What Makes Joe Calzaghe's Resume Great?

[Chunk..]

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?

Joe's resume speaks for itself. It's hard to justify it? I'd like to see someone try?

[j.razor]

To be fair it is pretty hard to make excuses about a fighter that has never lost.

it is when u fought lesser opponents your whole career then step up 2 a 43 year old legend & lose...

[Haglerwins]

Joe Calzaghe has a good resume to me, not great.

HOF worthy? Well, he has the accolades. I may object, but one has to wrestle with turning away someone that did all the work he did at SMW. So I can concede to a HOF body of work.

ATG? If he can finish his career with a couple of Kelly Pavliks on there. That will at least remove the bad taste in my mouth about hearing these stories of him not having confidence in himself, that pitiful excuse of being afraid to get on a goddamn plane for not leaving home turf to get big fights, oh and of course - DUCKING GLEN JOHNSON who people constantly use to belittle Roy Jones Jr's accomplishments.

It's a damn shame he stayed in Wales for so long. I wouldn't be so hard on him if it didn't look like he was a protected fighter to a degree. The christening by his fans on here given these holes in the armor drives me nuts.

AND.. it doesn't help that I think he lost to old Hopkins, when I expected him to blow B-Hop away.

[Clegg]

Well that pretty much settles it - especially since Joe himself said hopkins will lose his next fight because he's too old.

Settles what, exactly? That Hopkins is old? Yes, I've already said that.

And sorry, but as the Calzaghe critics want to say that he is unreliable in his public comments, I think perhaps they should stop using them to prove their argument.

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).

Well feel free to let me know of a better 168 fighter in April 2008 if you can think of one.

You are the one who is always going on about resume. According to resume, and I mean recent resume, Hopkins was the best at 175. Aside from being the linear champ, he beat Tarver, who held a clear win over Johnson. This to me establishes him as the best at 175, in line with the criteria that you seem to favour in most instances.

You're repeating yourself.

No, I'm elaborating on my position.

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're entitled to your opinion on that one. You sometimes come across as quite bitter though.

For example I like Nigel Benn. But I don't feel the need to go on about how he could beat Steve Collins if he'd been in his prime when people discuss Collins' resume. Everyone acknowledges that Benn was past it, so there's no need for me to say "oh damn, Benn would've RUINED Collins if he was prime" in the middle of such a discussion.

I believe Benn was a better fighter prime vs prime. Some agree, some disagree. Doesn't bother me like it seem to bothers you when it comes to Hopkins-Calzaghe.

Those two instances aren't identical, but do you see my point?

No one is ****ting on his resume

You should read NSB more often. Actually, you've posted in threads where people **** on his resume. But you like to overlook posts like that, eh?

but what else needs to be said when a 43yr old ranks as your best win? And you barely accomplished that? Case closed.

What case?

Sorry, what is that you are claiming?

If you make a claim, and then prove it, you can say case closed, but I'm not sure what you argument is? About how good JC's resume it? I haven't said how good I think it is or how highly I rate him historically. Neither have you (in this thread).

Anyway, regarding Hopkins' age: when I want to judge a win, I look at how good the opponent was.

When you want to judge a win, you seem to look at whether or not you like a fighter. Then, if it's Calzaghe, you select the worst fact about his opponent. You decide that Hopkins' age sums up how good he is, rather than his win over Tarver or over Wright.

It's like criticising someone who loses to Maligniaggi as having lost to someone with no power. If you want to be objective, you take EVERYTHING into account.

Do you want to be objective, honestly?

[Clegg]

Joe's resume speaks for itself. It's hard to justify it? I'd like to see someone try?

Justify what exactly?

Surely you would have to say "he's an ATG" or "he's a bum" before you have something to justify?

Or are you suggesting that he should be ashamed and have to justify himself?

[Clegg]

it is when u fought lesser opponents your whole career then step up 2 a 43 year old legend & lose...

1. Yeah, Sugar Ray Robinson fought lesser opponents too. If you're a great fighter in a great era, that happens a lot. If you're a good as Calzaghe in a division without any great, prime fighters, then "lesser opponents" are pretty common.

2. Lucky he didn't lose then, innit?

[Chunk..]

Justify what exactly?

Surely you would have to say "he's an ATG" or "he's a bum" before you have something to justify?

Or are you suggesting that he should be ashamed and have to justify himself?

Just an honest opinion of his resume without the Calzaghe blinkers on would be nice.

Honestly is the best policy.

[Clegg]

Just an honest opinion of his resume without the Calzaghe blinkers on would be nice.

Honestly is the best policy.

From who?

You've lost me, seriously.

I have said that Hopkins was the best possible opponent, which is what I believe. I don't have blinkers on, nor do I need them to say something that almost everyone said before the fight. Some have claimed otherwise now because it suits their argument.

[Chunk..]

From who?

You've lost me, seriously.

I have said that Hopkins was the best possible opponent, which is what I believe. I don't have blinkers on, nor do I need them to say something that almost everyone said before the fight. Some have claimed otherwise now because it suits their argument.

Fair enough but i asked a simple question of what you think about Calzaghe's resume because you said i was tryng to '**** on it'.

[Clegg]

Fair enough but i asked a simple question of what you think about Calzaghe's resume because you said i was tryng to '**** on it'.

OK, I didn't take it that way, I wasn't trying to avoid the Q.

I think his resume is better than Tarver, Johnson, J Taylor, Benn, Eubank, Norris, Jackson, Collins. It's not as good as Roy, Hopkins or Toney.

I find it hard to compare it to older fighters because things were a lot different back then, but that's how I compare him to the recent guys at 160-175.