What Has Calzaghe Done to be Considered Great?

[xfiles]

21 straight title defenses against one good fighter, a decent fighter, and 19 average fighters does not equal greatness. Let's remember the world thought this man was trash until he beat Lacy, and Lacy has shown himself to be nothing special. I only give him credit for the win over Kessler, but the jury is still out on Kessler. This man's resume and accomplishments are not that impressive and a win over a washed up Hopkins will not change that.

Calzaghe fans, what has Joke done to be considered great?

He convinced a bunch of morons and groupies that he's been a legitimate champion seeking out the biggest challenges his whole career. He's made everyone forget that another guy, in the same division as him, also has a "21 title defenses" record that overlaps his by about 6 years.

[xfiles]

It's people like this idiot who make other yanks who can be easily brainwashed think the same. Calzaghe isn't an unproven commodity he is an ATG. His win over Hopkins (Yes, a 43 year old Hopkins albeit) will cement that.

:wank:

[Addition]

Wow another hate thread towards Calzaghe, who would've guessed?

[kayjay]

If your question were sincere I'd answer it

[hardmanbrit]

This guy is probably on a wind-up.

Post something controversial and then watch the forum get belligerant all of a sudden.

[xfiles]

Okay, coming from a BERNARD HOPKINS FAN, I'm sick of hearing people put down Joe Calzaghe. This man as of right now will undoubtedly go down at the GREATEST Super Middleweight of ALL TIME. He's walked through every challenge put in front of him. People talk **** about Jeff Lacy now saying he was nothing, when before the fight the majority picked him to knock the **** out of Calz. What happened?

So what? Opinions of an UNTESTED fighter can and will change.

Mikkel Kessler, dangerous foe at 168 that many thought could overtake Calzaghe's throne. What happened?

Again, Same thing, Calzaghe was Kessler's test.

Look, I'm not trying to get into a ridiculous debate over somebody's greatness, because I happen to have that discussion too many times while defending Hopkins' legacy, but with that being said, I see the same similarities in both Joe AND Hopkins' haters:

"Yeah, they both have over 20 defenses, but who did they fight?"

They fought WHO WAS THERE. They fought the best people in their division. Hopkins could have walked away making millions and not fought Jermain Taylor, but he took the challenge. Calzaghe could have taken big name fights against guys like Winky Wright, Jermain Taylor or Roy Jones but decided to fight Mikkel Kessler in order to disprove the assumption that he was "ducking" him, only to outfight him in dominant fashion.

Uh No. HBO decided Calzaghe would fight Kessler. Calzaghe wanted one of those other guys like he clearly stated on ESPN. Cal has a 3 fight deal with HBO. Hopkins is the third fight. This was planned before the Kessler fight.

[Guest]

If your question were sincere I'd answer it

Of course I'm sincere. Anyone with an ounce of boxing knowledge would look at this guy's resume and laugh if you mentioned greatness. Like someone else posted earlier, Ottke has the same number of defenses but no one considers him great because of that. Same goes for Joke. After Kessler and Lacy (who are decent fighters), the rest of his resume is pitiful. What's worse is that he never defended his title against a top challenger outside of his backyard. The Kessler and Lacy fights would never have come off if they didn't agree to Calzaghe's demand to have it in his backyard...

[77Ritchie77]

unlike hopkins calzaghe has a few things - he never loses on his bad nights.
his biggest fights are his best fights
he's beaten two undefeated title holders who were supposed to 'expose' him and were more highly touted supermiddleweights than anybody hopkins has beaten at that respective weight (as in tito and oscar at middle not welter, wright at light heavy not middle).
made 21 successful title defenses, never ducked anybody (like hopkins)
- beat many good and great fighters such as eubank, reid (was when they fouhgt) mitchell lost a horrible unification decision to sven ottke the fight before calzaghe, so joe should have had 3 titles at that point.
- unified the supermiddleweight division

[hugh grant]

It is also the manner in which he beat Lacy. He genuinely pummeled him without help from the ref. Ottke might have beaten Lacy as well. But only because the german ref wouldnt let Lacy hit Ottke.

[FRKO]

This thread is so unbelievably lop-sided. One of the points I picked up on was "Calzaghe hasn't faced a prime Jones or Hopkins". The truth is, there has been attempts to secure fights with these guys, and one of them backed out of a fight with Joe in 2002 or 2003. The excuse was that Hopkins wanted his money doubling otherwise the fight was off. They'd already agreed on 3 million, and the day before the contract was due to be signed, Hopkins decided he wanted 6 million. This kind of demand was completely out of the question and Hopkins priced himself out. The icing on the cake was when his next fight was for less money. This is all info courtesy of a variety of sources.

It's funny how the facts are completely missed out when you choose to view a fighter from such a negative viewpoint. If you have any kind of argument, please back it up with facts.

BTW, the Manfredo fight was taken reluctantly by Joe, he publicly stated that he was bored by these kind of fights and had little enthusiasm, but the fact is he used the opportunity mainly to get his name known in America, and of course, for the payday. Easy night's work for Joe. Why not use the opportunity?

You can argue all you want, hate the guy, whatever, but I guarantee that you won't change any opinions without fair points to argue with and with the attitude you are using.