History Section: Lets Discuss Joe Calzaghe's Legacy/Achievements?

[Welsh Jon]

An excellent talent but he never really proved his talent in the ring. He had only three big wins. Eubank, Kessler and Hopkins. Kessler also doesn't rank as great. Weather or not it was his fault or his promoter's, the fact is Joe is not proven as great.

Taylor, Froch, Pavlik, Johnson, Dawson, Wright, Prime Jones are all names Calzaghe could have fought to secure his legacy.

And we can't use the theory that 'Froch beat Kessler so that means Calzaghe beats Froch'. Styles make fights. If Calzaghe wants to prove he could beat all these guys he has to beat them himself. It was very clear that Calzaghe was ducking Pavlik when he was the big thing. He fought a shot Jones instead and let Hopkins expose Pavlik.

Personally, I don't think Calzaghe should be inducted into the hall of fame. Not on three big wins, two of which were past their prime.

Like fuk was Calzaghe ducking Pavlik! He would have done to Pavlik what he did to Lacey. I'm pretty sure both he and his Dad knew this. Enzo had said words to that effect in public. But he could make more money fighting Jones so he took it. I think it stinks that Joe chose RJJ as his last opponent, I think he should have fought Chad Dawson and I think he would have won if he did. But he's not the 1st boxer to take the biggest money fight rather than the biggest challenge, and he won't be the last.

In regards to Froch, by the time he had established himself as a worthy challenger to Calzaghe Joe had already decided to call it quits. And Calzaghe would have beaten Froch, I have no doubts about that. Not because Froch lost to kessler, but because Froch struggled with the speed of both Jermain Taylor and Andre Dirrell. Yep like you said styles make fights and Calzaghe's style would have been a nightmare for Froch.

[IronDanHamza]

Like fuk was Calzaghe ducking Pavlik! He would have done to Pavlik what he did to Lacey. I'm pretty sure both he and his Dad knew this. Enzo had said words to that effect in public. But he could make more money fighting Jones so he took it. I think it stinks that Joe chose RJJ as his last opponent, I think he should have fought Chad Dawson and I think he would have won if he did. But he's not the 1st boxer to take the biggest money fight rather than the biggest challenge, and he won't be the last.

In regards to Froch, by the time he had established himself as a worthy challenger to Calzaghe Joe had already decided to call it quits. And Calzaghe would have beaten Froch, I have no doubts about that. Not because Froch lost to kessler, but because Froch struggled with the speed of both Jermain Taylor and Andre Dirrell. Yep like you said styles make fights and Calzaghe's style would have been a nightmare for Froch.

I agree with you.

I think Joe beats Pavlik, Dawson and Froch, easy.

I think he beats every SMW of his era H2H except for Roy Jones.

I think other than Ward, he would clean out today's SMW division with ease.

But sadly, that's the story of his career. Joe had the ability, but he retired severely lacking in resume.

[Scott9945]

I agree with you.

I think Joe beats Pavlik, Dawson and Froch, easy.

I think he beats every SMW of his era H2H except for Roy Jones.

I think other than Ward, he would clean out today's SMW division with ease.

But sadly, that's the story of his career. Joe had the ability, but he retired severely lacking in resume.

Very reasonable analysis.

[crold1]

I agree with you.

I think Joe beats Pavlik, Dawson and Froch, easy.

I think he beats every SMW of his era H2H except for Roy Jones.

I think other than Ward, he would clean out today's SMW division with ease.

But sadly, that's the story of his career. Joe had the ability, but he retired severely lacking in resume.

He had a very top heavy resume. So did guys like Ricardo Lopez. There was enough to define what made Joe special (Scott and I agree on pretty much everything here so see his posts). To me there is enough there to see greatness. On the level of contemporaries Jones and Hopkins?

NO.

But he cleaned out his class at the end, beat the best rival he had there (I think Kessler was better than Ottke by a bit; Liles might have a case in era), and moved up to beat a Hopkins who was STILL GREAT (proven since) at a time where neither man was peak. It's an easy HOF career and, as 168 persists and its history grows, he will always be in the conversation for best there. Can't have the convo without him. That is a measure, and will be his measure, of ATG-ness.

[StarshipTrooper]

a Hopkins who was STILL GREAT

And what has Hopkins done since to prove he's still great? Beating a fraud like Pavlik? Or maybe getting a draw and a decision over a fraud like Pascal? Come on. That's just cheapening the meaning of the word great. People throw that word around like copper pence instead of the gold standard it's supposed to be.

Poet

[PunchesNbuncheS]

I've never seen anyone else make Bernard Hopkins look that bad. Before or after.

You mean an older not prime version Of Bernard, plus Roy Jones made a prime Bernard look bad but Bernard also made Calzaghe look really bad too. It was to the point were many people felt the fight could have gone the other way or a draw at least so it goes both ways with Hopkins and Calzaghe, its a two way street!

[crold1]

And what has Hopkins done since to prove he's still great? Beating a fraud like Pavlik? Or maybe getting a draw and a decision over a fraud like Pascal? Come on. That's just cheapening the meaning of the word great. People throw that word around like copper pence instead of the gold standard it's supposed to be.

Poet

If it was that easy to beat Pavlik or Pascal, other guys wouldn't have to work so hard against them. Rare men take younger, faster guys apart like Hopkins did Pascal. Though flawed, he was rocked bad a couple times in both fights with Pascal and endured and his defense is still impeccable. Hopkins still has greatness in him.

[crold1]

You mean an older not prime version Of Bernard, plus Roy Jones made a prime Bernard look bad but Bernard also made Calzaghe look really bad too. It was to the point were many people felt the fight could have gone the other way or a draw at least so it goes both ways with Hopkins and Calzaghe, its a two way street!

There weren't that many people who thought the fight could go the other way until well after. It was pretty widely seen as a Joe win among fans (check around on the various forums) with a split amongst factions of the press. The "Hopkins was robbed" crowd has been particularly noisy so the controversy has grown. Agree neither guy looked epic, but Calzaghe is the only guy I've seen since Jones 93 win the second half of a fight with 'Nard. (and Jones didn't make 'Nard look bad in that fight. It was just a pedestrian boxing match that Jones edged with speed)

[PunchesNbuncheS]

Calzaghe was a good fighter but some people tend to criminally overrate him as this ATG who would have whooped a prime Jones, Hopkins, Toney and those caliber fighters and Im sorry but I just dont see it.

He was good and he could beat alot of fighters from 168 to 175 but he isnt what some people here hype him up to be. Im not saying he was a bad fighter because he had good ability and a good boxing brain that allowed him to adapt and adjust which in my opinion is a great great thing to have but he just didnt fight the people that he should have fought when it mattered the most, when it could have meant everything to his legacy.

Sadly his wins over 2 older and not prime ATG's in Jones and Hopkins will always be questioned because the majority of boxers, boxing writers and just boxing fans period believe that he couldnt have beaten them when they were in their prime and thats not gonna change.

To be honest with you, I think he beats everyone else at around his weight except Jones, Hopkins, Toney, and maybe Ward beats him too.

[StarshipTrooper]

If it was that easy to beat Pavlik or Pascal, other guys wouldn't have to work so hard against them. Rare men take younger, faster guys apart like Hopkins did Pascal. Though flawed, he was rocked bad a couple times in both fights with Pascal and endured and his defense is still impeccable. Hopkins still has greatness in him.

Hopkins' greatness was back in 2001. Now he's a cheap imitation of his former self who has to be carefully matched to win. Greatness isn't measured by being just good enough to beat guys who are just good enough to beat tomato cans.

Poet