What Makes Joe Calzaghe's Resume Great?

[IMDAZED]

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

Along with saying that he was a pound for pounder. That's nonsense. Pernell Whitaker maintained his top slot up to the DLH fight even though everyone knew he was WAYY past it. Why? He hadn't lost - even though he looked absolutely mediocre versus Wilfredo Rivera twice and getting dropped twice by Dioblys Hurtado. In that same fashion, Hopkins kept his rankign even though he LOOKED 43 against Winky Wright.

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

Just 2008? How about we go through every year of Calzaghe's reign? You think anyone would be complaining if he fought Pavlik? Who beat Taylor? Who beat Hopkins?

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.

He beat Tarver a long time ago. He hasn't fought a LHW since. Sorry, that doesn't qualify - especially when you're 43. I suppose if Hops didn't fight this year (like he did last year), he'd still be the best?

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

And you come across slow but hey, I won't get personal.

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.

That's nice.

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.

Where do you get this from?

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

No.

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?

Actually, you like to overlook my posts on THEIR posts. Hmmm...

Truthfully, I'm not going to look at the rest of your crap because the conversation has somehow turned to me. Let me know when you get back to defending Joe's honor.

[Clegg]

Along with saying that he was a pound for pounder. That's nonsense. Pernell Whitaker maintained his top slot up to the DLH fight even though everyone knew he was WAYY past it. Why? He hadn't lost - even though he looked absolutely mediocre versus Wilfredo Rivera twice and getting dropped twice by Dioblys Hurtado. In that same fashion, Hopkins kept his rankign even though he LOOKED 43 against Winky Wright.

I think that Hopkins deserved to be rated in the P4P top 10. It's true that not everyone in the P4P top 10 deserves to be, but IMO Hopkins did.

Just 2008? How about we go through every year of Calzaghe's reign? You think anyone would be complaining if he fought Pavlik? Who beat Taylor? Who beat Hopkins?

Maybe you have misunderstood (a bit slow?). I didn't mention anything about a single event that took place before 2008. As always, you see what you want to see.

I said that, at the time they fought, Hopkins was the best available opponent. I have explained why. Your response please.

He beat Tarver a long time ago. He hasn't fought a LHW since. Sorry, that doesn't qualify - especially when you're 43. I suppose if Hops didn't fight this year (like he did last year), he'd still be the best?

Well who do you think deserved to be rated above him then?

Actually, you like to overlook my posts on THEIR posts. Hmmm...

Feel free to let me know what I've overlooked and I'll respond to it. I have made 3000+ posts and have never ducked a single point. If I'm wrong, I'll accept it. If I disagree, I'll say so.

Truthfully, I'm not going to look at the rest of your crap because the conversation has somehow turned to me. Let me know when you get back to defending Joe's honor.

Yes, because of your posting style.

You intentionally overlook clear and indisputable facts. Then when I point it out, you cry foul.

I made a point, and you wanted to engage in "yeah well Hopkins would RUIN him if he was young, lamo, pwn" type discussion. Now you want to whine that I didn't uphold the fine NSB tradition or some crap.

But fine, forget all that. My point here, as it was in the post you responded to, is that Hopkins was the best available opponent. You want to debate that, let's do it.

The ONE central claim of my post is that Hopkins was the best available opponent. You treat such a suggestion with scorn, despite the fact that most people agree. You also fail to name one fighter better, which surely would be the basis for a debate?

[IMDAZED]

I think that Hopkins deserved to be rated in the P4P top 10. It's true that not everyone in the P4P top 10 deserves to be, but IMO Hopkins did.

What a surprise.

Maybe you have misunderstood (a bit slow?). I didn't mention anything about a single event that took place before 2008. As always, you see what you want to see.

Maybe you misunderstood MY original post? Feel free to show where I mention Hops wasn't worthy? In fact, I'm sorry I went down that road with you because you completely took me elsewhere.What I said was that it wasn't much of a win.

Well who do you think deserved to be rated above him then?

You claim Hops is the man because he beat Tarver...well then what does that make Kelly Pavlik? The man who beat the man who beat the man? Just curious.

Feel free to let me know what I've overlooked and I'll respond to it. I have made 3000+ posts and have never ducked a single point. If I'm wrong, I'll accept it. If I disagree, I'll say so.

Some of you people don't know what bias is. I have consistently stated that Joe C. is a first ballot Hall of Famer. Where do you see my bias?? But I can see YOURS!

You intentionally overlook clear and indisputable facts. Then when I point it out, you cry foul.

Such as?

I made a point, and you wanted to engage in "yeah well Hopkins would RUIN him if he was young, lamo, pwn" type discussion. Now you want to whine that I didn't uphold the fine NSB tradition or some crap.

That was one line out of my post. Yet that's where I wanted to engage? Grow up, kid.

[Clegg]

What a surprise.

Personal comment (which you seem to be against?). I could give the same exact online response, but it gets us nowhere.

Considering Hopkins top 10 is debatable, just like most opinions. However it's not some outlandish viewpoint that is only possible through biased eyes. It's an opinion that was shared by the majority.

Maybe you misunderstood MY original post? Feel free to show where I mention Hops wasn't worthy? In fact, I'm sorry I went down that road with you because you completely took me elsewhere.What I said was that it wasn't much of a win.

Well MY post was solely about the fact that Hopkins was the best possible opponent.

1. Someone criticised him for fighting Hopkins
2. I responded with why I felt Hopkins was the best possible opponent
3. You want to break down each line of my post to say something else.

YOU are the one going elsewhere, not me.

I defend Calzaghe when I think he is being unfairly criticised. Which is what I did in the post you initially replied to. You responded with comments that criticised him for something else. When I then replied, attempting to make my original point, it all becomes a bit messy.

You seem to think that I'm saying that the Hopkins win was something that should make the whole world excited. The reality? If you care, you can read my thoughts on the fight here. If you don't, that's fine, I don't read most of the stuff on here, but then I don't act as if everyone who disagrees with me is a biased fanboy when there is clear evidence to the contrary.

You claim Hops is the man because he beat Tarver...well then what does that make Kelly Pavlik? The man who beat the man who beat the man? Just curious.

Depends if you mean now or at the time that Hopkins-Calzaghe took place.

Right now Pavlik is the best fighter from 160-168. When a poll was put up, I voted that I'd rather see Calzaghe fight Pavlik than RJJ. When Calzaghe chose RJJ, I criticised him for it and debated the point with people on here.

At the time of Hopkins-Calzaghe being agreed, Pavlik was tied to a rematch with Taylor, which IMO was neccassary anyway because of the close, exciting nature of their first fight.

Because of the above, I think Calzaghe should be criticised for fighting RJJ instead of KP, but not for fighting Hopkins instead of KP.

Some of you people don't know what bias is. I have consistently stated that Joe C. is a first ballot Hall of Famer. Where do you see my bias?? But I can see YOURS!

I consider you biased because you seem to interpret Calzaghe's actions in the worse possible way, as well as the fact the you often single out Calzaghe fans for criticism whilst ignoring the comments of Calzaghe haters which are far worse.

Let me know where you see my bias. My opinions so far are in line with the views of the majority.

That was one line out of my post. Yet that's where I wanted to engage. Grow up, kid.

I responded to every single point you made, then I commented on that one line. I didn't ignore your argument in any way at all and have already asked for you to let me know what you think I overlooked.

By the way, the above is another personal comment you've made. Let me know in your reply if those are off the table or not, because you seem to be unsure. I think this post is a serious attempt to have a mature debate, so it's up to you how you respond.

[Steak]

what are you guys arguing about. summarize it in one sentence for me.

[IMDAZED]

Clegg, now you're talking to me baby!!!

Well MY post was solely about the fact that Hopkins was the best possible opponent.

1. Someone criticised him for fighting Hopkins
2. I responded with why I felt Hopkins was the best possible opponent
3. You want to break down each line of my post to say something else.

YOU are the one going elsewhere, not me.

I wouldn't criticize him for fighting Hops...and never did. What I said that it was an unimpressive victory against a man who is ****ing old. Period.

I defend Calzaghe when I think he is being unfairly criticised. Which is what I did in the post you initially replied to. You responded with comments that criticised him for something else. When I then replied, attempting to make my original point, it all becomes a bit messy.

Agreed. However, the question of this THREAD is his resume. So my response was completely in line.

You seem to think that I'm saying that the Hopkins win was something that should make the whole world excited.

Nope. I think it's his best win. Which, sadly, isn't saying much.

Right now Pavlik is the best fighter from 160-168. When a poll was put up, I voted that I'd rather see Calzaghe fight Pavlik than RJJ. When Calzaghe chose RJJ, I criticised him for it and debated the point with people on here.

Honestly...good for you.

At the time of Hopkins-Calzaghe being agreed, Pavlik was tied to a rematch with Taylor, which IMO was neccassary anyway because of the close, exciting nature of their first fight.

Yup.

Because of the above, I think Calzaghe should be criticised for fighting RJJ instead of KP, but not for fighting Hopkins instead of KP.

Agreed.

I consider you biased because you seem to interpret Calzaghe's actions in the worse possible way, as well as the fact the you often single out Calzaghe fans for criticism whilst ignoring the comments of Calzaghe haters which are far worse.

1. What actions have I interpreted the worst possible way? Specifically, please because I'm here to tell you that you're wrong.

2. My posts have always maintained the same position - and they are directed to all. Joe Calzaghe is a Hall of Famer and a pound for pounder. He is NOT the all-time great his fans wish he was. And that's my beef. Get it?

Let me know where you see my bias. My opinions so far are in line with the views of the majority.

I see your bias in your reading a whole post of mine and accusing me of trying to take the conversation to "Hopkins would've beaten him in his prime." It is MY opinion but was one line of a rather lengthy post. I find biased people tend to harp on those kind of things.

I responded to every single point you made, then I commented on that one line. I didn't ignore your argument in any way at all and have already asked for you to let me know what you think I overlooked.

Ok...

By the way, the above is another personal comment you've made. Let me know in your reply if those are off the table or not, because you seem to be unsure. I think this post is a serious attempt to have a mature debate, so it's up to you how you respond.

Actually, you turned the debate to me, not vice versa. You think I won't respond in kind? Please.

Anyway, back to Calzaghe's resume. It is what it is. Perhaps he's satisfied with it - he should be - but it doesn't compare to his associates Jones, Hopkins & Toney. Ultimately, that is the crux of every debate regarding him.

[WESS]

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.

Random crap? maybe, but the point wasn't even about Jones or Toney. It was about Calzaghe and all that he has going for him is he is UNDEFEATED record. You following?

Now you take that away, what is left? A few old legends, and a few young untested names? lol ok

Ali, SRR, SRL etc... those guys all lost and are WELL respected. If Joe Calzaghe lost JUST once. His resume would be nothing to brag about. You clearly think I hate the dude. NO in fact I don't. I'm just pointing out that no matter what happens he will never be respected like REAL legends of the sport. Win or lose...

Again, Joe is Joe and its his and Warrens fault. Don't be mad at me player!

[WESS]

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.

yea, pretty much!

[The Gully Gad]

what are you guys arguing about. summarize it in one sentence for me.

Ur Joking aint ya bro? lol
I tried reading that **** theres at least 2 novels worth there

[abadger]

Random crap? maybe, but the point wasn't even about Jones or Toney. It was about Calzaghe and all that he has going for him is he is UNDEFEATED record. You following?

This is not true. Being undefeated is only one of the things that Calzaghe has on his resume, but it is a very good one. Calzaghe has on his resume: being a SMW world champion, defending that title 21 times, victories over 8 former/ actual world champions, unification of the SMW division and a Ring belt at 175. Now lets say Calzaghe had been stopped by Byron Mitchell and lost his title, then fought exactly the same career as he did. Would his career be bad? No, it would still be excellent. Lets say he lost to Hopkins? Calzaghe was rated P4P #3 or 4 at that time, would losing that fight have erased that accomplishment? No. It would still have happened.

Now you take that away, what is left? A few old legends, and a few young untested names? lol ok

As I've described, had Calzaghe lost some random fight, Byron Mitchell in my example, he would still hold victories over all the other opponents he beat. The 'untested names' you mention, presumably meaning Kessler and Lacy, were SMW world champions. Your description of them is just spin designed to make them look bad, calling Kessler untested is borderline ludicrous, though Lacy it is true never fought the strongest opposition. The 'old legend' is Hopkins, and he was the consensus #1 LHW, on the P4P and the Ring champ. 'Old legend' is just an exaggeratedly negative view taken solely in order to discredit Joe.

Ali, SRR, SRL etc... those guys all lost and are WELL respected. If Joe Calzaghe lost JUST once. His resume would be nothing to brag about. You clearly think I hate the dude. NO in fact I don't. I'm just pointing out that no matter what happens he will never be respected like REAL legends of the sport. Win or lose...

I agree with you that Ali, SRL, SRR will always be more respected than Joe. Who in their right mind wouldn't? They are three of the most talented boxers in history and all have tremendous resumes, Calzaghe is not a match for them in either regard IMO. The problem I have is that comparing Joe to these guys and then denouncing his career as meaningless by comparison is simply dishonest. To be a great boxer you do not have to match them, you do not even have to match Roy Jones, you merely have to have talent and accomplish exceptional things in your career. Joe has the former and has accomplished the latter. Being undefeated is one of the exceptional things he has done, it may even be THE best, but his other accomplishments are his number of defences, his unification, his titles at two weights, his P4P status, his longevity....
[/QUOTE]