calzaghe

Calzaghe said "I'll never fight washed up fighters like Roy Jones."

12 months later he was in the ring with a washed up fighter caleed Roy Jones.

So why did he choose to fight him having publicly said he was past his best? money? or the hope that a big name like jones no matter how past his best he is will look good.

Haye said he would never fight Harrison, De La Hoya said he would never fight Vargas and Ali said he would never fight again after Spinks, occasionally fighters say one thing and do the other.

Probably money. Please don't start this anti calzaghe thing - we've been through it in every one of his fights since he first hit the big stage and it just runs endlessly on to a tedious coclusion which results in allegations of racism child abuse and animal husbandry. Leave it alone.

Rotherham Joe Gans wrote:Haye said he would never fight Harrison, De La Hoya said he would never fight Vargas and Ali said he would never fight again after Spinks, occasionally fighters say one thing and do the other.

Haye would fight me if it resulted in him getting a big pay cheque. He doesn't care who he fights as long as me makes lots of money.

I get the feeling Calzaghe wanted to have one last massive fight against a massive name which would be an easy nights fight so he chose Jones.

Quick question not exactly related to the topic, but when did calzaghes hand problems start?

lfc91 wrote:Quick question not exactly related to the topic, but when did calzaghes hand problems start?

Reid fight January? 1998

He damaged his hand during the 1999 Robin Reid fight. I don't know if this was the beginning though.

Just read Shahs comment, maybe the fight was in 1998.

I'm not certain myself mate just a rough guess but it was before he became big. On second thoughts you might be right - it was the year of the CWC so early 1999.

lfc91 wrote:Quick question not exactly related to the topic, but when did calzaghes hand problems start?

when he signed for warren?

lfc91 wrote:Quick question not exactly related to the topic, but when did calzaghes hand problems start?

Anytime someone decent displayed some intention of fighting him.

Cheers lads.

I personally thought that the Jones-Calzaghe fight was a bit of an embarrassing affair, and obviously Calzaghe's comments ("I'll never fight him now, he's washed up and it would prove nothing" etc) beforehand didn't help matters.

But even I am willing to cut Calzaghe a wee bit of slack here (not too much, mind you!). Jones had spent the two years beforehand telling anyone who'd listen that he wanted the fight with Calzaghe. Each time he was interviewed, he consistently called him out and reminded everyone that a fight with Joe was the only one in the world he could possibly get himself fully motivated for.

Yes, every man and his dog knew that Roy had nothing left, but there weren't all that many fighters between Middleweight and Light-Heavy who either a) Calzaghe hadn't already beaten, or b) were actually willing to get in the ring with him. Pavlik wanted it, sure, but from Calzaghe's perspective, knowing it would be his last fight as well, it was either Pavlik for a couple of million or Jones for five million.

Whatever legacy Calzaghe was ever going to leave had already been established in the furnace of his wins over Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins. Jones was shouting from the rooftops for the fight and represented a better financial choice than Pavlik - and what's more, you could argue that he made the entirely correct decision, given that Pavlik was 'exposed' by Hopkins around the same time that Calzaghe was toying with Jones' remains.

A sad spectacle, was Jones-Calzaghe, and tainted by some of Joe's comments from a year or two before, but it doesn't exactly make Calzaghe the disgraced shyster that some paint him to be.

To be fair to Calzaghe, he probably wanted an easy pay day, he had 4 pretty good fights in his last 5 previous to Jones (Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins, Bika).

Calzaghe was an excellent fighter, but I think the way that Froch's career has panned out and the opposition he has constantly tested himself against makes me see Joe's from a different perspective, there are a lot of what if's.

Who Froch fights or who he has fought has no bearing on Calzaghes ability.

Froch has fought some decent names but the facts remain..

He beat a shot Robin Reid and holds a decent win over Magee

He has a fantastic win against Pascal (what a fight!!) who may have been drained (?)

He lost to Kessler

He lost to Ward

He "lost" to Dirrell

He beat an extremely limited SMW version of Abraham

He was getting beat by a talented but very beatable Taylor, before Taylor gassed and was stopped.

He made harder work than necessary against an aged Johnson

He anhilated Bute...who may prove to be a lesser fighter than any of those who took part in the Super6

Despite those facts, Froch is an absolute legend.

I think with Calzaghe and Froch people are almost pre conditioned to say better things about the current rather than the past. Everyone loves the standards to increase over time rather than decrease. People naturally want to compare favourably the here and now over the yesterdays.

Froch and Calzaghe are entirely different animals. Firstly it is natural for UK people to sway more towards liking Froch and disparaging Calzaghe due to Froch being English and Calzaghe Welsh. Given there are 16 times more English than Welsh this will always be the case.

Secondly, both were champions at significantly different ages, Froch was 31 when he became champ, Calzaghe was 25 I think. Froch has not the time to build a legacy on quantity and longevity and has no choice but to opt for the quality approach. Calzaghe's legacy is based on much quantity and little quality and the fact he was never beaten.

Whichever you prefer, Calzaghe's resume shouldn't be scoffed at so hastily because people tend to forget that a win is a win no matter who against. Of course, some wins count for more than others but you can't say 4 were good wins and rubbish the other 17 as if they count for nothing.

Calzaghe has longeivity and quantity and the fact he was the man at the weight, maybe even two weights. For Froch he has bundles of quality but forget Kessler, Froch needs to become the man. He needs to beat Ward or hope the American moves up weights. Froch needs to become numero in the weight division. Unless he does he won't compare favourably when both men have long since retired.

TheMackemMawler wrote:Who Froch fights or who he has fought has no bearing on Calzaghes ability.

Froch has fought some decent names but the facts remain..

He beat a shot Robin Reid and holds a decent win over Magee

He has a fantastic win against Pascal (what a fight!!) who may have been drained (?)

He lost to Kessler

He lost to Ward

He "lost" to Dirrell

He beat an extremely limited SMW version of Abraham

He was getting beat by a talented but very beatable Taylor, before Taylor gassed and was stopped.

He made harder work than necessary against an aged Johnson

He anhilated Bute...who may prove to be a lesser fighter than any of those who took part in the Super6

Despite those facts, Froch is an absolute legend.

It is easy to give an unbalanced view like that...

Hoppo gassed which is the only reason he won
Kessler had an apparent arm injury
Reid run Calzaghe very close
Joe struggled like mad with an old Eubank...

And Froch beat Dirrell. Close fight, no robbery.

TheMackemMawler wrote:Who Froch fights or who he has fought has no bearing on Calzaghes ability.

Froch has fought some decent names but the facts remain..

He beat a shot Robin Reid and holds a decent win over Magee Correct!

He has a fantastic win against Pascal (what a fight!!) who may have been drained (?) Not only that, Pascal isn't very good.

He lost to Kessler Check

He lost to Ward Got owned by Ward to be fair but still techincally correct

He "lost" to Dirrell A robbery Robin Hood would have been proud of

He beat an extremely limited SMW version of Abraham Abraham was an extremely limited middleweight as well

He was getting beat by a talented but very beatable Taylor, before Taylor gassed and was stopped. Yes

He made harder work than necessary against an aged Johnson Yes, I'm sure I saw Glen Johnso in the Post Office recently

He anhilated Bute...who may prove to be a lesser fighter than any of those who took part in the Super6 Bute looked out of his depth fighting someone who could hit back

Despite those facts, Froch is an absolute legend.

Excellent analysis there!

Super D Boon wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:Who Froch fights or who he has fought has no bearing on Calzaghes ability.

Froch has fought some decent names but the facts remain..

He beat a shot Robin Reid and holds a decent win over Magee Correct!

He has a fantastic win against Pascal (what a fight!!) who may have been drained (?) Not only that, Pascal isn't very good.

He lost to Kessler Check

He lost to Ward Got owned by Ward to be fair but still techincally correct

He "lost" to Dirrell A robbery Robin Hood would have been proud of

He beat an extremely limited SMW version of Abraham Abraham was an extremely limited middleweight as well

He was getting beat by a talented but very beatable Taylor, before Taylor gassed and was stopped. Yes

He made harder work than necessary against an aged Johnson Yes, I'm sure I saw Glen Johnso in the Post Office recently

He anhilated Bute...who may prove to be a lesser fighter than any of those who took part in the Super6 Bute looked out of his depth fighting someone who could hit back

Despite those facts, Froch is an absolute legend.

Excellent analysis there!

Disagree, Steffan.

It wasnt Calzaghes fault the fight didnt happen sooner. Joneshad a reputation for not testing himself as a fighter. He avoided Calzaghe for years and other fighters he didnt want to face were Eubank, Benn and Collins. Collins said he would fight Jones for free but that he feared Calzaghe. What made Jones change his mind was that he thought Calzaghe was getting old and close to retirement so he would try and chance it but he got completely outclassed when they fought so Calzaghe was proved right.

Mike McCallum, James Toney, Bernard Hopkins, Felix Trinidad, Clinton Woods, Glen Johnson. Some of the people Jones fought in. And Gordy suggests that this is a man who "has a reputation for not tetsing himself". Behave.

bhb001 wrote:Mike McCallum, James Toney, Bernard Hopkins, Felix Trinidad, Clinton Woods, Glen Johnson. Some of the people Jones fought in. And Gordy suggests that this is a man who "has a reputation for not tetsing himself".

yeah but you have to counter balance that against the fact he never fought Rick Thornberry.

I bow to Jeff's superior knowledge

He didn't fight Lennox either. Rick thornberry was always out the picture. So dangerous they wouldn't put him on the tv due to censorship

These discussions happened all to often on the old 606, glad we don't get that many on here anymore as it always ends with the same thing.

Anyway, both are exceptional fighters, the run of opponents that Froch has had is pretty much unmatchable. Calzaghe while having a lot of talent, never pushed himself to fight the best. If they had fought I would back Calzaghe to win on work rate but it would be close, and by no means clear cut.

Rotherham Joe Gans wrote:

bhb001 wrote:Mike McCallum, James Toney, Bernard Hopkins, Felix Trinidad, Clinton Woods, Glen Johnson. Some of the people Jones fought in. And Gordy suggests that this is a man who "has a reputation for not tetsing himself".

yeah but you have to counter balance that against the fact he never fought Rick Thornberry.

Thing is you can still pick holes - McCallum was about 2 or three weight categories over his preferred weight. Given the fact that an unspectacular paper champion like Tiozzo beat McCallum at LHW is testament to this. Hopkins was green and this was before they both became famous. Toney severely underprepared and weight drained. Trindidad - now we're being silly! This was just before Calzaghe beat Jones Junior which everyone says was a meaningless fight??? Woods was a decent win but again he became an unspectacular champion. And Glen Johnson knocked him into a virtual coma!

Superboon, I take your analysis and accept what you say, but still I haven't heard any one suggest that Jones never tried to test himself. Granted, he was a great at calculating whether he had a chance or not, see the Hashim fight for that one, but that is not the same as only taking on tin cans.

But that's the thing there weren't as many tin cans in Calzaghe's resume as people enjoy making out. Just like Jones, Calzaghe had a habit of making very credible opponents look silly. Not saying he does it as well as RJJ or did it to opponents as highly regarded but just sayin'. He battered the likes of Veit, Sheika, Mkertian or whatever when they were more than credible or at least made their way up the rankings to deserve the title tilt.

I've always felt privileged to have had two such fine super middle's come from these shores in succession.

So then, Jones, who is only one of two men to have ever held title from middle to heavy, didn't test himself. They guy who was the best fighter in the planet for a number of years... Laughable.

sittingringside wrote:I've always felt privileged to have had two such fine super middle's come from these shores in succession.

Well said and I concur

Did JC ever fight anyone of the quality/calibre or level of danger as Ward?

Not saying this with respect to Froch at all, purely an Calzaghe question. His 2nd and 3rd best wins in Kessler and Lacy weren't in the same league, which only leaves Hoppo. To me Ward seems like a younger, hungrier Hoppo with a better tank.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Did JC ever fight anyone of the quality/calibre or level of danger as Ward?

Not saying this with respect to Froch at all, purely an Calzaghe question. His 2nd and 3rd best wins in Kessler and Lacy weren't in the same league, which only leaves Hoppo. To me Ward seems like a younger, hungrier Hoppo with a better tank.

Not for me. Ward now is better than the Hopkins Cazaghe faced I think. He may even be better than Hopkins at his best, although he might not end up having the marquee fights available to go on and prove it.

There are similarities between Ward and Hopkins, noteably their inside work but I also think there alot of differances. Hopkins often fought at mid range whereas Ward seems to prefer operating at a distance before closing the space quickly. Ward is alot faster than Hopkins was I think and a better overall athlete.

Super D Boon wrote:But that's the thing there weren't as many tin cans in Calzaghe's resume as people enjoy making out. Just like Jones, Calzaghe had a habit of making very credible opponents look silly. Not saying he does it as well as RJJ or did it to opponents as highly regarded but just sayin'. He battered the likes of Veit, Sheika, Mkertian or whatever when they were more than credible or at least made their way up the rankings to deserve the title tilt.

How often did he fight a guy that was considered a top ten divisional opponent though? Probably once every 4 fights on average. Those fighters mentioned there were pretty pointless fights for him at the time when you consider what was available.

manos de piedra wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Did JC ever fight anyone of the quality/calibre or level of danger as Ward?

Not saying this with respect to Froch at all, purely an Calzaghe question. His 2nd and 3rd best wins in Kessler and Lacy weren't in the same league, which only leaves Hoppo. To me Ward seems like a younger, hungrier Hoppo with a better tank.

Not for me. Ward now is better than the Hopkins Cazaghe faced I think. He may even be better than Hopkins at his best, although he might not end up having the marquee fights available to go on and prove it.

There are similarities between Ward and Hopkins, noteably their inside work but I also think there alot of differances. Hopkins often fought at mid range whereas Ward seems to prefer operating at a distance before closing the space quickly. Ward is alot faster than Hopkins was I think and a better overall athlete.

Agree with your assessment 100%.

Which is starting to lead me to the conclusion that Kessler is the only thing that splits Carl and Joe.....

TopHat24/7 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Did JC ever fight anyone of the quality/calibre or level of danger as Ward?

Not saying this with respect to Froch at all, purely an Calzaghe question. His 2nd and 3rd best wins in Kessler and Lacy weren't in the same league, which only leaves Hoppo. To me Ward seems like a younger, hungrier Hoppo with a better tank.

Not for me. Ward now is better than the Hopkins Cazaghe faced I think. He may even be better than Hopkins at his best, although he might not end up having the marquee fights available to go on and prove it.

There are similarities between Ward and Hopkins, noteably their inside work but I also think there alot of differances. Hopkins often fought at mid range whereas Ward seems to prefer operating at a distance before closing the space quickly. Ward is alot faster than Hopkins was I think and a better overall athlete.

Agree with your assessment 100%.

Which is starting to lead me to the conclusion that Kessler is the only thing that splits Carl and Joe.....

To some extent I suppose thats true, but it would be assuming that Calzaghe loses to Ward for certain which is probably unfair and in the end just specualtion. The flip side is if Calzaghe beat Ward he would be miles above Froch.

It's perfectly fair to have the discussion, but however you slice it, whichever of the two you personally favour, you have to accept that both Calzaghe and Froch are among Britain's all-time greats, both rating a place inside the UK's top dozen at any weight.

Now, I make Calzaghe around 6 and Froch around 12 at the moment, which leads me to believe that there isn't actually that much between their achievements. The main difference, at least in my eyes, is that Carl has never been the best in his division. To do that, he needs to beat Ward - only that will ultimately give him a realistic shout of claiming a better CV and legacy than Joe's.

Beating Kessler now may be nice for Carl, but wouldn't have that much effect on his overall ranking, for me - might move him up one spot or so. However, victory against Ward (unlikely, I accept), simultaneously removing a blot on his record and establishing himself as the head man at 168, would make a serious difference, in my opinion. Under those circumstances, Froch would move ahead of Calzaghe in my all-time list, with only Ted Kid Lewis, Wilde and Lennox Lewis ahead of him from these islands.

Where have you got Moran - I recall you were a big fan of the little man?

Either 7 or 8 right now, Shah. I regularly swap him around with Berg.

I still think the Kessler fight is important for me. Its easier to forgive being a number 2 man to someone like Ward who looks to be an exceptional fighter. But with the Kessler defeat there its arguable if Froch was ever even the number 2 man to Ward. I think given that it happens to be a common opponent with Calzaghe, one who Calzaghe beat also is significant. At the moment I would probably have Kessler narrowly above Froch in my SMW rankings although I would say Froch has a superior win column to Kessler at the moment.

Your point is well made, Manos, but I just feel that even if Froch were to settle accounts with Kessler now, the fact that he had done so against a fine opponent a little way past his peak would mean that the victory couldn't count for too much as far as closing the gap on Calzaghe is concerned. I believe that the only route left for Carl to accomplish this would be to defeat Ward.

Like you, I don't think that there's much between Froch and Kessler. If Kessler were a British fighter, he too would be just outside the all-time UK top 10, I would think.

Super D Boon wrote:I think with Calzaghe and Froch people are almost pre conditioned to say better things about the current rather than the past. Everyone loves the standards to increase over time rather than decrease. People naturally want to compare favourably the here and now over the yesterdays.

Froch and Calzaghe are entirely different animals. Firstly it is natural for UK people to sway more towards liking Froch and disparaging Calzaghe due to Froch being English and Calzaghe Welsh. Given there are 16 times more English than Welsh this will always be the case.

Secondly, both were champions at significantly different ages, Froch was 31 when he became champ, Calzaghe was 25 I think. Froch has not the time to build a legacy on quantity and longevity and has no choice but to opt for the quality approach. Calzaghe's legacy is based on much quantity and little quality and the fact he was never beaten.

Whichever you prefer, Calzaghe's resume shouldn't be scoffed at so hastily because people tend to forget that a win is a win no matter who against. Of course, some wins count for more than others but you can't say 4 were good wins and rubbish the other 17 as if they count for nothing.

Calzaghe has longeivity and quantity and the fact he was the man at the weight, maybe even two weights. For Froch he has bundles of quality but forget Kessler, Froch needs to become the man. He needs to beat Ward or hope the American moves up weights. Froch needs to become numero in the weight division. Unless he does he won't compare favourably when both men have long since retired.

So much nonsense in that post I don't have the patience to address it all.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Your point is well made, Manos, but I just feel that even if Froch were to settle accounts with Kessler now, the fact that he had done so against a fine opponent a little way past his peak would mean that the victory couldn't count for too much as far as closing the gap on Calzaghe is concerned. I believe that the only route left for Carl to accomplish this would be to defeat Ward.

Like you, I don't think that there's much between Froch and Kessler. If Kessler were a British fighter, he too would be just outside the all-time UK top 10, I would think.

I think you are right, that in terms of catching Calzaghe its probably only beating Ward that coud do it at the moment. But if maybe avenged Kessler as well as potentially a jump to LH and managed a to become the man there with a couple of good wins over Dawson and maybe a Cloud or remtch Pascal then I think the gap would be very close indeed and as long as Ward continues on his way to becoming one of the stand out fighters of his generation then when the dust has settled on Frochs career it would make things very close indeed.

'The main difference , at least in my eyes, is that Carl has never been the best in his division'


Got to be honest, on this occasion, I can't see the logic in your reasoning captain.


Not very knowledgeable about athletics but this is the best comparison I can think of. Is Yohan Blake a faster(better,) sprinter than Ben Johnson(ignoring the ped's just for a second') who was the best of his generation? The answer of course is yes. But is Blake the best of his generation? Of course the answer to that is is no.


So the argument put forward, completely ignores the strength of the respective divisions question. Which to me is profoundly wrong.


As to manos' point on Kessler. I reckon Pascal at SM would batter Kessler.

Reasonably said, Herman, although as Manos points out, the close loss to Kessler made (and still makes, to a certain extent) Carl's claim to be the divisional number two open to debate, at best. Kessler was also in the prime of boxing life and, more importantly, not so constantly prone to injuries as he has since become, when he fought so gallantly against Calzaghe.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the result of a Pascal-Kessler fight. As I said before, I think that there is a minute amount between Kessler and Froch as far as their careers are concerned. With that being the case, I have to think that Calzaghe deserves a close, but clear, edge over the pair of them.

I realise that I didn't address your athletics analogy, Herman. I suppose that I'd have to say that you can't exclude PEDs from the question, since Johnson was clearly the best of his generation with them, but an also-ran without. Carl Lewis (who, I realise, wasn't without sin) was surely the man in his era.

As far as the two Jamaicans are concerned, fingers crossed, eh?

Still, I understood the point that you were trying to make.

Herman Jaggery wrote:'The main difference , at least in my eyes, is that Carl has never been the best in his division'


Got to be honest, on this occasion, I can't see the logic in your reasoning captain.


Not very knowledgeable about athletics but this is the best comparison I can think of. Is Yohan Blake a faster(better,) sprinter than Ben Johnson(ignoring the ped's just for a second') who was the best of his generation? The answer of course is yes. But is Blake the best of his generation? Of course the answer to that is is no.


So the argument put forward, completely ignores the strength of the respective divisions question. Which to me is profoundly wrong.


As to manos' point on Kessler. I reckon Pascal at SM would batter Kessler.

Well sprinting has the luxury of being an exact science easily measured. ITs more difficult to measure in boxing. There are undoubtadly sprinters out there who have never won a medal at the worlds or olympics that clock faster times than Jesse Owens. But they have nowhere near the same legacy or standing in the sport even though they can argue they are faster sprinters.

As for Pascal/Kessler, I dont neccessarily agree and its just specualtion which I dont really like incorparating into the way I measure a legacy. I rate Frochs win over Pascal highly though.

Fair enough captain, though the Pascal that showed up in Nottingham beats Kessler 99/100 for me.

Yohan Blake > Carl Lewis. You're quite right, I should have said Lewis.


Got to be honest, the gamble not to fight Froch, hasn't paid off for Joe imo. I might just have Carl shading things already, and he's still got plenty left in the clock. Two good fighters though.

Fair enough, manos.

Also surely Pascal possibly beating Kessler has little to do with it even if you did speculate and added that to the legacy- If you want to compare - how do you see a pascal vs Calzaghe going?