Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Joe Calzaghe was American he'd be hailed as the Greatest of All-time.

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • If Joe Calzaghe was American he'd be hailed as the Greatest of All-time.

    No doubt about it.

  • #2
    what with 4 legit recognised defences? ha. He'd be unknown.

    And all the losses he would pick up without cardiff protection. na.

    Comment


    • #3
      Calzaghe fought so much of bis career in obscurity in England in one of the least glamorous divisions. If he was American he'd have fought a much better resume that people would actually know and respect.

      He is the British Sven Ottke.

      Comment


      • #4
        If he was American he would have fought better than all of those Euro domestic levelers. If he made it out of that still undefeated I agree he would have reached a high status.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by The Big Dunn View Post
          Calzaghe fought so much of bis career in obscurity in England in one of the least glamorous divisions. If he was American he'd have fought a much better resume that people would actually know and respect.

          He is the British Sven Ottke.
          Ottke got a lot of debatable/gift decisions whereas Calzaghe not only showcased superior talent over a longer period of time he also won some fights that he was either the underdog or was perceived as close to 50/50 like Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins. I remember odds were clearly in Lacy's favor (I won a couple g's) and the forums didn't give him a prayer, Kessler was about as 50/50 as it got around that time.

          I don't think it's a fair comparison at all. There's quite a lot of crap on his resume but there's also some solid, underrated dominant wins like Brewer, Mitchell, Woodhall for example.

          46-0, with 21 title defenses, 11 year reign and around a dozen champions beaten, no controversial wins, a few 50/50's won I think would get a lot more respect if he was from somewhere different depending who's doing the rating.
          Last edited by chrisJS; 01-28-2019, 02:52 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by chrisJS View Post
            Ottke got a lot of debatable/gift decisions whereas Calzaghe not only showcased superior talent over a longer period of time he also won some fights that he was either the underdog or was perceived as close to 50/50 like Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins. I remember odds were clearly in Lacy's favor (I won a couple g's) and the forums didn't give him a prayer, Kessler was about as 50/50 as it got around that time.

            I don't think it's a fair comparison at all. There's quite a lot of crap on his resume but there's also some solid, underrated dominant wins like Brewer, Mitchell, Woodhall for example.

            46-0, with 21 title defenses, 11 year reign and around a dozen champions beaten, no controversial wins, a few 50/50's won I think would get a lot more respect if he was from somewhere different.
            No point responding logically to these trolls. They can only dream of having fighters the calibre of Joe Calzaghe. Only one they've had in recent times who comes near is Floyd Mayweather, and they all hate him.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by W1LL View Post
              No point responding logically to these trolls. They can only dream of having fighters the calibre of Joe Calzaghe. Only one they've had in recent times who comes near is Floyd Mayweather, and they all hate him.
              I think Calzaghe was a great fighter for sure. I think Brits overrate him and US fans underrate him. I think he had a lot of stretches in his career were the competition was poor and he seemed uninterested and the fights were poor. He did rise to the occasion when he stepped up though. I think he'd have beaten Hopkins earlier had Hopkins not ducked that fight in 2002 or 2003. People forget that Calzaghe also wasn't prime in 2008. That perhaps would elevate him further though I don't see him beating the best of Roy Jones.

              I rate Calzaghe somewhere towards the lower end of the top 10 fighters of the last 25 years, the greatest ever at 168, probably around 5 or 6 on the all-time British list and I'd imagine somewhere around 80-100 on the all-time pound for pound list. I think that sounds most fair when assessing Joe's career IMO.

              Comment


              • #8
                If he was american, many of his opponents would have been given pound for pound status that they didnt deserve. But you’re on point with this thread.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by chrisJS View Post
                  Ottke got a lot of debatable/gift decisions whereas Calzaghe not only showcased superior talent over a longer period of time he also won some fights that he was either the underdog or was perceived as close to 50/50 like Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins. I remember odds were clearly in Lacy's favor (I won a couple g's) and the forums didn't give him a prayer, Kessler was about as 50/50 as it got around that time.

                  I don't think it's a fair comparison at all. There's quite a lot of crap on his resume but there's also some solid, underrated dominant wins like Brewer, Mitchell, Woodhall for example.

                  46-0, with 21 title defenses, 11 year reign and around a dozen champions beaten, no controversial wins, a few 50/50's won I think would get a lot more respect if he was from somewhere different depending who's doing the rating.
                  Yeah the Lacy fight made me some loot as well.

                  Beating obscure guys at 168 makes it difficult to assess his career. I doubt he'd have beaten Hopkins earlier but that is just opinion.

                  He'd definitely get more respect if people knew his opposition better. If you're best wins in your prime are Lacy and Kessler it isn't possible that he is going to get the same level of respect as some American, Mexican and Purerto Rican boxers when his resume is devoid of prime wins against HOF level opposition.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Big Dunn View Post
                    Yeah the Lacy fight made me some loot as well.

                    Beating obscure guys at 168 makes it difficult to assess his career. I doubt he'd have beaten Hopkins earlier but that is just opinion.

                    He'd definitely get more respect if people knew his opposition better. If you're best wins in your prime are Lacy and Kessler it isn't possible that he is going to get the same level of respect as some American, Mexican and Purerto Rican boxers when his resume is devoid of prime wins against HOF level opposition.
                    Carlos Zarate is lauded as a surefire ATG yet he has not one win against a HOF opponent as an example of a bit of a flawed logic there IMO. Zarate also never unified.

                    I’m not saying Calzaghe faced a Murderers row but he reached the top of two divisions and with three 50/50 matches. He also won all the belts and reigned for a very long time.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X
                    TOP