He has had excuses made for him. For the Reid fight, for bad performances due to his fragile hands, for being 'old' even though he wasnt at all and was in his prime...
but you say none of those matter because he has never lost? so basically youre saying that Calzaghe's resume is great because he has never lost.
honestly, I dont give a damn about being undefeated. If you are really, really fighting the best fighters available, youre going to have a loss or two for various reasons. it could be that you were injured...that you were unprepared...that you were out of shape...that the other guy was just a bad style matchup...almost no matter what, youll end up with a loss somewhere if you face the best guys.
so how I mostly rate fighters is on who they beat, and dont like to concentrate on their losses. so far that means that Joe has beaten old Hopkins, Lacy, Kessler, Woodhall, and Eubank, along with some other decent names. thats HOF worthy.
I dont give a damn about the title defences. when Calzaghe got the WBO belt, I dont think it was even considered a legit title belt, and a good deal of his title defences were against lousy competition.
not to mention that holding a title belt means nothing nowadays. just look at Zsolt Erdie. he is going on his 11th title defence. yet he hasnt faced a fighter worth noting in all of those title defences. so I dont care about #s of title defences for that reason and for the fact that theres 4 titles out there anyway.
Pretty much said it better than anyone else could.
When it all boils down to it, Joe Calzaghe will always get knocked for having a weak resume, always, no matter how it is spun. BTW, Frank Warren absolutely pwned Joe in that article on the main page. The validity of it I'm not sure though. If I was Joe I wouldn't care, I'm ****** rich with a ton of nuthuggers from my own country.
Joe Calzaghe's career is quite without the kind of 'slip ups' that are conveniently overlooked and excused on the resumes of others. Roy Jones got old against Tarver and Johnson, despite being younger than Calzaghe is now. Or perhaps he was weight drained? Perhaps in that case he shouldn't have been fighting. Same goes for James Toney and his losses to Thadzi and Griffin. Perhaps these guys fought a higher standard of opposition than Calzaghe has as a whole, but they didn't lose to them (well, actually Toney did), they lost to guys they should have beat.
Never happened to Joe Calzaghe. He has fought as champion from the age of 25 til 36 without requiring an excuse of any kind even once. How come so few others have managed this?
But "at the end of the day" when its all said and done, What will he be remembered for? Will he be talked about the way people talk about "the real" greats and legends like Ali, SRR, SRL and so on?
James Toney beat Michael Nunn, Julian Jackson, Simon Brown, Maurice Blocker, Terry Norris and some others. They were all in their prime. All were REAL Champs who won their belts in the ring.
You seem to have misunderstood my post. Why is this? Are ******? Biased? Posting while drunk?
I'll explain it. Not because I'm optimistic about your future, but because a fair-minded person may be browsing the thread.
People criticise Calzaghe too harshly IMO, and hold him to a standard that they don't hold others.
The "he never beat a great, prime fighter" argument is used by many people, but those same people will tell you that James Toney is great. Which prime, great fighter did Toney beat? None.
By the way, Toney never fought Blocker, Jackson, Norris or Brown. Did you just make up a random list of names?
Edit: Sorry I had to come back to this. What do you mean that they were real champs who won their belts in the ring? Most of them were beltholders with as much legitimacy as any other. And almost all world titles are won in the ring, so what kind of extra achievement is that?
So beating a shot Eubanks and Sakio Bika would have helped Toney's credentials? Gotcha.
Why is that you intentionally misinterpret comments rather than actually answering them?
Now I have to make a post explaining what I meant, even though you already know...
Someone commented that Toney had beaten Norris, Jackson and several others, when infact he hadn't. You responded to this by treating it as truth and comparing them to Bika.
What I'm asking is, did you actually not know that Toney had never faced those guys? Or did you overlook someone who lied about 4/5 Toney opponents (or non-opponents as it were) in order to criticise someone who lied about 1/2 Calzaghe opponents?
Having read through the entire thread, I'm at a loss to find one person who actually understood it. Maybe that's because I like Calzaghe? Or maybe I've misunderstood too, but here's my interpretation of the opening post:
Fighters like James Toney deserve to be considered greats. However the fact is that both of them, and many other great fighters, have lost to a less-than-great opponent and then used an excuse to explain it.
The responses of "well Calzaghe didn't fight a prime Roy like Toney did" are not really applicable. Nor is "that's because Calzaghe hand-picked easy opponents". Why? Because Toney lost to fighters like Griffin and Thadzi. Both of these guys are inferior to the best name on Joe's resume.
Toney didn't lose to people who were too good for Joe to face, he lost to people the caliber of which Calzaghe is insulted for having fought.
So the point is that while Calzaghe may not have dozens of great wins, he has never lost to a B level fighter and then needed to come up with an excuse to explain it. James Toney has, as have other great fighters.
Having read through the entire thread, I'm at a loss to find one person who actually understood it. Maybe that's because I like Calzaghe? Or maybe I've misunderstood too, but here's my interpretation of the opening post:
Fighters like James Toney deserve to be considered greats. However the fact is that both of them, and many other great fighters, have lost to a less-than-great opponent and then used an excuse to explain it.
The responses of "well Calzaghe didn't fight a prime Roy like Toney did" are not really applicable. Nor is "that's because Calzaghe hand-picked easy opponents". Why? Because Toney lost to fighters like Griffin and Thadzi. Both of these guys are inferior to the best name on Joe's resume.
Toney didn't lose to people who were too good for Joe to face, he lost to people the caliber of which Calzaghe is insulted for having fought.
So the point is that while Calzaghe may not have dozens of great wins, he has never lost to a B level fighter and then needed to come up with an excuse to explain it. James Toney has, as have other great fighters.
It's true, the man always wins. That cannot be denied regardless of how strong the hate is.
Tweet
Comment