost's name on a list. If you want to be considered an ATG take some challenges. Some champs have a plethora of outstanding competition during their reign, like Hagler, and do not need to go looking for stiffer challenges, and some do not, like Calzahe, If the challenge is not in your division, look elsewhere, otherwise be satisfied with having been called a champion.

[max baer]

Despite any rankings that list is semi sewage to me for someone supposed to be an ATG. That is why I do not worship alphabet rankings. John Ruiz has been a heavyweight champion. Shot and semi-shot fighters become champions, ham & eggers get ranked. Calzaghe sought no challenges and his fans want full credit for their warrior. He gets gull credit for a mediocre to average ledger for a champion.

I admit he was a good fighter, but in my opinion does not have the list to prove himself an ATG. Roy Jones did not even count at that stage. The only thing he got from Jones was a ghost's name on a list. If you want to be considered an ATG take some challenges. Some champs have a plethora of outstanding competition during their reign, like Hagler, and do not need to go looking for stiffer challenges, and some do not, like Calzahe, If the challenge is not in your division, look elsewhere, otherwise be satisfied with having been called a champion.

slug i agree with you but on this history section there is, in my opinion, not enough credit to who rises to the occasion. the big weekends and the power shown by that fighter. like eubank lost against collins but his greatness comes in his incredible defeat of nigel benn as that event was so huge. that is an aspect people forget. It is like a horse that runs very fast in training but in the race on grand national day he comes nowhere. another horse rises to the occasion and wins when it was a huge evening. like old battles with wellington and napolean. they are known for winning the big battles despite maybe not having a great record in the whole. kinda finding it hard to nail my point here but do you get me?

[Rockin']

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z93vGUvhY_4
Do you reckon joe was one of the greatest underrated champions. i was a huge fan years ago i loved his style and attitude. do americans underate the welshman to this day.
aajoe.jpg how great do you americans rate the italian/welsh champion. is my hero worship misguided or is he a greatest champion like i feel he is. joe trained so hard and his dad was his trainer. watch the doc i linked to it is really good.

If a fighter were judged by how good he slapped and cuffed his opponents, until they were leaking and swelling in many areas of their faces, than indeed he was the GREATEST EVER.

Joe Calslappsy

or

Joe Calcuffsy.

He did a lot of damage as both...............Rockin'

[Willie Pep 229]

slug i agree with you but on this history section there is, in my opinion, not enough credit to who rises to the occasion. the big weekends and the power shown by that fighter. like eubank lost against collins but his greatness comes in his incredible defeat of nigel benn as that event was so huge. that is an aspect people forget. It is like a horse that runs very fast in training but in the race on grand national day he comes nowhere. another horse rises to the occasion and wins when it was a huge evening. like old battles with wellington and napolean. they are known for winning the big battles despite maybe not having a great record in the whole. kinda finding it hard to nail my point here but do you get me?

As a Napoleon fan I have to take issue with the Wellingtom comparison.

As far as I know Wellington NEVER LOST a battle. There was one poor performance (stalemate) in Spain but that was do to a terrible performance by the Spanish generals. So poor in fact the King of Spain surrendered his troops to the Duke's command.

Napoleon lost a few.

[max baer]

As a Napoleon fan I have to take issue with the Wellingtom comparison.

As far as I know Wellington NEVER LOST a battle. There was one poor performance (stalemate) in Spain but that was do to a terrible performance by the Spanish generals. So poor in fact the King of Spain surrendered his troops to the Duke's command.

Napoleon lost a few.

i know willie i dont know the exact history at all i was merely making an association to illustrate my point that there are champions on paper and there are guys that won on a night no one will ever forget like ali in his third fight with frazier. the crowd were worked up into a frenzy and ali won.
Eubank vs benn in their second fight in the pouring rain the crowd will rank them high as their fights were such classics.
perhaps being from Britain my view is biased.

[Ivich]

Despite any rankings that list is semi sewage to me for someone supposed to be an ATG. That is why I do not worship alphabet rankings. John Ruiz has been a heavyweight champion. Shot and semi-shot fighters become champions, ham & eggers get ranked. Calzaghe sought no challenges and his fans want full credit for their warrior. He gets gull credit for a mediocre to average ledger for a champion.

I admit he was a good fighter, but in my opinion does not have the list to prove himself an ATG. Roy Jones did not even count at that stage. The only thing he got from Jones was a ghost's name on a list. If you want to be considered an ATG take some challenges. Some champs have a plethora of outstanding competition during their reign, like Hagler, and do not need to go looking for stiffer challenges, and some do not, like Calzahe, If the challenge is not in your division, look elsewhere, otherwise be satisfied with having been called a champion.

You are entitled to our opinion
I certainly do not consider Calzaghe an ATG.

[Willie Pep 229]

i know willie i dont know the exact history at all i was merely making an association to illustrate my point that there are champions on paper and there are guys that won on a night no one will ever forget like ali in his third fight with frazier. the crowd were worked up into a frenzy and ali won.
Eubank vs benn in their second fight in the pouring rain the crowd will rank them high as their fights were such classics.
perhaps being from Britain my view is biased.

Of course? I got that. It was good post.

I was just throwing in some trivia about the guy. He truly was an ATG doing his thing.

Regarding the point you are making: on this forum we seem to do this odd thing. We talk about H2H match-ups but always qualifying them with the fight being held in their respective primes.

OK, but that decision, where 'prime' actually is, is determined on his best resume period.

We are in a sense just going back to comparing resumes anyway.

That period may very well not contain the fight where that guy "won on a night no one will ever forget." I.e. His best night may not even have occurred during his prime.

I'll take this to the absurd:

Because of style . . .you list the ten greatest MWs and give me 10-1 odds, and I'll take Rocky Graziano against all ten. (I did say I get 10-1 odds my way.)

On any given night Graziano could overwhelm any MW, but most times na! He was just second tier.

So anyway, when comparing H2H should we look to a fighter's best night or factor his prime from his resume?

It really all belongs in Fantasy Fights, but what the hell I'll go along as best I can.

I just can't find a formula I am comfortable with when trying to make these kinds of assentments.

But that leaves me out of many of these conversations.