Joe Calzaghe Legend ?

Andrew Flexing

I used to be a huge Joe fan, but half way through the RJ Junoir fight I changed my opinion of him...

He's not the legend RJJ is...He ducked all the good fighters in their prime (RJJ/Wright/Hopkins/Taylor/Dawson and more...) he fought 'has-beens' for his big fights...

Britain had better 'legends' than him. I respect Hatton as he took on the best people he could. Joe claims he's an undefeated fighter but when youre up against Lacy and...(i cant think of anymore...but they werent great...). Everyone thinks Lacy was his best fight but its surely against Kessler...

Big Ears

He didn't duck anyone in his prime(and considering Frank Warren was his promoter that's some achievement).

in the lead up to the Calzaghe v Jones fight, Jones admitted it was his fault the fight hadn't happened previously because(as he said) it wasn't a fight he needed to make at the time.

After Calzaghe fought Brewer, he went into negotiations to fight Hopkins through Showtime. Warren offered 3 million(not sure which currency) and Hopkins team said okay. They came back the next day and asked for 6....Warren of course didn't oblige. These events are according to the head of Showtime.

Winky Wright was a Light-Middleweight in his prime, he was never going to jump up 2 weight divisions to fight Calzaghe. He wasn't the same fighter at Middleweight and a fight with Calzaghe at Super-Middleweight was never on the cards(as far as everyone was concerned).

Taylor in his prime was happy at Middleweight(although tight at the weight), he wasn't going to move up till he lost that title, and once Pavlik beat him, the rematch was made. After Pavlik won again, Taylor was considered past his best and a fight with Calzaghe out of the question.

Dawson may be a fair point, but Calzaghe was past his best himself by then and he's not the only one(Hopkins) who wasn't too eager for that fight.

He's one of Britain's best ever fighter and will be seen ahead of Hatton, at least for the time being anyway. However if Hatton was to go and beat Juan Manuel Marquez things may change somewhat. It looks like Hatton will fight again so it's probably best not the judge him till he's retired.

walshb

Not mad on Joe's style, his slapping, lack of power, but he was a winner, great stamina, good chin, great footwork, speed, tactics, strong and durable.

Who did he duck? Roy Jones? Winky 154 lb Wright? C'mon!

I won't go into it, but look at their careers and you will see that their paths never crossed, same with Toney and Calzaghe, and same with Hopkins and Calzaghe. Hop was a 160 lb fighter up until a few years ago.

Joe is a true warrior who knew how to win, and in my mind, at peak, him and Jones would have been a real good scrap. Remember, when they met, BOTH were past it.

Lacy was an over-hyped flop, and Joe knew this and proved it.
The Kessler win, when Joe was past his best, was Joe's best win.

Hatton was brutally exposed twice by two great fighters. People always say, "well at least he met them," yes he did, and he did sh1t. Hatton has his skill set and Joe has his, but Hatton is not in the same league
as Joe Calzaghe. Joe is far more versatile than Hatton.

joepenguin

walshb wrote: »

Not mad on Joe's style, his slapping, lack of power, but he was a winner, great stamina, good chin, great footwork, speed, tactics, strong and durable.

Not a fan of his style either but he did the job done. There is not a single fighter at 168 from 97 till 08 that would have beaten Joe or that he avoided.
He was past his prime when the possibility of a Dawson fight came up.
He deserved his rjj fight to cap off his career.

Even with all his flaws, the division he was in and opposition available Joe is a legend. So is his dad as a trainer.

Big Ears

joepenguin wrote: »

Even with all his flaws, the division he was in and opposition available Joe is a legend. So is his dad as a trainer.

Although Enzo's career has stalled, the fact he managed to:
-Get Gavin Rees to win a version of a World title, and at 2/3 weight classes above where he should be fighting.

-Get Enzo Maccarinelli fighting well enough that a super fight with David Haye could be justified. Even if Maccarinelli had managed to beat all the same guys, were it not for his quality performance v Braithwaite the Haye fight may still have been made but would not have earned Macca so much nor have been half the occasiosn.

-Have Bradley Pryce win the Commonwealth title, and at 1/2 weight classes above where he should have been fighting. Pryce had been failing miserably at domestic level and then went on to be a solid Commonwealth champion making quite a few defences and beating a very good fighter in Ossie Duran to capture the belt.

-Start the very promising career of Nathan Cleverly

Shows what a good trainer he was, and that's added to what he did with his own son.

A man who never boxed in his life and he has trained 3 fighters to World titles, another to a Commonwealth title and another of his did get into the position to fight for a World title(Gary Lockett). Frank Warren managing all of his fighters has helped, but never the less he's done very well for himself.

He's unlikely to have much success in the future, Joe and Lockett have retired, Maccarinelli has left him and the two left aren't the most dedicated guys in the World, and Pryce may be a little shopworn. Rees could pick up a British or Commonwealth title but he has no one really left in his stable and with his son retired I can't see him having the same dedication.

cowzerp

I hate his style, really sloppy and illegal in a lot of cases but the fact he has retired unbeaten will have put him in a category that will be classed as legendary, people who never seen him box will talk about the unbeaten world champ etc...

Personally i dont see him as a legend but in my opinion he will go down as 1 because of his unblemished record-nobody will care that he fought poor opposition, unfortunately or fortunately for him anyone good he beat where finished and he was in a poor division also so a lot of fans who followed his carreer will be aware of that fact..

Him not fighting top opposition is not really his fault, like Collins he was high risk and little reward so the likes of RJJ was not going to take what he seen as a pointless risk at the time, Kessler was a good prospect when they fought and in my opinion Joe's best scalp, plus he hardly slapped that night..

joepenguin

Big Ears wrote: »

A man who never boxed in his life and he has trained 3 fighters to World titles, another to a Commonwealth title and another of his did get into the position to fight for a World title(Gary Lockett).

Exactly, legendary stuff. Never boxed, never coached, didnt even pay head to a lot of the sport science and nutrition info. Just did his thing and look what he produced. Imo he should have been a little more open minded but its not as if he could have won 47 out of 46 so who am i to criticise.

I think his career at the top is over alright though as his training methods need a particular type fo fighter that is probably hard to come by. That's not to say he's no good, just seems stuck in his ways so you either have faith in him or you dont. With Joe retired he will have a higher % of his attention for other fighters but naturally with his son out of the game he may not have the same passion. Some story though.

T-K-O

Back in the day I too was a hater of Joe Calzaghe but here and now looking back it's hard to deny his talent. I went from hating the guy to flying to NYC to see his fight against Jones. Yes the two biggest names on his CV were past there best but so was Joe.

For the record Joe did not duck Dawson, he had absolutely no reason to fight bad chad. If Joe went down that road he would never retired. Joe dominated his division and hung up the gloves just at the right time.

ODD-JOB

I always remembered Pavlik as the fighter who was avoided by Joe.

Not a legend in my opinion . A winner - Yes .
But ledgend title only comes from extraordinary achivements.

Kessler , Jones ,Lacey - now we wonder how good these fighter really were , since seeing them post Calzaghe

A. Ward schooled Kessler
Jones was past his best no doubt
Lacey was found out as a HBO hype job.

Hopkins beat Joe in 80% of public opinion .

Hopkins is a real legend in my opinion , and continues to be at 44 +

walshb

ODD-JOB wrote: »

I always remembered Pavlik as the fighter who was avoided by Joe.

Not a legend in my opinion . A winner - Yes .
But ledgend title only comes from extraordinary achivements.

Kessler , Jones ,Lacey - now we wonder how good these fighter really were , since seeing them post Calzaghe

A. Ward schooled Kessler
Jones was past his best no doubt
Lacey was found out as a HBO hype job.

Hopkins beat Joe in 80% of public opinion .

Hopkins is a real legend in my opinion , and continues to be at 44 +

Hopkins beat Joe? The fight was useless and apart from Bhops success in rd 1, he did **** all else but run and hold and spoil. Joe didn't do great, but what could he do with an opponent who was simply in to mess and spoil.

I'd like to hear from 8/10 people who could have given that verdict
to Hopkins.

Pavlik avoided? Please, point out where Kelly called out Joe and wanted a fight with Joe. I initially gave Pavlik a chance, but thinking about it, I'd say Calzaghe schools Pavlik. Either way, Joe and Kelly's careers never really collided.

Daroxtar

ODD-JOB wrote: »

I always remembered Pavlik as the fighter who was avoided by Joe.

Not a legend in my opinion . A winner - Yes .
But ledgend title only comes from extraordinary achivements.

Kessler , Jones ,Lacey - now we wonder how good these fighter really were , since seeing them post Calzaghe

A. Ward schooled Kessler
Jones was past his best no doubt
Lacey was found out as a HBO hype job.

Hopkins beat Joe in 80% of public opinion .

Hopkins is a real legend in my opinion , and continues to be at 44 +

80%??? Are you for real???

Hopkins is a fukin dirtbag. He is absolute visual rape to watch and my only hope is that he does actually move up to heavyweight and challenge David Haye as i would like to see the scumbag carried out on a stretcher and never fight again.
Calzaghe easily beat him and the only way the fight could be scored for hopkins is if you were giving points for attempted sexual molestation or bitch whingeing.

People saying Calzaghe had no power are talking out through their arses. He broke his hands in the fight against Robin Reid and has never punched the same way since. He couldnt throw with the power he had because he'd keep breaking his hands again if he did. He turned away from power and concentrated on speed and very few people could live with his speed. Believe me, if Joe had been in trouble late on in any fight you'd have seen what power he had left. He just never really had to use it to get the results.

Is Joe a legend? No. But he's a bloody good boxer who won world titles and retired undefeated. In comparisson to some of the fighters out there being called legends he is as good and he will be remembered as one of the best british fighters of his era. However, I rate Eubank and Benn just as highly. The only difference is they got beaten.

cowzerp

Daroxtar wrote: »

80%??? Are you for real???

Hopkins is a fukin dirtbag. He is absolute visual rape to watch and my only hope is that he does actually move up to heavyweight and challenge David Haye as i would like to see the scumbag carried out on a stretcher and never fight again..

Hopkins will torture Haye if they fight, i'd say it would be a very handy fight for B Hop

Daroxtar wrote: »

Calzaghe easily beat him and the only way the fight could be scored for hopkins is if you were giving points for attempted sexual molestation or bitch whingeing.
.

The bookies at the end of the fight where strongly given the fight to BHop and they dont work off who they like, Bhop won that fight as far as im concerned even if he was negative..

Daroxtar wrote: »

People saying Calzaghe had no power are talking out through their arses. He broke his hands in the fight against Robin Reid and has never punched the same way since.
.

Wrong, he simply moved up a level and stopping average fighters is harder than stopping journeymen.Eubank was his 1st real fight and that went the distance, many felt Reid won the fight also and that also went to split decision so his 1st 2 ok fights where decisions.

Joe was never a power puncher by any stretch and only ever got 2 actual KO's on his record against frank minton and tyler hughes!!! he stopped lads through pressure, usually raining 15-20 slaps on while the ref stopped it.

Daroxtar

cowzerp wrote: »

Hopkins will torture Haye if they fight, i'd say it would be a very handy fight for B Hop



The bookies at the end of the fight where strongly given the fight to BHop and they dont work off who they like, Bhop won that fight as far as im concerned even if he was negative..



Wrong, he simply moved up a level and stopping average fighters is harder than stopping journeymen.Eubank was his 1st real fight and that went the distance, many felt Reid won the fight also and that also went to split decision so his 1st 2 ok fights where decisions.

Joe was never a power puncher by any stretch and only ever got 2 actual KO's on his record against frank minton and tyler hughes!!! he stopped lads through pressure, usually raining 15-20 slaps on while the ref stopped it.

Joe flattened the granite chinned Eubank with a single punch in the first round. He didn't stay down but there was no question as to the power of the shot. He broke both hands against Reid in the first 3 rounds and still won the fight, although it was a split decision and i myself thought Reid had done enough.
I dont think that the fight against Hopkins was for a bookies belt so i dont really care what they thought at the end of the fight. Joe won it. Check the records.
Hopkins barely threw a proper punch beyond the 4th round. It wasn't just negative, it was an insult to the term boxing. Akinwande v Lewis was all jabs and slick combos compared to that horror show. I thought BHop was going to call out Randy Couture after that display.
And ftr, David Haye would decapitate Hop. He might have a good chin but he wouldnt stand a chance against that power. I doubt it would go beyond 6.

foams

I think B-hop is a legend and an inspiration, what he went through in his early life, coming out of prison and going on to achive so much in the sport for so long. Now he gives talks in high schools telling kids to work hard and stay out of trouble, and he's simply still such an effective boxer at 45, how can you not admire the man?

nacho libre

ODD-JOB wrote: »

I always remembered Pavlik as the fighter who was avoided by Joe.

Not a legend in my opinion . A winner - Yes .
But ledgend title only comes from extraordinary achivements.

Kessler , Jones ,Lacey - now we wonder how good these fighter really were , since seeing them post Calzaghe

A. Ward schooled Kessler
+

i'm going to go out on a limb here and say Ward would have given a prime joe calzaghe a stiff challenge. Kessler is not a bad fighter he was just made to look like one against a guy who has great footwork and handspeed.

Andrew Flexing

Some interesting posts here...I think Joe had great talent and heart. But I think if all fighters in their prime RJJ was the best and would have beaten Joe if it had have been organised prior to RJJ's demise. Also
hopkins would have done likewise.

was joe ever really tested by a truely great figher that wasnt over the hill??? He fought 8 ex-world champs; boxers on the decline. You could hear Enzo after the 3 or 4 round saying "he's spent" etc...RJJ in his prime would out box Joe

cppromotions

wouldnt say Joe Calzaghe is a legend he was a great champion did what he had to do to win wasnt a fan but do admire what he did with his career
as far as fighting former champs past their best that was good management easier fights for big money thats why his career went on for so long and he stayed champ its common sense fighters turn professional first and foremost to get paid for boxing otherwise they would just stay amatuer But what Joe did do was fight the big fights for big paydays and i think that shows intelligence.
Joe retired undefeated as champion beat some big names but in the current climate it doesnt make him a legend because we know he beat some fighters past their best not all just some but in 50 ,60 years time when were all gone maybe people of that error will look back and say that guy Joe Calzaghe is a legend.

megadodge

Joe retired undefeated as champion beat some big names but in the current climate it doesnt make him a legend because we know he beat some fighters past their best not all just some but in 50 ,60 years time when were all gone maybe people of that error will look back and say that guy Joe Calzaghe is a legend.

Like they do now with Rocky Marciano et al.

walshb

Andrew Flexing wrote: »

Some interesting posts here...I think Joe had great talent and heart. But I think if all fighters in their prime RJJ was the best and would have beaten Joe if it had have been organised prior to RJJ's demise. Also
hopkins would have done likewise.

Just bumping an old thread. The Hopkins point gets me. Hopkins was a MW for his peak years. I would like to see where at 168-175 Hopkins could have been better than Joe? I have seen nothing from him at 168-175 to say he beats the best Clazaghe.

When they did meet he was beaten by a past it Joe.. Hopkins style is just not all that good for beating Joe's. Hopkins is too patient, too "lazy" and doesn't have terrific power. Joe beats Hopkins on workrate most times.

Bernard's best night above MW was his win over Tarver. But that is Tarver. Joe offers a lot more problems. Bernard's tactics and cuteness may work against some men, but Joe is too clever and tactical to be deceived by Hopkins.

cowzerp

Andrew Flexing wrote: »

was joe ever really tested by a truely great figher that wasnt over the hill??? He fought 8 ex-world champs; boxers on the decline. You could hear Enzo after the 3 or 4 round saying "he's spent" etc...RJJ in his prime would out box Joe

This post sums up joe, he was certainly protected and was put in with names when they where ready to be beat.

barney4001

He is a legend wales anyway

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

This post sums up joe, he was certainly protected and was put in with names when they where ready to be beat.

And same with Hop. Who did he meet that was special? One can criticise many men for their opposition. Bottom line, at 168 lbs, no man on earth was better than Calzaghe from 1997-2007. That is a fact.

Remember: Kessler was seen as the real deal and a past it Joe met and bet him.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

And same with Hop. Who did he meet that was special? One can criticise many men for their opposition. Bottom line, at 168 lbs, no man on earth was better than Calzaghe from 1997-2007. That is a fact.

Remember: Kessler was seen as the real deal and a past it Joe met and bet him.

He beat pavlik and Pavlik was highly rated at the time, also De la Hoya and Trinidad who was unbeaten like pavlik, that and the kessler win go down as the same for me-that was Joes best win and performance against decent opponent, his good wins are not that good in hindsight-lacy useless, Kessler good but far from great and both RJJ and Bhop who where shadows of themselves and both dropped him, many feel Bhop won too as did the bookies

Calzaghe was exciting against bums

boxer.fan

I think calzaghe is a boxing legend of sorts, he did beat up everyone put in front of him, albeit that some of them fights were taken at the right time. I don't remember him having too many close decisions, he pretty much won the majority by a wide enough margin.

Lacy & Manfredo were well over rated in my opinion. I was always a bit critical of Joe for rarely fighting outside the UK.

walshb

Funny, for a guy with lovely balance and feet and very good handspeed, Joe was a lot of the time very tough to watch. He was involved in many scrappy and awkward fights. Born winner. Unreal stamina, balance, hand speed, and was quite stong too. Very rough inside. That is why he would be a match for any man at 168. Also, his punch technique was pretty poor. But he suffered terribly with his hands, even as an amateur. And his technique altered to alleviate this.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

He beat pavlik and Pavlik was highly rated at the time, also De la Hoya and Trinidad who was unbeaten like pavlik, that and the kessler win go down as the same for me-that was Joes best win and performance against decent opponent, his good wins are not that good in hindsight-lacy useless, Kessler good but far from great and both RJJ and Bhop who where shadows of themselves and both dropped him, many feel Bhop won too as did the bookies

Calzaghe was exciting against bums

I was waiting for that. Pavlik proved to be very beatable and one dimensional. Calzaghe would have eaten him alive.

As for Oscar and Tito. C'mon, Oscar, a blown up WW and Tito too. Never MW fighters. That to me is poor oppoistion. That is the equivalent of Joe meeting and beating the likes of Winky Wright. Ludicrous.

Kessler was far more a challenge to Calzaghe than two blown up WW fighters were for a big natural MW like Bernard.

Anyway, when they did meet, Calzaghe beat Bernard. Calzaghe moved to LHW too. And Joe was every bit as past it as Bernard, if anyone wants to make the excuse that Bernard was past it.

I'd like to know what verison of Bhop that was not a shadow, would beat Calzaghe?

Bernard did not lose to Joe because he was a shadow of himself. He lost because Joe's style is wrong for him.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Also, his punch technique was pretty poor. But he suffered terribly with his hands, even as an amateur. And his technique altered to alleviate this.

Why where they bad? answer-his bad technique wrecked them.

walshb wrote: »

I was waiting for that. Pavlik proved to be very beatable and one dimensional. Calzaghe would have eaten him alive.


Kessler was far more a challenge to Calzaghe than two blown up WW fighters were for a big natural MW like Bernard.

Anyway, when they did meet, Calzaghe beat Bernard. Calzaghe moved to LHW too. And Joe was every bit as past it as Bernard, if anyone wants to make the excuse that Bernard was past it.

I'd like to know what verison of Bhop that was not a shadow, would beat Calzaghe?

Bernard did not lose to Joe because he was a shadow of himself. He lost because Joe's style is wrong for him.

I just named good names, was not comparing them to Kessler.

The 1 i was comparing to Kessler was Pavlik as he was unbeaten and was going through people for fun-i firmly believe if Hopkins had bothered his hole like he did in the Pavlik fight he would have gone through Calzaghe-he lost a contentious decision even though he fought half hearted in the fight.

Calzaghe anyway you look at if fought 1, relevant good fighter in his career and that was Kessler who is/was just good, all the other names he fought where not relevant when he met them.

Eubank, RJJ, Bhop. No way you can say Calzaghe was just as shot as Bhop-Calzaghe retired at his best and could have fought Pavlik too but wanted no part of Pavlik even though the fans where calling for it.

Calzaghe would be just like Hatton if Hatton had not fought Pacman and Mayweather-difference is Joe fought 2 imposters who had legendary names.

walshb

Paul, beating Pavlik proves nothing. Joe is whole different ball game than Pavlik. Just because Hop had success against Pavlik in no way leads me to believe that he beats Calzaghe. Calzaghe is a far more versatile fighter and much more problematic. I don't see how you can extrapolate Bernard from the Pavlik bout and use it to say Bernard wins?

Hop is still going now. He was beaten by Joe. Joe was past it, he moved up to LHW. No version of Hop above 160 lbs that I have seen is somehow superior to Calzaghe. Sure, he will be a threat, and the fights would be close, but I would bet on Joe 6-7 from a ten bout series.

Comparing Calzaghe to Hatton is off to me. Calzaghe was a far better boxer. Far better. No matter who they fought etc, Calzaghe is simply a far better boxer.

BTW, when Joe met Chris, Joe was still not near his peak. So, that easily cancles out anyone claiming Eubank was shot. Eubank had two terrIfic performaces vs. Thompson after Clazaghe had beaten Eubank.

The best Joe beats the best Eubank every time. Again, style make fights. Calzaghe is bigger, fitter, stronger and busier. Eubank only has a punchers chance, and in my view, he doesn't get that KO.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Why where they bad? answer-his bad technique wrecked them.
.

Possibly, but sometimes even correct punching can damage hands. Some fighters suffer terribly with their hands, technique or not. Barry did. Floyd did/does. Joe did too, worse than others, and was in a lot of pain from it. This must be considered.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

The best Joe beats the best Eubank every time. Again, style make fights. Calzaghe is bigger, fitter, stronger and busier. Eubank only has a punchers chance, and in my view, he doesn't get that KO.

No way-Eubank would Knock joe out cold at his peak when he was 26-27, RJJ and Bhop had Joe on his hole-Eubank was stronger than both and no way Calzaghe was bigger/stronger than Eubanks, Busier yes but thats just styles, Calzaghe was a fresh 25, Eubank was a finished fighter who lost his last 2 after this to Thompson-Bravely but all the same he was finished, he'd also lost 2 times to Collins 2 years previous to fighting Calzaghe-That was the end of Eubanks.

Calzaghe still beat nobody of high class level that will be remembered bar the 2 past it legends-thats what people will see in the future and think wow-but anyone from this time period will know they where not true representations of them fighters.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Possibly, but sometimes even correct punching can damage hands. Some fighters suffer terribly with their hands, technique or not

Yes i know that, But the way Joe punched was guaranteed to smash your hands up so doing that when your hands are damaged makes no sense-this is why his hands where damaged, he always slapped when he got frantic in fights.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

No way-Eubank would Knock joe out cold at his peak when he was 26-27, RJJ and Bhop had Joe on his hole-Eubank was stronger than both and no way Calzaghe was bigger/stronger than Eubanks, Busier yes but thats just styles, Calzaghe was a fresh 25, Eubank was a finished fighter who lost his last 2 after this to Thompson-Bravely but all the same he was finished, he'd also lost 2 times to Collins 2 years previous to fighting Calzaghe-That was the end of Eubanks.

Calzaghe still beat nobody of high class level that will be remembered bar the 2 past it legends-thats what people will see in the future and think wow-but anyone from this time period will know they where not true representations of them fighters.

Completely disagree on Eubank, yet I did say that his only chance is the KO. And, are you implying that in 1997 Eubank simply had no punch? Eubank was still a puncher then. Nothing changed.

He hit Joe with a lot, and Joe still won. So, how does this then translate to Joe getting brutally knocked out had it been a few years earlier?

Eubank's punch did not leave him, as Thompson, a big man, will attest to.

Do you agree that his best chance, or only chance is the KO?

No way is he outpointing a peak Calzaghe, no way. So, he has a punchers chance, BUT, no man ever badly badly hurt Joe. Yes, he was down, but always got up and won.

Same with Benn at 168 lbs. Big punchers chance, but if he can't KO Joe, he gets thoroughly beaten over the course of the fight.

Agian, please show me any version of this legend, Hop, that beats Clazaghe?

Bear in mind that I do believe that their fights will always be close affairs.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Completely disagree on Eubank, yet I did say that his only chance is the KO. And, are you implying that in 19997 Eubank simply had no punch? Eubank was still a puncher then. Nothing changed.

He hit Joe with a lot, and Joe still won.

Do you agree that his best chance, or only chance is the KO?

No way is he outpointing a peak Calzaghe, no way. So, he has a punchers chance, BUT, no man ever badly badly hurt Joe. Yes, he was down, but always got up and won.

Same with Benn at 168 lbs. Big punchers chance, but if he can't KO Joe, he gets thoroughly beaten over the course of the fight.

Agian, please show me any version of this legend, Hop, that beats Clazaghe?

Bear in mind that I do believe that their fights will always be close affairs.

Joe would lose either way to peak Eubank, Benn or Hopkins-i don't know why you keep coming back top Hopkins though as thats not important, He scraped a win v a uninterested old Hopkins, if Hopkins bothered his hole he would have won easily.

Joe had a suspect chin that was rarely tested, Benn, Eubank, Watson would have sorted that at peak.

I'm not going around in circles anymore-Calzaghe was a fighter who fought nobody at peak bar Kessler who was not that great.

You can blame the lack of talent at the time but i think his fights where hand picked.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Joe would lose either way to peak Eubank, Benn or Hopkins-i don't know why you keep coming back top Hopkins though as thats not important, He scraped a win v a uninterested old Hopkins, if Hopkins bothered his hole he would have won easily.

Joe had a suspect chin that was rarely tested, Benn, Eubank, Watson would have sorted that at peak.

I'm not going around in circles anymore-Calzaghe was a fighter who fought nobody at peak bar Kessler who was not that great.

You can blame the lack of talent at the time but i think his fights where hand picked.

I conceded that Calzaghe could lose by KO. His chin was good, not great, but he had great recovery and conditioning. But, apart form the KO, how the hell does Benn beat Calzaghe, or Eubank beat Calzaghe?. They won't beat him over the distance, no way

BTW, Watson would never beat Joe. Watson was not a massive hitter, and was not a real SMW fighter anyway.

Eubank had 12 rds and did not KO him. Eubank had not miraculously lost his power.

He just could not beat Calzaghe. Eubank wasn't the gretaest anyway. I would pick several men to beat him at 168 lbs, as I would pick several to beat Benn.

Several men, not as big or as good as Joe, lasted 12 rds with the best Eubank. Look at some of them. Yet, Joe gets badly knocked out? Of course there is a possibilty, but it's quite slight IMO.

boxer.fan

Walshb, if calzaghe & Toney had ended up in a ring together 15/20 years ago how do you think it would have played out?

walshb

boxer.fan wrote: »

Walshb, if calzaghe & Toney had ended up in a ring together 15/20 years ago how do you think it would have played out?

Toney to me is a bad style for Joe, and Joe's bad for him. But, Joe's so clever, adaptable, that he could outwork Toney. Toney loves an attacker.

Now, Joe is clever and won't simply attack with disregard. He has size, reach, speed and strength.

I always picked Toney, but really, this is a toss up the more I think about it.

Their styles, brains and skills make it a close match.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Now, Joe is clever and won't simply attack with disregard. He has size, reach, speed and strength.

Their styles, brains and skills make it a close match.

Where is this brains coming from with Calzaghe, he always fought the same, never different, also strenght and size-he never had great strenght or size, maybe your basing this on his weak opposition.

Bren what gauls me about you praising Joe is, you where a big detracor of his untill he was finished, you never had a good word to say about him and suddenly done a u turn

Fact is, his power and chin was average, his technique was poor, His opposition was questionable as was his almost never fighting outside britain

I actually used to enjoy seeing him beating punch bags just like with Hatton as it was usually enjoyable, but when you look at it they where punch bags, after a few fights where his bad technique was just farcible i just got sick of him!

your say Hatton was a lesser Boxer than Joe, I don't think so-Hatton had similar style with better technique and beating Kosta Tzsyu was a bigger feat than Joe ever done, what seperates them is Hatton actually fought top opposition in their peak, If he retired unbeaten having not fought them people would be calling him an all time great.

In my eyes he came out of the Hopkins fight badly, and not rematching him was not good either after a controversial split decision win.

I think Eubank could outbox Calzaghe, Benn no, but he could certainly KO him.

Calzaghe sadly never boxed at the top level truly and his real level is unknown, plus Robin Reid was robbed v Calzaghe too and he was average at best.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Bren what gauls me about you praising Joe is, you where a big detracor of his untill he was finished, you never had a good word to say about him and suddenly done a u turn
.

Yes, I did criticise him, but after watching his fights, watching documentaries and clips and reading his book, I felt that my criticism was far too harsh. And, as you know, a lot of it came from his awkwardness and slapping. I even posted in this thread earlier today about him "being tough to watch." I have changed my view, and I'm open enough to admit that I did. I got it wrong.

He is by no means my favourite fighter. I wouldn't pay to watch Joe, but by god was he a winner, and by god would he be a tough tough puzzle for any man ever at 168 lbs. He was strong, he was a big guy, very fast fet and hands, a ridiculous engine, great recovery, deCect chin, and yes, tactically he was very good. Nobody ever solved him, did they?

You mention him fighting the same way. Well, wasn't it working? So why shouldn't he? Bhop couldn't change to beat Joe, and you rate Bhop a whole lot better, and excuse his loss as him being past it, while not acknowledging that Joe too was not at peak.

As to Eubank. Again, he had 12 rds and could not beat Joe, and never would. His style is not right. Joe's too fast and too busy. As I said, the only chance is the haily mary KO, which I do not think he gets.

Hatton was a crude brawler and tough man. Calzaghe is a lot more versatile than a Ricky Hatton, who I overrated in his day. Hatton was good, Joe was simply a deal better.

And, apart from Tsyzu, who was stale and pst his best days, who did Hatton beat? Yes, he met two great men, and was badly exposed by both. Joe never came close to being exposed. Kessler was the man at the time when Joe beat him. Joe was also on the way down at that time.

I believe you over criticise him. I mean, you have Watson beating him, Collins too? Eubank destroying him, even though when they met Joe was still not at peak, yet won.

I can not at all envisage a Watson or Collins beating a peak Calzaghe. Watson hasn't the power or size. He would be outboxed and out hussled all night long by a bigger and faster man.

Collins? Seriously, Joe could be crude, and at times wild, but Collins takes the biscuit. Rough and tough and durable, but again, smaller, and nowhere near the power to trouble Joe. He loses by wide decision. Joe would be far too fast and too busy.

BTW, I am assuming you have Collins to beat Joe? If not, please disregard my "rant" on Collins

Daroxtar

Robin reid was robbed although Joe broke both is hands in that fight so that should count for something. Now Joe had an excellent chin, he was put down by RJJ by a forearm smash across the bridge of the nose as he lunged into it so i wouldnt count that and he got up and pulverised him for thr remainder of the round. He dealt with Hopkins kd fairly well too. Who else really ever hurt him?

Tho only fight left for Joe when he retired wasnt Pavlik , who would have been exposed by him, but Chad Dawson and i'd back Joe there

Re Hopkins, Joe won that fight by a mile and the only ones who thought otherwise were Hopkins fans, Hopkins spent the whole fight spoiling and fouling and looking to hoodwink the judges and ref. When joe stepped off him and upped the pace he dominated the fight and if it had been a 15 rounder he would probably have stopped Hopkins. Not by KO but by B'Hop quitting and crying in the corner at not getting his own way. Hopkins didn't deserve a rematch, he just deserved a kick in the hole for behaving like such a prick before, during and after the fight.

Actually now that I'm on a rant about Hopkins, there was a thread a while back about the most overrated boxers... well he's my pick. I can't fking stand him. I think he is a rotten spoiler, a whinger, he lacks real ko power, has average footwork , a disgraceful loser and ref's and judges should have copped on to his constant holding and snide tactics long ago and docked him points at every oportunity. Oh, he's a horrible prick too.

Now back to Joe... He had his flaws, his slapping and all that but he was a damn good champ too. And as regards him not fighting much outside the UK, wasn't there a pair of heavyweights recently that got the same criticism.. doesn't seem to have done them much harm. Plus I could watch most of his fights and still get to my leaba at a decent time...Win!!!

davegrohl48

I would say Calzaghe had a good chin and great stamina. He wasn't born with the kinda physique to give him the punching power of a Jones or Benn.
One of my favourite bits of live boxing was himself and Lacy going into the corner and trading right up close to the camera. That was a fight where Calzaghe was underdog, Lacy subsequently put his shoulder out so we'll never know how good he was, but he had KO power.
Calzaghe did a few smart things for fighting a top heavy fighter like Lacy, pushing off him with his right hand and circling. It unbalanced Lacy when Lacy countered. Ref never really called it but Calzaghe several times was pushing off Lacy and bringing Lacys head and balance forward.
I would see someone like Collins just coming straight forward on Lacy.
I rate Calzaghe behind the likes of Jones/Andre Wards but he would have mainly victories from Eubanks/Collins/Benn/Hopkins/Pavlik/Froch/Abraham.
Calzaghes punch volume would trouble Hopkins on the scorecards. Bar two flash knockdowns against Jones and Hopkins I'v never seen Calzaghe get wobbly in the legs.
Re the Hopkins - Calzaghe fight, the result on that was split decision and unsuprisingly so. Slow motion replays show alot of Calzaghes punches missing and Hopkins single shot counters connecting. Some judges would have went with aggressor, so in fairness on balance Joe gets it. Just making point that fight was quite close. Hopkins has good footwork, you can't fight throwing less punches than your opponent without good footwork to get you out defensively and in offensively. He beat Jean Pascal using timing and footwork.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Bren what gauls me about you praising Joe is, you where a big detracor of his untill he was finished, you never had a good word to say about him and suddenly done a u turn
.

I think this is inaccurate. Although I criticiesd his technique, style and punching, I did mention that he was very fit, balanced, with great feet and fast hands.

cowzerp

Plenty of post's that show you straight out saying he was prOtecetd and did not fight the cream of the crop-You're not new to boxing so it's not like as if you know more about Boxing than you did then.

I think the old Nostalgia has got the better of you here-These posts go right up to just before the RJJ fight so i doubt that fight changed your views..

walshb wrote: »

Wow, some serious debating going on here.
Calzaghe IMO deserves a lto fo credit.
I just don't enjoy his style and hate to
see how at times and a lot of times he
punches so incorrectly. He is without
doubt a talent, but so was Steve Collins and
he's a fighter I could never watch. Far too
sloppy. Joe IMO is more polished than
Steve, but I think Joe never really
faced the cream of the division, when the cream were
at their peak....He has now lost that opportunity and IMO
he never would have beat the cream.....

walshb wrote: »

Does anyone else not see the stupidity in the fact that Joe is slagging Hopkins for beating nobodies and guys over the hill, yet Joe himself wants to fight a 42 year old man:rolleyes:, who is years past his best......

What will it prove if Joe were to beat a 42 year ld Hopkins??

AbsOlute nothing IMO....

Hopkins was a very good middleweight and a good
LH.....

walshb wrote: »

I don't think anyone is NOT giving Joe credit.
WE are simply, well I for one, and I think Paul agrees with me when I
basically said that Joe beating HOP is nothing special and will not
elevate him to greater heights.
Joe beating Lacy did NOT impress me one bit as Lacy to me
was pretty damn ordinary. Hyped, but couldn't back it up.
Calzahge's style I don't like and I don't think he
has faced real championship class.
Is he good, YES, is he great, I don't think so.....

Calzaghe has had a very successful, but padded career IMO.
He has beat everyone he has ever faced, but no legends, apart from
maybe an OLD ring worn Eubank...

Kessler was very good, but hardly in Jones's Juniors league or Toney's or
Hearns or a peak Hopkins league...not close...

Calzaghe is a slapper without a punch..

He has great stamina, great work output, a decent chin and
a nice southpaw style......

I just can't get excited about Joe and never could...

He's at the end of his career now and all he has accomplished
I have forgotten, because to be honest he didn't accomplish all
that much apart from a WBO title, and defenses against
mediocre opposition...

walshb wrote: »

I've never been a fan of Joe and think he operated in an era of talent that was IMO, not great at all. He is a slapper, with zero power and even the low blow V Hopkins was with the side of his hand. He couldn't even deliver a low blow of worth, even though BHOP made a meal of it. He scraped past a 43 year old fighter who was basically a spoiler and defensive shell. He probably does beat Jones, on work rate alone. He will deliver nothing of real class and has yet to show me anything close to the prowess that a peak Jones or Toney showed. Benn, Eubank and Watson in their primes would all have beat Joe, possibly by KO....His chin too has never been tested by a real class puncher....

walshb wrote: »

I guess at this stage it would be hard to revise my opinion. As much as I'd like, I just can't get excited about him. He was protected for years and dominated a division that IMO, lacked real class. Robin Reid, Mitchell, Lacy, Kessler etc, just don't cut it.

Beating Sakio Bika was a good win, sloppy as usual, but Bika is a very hard man. The HOP fight was a scam, and I knew this before, even though I predicted a HOP win. Cal did nothing in the bout to impress me.

He never boxed the cream and would have been soundly whupped, had he....

Pavlik is a very good fighter, but he's yet to prove that he's a great great fighter. I think his style, size and power, as well as his fitness may well beat Cal at 168lbs. Should Cal beat him in a bout where Pavlik gives it his all, then yes, Cal has to be given TOP marks...

I'm wanting Cal to impress me, but feel it's too late. Unbeaten, but never really tested...

walshb wrote: »

Anyone who can honeslty say Lacy is or was a very good fighter is so far off the mark.

Lacy was nothing and had nothing to offer.

World class fighters are Jones and Toney and Nunn and McCallum.

Cal's comp IMO was very ordinary and none would have given those
great fighters a good fight

Pav is world class, but still a notch below Hagler, Jones and Toney..

Reid is a decent European fighter, Eubank was well OLD when Cal
beat him.

I honestly was not impressed with Kesller; too one dimensional and very
predictable.

Hop was pretty useless in the Cal fight and at 43; was also well past it.

These aren't excuses; these are hard facts

walshb wrote: »

Hero, I think it is simply a case of Paul having higher standards in boxing than you.
Paul sees what I see in relation to Cal, and average, dedicated, fit and hard working fighter with very poor power and IMO, sloppy technique; who would not ever have been
so successful had he competed against the true champions I mentioned

walshb wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/sport/boxing/2008/0624/calzaghej.html

Can anyone blame people for not really believing in Cal's potential or legacy.
The guy is now chasing a big money fight with an OLD past it Jones and has basically
ruled out a true test with a young, hard hitting and fresh Pavlik. Surely a bout with Pavlik would be the bigger money earner here, as Pav is a TRUE current champion,
who is number 1
in the world. Beating HOP proved little; just like beating Jones will prove little.

Surely the Pavlik fight will be the bigger seller on PPV?

I know I would buy it; but I wouldn't pay a cent to watch Cal-Jones, it's too little
too late

walshb wrote: »

Cal is quite possibly the most unorthodox and technically inept fighter that ever became world champion. He does indeed slap and his power is also very very very poor. He wouldn't KO a freakin welterweight....

C'mon, anyone saying Cal doesn't slap has either never seen him fight or doesn't know the first thing about boxing or punching...

Spudman_20000

Calzaghe was an outstanding fighter. Anyone that knows anything about boxing knows that you don't go 46-0 (and unbeaten for 19 years as an amateur and pro) and have a 10 year reign as champion without being something special.

Great heart, stamina, power, quick hands and great footwork. Reading a lot of nonsense here in relation to his punching power. Go and watch his fight with Byron Mitchell as a prime example of what made Joe great. Gets knocked down with a hard shot to the body and head, gets up straight away and goes toe to toe with Mitchell and puts Mitchell on his trunks.

The same people who criticised Joe in relation to his opposition are the same people who would have picked Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins to beat him before those fights. Joe schooled a very much fancied Lacy, made adjustments mid-fight against Kessler and dominated the second half of the fight and clearly out-pointed a wily Hopkins in what was always going to be an ugly fight.

A legendary fighter in my books.

cowzerp

Spudman_20000 wrote: »

The same people who criticised Joe in relation to his opposition are the same people who would have picked Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins to beat him before those fights.

Lacy see below

Kessler was his only genuine peak fighter if he was even peak, he was more potential than anything, and he's only good in reality not great.

Hopkins was old and while he still has/had skills people would always back him-nothing strange there and my point below tells more.

Spudman_20000 wrote: »

Joe schooled a very much fancied Lacy.

A over hyped Lacy who is not or ever was a top Boxer, means nothing and the fact that fight needs to be used shows how hard up it is to defend his opposition.

Spudman_20000 wrote: »

clearly out-pointed a wily Hopkins in what was always going to be an ugly fight..

Wrong-he lost the 1st 4 and 6 rounds in total and the 1st by 10-8 due to the knock down, Enzo even screamed like a mad man at him going into the 12th he needed a KO, The bookies also agreed with that assesment

I had him up by 2 at the end, either way it was a bad fight and close, Calzaghe land very little scoring punches in the fight, Hopking s threw less and landed consistently and effectively when he did.

walshb

There's far too much there for me to reply to. I said that I was a critic, and now when I look back, far too harshly. In them quotes there are positives, as I said there was. Plenty of negatives. I studied Joe more and watched more from him and I was too harsh, as I have already said.

BTW, regarding Hop, yes, he was past it, and I still believe that Joe beating him was nothing special. I never said it was special. Joe too was past it.

As for the cream of the crop, well, I musta been on the sauce then because when you look at it, the cream were Toney and Jones, and the timeline makes it pretty impossible for their paths to meet at 168. That was well off from me.

Joe from 1997-2007 was the best 168 lb man on earth, and nobody from that span at 168 beats him, and anyone he did not meet doesn't beat him either.

I still maintain that he's not a fighter I would pay to watch. But, he is a great fighter nonetheless.

Eubank was ring worn, but still only 31 or so, and Joe was still green at that time. Not near his peak. Eunabk never beats Joe. Unless as I said, he lands a hail mary.

Finally: Most of my OTT criticism stemmed from his awkwardness, style and punch technique. He was involved in a lot of sloppy fights. For a guy with lovely balance and feet and coordination, that always surprised me.

Spudman_20000

cowzerp wrote: »

A over hyped Lacy who is not or ever was a top Boxer, means nothing and the fact that fight needs to be used shows how hard up it is to defend his opposition.

Funny how these fighers are considered over hyped only after they get beaten.

If Joe had hung around and given a boxing lesson to Pavlik and Dawson, you'd be saying they were over hyped too.

walshb

Lacy was overhyped and turned out to be not all that good. But, Joe not only beat him, he destroyed him for every minute of the fight.

cowzerp

Spudman_20000 wrote: »

Funny how these fighers are considered over hyped only after they get beaten.

If Joe had hung around and given a boxing lesson to Pavlik and Dawson, you'd be saying they were over hyped too.

It was a nothing fight, only his tv network where hyping him-i certainly wasn't. only reason he is known at all is because Calzaghe constantly name dropped him whenever interviewed as some sort of big win, even though it wasn't and nobody thinks it was.

He beat a overhyped average boxer who had achieved nothing.

walshb

But at he time Lacy was considered a top fighter. Like Kessler, who I never really thought was great, he was still a top man in the division, and Joe beat both. It's not Joe's fault that he was simply the best of the lot. The division is a new division, so we can't compare it from eras gone by. From 1997-2007, 10-11 years, to be consistently in and around number 1 in the world is a hell of an achievement.

Big Ears

Whatever about the rest of this argument, I love the way people disregard Lacy as a nothing fighter, as proved by his results after Calzaghe. If you didn't think he was up to much before he fought Calzaghe, then fair enough, but in his next fight after, against Vitali Tsypko he tore his rotator cuff in the 2nd round and pretty much ****ed up the rest of his career.

Rotator cuff injuries are extremely dangerous for a fighters career and it's why Vitali Klitschko knew it was best for him to quit against Chris Byrd, despite there only being 3 rounds left and way ahead on the scorecards.

Lacy before Calzaghe was not the fighter Showtime were hyping him to be, but he was a bad fighter either and carried considerable power. He was a dangerous opponent who Calzaghe handled very, very well.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

But at he time Lacy was considered a top fighter. Like Kessler, who I never really thought was great, he was still a top man in the division, and Joe beat both. It's not Joe's fault that he was simply the best of the lot. The division is a new division, so we can't compare it from eras gone by. From 1997-2007, 10-11 years, to be consistently in and around number 1 in the world is a hell of an achievement.

Lacy's biggest win was a finished Robin Reid, he really was a nobody who had fought nobody before Joe-yes the hype said otherwise but everyone knows that, in 2009 even RJJ beat him and he was beyond washed up.

Lacy is a bad example to use as he was a never boxer. At least RJJ and Bhop where at 1 stage top fighters, Lacy was not close.