Could Ward outdo Calzaghe?

First topic message reminder :

Simple one, If Ward beats Froch then goes on to beat Bute, would it be reasonable to believe he has a better claim to being the best Super Middleweight of all time then Calzaghe?

Possibly but my money would be on a prime Joe

Often forgotten that Johnny Nelson had longevity in solely WBO terms, don't see too many folk lauding Nelson for this, realise he did not then go onto unify as Joe did but for the first seven years of their reigns there is more than the odd similarity.

rowley wrote:Often forgotten that Johnny Nelson had longevity in solely WBO terms, don't see too many folk lauding Nelson for this, realise he did not then go onto unify as Joe did but for the first seven years of their reigns there is more than the odd similarity.

He didn't have a bunch of rabid Welshmen just happy to see him win regardless of who it was against.

And Calzaghe had a few decent fights to garner a following, the same cannot be levelled at Nelson. Unless you find dishwater bright and full of colors that is.

rowley wrote:Often forgotten that Johnny Nelson had longevity in solely WBO terms, don't see too many folk lauding Nelson for this, realise he did not then go onto unify as Joe did but for the first seven years of their reigns there is more than the odd similarity.

I am one of said "folk" that actually lauds Nelson. I have argued in favour of "the Entertainer" before now of course much against the general consesus of opinion. I did in fact argue that Johnny's 15 or whatever WBO wins was more importnant than Haye's two wins at world championship level and in the Quality v Longevity debate I actually rate Nelson slightly higher than David Haye overall.

I am one of said "folk" that actually lauds Nelson

There's always one.

Did you ever see Warring-Nelson and Deleon- Nelson super????

I can't say I saw or remember those particular fights Trussman but I know he kinda robbed Deleon didn't he?

Super both them fights came before his WBO reign they were his original title challenges where he basically froze and didn't throw a punch. The only guy he can be considered to have jobbed during his WBO reign to my memory was Guilermo Jones, who he drew with. I was there Nelson was very lucky to get a draw, however think Jones failed a drug test afterwards so limited sympathy.

Give you some advice Super..avoid them like the plague...

I remember Nelson more in dispatches and remember he had some shockingly awful performances for world titles before he beat Carl Thompson, very good win that though. Considering David Haye lost to a 40 year old Thompson I don't know why Johnny is viewed so badly.

I think I tend to like longevity almost unconditionally so my bad there. However it redresses the balance on this forum where people say "if he beats a, b an c then it's better than so and so's 20 odd wins put together".

It would be one thing if Calzaghe was dfending against his top divisional challengers with regularity. I would sympathize more in that case. much like the Klitschkos now who sometimes fight dross but have no real alternative and take care of the ranked guys when they can.

But Calzaghe has a huge number of defences against essentially domestic and Euro level opponents that were unranked or very lowly rated. Thornberry, McIntyre, Pudwill, Starie, Sobot, Mrtchyin - these were awful and thats about 3 or 4 years worth of defences right there

It took him a decade to do what probably could have been done in half the time, and also didnt take care of arguably his biggest rival at the time.

I see what Ward/Froch are doing as far more commendable and impressive. Is it any surprise these guys are taking the plaudits while Bute is getting criticised?

Think Nelson took a while to gain confidence in himself at top level..Think he lost to a few heavies in his career and probably became gunshy...could be wrong but I think his record pre-title was pretty ordinary...

Slow-starter for sure...and a complete stinker 99% of the time...

Should've been thrown out against Warring..

Super D Boon wrote:

J.Benson II wrote:

huw wrote:

J.Benson II wrote:I would say yes.
Calzaghe may have longevity at the weight but the opposition was usually of a poor quality; many of whom were not even rated contenders in what was a weak division at the time.
Calzaghe's best win at SMW was against Kessler, a win that Ward has already matched. His other big wins at the weight were Lacy and a faded Eubank. I'd consider Froch and Bute to be superior wins to have on record.

Ward hasn't matched Calzaghe's best win. Calzaghe fought and beat an undefeated champion two years prior to Ward beating the same man.

If Ward had beaten the undefeated champion it would be the same. Otherwise it is closer to saying Buster Douglas win against Tyson was the same as Williams' win over Tyson (a bit extreme but you get my meaning).

The thing is, Kessler's best ever win came after his loss to Ward so there isnt really anything to suggest that he was faded by the time he fought the American.
I agree that Calzaghe's win over the Dane should rank slightly higher but from what I saw from Kessler's last performance (against Bouadla), he looked pretty much identical to the fighter that beat Mundine and Andrade.
Ward was just too good for him.

Actually I thought Kessler was looking a bit shop worn when he beat Froch. He won by sheer willpower more than anything. The snap in his jab and the usual crispness in his lovely right cross just wasn't there. I'm not saying any version of Kessler could beat Ward but Kessler himself on numerous occassions has said he had a real bad day at the office against Ward and has always stated out of the two fights he's lost, the Calzaghe one gets to him the most because he just had a bad day against Ward.

I'd imagine he'd feel more upset with the Ward loss due to the fact it was his first fight of a tournament that he was favourite to win, against an opponent that was little known at the time.
Ward's occasional use of his head may also have left a sour taste.

For me, Kessler is a fine textbook boxer with very solid fundamentals and it takes a top fighter to unlock him. However, he has does have clear limitations that he's always had; no inside game, lack of lateral movement and often flat footed.
Ward just had the quality to exploit these limitations.

I didn’t think Kessler looked majorly shop worn against Froch. The difficultly he had against Froch was more down to Froch's ability than anything else. He obviously wouldn’t look as fluid and crisp against an opponent of Froch's calibre than against someone like Beyer or Thobela.

Thing is Manos I think you've picked on the very worst of Calzaghe's resume there. Although do take issue with Starrie who I thought was a good win. Didn't David Starrie beat Clinton Woods? Also Pudwill, which is the name everyone likes to quote in dissing Calzaghe was actually something like a second substitute. Calzaghe was supposed to be fighting Thomas Tate I think, who at the time was a good divisional contender. Can't blame him too much for that. Am not in anyway saying Calzaghe's resume is quality but I think it's a little bit better than he gets credit for.

I also think longevity is largely underrated on this forum. It wasn't so long ago David Haye was being lauded for taking on the best and not messing about. Now he lost badly to WK, perhaps he should have waited a year or two fighting WBA mandatories after all. Longevity is very much underrated it is.

I think it's not so much criticising his resume Super D, as caveating his longevity.

You can caveat the longevity of any long reigning champion, don't tell me guys like Louis, Hopkins, Hagler fought quality every fight.

Super have long maintained that most long reigns have some guff, is the nature of them, however think where Calzaghe's stands apart from the guys you have mentioned is that for those guys when someone emerged as a legitimate threat or a guy who needed to be dealt with they were dealt with. Think the issue with Joe pre Lacy is the same can probably not be said, should probably balance this with the fact the Ottke aside the rest of the belts were on something of a merry go round, but only so many allowances can be made and seven years without a unification bout is a poor show to be fair.

No, but possibly a lower % of dross and didn't avoid unifying in doing so (my historical boxing knowledge is very poor so may be mistaken here). The point is Calzaghe's 'longevity' and unbeaten record are lauded as the prime determinates in his greatness/legacy, therefore it's only fair to take a closer look at who this record was established against and what else he could have done.

rowley wrote:Super have long maintained that most long reigns have some guff, is the nature of them, however think where Calzaghe's stands apart from the guys you have mentioned is that for those guys when someone emerged as a legitimate threat or a guy who needed to be dealt with they were dealt with. Think the issue with Joe pre Lacy is the same can probably not be said, should probably balance this with the fact the Ottke aside the rest of the belts were on something of a merry go round, but only so many allowances can be made and seven years without a unification bout is a poor show to be fair.

If they were on a merry go round Jeff then surely Calzaghe was capable, and had the opportunity, to jump onto said ride, collect said belts, and jump off again as (almost) unified champ?

Super D Boon wrote:You can caveat the longevity of any long reigning champion, don't tell me guys like Louis, Hopkins, Hagler fought quality every fight.

No, but they were defending as undisputed champion against the best available contenders for the most part. Calzaghe was defending a portion of the title against unranked contenders for much of his reign.

This isnt about looking at alzaghes record in osolation either. Its contrasting it with what Ward is doing. In the simplest sense I think beating all your rivals, unifying the titles and becoming undisputed in the quickest possible time is better and more impressive than taking a far longer route encompassing a large amount of sub standard opposition.

Obviously if Ward goes onto lose his titles quickle after and never really surfaces again then his lack of longetivity will be an issue, but if he were to beat Froch, Bute make a couple of defences and then vacate and move up if there are few other credible challenges then I would see that as a better SMW reign than Calzaghes.

A certain amount will depend on what Ward goes on to do and how he fares after of course, but theres almost no doubt hes far outstripped Calzaghe in terms of the respective stages of their careers and ages.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

rowley wrote:Super have long maintained that most long reigns have some guff, is the nature of them, however think where Calzaghe's stands apart from the guys you have mentioned is that for those guys when someone emerged as a legitimate threat or a guy who needed to be dealt with they were dealt with. Think the issue with Joe pre Lacy is the same can probably not be said, should probably balance this with the fact the Ottke aside the rest of the belts were on something of a merry go round, but only so many allowances can be made and seven years without a unification bout is a poor show to be fair.

If they were on a merry go round Jeff then surely Calzaghe was capable, and had the opportunity, to jump onto said ride, collect said belts, and jump off again as (almost) unified champ?

Was trying to be nice top hat, as I said in my original post not unifying for seven years is pretty unforgivable, but if you did want to make an argument the only one you could put forward is that nobody emerged as a guy he absolutely HAD to fight as a consequence of how short a period the rivals tended to hold the belts but it would be pretty forgiving to argue such.

Ooh Ooh see how they getcha, they getcha, they getcha!!

In Joe's reign I think the WBA went on a pass the parcel from the likes of Mitchell and Siaca and the WBC passed around betwen the likes of Beyer, Catley, Thobela etc so beating these guys at the correct time wouldn't have been much better than beating the victims already of Calzaghe's CV only he would have got a nice ornament to go with the wins. Obviously the other major title was annexed off by Ottke who blatantly wanted no part of Calzaghe.

You can argue till you're blue in the face against his record but the facts remain he was the first to ever really prove himself the definite article at that particular weight .......eventually. You can state his good wins as Eubank, Lacy, Kessler maybe but you can't just dismiss the other 18 as meaningless, there were some good wins there in the tosh I believe.

Super D Boon wrote:Ooh Ooh see how they getcha, they getcha, they getcha!!

In Joe's reign I think the WBA went on a pass the parcel from the likes of Mitchell and Siaca and the WBC passed around betwen the likes of Beyer, Catley, Thobela etc so beating these guys at the correct time wouldn't have been much better than beating the victims already of Calzaghe's CV only he would have got a nice ornament to go with the wins. Obviously the other major title was annexed off by Ottke who blatantly wanted no part of Calzaghe.

You can argue till you're blue in the face against his record but the facts remain he was the first to ever really prove himself the definite article at that particular weight .......eventually. You can state his good wins as Eubank, Lacy, Kessler maybe but you can't just dismiss the other 18 as meaningless, there were some good wins there in the tosh I believe.

Nobody is really disputing these points. But are arguing that if Ward beats Froch and Bute he will have done in 3/4 years what it took Calzaghe a decade to.

You seem to taking the point of view that Calzaghe taking longer and by extension facing more dross along the way is more of an acheivement than Ward accomplishing the same thing without the dross in a much shorter time. Im not sure why?

In general I think as a fighter you want to prove you are the best in your weight class, become undisputed and unify the titles as quickly as you can. And then go on and defend that position or seek new challenges. Calzaghe took almost the opposite approach.

Realistically would it not have been much more satisfying if Calzaghe had not bothered with the C grade opposition and fought Eubank, Ottke, Brewer, Beyer, Woodhall, Reid and Mitchell over 5 instead of 10 years?

Think it may be a case of easier siad than done though Manos. Even with the dross it is a heck of an achievement to say you defended 21 times. But as for fighting Ottke then I think that was never going to happen. Think if Froch beats Ward and chases down Kessler for a rematch he's going to find that very hard going, being as Kessler already holds the win over Froch and is promoted by the same man than promoted Ottke. Kessler and his handlers will insist on the fight being located where they want which will be a deliberate turn off. If Froch takes another Denmark or Germany fight then he's going to get shafted.

rowley wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

rowley wrote:Super have long maintained that most long reigns have some guff, is the nature of them, however think where Calzaghe's stands apart from the guys you have mentioned is that for those guys when someone emerged as a legitimate threat or a guy who needed to be dealt with they were dealt with. Think the issue with Joe pre Lacy is the same can probably not be said, should probably balance this with the fact the Ottke aside the rest of the belts were on something of a merry go round, but only so many allowances can be made and seven years without a unification bout is a poor show to be fair.

If they were on a merry go round Jeff then surely Calzaghe was capable, and had the opportunity, to jump onto said ride, collect said belts, and jump off again as (almost) unified champ?

Was trying to be nice top hat, as I said in my original post not unifying for seven years is pretty unforgivable, but if you did want to make an argument the only one you could put forward is that nobody emerged as a guy he absolutely HAD to fight as a consequence of how short a period the rivals tended to hold the belts but it would be pretty forgiving to argue such.

You could also say as the other titles travelled around a fair bit the holders of the belts would not have been interested in fighting Joe as they could make more money fighting off challengers than in unifying and it wasn't in their interest to unify for less money against an unknown (in US terms) boxer.

huw wrote:

rowley wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

rowley wrote:Super have long maintained that most long reigns have some guff, is the nature of them, however think where Calzaghe's stands apart from the guys you have mentioned is that for those guys when someone emerged as a legitimate threat or a guy who needed to be dealt with they were dealt with. Think the issue with Joe pre Lacy is the same can probably not be said, should probably balance this with the fact the Ottke aside the rest of the belts were on something of a merry go round, but only so many allowances can be made and seven years without a unification bout is a poor show to be fair.

If they were on a merry go round Jeff then surely Calzaghe was capable, and had the opportunity, to jump onto said ride, collect said belts, and jump off again as (almost) unified champ?

Was trying to be nice top hat, as I said in my original post not unifying for seven years is pretty unforgivable, but if you did want to make an argument the only one you could put forward is that nobody emerged as a guy he absolutely HAD to fight as a consequence of how short a period the rivals tended to hold the belts but it would be pretty forgiving to argue such.

You could also say as the other titles travelled around a fair bit the holders of the belts would not have been interested in fighting Joe as they could make more money fighting off challengers than in unifying and it wasn't in their interest to unify for less money against an unknown (in US terms) boxer.

It's Joe's legacy we're talking about though, not theirs. If he wanted to be the best and be remembered as such he should've been the one banging on doors, travelling if needs be (though I'm not holding Ottke against him in that regard!), to make the fights happen. Personally I think he could've unified them all however that simply makes it more dissapointing that he didn't!

TopHat24/7 wrote:

It's Joe's legacy we're talking about though, not theirs. If he wanted to be the best and be remembered as such he should've been the one banging on doors, travelling if needs be (though I'm not holding Ottke against him in that regard!), to make the fights happen. Personally I think he could've unified them all however that simply makes it more dissapointing that he didn't!

It takes two to make a fight though.

Lets just say you have just won a belt and can make 100k defending it against Joe where you could potentially win another title or you could get 500k againts a decent American name. Many may have even thought they'd get a few wins and then unify but in not getting the few wins first unification wasn't an option.

It's all well and good to say that Joe should have fought more challengers but there is no saying the other guys would fight him.

He should have gone to the US earlier but again, who would have been buying tickets whilst he makes a name for himself there.

Personally if it was me (in Joe's shoes), you have a chance to earn x amount againts a decent Eurpoean level fighter in your home town or you can go and take your world title to America and build your name slowly earning less money I know what I would have done.

Also have to think that the only way Joe gets these fights in the US is without Warren. Now if he was to go to the US and lose in a dodgy decision he'd find himself shut out of the picture completely. Warren would be slagging him off in the sun and nobody would want to fight Joe in the US as he is a handful and a former champion who can be avoided as 'he is now on the slide'.

manos de piedra wrote:Personally I think you have to take Calzaghes longetivity with a pinch of salt. It highlights consistency at a high level, but realistic with Calzaghe this was just defending a WBO strap against mediocrity. Its not like he was undisputed reigning champion for 10 years.

I think its alot more impressive for Ward to unify his division, beat all his key rivals and establish himself as the best in the division in just a few yars than what Calzaghe did just defending a strap. Ward could easily do this if he just held onto his WBA belt and defended against mandatories for the next 6 years.

Unless Ward was to completely go to pot after unifying the division then I think its comfortably more of an acheivement.

We crdit Froch for his willinness to take on the best so the same must hld true for Ward and in some ways I think exonerating Calzaghes rather unambitious stretch as champion goes against this and advocaates avoiding rivals and failing to unify a division for a large period.

Realistically it would have been better for Calzaghe to unify SMW quickly in 3 years which he was well capable of and go on to better things than WBO mandatories for 6 years.

It could be argues that ward has it easier in that the elite fighters of his era are in the tournament...something that was obviously missing from Joe's era.

He was quite openly avoided by the big american names until it was too late to have real meaning.

Sven Ottke...well...we all know the story with him, but out of interest if we had a super 6 at smw arounf at the start of the century, I would back Joe to win, and probably not having all his fixtures in wales (why has ward not had to travel as the others have?!)

So is there an argument that Ward/froch has had an opportunity that Joe didnt? Would Ward have accomplished what he has without super 6?