Joe Calzaghe's record

First topic message reminder :

There's heated debate on Calzaghe's career. He failed to make his American debut at the right time and he ignored the PPV money over in the States. Calzaghe fans will defend their man down to the wire but let's ignore what he should have done and instead focus on what he achieved as a super-middleweight champion.

Calzaghe’s career based on who he fought through the Ring magazine's officials annual ratings:

1998:

1.Frankie Liles
2.Joe Calzaghe
3.Richie Woodhall
4.Sven Ottke
5.Charles Brewer
6.Robin Reid
7.Thomas Tate
8.Vincenzo Nardiello
9.Andrej Shkalikov
10.Vinny Pazienza

Calzaghe fought twice in '98, against Branko Sobot & Juan Carlos Gimenez Ferreyra. Neither were in the top 10.

1999:

1.Sven Ottke
2.Joe Calzaghe
3.Byron Mitchell
4.Markus Beyer
5.Charles Brewer
6.Thomas Tate
7.Frankie Liles
8.Richie Woodhall
9.Robin Reid
10.Glenn Catley

In 1999, he boxed Robin Reid, the 9th rated contender who had just lost his championship. He then boxed Rick Thornberry who wasn't a ranked contender in the top 10.

2000:

1.Sven Ottke
2.Joe Calzaghe
3.Bruno Girard
4.Charles Brewer
5.Thomas Tate
6.Dave Hilton Jr.
7.Dingaan Thobela
8.Glenn Catley
9.Byron Mitchell
10.James Butler

In 2000, he boxed David Starie, Omar Sheika and Richie Woodhall. None of these guys were in the top 10.

2001:

1.Sven Ottke
2.Joe Calzaghe
3.Byron Mitchell
4.Antwun Echols
5.Charles Brewer
6.Thomas Tate
7.Eric Lucas
8.Mads Larsen
9.Manny Siaca
10.Markus Beyer

In 2001, he boxed Mario Veit & Will McIntyre. Neither were in the top 10.

2002:

1.Joe Calzaghe
2.Sven Ottke
3.Antwun Echols
4.Eric Lucas
5.Byron Mitchell
6.Charles Brewer
7.Mads Larsen
8.Manny Siaca
9.Anthony Mundine
10.Markus Beyer

In 2002, he boxed Charles Brewer, Miguel Angel Jimenez & Tocker Pudwill. Brewer was ranked 6th and the other two were nowhere to be seen.

2003:

1.Joe Calzaghe
2.Sven Ottke
3.Anthony Mundine
4.Antwun Echols
5.Danny Green
6.Byron Mitchell
7.Markus Beyer
8.Charles Brewer
9.Mads Larsen
10.Robin Reid

In 2003, he boxed once against Byron Mitchell. Mitchell was ranked 6th.

2004:

1.Joe Calzaghe
2.Mikkel Kessler
3.Anthony Mundine
4.Antwun Echols
5.Danny Green
6.Jeff Lacy
7.Mads Larsen
8.Robin Reid
9.Markus Beyer
10.Manny Siaca

In 2004, he boxed Mger Mkrtchyan & Kabary Salem. Neither were in the top 10.

2005:

1.Joe Calzaghe
2.Mikkel Kessler
3.Jeff Lacy
4.Markus Beyer
5.Anthony Mundine
6.Danny Green
7.Manny Siaca
8.Otis Grant
9.Robin Reid
10.Librado Andrade

In 2005, he boxed Mario Veit & Evans Ashira. Neither were in the top 10.

2006:

1.Mikkel Kessler
2.Anthony Mundine
3.Jeff Lacy
4.Markus Beyer
5.Librado Andrade
6.Lucian Bute
7.Carl Froch
8.Allan Green
9.Denis Inkin
10.Peter Manfredo Jr.

It was 2006 when he finally fought a top 5 rated contender in Lacy. He boxed Sakio Bika in his following fight who wasn't ranked in the top 10. Note: Calzaghe became the Ring champion between 2006 & 2007.

2007:

1.Mikkel Kessler
2.Anthony Mundine
3.Lucian Bute
4.Jeff Lacy
5.Librado Andrade
6.Carl Froch
7.Allan Green
8.Sakio Bika
9.Denis Inkin
10.Jean Pascal

In 2007, he boxed Peter Manfredo Jr (who wasn't in the top 10) and then unified against Mikkel Kessler. Kessler was the second top 5 rated boxer he fought – his last fight in his ten-year ‘reign’ as ‘the king of the super-middleweights’.

That's SIXTEEN fights against guys who weren't even in the top 10. This totals a period of FIVE years.

To Calzaghe's credit - and I say 'credit' loosely - he split-decisioned a 43-year-old Hopkins and then went against his own words and beat a shell of Jones Jr. I say credit loosely because I believe Hopkins actually won the fight. If you score the fight on how pro boxing should be scored, then (1) effective aggression, (2) clean punching, (3) ring generalship and (4) defence all go in Hop's favour IMHO.

But the SD over Hopkins aside, what do you make of Calzaghe's record based on these statistical facts?

Can anyone name a boxer who fought regularly (at least 3 times a year) and in each case fought the best contender available?

calzaghe

**On talent alone, I have no doubt that he was a great fighter

He had little or no power

He couldn't turn his punches and often slapped

His defensive skills were non-existant

He was flat-footed

He couldn't fight guys who fought on the back-foot very well

His accuracy was terrible

Nowhere near great based on talent.

Hitmansam, judging by that last post of yours I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever actually watched a Calzaghe fight, or if instead you're simply recycling other fanciful lines you've heard from other detractors and spouting them off as your own.

hitmansam wrote:**On talent alone, I have no doubt that he was a great fighter

He had little or no power

He couldn't turn his punches and often slapped

His defensive skills were non-existant

He was flat-footed

He couldn't fight guys who fought on the back-foot very well

His accuracy was terrible

Nowhere near great based on talent.

Yeah, he'll never win a title.

hitmansam wrote:**On talent alone, I have no doubt that he was a great fighter

He had little or no power

He couldn't turn his punches and often slapped

His defensive skills were non-existant

He was flat-footed

He couldn't fight guys who fought on the back-foot very well

His accuracy was terrible

Nowhere near great based on talent.

Hardly worth a reply, with its ' slapping ' clichés, etc. However, I'll bite. Did you ever hear of ' Slapsie ' Maxie Rosenbloom ? Well, guess what ; he was also accused of slapping, and just happens to be regarded as one of the best lightheavies of all time.

The rest of your entry level ' analysis ' really DOESN'T warrant a reply, since it is jibberish of the lowest order.

So why reply you moron?
Stick to pre-war.

hitmansam wrote:So why reply you moron?
Stick to pre-war.

Given that he took one of your points apart - I suppose that's why he replied.

As for the rest - until you give examples of the "mistakes" in your opinion - there's no room for objective debate.

However - given that he finished his career undefeated - Hopkins (still too much for Pavlik/Pascal), Kessler (still too much for Froch) must have been absolutely rubbish given that he beat them without footwork, power, head movement, or any other skill at all.

Not his biggest fan, but he did have a lot of strengths that certain biased posters seem to be overlooking.

An awkward style.

An extremely high punch output.

Excellent hand speed; especially for a man of his size.

Superb stamina and conditioning.


An excellent, proven world-class chin.

Adaptability and the ability to fight to a game plan. (See Kessler and Lacy respectively.)

hitmansam wrote:So why reply you moron?
Stick to pre-war.

oxy has covered the reasons why I replied, Hitman, so it only remains for me to thank you for your kind words and friendly advice.

There is no need for this kind of post.

It just turns the board like the old one.

Delete this kind of post and people will soon learn their lesson.

samevans1 wrote:There is no need for this kind of post.

It just turns the board like the old one.

Delete this kind of post and people will soon learn their lesson.

Evening, sam. ( China time - just for you. )

Our Hitman always gets all agitated and sweaty over Mr Calzaghe.

Afternoon, but thanks Windy!

I know what you mean; but there is no reason to talk to people like that.

samevans1 wrote:Afternoon, but thanks Windy!

I know what you mean; but there is no reason to talk to people like that.

Oops ! Need to reset my ' world ' clock, methinks.

I believe that Hitman's philosophy is along the lines that what he lacks in decorum can be compensated for with enthusiasm. Lest we forget, he once announced his intention to drive to Newport and engage Joe in a punch up.

Still, we've all been silly after drinking our first pint or two, haven't we ?

I think calzaghe is a bit of a 'marmite' fighter. With the exception of myself and a few others, people seem to either love him or hate him.

Uh, in the early part of his career, he was a KO artist, but had to protect his fragile hands and adapt a different style.But I thought everybody knew this?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm pleased there is a place for Tyson fans and Calzaghe haters to go where they can attempt social skills.In the 80s it was called Care in the Community.

Lacy's face suggested he carried some pop. Anyone got any links to anything Kessler has said about Calzaghe?

Why censor free speech? This isn't N. Korea or Iran.

If Calzaghe had any power at all he would've knocked Lacy out. After all, he hit Lacy with over 1000 ''punches''.

He's also said to have ''landed'' more ''punches'' on Hopkins than anyone ever has - and Hopkins himself said he ''hits like a girl''.

...

hitmansam wrote:Hopkins himself said he ''hits like a girl''.

So he did, Hitman.

Jones, on the other hand, said :

“Those pitty pat punches he throws were a little harder than I thought. I couldn't see out of my left eye.”

hitmansam wrote:...

Finally realised that keeping quiet might be the best route for you to take when it comes to Calzaghe, in order to avoid showing yourself up yet again?

hitmansam wrote:Why censor free speech? This isn't N. Korea or Iran.

If Calzaghe had any power at all he would've knocked Lacy out. After all, he hit Lacy with over 1000 ''punches''.

He's also said to have ''landed'' more ''punches'' on Hopkins than anyone ever has - and Hopkins himself said he ''hits like a girl''.

Not sure when 350 became 1000 to be honest, he must hit like a girl he did after all have Hopkins crawling around on the floor like a girl after a perfectly legal body shot

No one's censoring free speech, Hitman. Calzaghe haters are the least censored people ever.
Not sure about your point about not knocking Lacy out.One of the most one-sided bouts for a championship,EVER, acclaimed as that by Sugar Ray Leonard,who by the way acceptyed he may not beat Joe at super-middle.Appreciate that this was not his best weight, but Ray never gave anyone else this tribute.
Plus to repeat ,he was not a KO artist because of his small hands which absorbed way too much impact for a guy who is six foot exactly.
Chris Eubank hardly went over, and was kissing the canvas within seconds of his fight with Calzaghe, in his biography he praised Joe to the hilt, and he had been in with fighters at the top level (or thereabouts) for a decade.

If Hopkins said it though, it must be true...one of the least respected human beings in boxing, said to be a loner in training even as a champ because nobody could stand his company he was so obnoxious, who judged people by the colour of their skin, someone who spoils and cries wolf to the ref,who physically threatened Steve Bunce ,a very respected journalist,I mean I could go on... actually I won't bother.

A 40 yr old Jones who had no punch resistance was obviously gonna feel Calzaghes shots. This is the same Jones who couldn't last a round with journeyman Green a year later!
Calzaghe has a good Ko ratio but look at his stoppages ... Manfredo, Woodhall, Veit, you must be joking!

hitmansam wrote:A 40 yr old Jones who had no punch resistance was obviously gonna feel Calzaghes shots. This is the same Jones who couldn't last a round with journeyman Green a year later!
Calzaghe has a good Ko ratio but look at his stoppages ... Manfredo, Woodhall, Veit, you must be joking!

How old was Hopkins when Calzaghe fought him ?

Is that true about Hopkins and Bunce? They seemed to get on well when they were doing the interview in Philly?

He was 43-years-old. Get to the point.
I guess you'll come back with the similarity in their age?
Hopkins at 43 is a still a good fighter.
Jones at 40 is someone who could be beat by anyone who (1) is fit, and (2) can fight.

**Hopkins at 43 is a still a good fighter.

Was.

hitmansam wrote:He was 43-years-old. Get to the point.
I guess you'll come back with the similarity in their age?
Hopkins at 43 is a still a good fighter.
Jones at 40 is someone who could be beat by anyone who (1) is fit, and (2) can fight.

Rather than tell me to ' get to the point ' YOU LEARN SOME MANNERS, MATEY. I've been patient thus far and given you a chance to calm down, but enough, now.

The point is that Hopkins and Jones were of similar age and experience, yet each had a different view and opinion. Calzaghe DOES divide opinion, and we need to be objective in our analysis. I'm a confirmed fence - sitter, for the reasons I've already offered.

Michaels, Sean wrote:Is that true about Hopkins and Bunce? They seemed to get on well when they were doing the interview in Philly?

They did, although you could feel a little tension also. Be good if someone knows what happened.

Michaels, Sean wrote:Is that true about Hopkins and Bunce? They seemed to get on well when they were doing the interview in Philly?

Hey Sean, I recall a tv interview, Inside Sport perhaps, when Bunce was talking about hanging with Popkins when he came to London to promote said fight, Bernard was feeling un-loved and not pampered,can't remember how,he wanted a bit more star treatment.I THINK it was something to do with being kept waiting for an interview.He raised his voice at Buncey,ranting for a good 30 seconds at least, kind of "shoot the messenger" thing. Buncey kept on saying "yes, I know, you're right" over and over again. To correct the impression that he physically threatened him, it was more that Bunce was clearly rattled(as you would be)when re-telling the story.

It was on Setanta. Hopkins was moaning about being cold I think, Bunce I believe made a sarcastic comment (can't remember if they showed that) and B-Hop got right up in his face and quite agressive. Not sure he threatened him as such.

Said it on my original article, In short I think Calzaghe will be regarded as a great fighter who pulled the super middleweight division together and then beat the man at light heavyweight, before Hopkins dismantled Kelly Pavlik who is far from a finished story. Calzaghe has had an excellent career thus far, and probably will in due course challenge Buchanan for the best post World War II British fighter, and will I suspect comfortably sit in the all-time British top 10 list.

A tremendous fighter who would've gave anyone a difficult nights work throughout history.

Julius/Zeus/Ceej whatever you want to call yourself these days, you've buried your head in the sand for long enough, you need to realise Calzaghe was a top fighter, if you find room to praise Cotto to the hilt you need to do the same with Calzaghe.

Cheers

Rodders

Some people can't see the wood for the trees. They are so ridiculously biased against a fighter; that they consider then shiiite despite being a longtime world champion!

Rodney wrote:Said it on my original article, In short I think Calzaghe will be regarded as a great fighter who pulled the super middleweight division together and then beat the man at light heavyweight, before Hopkins dismantled Kelly Pavlik who is far from a finished story. Calzaghe has had an excellent career thus far, and probably will in due course challenge Buchanan for the best post World War II British fighter, and will I suspect comfortably sit in the all-time British top 10 list.

A tremendous fighter who would've gave anyone a difficult nights work throughout history.

Julius/Zeus/Ceej whatever you want to call yourself these days, you've buried your head in the sand for long enough, you need to realise Calzaghe was a top fighter, if you find room to praise Cotto to the hilt you need to do the same with Calzaghe.

Cheers

Rodders

I agree that Calzghe should probably be in a british all time top 10. Boxrec have him at 11 but they also have ken buchanan at 21. shameful how do they work this out?

Just noticed boxrec have audley harrison ahead of rendall munroe on their british p4p rankings

Boxrec rankings are computer generated.

i thought that might be the case but what do they use to work these out? ricky burns is 12!

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRec_Ratings_Description

Basically as all statistics around boxing they will be fatally flawed, pointless to even look at for boxers you know about.