How Good Was Joe Calzaghe?

by davidemore Wed 26 Jun 2013, 1:06 pm

Been thinking on this one lately.

Could he have beaten ANYONE at SM? Ward, would have beaten him? A prime Eubank?

by BlakkMamba Wed 26 Jun 2013, 2:41 pm

Think prime Hopkins and prime Roy Jones would have given prime calzaghe would have beaten him to be honest.

Unfortunately it's difficult to know, as he spent his prime fighting people he was much better than.

by davidemore Wed 26 Jun 2013, 2:44 pm

Cans, Blakkmamba, cans and taxi drivers.

by bhb001 Wed 26 Jun 2013, 2:48 pm

Joe wasn't as good as he thinks he is, but probably a lot better than most people thought he was (nobody really thnks about him now). It is a bit of a mute point as he did fail to land any of the big fights until the end of his career and, since the others fought each other, then you have to look closely at the failure of not landing the big fights being down to him and his managememt.

by **seanmichaels** Wed 26 Jun 2013, 2:49 pm

I think he was better than Ward.

by BlakkMamba Wed 26 Jun 2013, 2:51 pm

He fought some good fighters, like Byron Mitchell, he was no mug nor was Robin Reid. The problem was he fought these guys after other fighters had already beaten them, so its lessens the accomplishment.

Unfortunately even the more credible opponents he made title defences against, Reid, Woodhall, Sheika, Brewer, Mitchell had already lost. His first "big fight" where people fancied him as an underdog was Jeff Lacy after he had held his title 9 years.

If he had taken more risks in this 9 year period when he was at the top of his game who knows what context we would be talking about him in now.

by Steffan Wed 26 Jun 2013, 3:37 pm

The guy was great

by Guest Wed 26 Jun 2013, 3:40 pm

He was s**t and how he lasted as long as he did is beyond me.

Hsi footwork was abysmal and his timing and rhythm were virtually non-existant at times and he was also on the receiving end of some very favourable judging.

Just to be clear, we're talking about his stint on "Strictly...." right?

by **Union Cane** Wed 26 Jun 2013, 3:51 pm

Recently bought a DVD with extended highlights of all his fights from Eubank through to Hopkins. What becomes immediately obvious is that he was badly let down by his hands, which makes his achievements all the more impressive for me given the brittleness of his metacarpals. The 'slappy' style of punching is not to everyone's taste, but it is within the rules and his workrate was phenomenal. In his pomp he'd simply outwork Ward for me, wide UD although not quite of Lacy-esque proportions.

So, in summary, he was alright I suppose.

by Nico the gman Wed 26 Jun 2013, 4:08 pm

Good fighter, let himself down by going to the US far too late in his career, whats disappointing is he had a great chin, good hand speed and would have given anyone at supermiddle problems, only thing he lacked was power.

by Diamond in the rough Wed 26 Jun 2013, 4:16 pm

Union Cane wrote:Recently bought a DVD with extended highlights of all his fights from Eubank through to Hopkins. What becomes immediately obvious is that he was badly let down by his hands, which makes his achievements all the more impressive for me given the brittleness of his metacarpals. The 'slappy' style of punching is not to everyone's taste, but it is within the rules and his workrate was phenomenal. In his pomp he'd simply outwork Ward for me, wide UD although not quite of Lacy-esque proportions.

So, in summary, he was alright I suppose.

I think ward beats him! The Hopkins fight although I thought he deserved the win it was close and I think ward now is better then the Hopkins joe fought! On top of that I think jones Hopkins and Toney all beat him prime-prime

by Strongback Wed 26 Jun 2013, 4:23 pm

I was always impressed with Calzaghe. Best British fighter in my time watching boxing. Some will say Lewis but I pick Calzaghe.

by BlakkMamba Wed 26 Jun 2013, 4:26 pm

Strongback really? Whom did he beat to make you think that?

Poorly phrased so editing here.

Who did he beat to make you think his ledger is better than Lewis' or he deserves to be above Lewis? Not saying you're wrong, just interested Smile

by Strongback Wed 26 Jun 2013, 4:48 pm

He comfortably beat a prime unbeaten Kessler when he was 35 years of age. That told me a lot. Lacy was another good win.

As Truss is fond of saying Lewis didn't really have a defining fight. Getting KO'd twice is hard to ignore. In saying that my comment was based on who had more talent and I just feel Calzaghe had outstanding natural ability, pity he didn't test it more.

by **Union Cane** Wed 26 Jun 2013, 4:49 pm

Does Sakio Bika's recent World Title triumph enhance Joe's legacy even further?

by JabMachineMK2 Wed 26 Jun 2013, 5:00 pm

Thing is, if a fighter is matched tough and theres a lot of exposure in their early career, they get the payday regardless and theres not that added element of "I need to win this because my life depends on it"

Imagine if for example, Khan vs Prescott wasn't televised, there wouldn't be those throwing the loss in his face in the manner we see, we'd see a fighter coming from a loss that developed him as a boxer. That may be a poor example, but the "0" isn't as important as people like to think other than promoters, I'd much rather all of a sudden hear about a guy who was 25 - 3 who'd done his graft and now was ready for his shot at the big time rather than watching someone like Deontay Wilder.

Being matched hard early is a necessity, but it needs to be done away from the HUGE exposure to build the boxer mentally in my opinion.

by Guest Wed 26 Jun 2013, 5:07 pm

From this day forth all Jabby's comments will be ignored as he's clearly too stupid to know which thread he's posting on (probably connected to the number of aliases he has on the forum)

by Rowley Wed 26 Jun 2013, 5:25 pm

On just pure statistics Joe is an undisputed middleweight champion and two weight ring magazine champion. Add into this there was a period where he was, beyond any reasonable argument, the man at supermiddle and it would seem fairly churlish not to acknowledge he is not an excellent fighter.

However his career is not as easy as the pure statistics suggest. It is an uncomfortable truth, but a truth nonetheless that for a good eight years of his reign he was nothing other than a belt holder, and that in an age when belt holding means very little. One also has to look at his opposition during that reign and when one is putting forward the likes of an ageing Eubank, Woodhall, Reid Brewer and Mitchell, all of whom had arguably seen better days, and you have to acknowledge there is not too much there to get excited about. When one adds in that there were also many a guy who had no business fighting for a world title such as Thornberry and Pudwill and the cupboard does start to look bear.

The real tragedy of this period is the guys who were actually in his weight and holding other titles such as Beyer and Ottke are guys you would have had to make Joe a warm favourite against, but as we all know careers are assessed against what you did and not what you were capable of doing and Joe’s failure to unify until so late in his career and reign has to count against him.

Joe is a fine fighter and rightly deserves to be considered one of the best from these shores and certainly one of the best we have produced in recent years. However for me his inability/unwillingness to test himself sooner probably means he falls short of the true elite or the ranking which his talent probably warrants.

by Guest Wed 26 Jun 2013, 9:12 pm

It would be a close fight but he'd give Ward nightmares with his speed, velocity and workrate.

Joe was a clever fighter and I like to think he'd find a way to win it.

Superb fighter.

by manos de piedra Wed 26 Jun 2013, 9:59 pm

His career could have a vastly differant slant had he taken some tougher fights like Jones and Hopkins earlier. His bout with Hopkins suggests to me he would lose to Ward or a younger Hopkins. I dont think he beats Jones. No shame in that though. His win of Kessler and Hopkins provides a reasonable benchmark of his ability. So many wasted fights and years though.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 26 Jun 2013, 10:01 pm

Hopkins win is looking better and better in fairness.........

by manos de piedra Wed 26 Jun 2013, 10:08 pm

It does, although where do you draw the line with Hopkins? I remember I scored the fight to Hopkins but felt it could have gone either way so I dont have any real issue with the result. I feel a younger Hopkins probably reverses the decision though. But other than maybe Jones, who if on form could be spectacular, I think Calzaghe is pretty competitve against anyone else. I think Hopkins and Ward have a good style to neutralise Calzaghe though.

by Mr Bounce Wed 26 Jun 2013, 10:11 pm

The only 2 issues I have with Calzaghe is his brittle hands and his lack of risk taking early on. Of course the risk taking aspect was partly his own fault, but Frank Warren has to bear a large portion of the blame. He should have fought Sven Ottke (an easy night's work for Joe, even in Germany) but the clamour for him to have fought Jones Jr & Hopkins earlier was a bit unfair as Jones was at Light-Heavy at the time & Hopkins was making his transition from Middle to Light Heavy.

The hand thing was unfortunate - Joe's snore-fest against Starie springs to mind as an example of when things went awry. However, when up against a skilled operator, he had a knack of working them out and capitalising on it. I see him as a good match for any super-middle of the past and present, possibly beating them all. This includes Ward.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 26 Jun 2013, 10:15 pm

In fact the Kessler win looks better too...........add to the fact he was unbeaten...

Best British fighter I've ever seen.........Lewis second....

But he could have been braver with his matchups but my guess is Warren guided him..

Might of stunk now and again but he was a winner....

History will be kind to Joe ..........but my guess is he needs to wait a while before he gets just due.

by jimdig Wed 26 Jun 2013, 10:18 pm

Joe was way better than his record. Just didn't take the chances. Even after Kessler, he seemed to have no interest in accepting pavliks offers. So old popkins steps in and does a career enhancing job on him.

I thought pavlik would beat bhop, but thought Joe would be way to much for pavlik, we can blame warren all we want for Joe's career, but Joe just seemed adverse to risk taking.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 26 Jun 2013, 10:21 pm

But the fact all Warren fighters are averse...Is surely no coincidence??

by manos de piedra Wed 26 Jun 2013, 10:32 pm

Calzaghe stayed with Warren until his last fight though. And it wasnt exactly a ringing endorsement of Calzaghes ambition when his sole self promoted fight was against a Jones he had himself dismissed as washed up. The more ambitious fighters seem to have left Warren earlier.

I think if Calzaghe was all that amazing he would have beat Kessler and Hopkins more convincincingly. I also dont think it was neccessary for him to stay at SMW as long as he did. He could have gone to LH without too much difficulty. Even at SMW his record for taking on top rated challengers was fairly poor (Tate? Beyer? Larsen? Mundine? Echols etc) and it took him ages to finally get to the top.

by jimdig Wed 26 Jun 2013, 10:33 pm

Do you not have a thread saying warren isn't all bad?
I am not a fan of warren. We all know his tactics on milking fighters. But Joe was established enough after the lacy fight to take a little more control if he wanted. He wasn't a slave. I'm sure he could have had some input into being the star in the stable. As far as I can see Hatton and khan left warren for ambitious reasons, Joe left warren to bank retirement money from a testimonial style fight.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 26 Jun 2013, 10:37 pm

Calzaghe in fairness was knocking on in age himself against Hoppo and Kessler..........A Froch-beating Kessler..

You're right when you say he could have been more ambitious...However other factors like loyalty to Warren and not wanting to bite the hand that fed him could be factors..

I would like to have seen him tested more..the fact is though when he was.. he found a way to win..............Mitchell, Reid, Hoppo and Kessler..

Yes I do have a thread Warren is all bad...so what????............Also allude to the fact he protected his fighters on it..

by ONETWOFOREVER Wed 26 Jun 2013, 10:46 pm

Toney would of schooled him

Prime Jones would have schooled him

Nunn would have schooled him

Barkley would have ended his career

by Mr Bounce Wed 26 Jun 2013, 10:59 pm

Barkley ends him? I don't think so. I see Calzaghe outpointing him by a wide margin. I think a "prime" Jones beats everyone he faces, but the other two? Certainly no schooling happening here. Close fights, yes, but I reckon Joe edges them.

by bhb001 Wed 26 Jun 2013, 11:11 pm

When Joe was at his most marketable i.e. after beating Lacy, he had two nonsense fights; Bika (a gate keeper) and Manfredo Jr (a reality tv contestant). He never pushed for the big fights. Pity, really, as he could have won them.

by Steffan Wed 26 Jun 2013, 11:21 pm

He was not human...he was like...a piece of iron:

by bellchees Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:43 am

The Hopkins win is the stand out win of his career, people often forget that Joe was past his best by then and not just Hopkins. You always read he beat an old Hopkins, which is true but this is an old Hopkins who had only dropped two very very narrow decisions to the ridiculously talented Jermain Taylor then moved up to beat Tarver who was the man at the weight and Winky who is no mug. After losing to Joe he still went on to beat Pavlik, Pascal twice really and Cloud so this is no shot old man. Calzaghe was also on away soil which was against him and was moving up in weight for the first time in his career and it was pretty clear during the joke fight afterwards with Jones Jr that Calzaghe had lost a step by then at 35 or 36 years old.

Very very good fighter Calzaghe who is a nightmare for any Middleweight and Super Middleweight in history, shame he wasted so much of his career.

by BlakkMamba Thu 27 Jun 2013, 7:39 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Calzaghe in fairness was knocking on in age himself against Hoppo and Kessler..........A Froch-beating Kessler..

You're right when you say he could have been more ambitious...However other factors like loyalty to Warren and not wanting to bite the hand that fed him could be factors..

I would like to have seen him tested more..the fact is though when he was.. he found a way to win..............Mitchell, Reid, Hoppo and Kessler..

Yes I do have a thread Warren is all bad...so what????............Also allude to the fact he protected his fighters on it..

The fact also is that in about 5 fights at super middle Roy Jones fought and beat a better quality of opponent in James Toney than Joe did in 10 years.

Not wanting to bite the hand that feeds him is an other way of saying he was scared to stand up to Frank Warren which again taints his legacy.

Not debtaing he beat all his opponents - thats fact, although some would contest the Hopkins decision, what is contested is that for 10 years of his prime he largely fought tomato cans, and so its difficult to say in my view "Yeah, Joe is up there with the best ever" - which is a shame, and a missed ooportunity.

by davidemore Thu 27 Jun 2013, 9:36 am

Joe C had the ability to adapt to ANY style. How many fighters can you say that about? How many fighters confused opponents like Joe did? Wore them out mentally and with great athleticism. Deadly combo when speed is added, deadly.

Shame he fought 97% toffee though.

by BlakkMamba Thu 27 Jun 2013, 9:55 am

davidemore wrote:Joe C had the ability to adapt to ANY style. How many fighters can you say that about? How many fighters confused opponents like Joe did? Wore them out mentally and with great athleticism. Deadly combo when speed is added, deadly.

Shame he fought 97% toffee though.

How can you say that when by your own admission 97% of what he fought was chaff?

Where is your evidence that he could have adapted to a peak James Toney or Roy Jones Jr's style?

Unfortunately there are always going to be a lot of questionmarks over Joe as for much of his career he went untested. A fantastic talent but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and for years he was on a starvation diet.

by JabMachineMK2 Thu 27 Jun 2013, 9:59 am

DAVE667 wrote:From this day forth all Jabby's comments will be ignored as he's clearly too stupid to know which thread he's posting on (probably connected to the number of aliases he has on the forum)

The f......

What.......

Oh right. Damn!

by davidemore Thu 27 Jun 2013, 10:01 am

BlakkMamba wrote:
davidemore wrote:Joe C had the ability to adapt to ANY style. How many fighters can you say that about? How many fighters confused opponents like Joe did? Wore them out mentally and with great athleticism. Deadly combo when speed is added, deadly.

Shame he fought 97% toffee though.

How can you say that when by your own admission 97% of what he fought was chaff?

Where is your evidence that he could have adapted to a peak James Toney or Roy Jones Jr's style?

Unfortunately there are always going to be a lot of questionmarks over Joe as for much of his career he went untested. A fantastic talent but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and for years he was on a starvation diet.

My evidence is in the brief encounters he had with genuine opposition. Post 4th round Kessler, post 1st round B-Hop. Lacey all night long.

That's it, but that's enough. Kiddo.

by Rowley Thu 27 Jun 2013, 10:09 am

Fine fighters though they are am not sure Kessler, Lacy and a razor thin win in a stink fest against an ageing Hopkins are anywhere near enough evidence to suggest Joe can pull the trick against Jones in his prime because Jones is at least a good level above any of those guys.

by davidemore Thu 27 Jun 2013, 10:10 am

Jones fought bums and was unproven when you consider his obvious ability.

by Rowley Thu 27 Jun 2013, 10:13 am

Toney, Hopkins, Nunn, Griffin and Ruis at heavy. Will take them over Joe's finest moments.

by davidemore Thu 27 Jun 2013, 10:15 am

Ruiz was cra*, Nunn, :picard:the rest yes.

But B-Hop was raw like a hookers snatch.

I'm not comparing I'm stating an obvious fact: RJJ never stepped up enough and fought the best consistently once he attained a belt. Eubank..... Collins...

by Rowley Thu 27 Jun 2013, 10:22 am

Eubank stated in his autobiography he had no intention of fighting Jones and would have only done so had Roy been his mandatory. Easy to say Ruiz was rubbish but when you are doing something that has only been achieved once in the 100+ year history of the sport it deserves a level of respect.

As i have said countless times, if all it takes for a middle to pick up a heavy title is waiting till there is a rubbish heavy champion why do more not do it, because it is not for the lack of rubbish heavyweight champions that is for sure.

by davidemore Thu 27 Jun 2013, 10:34 am

Danger to your health to put so much weight on.

by BlakkMamba Thu 27 Jun 2013, 10:41 am

davidemore wrote:
BlakkMamba wrote:
davidemore wrote:Joe C had the ability to adapt to ANY style. How many fighters can you say that about? How many fighters confused opponents like Joe did? Wore them out mentally and with great athleticism. Deadly combo when speed is added, deadly.

Shame he fought 97% toffee though.

How can you say that when by your own admission 97% of what he fought was chaff?

Where is your evidence that he could have adapted to a peak James Toney or Roy Jones Jr's style?

Unfortunately there are always going to be a lot of questionmarks over Joe as for much of his career he went untested. A fantastic talent but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and for years he was on a starvation diet.

My evidence is in the brief encounters he had with genuine opposition. Post 4th round Kessler, post 1st round B-Hop. Lacey all night long.

That's it, but that's enough. Kiddo.

Respect your opinion - but not enough for me by a long shot.

by BlakkMamba Thu 27 Jun 2013, 10:42 am

Rowley wrote:Eubank stated in his autobiography he had no intention of fighting Jones and would have only done so had Roy been his mandatory. Easy to say Ruiz was rubbish but when you are doing something that has only been achieved once in the 100+ year history of the sport it deserves a level of respect.

As i have said countless times, if all it takes for a middle to pick up a heavy title is waiting till there is a rubbish heavy champion why do more not do it, because it is not for the lack of rubbish heavyweight champions that is for sure.

Spot on as usual

by davidemore Thu 27 Jun 2013, 10:43 am

BlakkMamba wrote:
Rowley wrote:Eubank stated in his autobiography he had no intention of fighting Jones and would have only done so had Roy been his mandatory. Easy to say Ruiz was rubbish but when you are doing something that has only been achieved once in the 100+ year history of the sport it deserves a level of respect.

As i have said countless times, if all it takes for a middle to pick up a heavy title is waiting till there is a rubbish heavy champion why do more not do it, because it is not for the lack of rubbish heavyweight champions that is for sure.

Spot on as usual

Bromance.

by davidemore Thu 27 Jun 2013, 10:43 am

I never thought to consider that Rowley read when debating with him. Changes the whole thing.

by hogey Thu 27 Jun 2013, 11:17 am

He was a very good fighter, but also very fortunate to be in the era he was. I think he would have struggled big time against Benn, Eubanks and Collins in fights that could go either way. He was smart enough to duck Jones Jnr when anywhere near his best because he was a different level and would have outclassed and stopped him, A young Hopkins would have boxed his ears off (in fact an old one did at times as well) to win a comfortable decision. Ward beats him clearly for me as well. Other than that JC beats all the other SMWs of the last 20 years.

by Sponsored content