Joe Calzaghe Or Jersey Joe Walcott?

[McGrain]

If jersey joe had spent most of his career fighting hand picked fighters by frank warren he would of been unbeaten, if you put calzaghe in walcot's era no way would he be unbeaten! what wins has calzaghe got that matches up to wins over ezzard charles, harold johnson, jimmy bivins and elmer ray?

Just to point out to you that, Ray aside, these men all kicked off as middleweights. Aside from Charles, none of them were great HW's, and Walcott went 2-2 with Charles - losing the first two to the nearer best version.

The win over Johnson is coloured to say the least. If you put any stock in it, you are the only person I know who does so.


But having said that, the wins over Bivins (though the scoring was bizarre) and Ray (who also beat Jersey Joe) are good and Calzaghe certainly doesn't have the names to match that list, although he has the cherry on the cake that is Hopkins.

The fact remains that Calzaghe went unbeaten over a long career and is a two weight world champion, whilst Jersey Joe lost some 18(?) times, including to the limited Abe Simon, and at least one fighter I have never heard of.

I guess, if you wanted to make the case purely upon wins, and not taking into a account achievment, head to head, losses or any other factors you could make a good case for Walcott. But most people are interested in wider criteria.

[General Zod]

Well, in between the Chris Eubank and Jeff Lacy fights, a span of nearly 10 years, Calzaghe didn't fight many threats outside of Robin Reid, maybe Charles Brewer and Byron Mitchell. Title defenses against the likes of Sobot, McIntyre, Mkrtchyan and Salem were quite painful to watch knowing the man's talent. Eubank said that the Calzaghe he fought hit like a ton of bricks but by the Lacy fight Calzaghe had little power behind his punches. He wasted a lot of time making WBO title defenses against unheralded opposition. Calzaghe really only became a name in boxing at 35 years of age which is quite late for a boxer.

Not that Warren is to be trusted but here's his opinion on it:

http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=16188

I don't think there's any doubt that Warren is a protective manager. He doesn't like to put his fighters against opponents that pose a great threat to them. Personally I think he held back Calzaghe's career, despite him denying it. I'm not saying I blame everything on Calzaghe and his management, not everyone was willing to face him either, but I think he could have made more of an effort to make the Hopkins and Jones fights happen 10 years previous to when they did.

It's quite a contrast to Walcott who would take fights against the likes of Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, Harold Johnson, Rocky Marciano, Tiger Jack Fox, sometimes on short notice.

Thanks for replying to my question