What Makes Joe Calzaghe's Resume Great?

[C.Y.]

cal is a good fighter.. being a champ for over a decade and being undefeated accounts for something.. but he hasnt went up against the greatest comp.. alot of the guys he fought were mediocre at best.. the best opposition he faced were old guys past their prime and his hopkins victory wasnt decisive i actually thought hopkins won.. but he's a hof

[WESS]

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.

Yes that is very true. But REAL greats and REAL legends that are well respected and will always be respected have lost. Perfect careers mean nothing. Joe's the type of fighter that if lost just once, his hype wagon is finished. Hatton for Ex. One min he's the best in the world the next he's a over rated shot fighter that lost to an American. Which in some eyes see that as worse then losing.

Anyway over all point was perfect careers don't mean anything or make you a legend or respected. All joe has is his perfect career which "at the end of the day" wont get you much when it comes to legend stats. I think his fans deep down in there hearts know and understand this. Hints why threads like these must be brought forward every other day as if it will change something. It wont.

Either way Joe is Joe and he and or Warren are only to blame.

[abadger]

Yes that is very true. But REAL greats and REAL legends that are well respected and will always be respected have lost. Perfect careers mean nothing. Joe's the type of fighter that if lost just once, his hype wagon is finished. Hatton for Ex. One min he's the best in the world the next he's a over rated shot fighter that lost to an American. Which in some eyes see that as worse then losing.

Anyway over all point was perfect careers don't mean anything or make you a legend or respected. All joe has is his perfect career which "at the end of the day" wont get you much when it comes to legend stats. I think his fans deep down in there hearts know and understand this. Hints why threads like these must be brought forward every other day as if it will change something. It wont.

Either way Joe is Joe and he and or Warren are only to blame.

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[ample]." 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.

[Steak]

You also say that "Joe's the type of fighter that if lost just once, his hype wagon is finished. Hatton for Ex[ample]." 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.

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.

[Haglerwins]

I'll give Calzaghe plenty of legacy credit if he beats an opponent with the following credentials.

- Is not old (older or much older than he is)
- Has a resume beyond that of a hot prospect (meaning: a fighter that is a unified/linear champion and beat some "name" fighters with a pulse).

"Name" meaning: I've heard of the fighter outside of Europe.

[Chunk..]

It's funny to me sometimes when Calzaghe talks about getting the respect he deserves, but yet he has the neck to big up fights against two legends of the sport who are way best their best.(Hopkins and Jones)

Joe took the wrong path to greatness. He went down Frank Warren alley and got mugged for 15 years.

[Clegg]

Chunk, you don't think that the choice of Hopkins as an opponent was a good one? He was higher on the P4P list than anyone else above 147.

[Chunk..]

Chunk, you don't think that the choice of Hopkins as an opponent was a good one? He was higher on the P4P list than anyone else above 147.

As much as i respect 'The Ring Magazine' P4P rankings it doesn't take away the fact that Hopkins was an old **** and past his best when Joe got to him. Yes or no?

It's a good win, probably Joe's best win? That truth's scary.

[Clegg]

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 **** 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?

[IMDAZED]

[QUOTE=Clegg;4133857]

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.

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 **** 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 ****ting 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.