Joe Calzaghe - Time to make him no1 ??

Of the modern Brit era..........

I've been critical of this guy in the past and he does warrant some criticism...

But you know being in Britain and watching guys like Khan..Hatton..Froch and before them Benn, Eubank, Honey..failing against top fighters..(obviously they had success too..not denigrating their successful careers!!)

Has made me respect this guy even more!! Ten years at the top beating some quality Brits and though I knocked it at the time his win against Hoppo has become a more than adequate addition to his legacy and has got better through time!! Kessler..Taylor...Reid...Eubank..all quality!

as was the shutout against the next great legend who demolished reid!!..

He could box well...obviously helped by the southpaw stance...but he got off the deck and came back showing heart and even more stayed unbeaten which is a feat in itself with great longevity!!

Seems the done thing to malign this guy and I've been guilty!! However the failures of the top guys this side of the pond has shown me how difficult it is to remain at the top for any length of time...regardless of OPPOSITION...

Seeing Haye being lionised for Chisora definitely makes me think this guy deserves more kudos!!

Changed my mind Calzaghe has always been 3 on my list of Brits in the last twenty twenty-five years or so...

Now he's number 1!!

Calzaghe has become number 1 now for me!!!

I think Calzaghe deserves serious consideration to be the best these shores have produced since the War, never mind just the past twenty-five years. On a personal level I wouldn't consider myself a great fan, however his record, despite the glut of tepid and forgettable names it contains, is an exemplary one, and I haven't seen too many British fighters with as much talent, either.

That said, I'd probably still have Lewis a little bit higher, and perhaps Buchanan by a tiny, tiny margin, too. Post-WWII, I think the three of them form a trio which is separated from the rest of the chasing pack (Hamed, Honeyghan, Conteh and the like) by a fair bit of distance. Not quite Britain's post-WWII best for me, but I wouldn't argue all that much if someone was in line with your opinion, Truss.

Natural ability Calzaghe was gifted. I am not a fan of his boxing ability but thats what happens when you spend your whole career being trained by Enzo Calzaghe.

Calzaghe did posses great speed and heart but for most of his career never squared off against any real big names although Brewer, Sheika, and Eubanks are no pushovers.

For this reason I place him number 1 in talent alone.

Few if any fighters quite manage to divide opinion on here like Calzaghe and like many he is someone I find myself a little luke warm about but I find the argument that he deserves to be considered the top fighter from these shores over the last 25 years one I think I largely agree with. The first thing I think I would ask myself when considering the argument is the number of guys who have established themselves beyond reasonable argument to be the best at their particular weight, unless I am doing someone a gross disservice that would appear to be Naz, Lewis, Joe and Haye.

Think I am happy to remove Haye from the argument as cruiser is traditionally a weak division and one title win and a defence against a fairly run of the mill fighter means to my mind he does not deserve much further consideration. Similarly much as I would love to make the argument for Naz who, despite what the revisionists may tell you, was the best feather in the world for a good three years cannot shake off the slightly harsh but true fact that when he fought a truly world class fighter he lost and also does not sit right with me bestowing the title of Britain’s best on a guy who was done and dusted by 27.

That leaves us with Lewis and Joe and we really are in cigarette paper territory when trying to split them. There is a great myth that Lewis was the dominant heavy of the nineties when in reality it was only after the Holyfield win he could truly claim to be the best in the division, much as Joe could only make the claim post Lacy. Think where Lewis gets a little more credit is there was always the perception pre Holyfield that Lennox was chomping at the bit to face the best whereas Joe was perhaps not as eager but that does not change the fact that it was not till later in their career that both established their dominance.

Whilst I’d probably give Lennox the edge in opposition pre clearing up their divisions, Joe’s is not the unending stream of drivel it is often portrayed and crucially for me there are no blowouts against guys he should not be getting beat by as Lewis has with McCall. Add into that Joe going on and beating (albeit closely) a still live Hopkins in his first bout at light heavy and to be honest whilst it runs contrary to how I have previously ranked them I am becoming more persuaded by the idea Joe deserves to be considered number one from the last 25 years from these shores.

4th behind Buchanan, Lewis and hamed since the war, easy to forget that hamed dominated his division for years to a degree calzaghe never did.

I'm surprised and impressed by this article. I am a fan of Calzaghe and in the past have bit my (keyboard) lip when criticism of him is rife. I can understand the criticism of his record but as mentioned above, beating Hopkins and Kessler and the destruction of 'the new Mike Tyson' Jeff Lacy makes his career record look pretty good.

I never saw Buchanan fight so I won't comment on him but I think Joe rates above Naz and maybe level with Lewis. Lewis was a great fighter but the loss against Rahman is a blot for me. should have dominated him but didn't prepare properly. One thing you could say about Joe is he always came through the hard ones and even when he lost any power through a hand injury he was still able to win the big fights.

Placing Hamed above Calzaghe is an interesting one, Ghosty. I'd have Hamed at the head of the chasing pack behind them, but I still believe there is a fair bit of water separating Lewis, Buchanan and Calzaghe from the rest of Britain's post-WWII crop.

I'm not sure I'd agree that Hamed really dominated his division any more emphatically than Calzaghe did in the long run. If we take Hamed's absolute, unquestioned superiority at 126 lb as starting with his win over Vasquez in 1998, and ending with defeat to Barrera in 2001, then he did have a solid three year reign as top dog. However, in terms of time elapsed, that's not really much longer than the time span between Calzaghe bewildering Lacy in early 2006 and vacating his 168 lb titles in late 2008, although he'd admittedly already dethroned Hopkins at Light-Heavweight by then.

I think I'd also find it hard to ignore that Hamed was beaten - and pretty well beaten, at that - at his best weight, whereas Calzaghe never was. In comparitave terms, Barrera was certainly a cut above anything Joe faced as a Super-Middle, but the nature of Hamed's loss, and the fact that he never really recovered from it, leaves me with no alternative but to consider Calzaghe the more dominant champion in overall terms.

In short, Hamed was a great Featherweight, I'd say. But Calzaghe was a great Super-Middle who then proved himself, at the least, a very considerable force at a higher weight, too.

Hopkins is almost certainly the best win that either man scored, and again, that win is on Calzaghe's ledger. Outside of that, Kessler, Lacy, Eubank, Reid and Mitchell is perhaps a notch below Bungu, Kelley, Vasquez, Johnson and McCullough, but the importance of Calzaghe's undefeated record is hard to understate here.

As Vinny Pazienza put it, "even if he'd fought his mother forty-six times, you'd imagine that she'd at least have got lucky once."

Not sure I can really see an angle for Hamed to be higher, but I'd be willing to listen to an indepth counter argument.

Hameed and Calzaghe is an interesting one.....

Hamed had a very good career also and he belongs at the top...

However to me he was outed as a bit of a bully who once vanquished lost heart!!

It's a small criticism but The aftermath of Barrera just sticks him a notch below..

boom boom..Kelley... were certainly quality wins...

By a strange quirk of fate I watched Calzaghe v Mitchell and Hamed v Robinson this morning before leaving for work.

For me Calzaghe is just ahead, Hamed's apparent inability to cope with the Barrera loss marking him down.

Hamed's performance against Robinson was crazy, wasn't it Union?

In retrospect, it's easy to say that Hamed was simply parading against another overmatched opponent, but the fact was that he was a young pup, still only twenty-one, and that he was up against a very experienced Robinson who was on a great run. Hamed made it look like a straightforward sparring session - and let's not forget, Hamed was not far removed from fighting Bantamweights, too.

He was an incredible talent, despite being unorthodox in the extreme. It shouldn't be forgotten that he only jumped up to 126 lb because none of the champions at Bantam or Super-Bantam wanted anything to do with him at that stage, for good reason.

It was unorthodox, for sure!

Robinson couldn't get near him, at one point Stevo just charged forward throwing flailing lefts and rights and still couldn't tag him.

The commentary at the end was poor though, "That's just a slip, that's not a knockdown, oh, he's waved it off!"

The fight I am always drawn to is the Belcastro fight, was something like his 12th fight for a Euro belt and Belcastro was world ranked and extremely respected and seasoned. Naz put him over with nigh on his first punch and then beat him as he pleased.

88Chris05 wrote:Hamed's performance against Robinson was crazy, wasn't it Union?

In retrospect, it's easy to say that Hamed was simply parading against another overmatched opponent, but the fact was that he was a young pup, still only twenty-one, and that he was up against a very experienced Robinson who was on a great run. Hamed made it look like a straightforward sparring session - and let's not forget, Hamed was not far removed from fighting Bantamweights, too.

He was an incredible talent, despite being unorthodox in the extreme. It shouldn't be forgotten that he only jumped up to 126 lb because none of the champions at Bantam or Super-Bantam wanted anything to do with him at that stage, for good reason.

I used to know Robinson's coach and he said Robinson had a real off night. Not saying Robbo would have won but boxed the wrong fight.

Not the most objective source maybe.....hey Boony??

Don't doubt the story for a second, Boon, but I don't really see what tactics or gameplan could have closed the gap between Robinson and Naz that night. I remember De la Hoya, no less, saying that he went in to his fight against Whitaker not really having a clue what he was doing - he'd concluded that it was more or less pointless to try and formulate a plan for such an unpredictable, unorthodox and awkward style, so it was best to just concentrate on stamina and conditioning in training and then try to play the fight by ear, so to speak, as it panned out. And this is Oscar in his peak we're talking about!

I think a lot of Hamed's opponents experienced the same thing. You never really knew what Hamed, particularly in his 1995-1998 pomp, was going to do next - I don't even think Hamed himself knew most of the time. Had Robinson fought a different fight, I think Hamed would have casually just found another way to dominate him.

40 fights with the best to show for it being Veit, Sheika and Mitchell. Bika similar level.

Lacy and, in particular, Kessler are excellent wins but I think without his LHW exploits his SMW record doesn't trouble Lewis at all and probably not Hamed either. Probably only slightly nudges him ahead of Hatton.

That Hoppo win, if close, was fantastic though. Still have Joe down as a man that could have been greater but Hoppo and, to a lesser extent, a faded great in RJJ propel him to #2 behind Lewis for recent Brit greats.

Ten years at the top and never beaten certainly suggests he does trouble them...

No mccall or Rahman knockouts...

Lewis best win was Rahman 2 for me!!! The fact Hoppo has won countless titles since Calzaghe puts that win above it!!

Tyson, Ruddock and Holy....had all been found out...ast o a certain extent Hoppo...but Hoppo went on to distinguish himself.....

Hoppo was a p4per........How many did Hamed beat??

Not to say they weren't great fighters len and nas..

Agree Hoppo is a fantastic win and probably better than anything on Lennox's ledger, just ahead of Holyfield but close. If only that Bowe fight had happened Lennox would be a shut-out in the Brit stakes but he's just missing that name right now. Hoppo, Kessler, Lacy are a v good 1,2,3 but it's 5 down where Calzaghe's record is uninspiring (in my opinion).

Big respect for JC but will always be no2 behind Lennox for me as LL beat the best of era and was the unquestionable dominat HW whereas JC has too many 'what if's' regarding opposition he never fought.

88Chris05 wrote:Don't doubt the story for a second, Boon, but I don't really see what tactics or gameplan could have closed the gap between Robinson and Naz that night. I remember De la Hoya, no less, saying that he went in to his fight against Whitaker not really having a clue what he was doing - he'd concluded that it was more or less pointless to try and formulate a plan for such an unpredictable, unorthodox and awkward style, so it was best to just concentrate on stamina and conditioning in training and then try to play the fight by ear, so to speak, as it panned out. And this is Oscar in his peak we're talking about!

I think a lot of Hamed's opponents experienced the same thing. You never really knew what Hamed, particularly in his 1995-1998 pomp, was going to do next - I don't even think Hamed himself knew most of the time. Had Robinson fought a different fight, I think Hamed would have casually just found another way to dominate him.

Yeah you're probably right Chris but Ronnie Rush (Robinson's trainer) used to drink at my local and that's what he was saying. Robbo was a legend down my boozer and everyone was gutted when he lost. Part of the reason I can't stand Hamed so much. I have a photo of me and Steveo, I was only a kid at the time. Good memories of Stevo's 2 1/2 year dominance.

I pretty much agree with rowleys post earlier. Theres very little between Lewis and Calzaghe when you actually step back and look at their careers objectively.

Lewis is by far the popular choice outside of Wales though I think. Being a big name heavyweight with big name American rivals and huge superfights has really pushed him out in front of Calzaghe with the masses I think despite the differences in opposition beaten being extremelly small and career acheivements being almost level I think. Just the phenomenon of being a big name British heavyweight champion more than anything else I think.

What probably edges Lewis ahead for me is the wastefulness and lack of ambition in Calzaghes career compared to Lewis. Theres just too many pointless defences in Calzaghes reign and while he ended up getting there in the end with regards topping the division, a ratio of 1 top ten ranked opponent in every 4 fights is pretty poor.

Lewis has his own weaknesses though especially with the two bad losses and like Calzaghe the big names on his CV came too late to have full value. Tyson and Jones were finished, while I think in hindsight Hopkins is a better win than Holyfield when you consider it was in a higher weight class and the respective directions Hopkins and Holfields career went afterward. Hopkins proved there was still life in him whereas Holyfield went on to tie a trilogy with Ruiz and fade out of sight.

I would see the two as pretty interchangeable at the top all things considered and there is alot of similarities in their careers.