How Good Was Joe Calzaghe?

First topic message reminder :

Been thinking on this one lately.

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

There is only one fighter I can think of at super middle that I wouldn't pick Joe to beat and that is Roy Jones, in his prime he was a different animal.

He utterly schooled James Toney with one hand.

Good fighter. Poor attitude.
That pretty much sums Joe up.

I think he would have struggled big time against Benn, Eubanks and Collins in fights that could go either way.

Really? Gotta say that, as big a Benn fan as I am, it's still based on the potential for excitement he generated when he stepped in to the ring as opposed to his actual ability. Benn abandoned any pretence of boxing ability very early into his pro career. He was good enough to win the ABA's so couldn't have been all that bad, yet rip-roaring fights with the likes of Anthony Logan convinced him (no doubt egged on by Ambrose Mendy) that he needed to be a crowd pleaser instead.

Benn was a better MW than SM and Calzaghe was a natural SM. If we take the version of Calzaghe without brittle hands, he's got more than enough for the vast majority of SM and even enough to make it a very hard night's work for the very best.

Benn was always a danger when he was hurt but for him to capitalise on that, his opponent had to be stood in front of him. I doubt that Calzaghe would be stood still long enough for Benn to land those bombs. Calzaghe, if he fancies it, by a late stoppage.

Eubank could be lazy and only really fought hard when up against it, I don't see him being busy enough to claw back the rounds he'd undoubtedly give away to Joe in the first half of the fight and certainly wouldn't be wearing him down to force a stoppage. Calzaghe by clear UD.

Collins? I don't even think it's worth considering. Collins is Froch-lite and I think Calzaghe beats Froch easily.

A fight with Watson might be interesting if not exactly riveting stuff. Two very good technicians looking to exploit openings in very good defences. One for the purists and a close UD for Joe.

Lots of people talking about Jones Jr as Superman but you have to ask what happens when as Calzaghe keeps coming forwards, Roy can't put him away. What if Calzaghe catches Roy on the chin? Does Roy go down? Were his whiskers always suspect and only his sublime reflexes prevented anyone from catching him cleanly? Roy sure as hell wouldn't stand and trade and he'd undoubtedly be boxing off the back foot all night. Depending on how much sucess Calzaghe has, all you need is one judge to take a shine to the guy who's coming forwards and you have a close run thing. Still think RJJ wins but it's by no means a walk in the park.

A British Great but not a great fighter. Waaaay too many cans in his early reign and I think Hopkins exposed him to a some extent (although the fight was extremely close).

However, I'd give him the H2H edge over all his British rivals prime for prime: Eubank, Benn, Froch and Collins (not British, but from the Bristish Isles). Actually think Benn and Collins would have the best shot as the other two just do not have the workrate or skills to handle Joe.

Beat Ward or Jones: Y'all must have forgot what Roy Jones was in his prime and what Ward is today. H2H who would pick Jones to lose to anyone in history at 12 stone if their house was on it? His prime career was one long showboating highlight reel. Ward would totally neutralise Joe's workrate with mauling and sharp shooting from the outside.

Personally, I have Calzaghe 2nd equal of the last 40 years of British boxing well behind Lewis and alongside Hamed. He had the skills to be higher, but was too risk averse.

Joe was (is) great.
Never beaten, and having to nurse delicate hands, he saw off all comers over a long, illustrious career.
It is fashionable amongst WUMs and those who, frankly, haven’t a clue about boxing, to try (forlornly) to belittle his achievements, but these mildly irritating bores only bring about the opposite by highlighting Joe’s role call the more.
I would cite just three incidents: the beating of Eubank, admittedly towards the end of that great man’s career, but a major achievement nevertheless; the humiliating lesson given to Jeff Lacy; and the awesome victory over the great Dane Kessler.
It’s worth remembering that Lacy was pretty well regarded as the middleweight equivalent of the young Mike Tyson and Joe was the underdog. Who can forget that night when Lacy was exposed as a crude lug; we were indeed privileged to witness such a boxing lesson in the public domain. I compare it to the beatings of Hamed and Leonard. I hope one day (soon!) to see that show-off Mayweather receive a similar lesson.
As for the Kessler fight, he, too, was regarded as virtually unbeatable and, indeed, Joe had his work cut out earlier on but got him in the end after a vicious body shot broke the Dane’s heart.
Others will recall their own favourite Calzaghe moments but the verdict is unarguable.
Incidentally, don’t forget that once Joe’s talents were revealed early on most of the credible opposition practised every connivance known to man to avoid him. Familiar story.
Let’s petition Her Majesty to award a richly deserved Knighthood (or should it be a Peerage?).

fearlessBamber wrote:A British Great but not a great fighter. Waaaay too many cans in his early reign and I think Hopkins exposed him to a some extent (although the fight was extremely close).

However, I'd give him the H2H edge over all his British rivals prime for prime: Eubank, Benn, Froch and Collins (not British, but from the Bristish Isles). Actually think Benn and Collins would have the best shot as the other two just do not have the workrate or skills to handle Joe.

Beat Ward or Jones: Y'all must have forgot what Roy Jones was in his prime and what Ward is today. H2H who would pick Jones to lose to anyone in history at 12 stone if their house was on it? His prime career was one long showboating highlight reel. Ward would totally neutralise Joe's workrate with mauling and sharp shooting from the outside.

Personally, I have Calzaghe 2nd equal of the last 40 years of British boxing well behind Lewis and alongside Hamed. He had the skills to be higher, but was too risk averse.

Not sure how he was exposed by Hopkins?

He won a close fight against one of the best boxers of the modern era.

Agree there were a lot of easy fights but generally don't feel there are many he avoided by the end of his career.

Fights like Manfredo should probably not have happened but at that time Manfredo was well known in the US and a good name to make them aware of who Calzaghe was after the Lacey fight. A good business sense fight.

For me he would beat Ward. Purely based on the fact he did beat Hopkins when he was passed his best (Calzaghe was passed his best), and for me Ward is pretty much the same fighter.

The only one that is nearly impossible to work out is 'prime' RJJ.

At his peak he was an amazing fighter but the fact that Calzaghe never lost and seemed to have adapted to every style he faced would put him in with a shout.

An American boxing journo wrote an article which said essentially that whilst the Calzaghe/Hopkins fight will never go down as one for the ages, it warrants another viewing but only if you watch it from the waist down. He said that, in his opinion, Calzaghe was absolutely brilliant as he utilised some excellent footwork and subtle positional shifts in order to thwart Hopkins. Every time Hopkins was set to throw something, Calzaghe was anticipating this and Hopkins would end up keeping his fists cocked rather than throw and miss.

Now, I can't say I've ever gone back and watched the fight and certainly wouldn't be able to track down a camera angle that would possibly give creedence to what this guy was saying, however, it tends to suggest that wily old Hopkins was, on some levels, actually outsmarted by Joe.

It's a controversial opinion certainly and not one commonly held but I thought I'd mention it...if only for the abuse it's likely to generate

Azabache wrote:Joe was (is) great.
Never beaten, and having to nurse delicate hands, he saw off all comers over a long, illustrious career.
It is fashionable amongst WUMs and those who, frankly, haven’t a clue about boxing, to try (forlornly) to belittle his achievements, but these mildly irritating bores only bring about the opposite by highlighting Joe’s role call the more.
I would cite just three incidents: the beating of Eubank, admittedly towards the end of that great man’s career, but a major achievement nevertheless; the humiliating lesson given to Jeff Lacy; and the awesome victory over the great Dane Kessler.
It’s worth remembering that Lacy was pretty well regarded as the middleweight equivalent of the young Mike Tyson and Joe was the underdog. Who can forget that night when Lacy was exposed as a crude lug; we were indeed privileged to witness such a boxing lesson in the public domain. I compare it to the beatings of Hamed and Leonard. I hope one day (soon!) to see that show-off Mayweather receive a similar lesson.
As for the Kessler fight, he, too, was regarded as virtually unbeatable and, indeed, Joe had his work cut out earlier on but got him in the end after a vicious body shot broke the Dane’s heart.
Others will recall their own favourite Calzaghe moments but the verdict is unarguable.
Incidentally, don’t forget that once Joe’s talents were revealed early on most of the credible opposition practised every connivance known to man to avoid him. Familiar story.
Let’s petition Her Majesty to award a richly deserved Knighthood (or should it be a Peerage?).

I was reading this thinking....fair point!

And then you mentioned about Mayweather. This made me question the entire credibility of the post in question. If you're comparing Mayweather to lacy in terms of hype or ability, sadly you're well wide of the mark my friend.

Bloody hell Jabby, all he said was that he'd love to see Mayweather geta similarly humiliating slap. He never compared Lacey to him in terms of skill or anything else.

Go back and read it again.

He remarks about Hamed and Leonard though as if Mayweather slots into the category of flashy and hyped.

Doesn't mentioned hyped let alone over-hyped. He simply mentions that he thinks he's a show-off. In fairness to you though Jabby (I thought I'd do it at least once) I don't consider Mayweather to be an in-ring show off although some of his antics out of the ring have me searching the free ads for a hitman.

Think Mayweather as a person is loathable, posting tweets about how much he's throwing away on bets that could quite easily feed a number of families for a year and such. You're right though, the context was different. Sorry Azabache.

Anyway, I've derailed another thread (apologies Davide) although I don't feel too bad, because he lets other posters do the work for him, just asks a general sweeping question.

Good points. I retract on Mayweather! Apologies for veering off-topic.

It needs a separate post on whether he's a show-off and deserves/is awaiting a thrashing.

I suspect it will never happen.

Azabache wrote:It’s worth remembering that Lacy was pretty well regarded as the middleweight equivalent of the young Mike Tyson and Joe was the underdog. Who can forget that night when Lacy was exposed as a crude lug; we were indeed privileged to witness such a boxing lesson in the public domain. I compare it to the beatings of Hamed and Leonard.

Pretty much every boxer with power and a stunt, muscular physique is branded the next "Tyson". Lacy was just one of many. To compare a victory of a poor and limited slugger like Lacy to victories over legends like Hamed and Leonard is pretty ludicrous. I'd compare Lacy to what Berto was a few years back.

Azabache wrote:As for the Kessler fight, he, too, was regarded as virtually unbeatable and, indeed, Joe had his work cut out earlier on but got him in the end after a vicious body shot broke the Dane’s heart.

Again, who considered Kessler "virtually unbeatable"? At to that point, the Dane's best wins were against the likes of Mundine and Andrade who in terms of ability, arent really anything more than divisional gatekeepers. Hardly enough to be considered unbeatable. The Kessler win should be seen for what it is; a fine and important win against a solid, decent if unspectacular pro.

Azabache wrote:Joe was (is) great.
Never beaten, and having to nurse delicate hands, he saw off all comers over a long, illustrious career.
It is fashionable amongst WUMs and those who, frankly, haven’t a clue about boxing, to try (forlornly) to belittle his achievements, but these mildly irritating bores only bring about the opposite by highlighting Joe’s role call the more.
I would cite just three incidents: the beating of Eubank, admittedly towards the end of that great man’s career, but a major achievement nevertheless; the humiliating lesson given to Jeff Lacy; and the awesome victory over the great Dane Kessler.
It’s worth remembering that Lacy was pretty well regarded as the middleweight equivalent of the young Mike Tyson and Joe was the underdog. Who can forget that night when Lacy was exposed as a crude lug; we were indeed privileged to witness such a boxing lesson in the public domain. I compare it to the beatings of Hamed and Leonard. I hope one day (soon!) to see that show-off Mayweather receive a similar lesson.
As for the Kessler fight, he, too, was regarded as virtually unbeatable and, indeed, Joe had his work cut out earlier on but got him in the end after a vicious body shot broke the Dane’s heart.
Others will recall their own favourite Calzaghe moments but the verdict is unarguable.
Incidentally, don’t forget that once Joe’s talents were revealed early on most of the credible opposition practised every connivance known to man to avoid him. Familiar story.
Let’s petition Her Majesty to award a richly deserved Knighthood (or should it be a Peerage?).

I think the issue really is that Joe's talent and Joe's record tell two different stories, and whilst I don't see how anyone can challenge that he was a supremely talented individual, similarly I don't see how anyone can challenge the fact that that talent has been tarnished by numerous soft touch fights.

It was a long career but much of it was not illustrious - which is where peoples criticisms stem from. The three incidents you cite are probably the only three time JC was in something viewed as an even fight in his 46 fight career, which underlines that he didn't fight good enough opponents often enough.

Although Lacy was much vaunted - he had delivered relatively little, only really taking the scalp of Syd Vanderpool and having a decorated amateur career before facing Calzaghe. Whilst it is one of his finest wins, Lacy himself was unproven at the time, and hype does not make one a good or a proven fighter.

I think JC started a warm favourite for the Kessler fight, so wouldn't say he was regarded as unbeatable. But he is without doubt the best guy Joe fought an dno shame in that, he is a class act and this was a fine victory.

Are you suggesting JC was ducked by other fighters around at the time? I think it's six of one half a dozen of the other. Ottke probably didn't want to go to Wales, but JC wouldn't go to Germany. He was good enough to win these fights and in my opinion has compromised his legacy by not taking the risk of travelling abroad and fighting Ottke, Beyer, Lucas, Danny Green and others when they were belt holders. He could have had a glittering cv, instead he has left himself open to derision - no one is to blame for that except he and Frank Warren. He chose to stay in his comfort zone, when his skills warranted far more.

Oh well, he's rubbish then!

You or I could easily maintain that level of fitness for so many years and we could oh so easily stay unbeaten for..how many fights was it?

Not sure anyone has argued he is rubbish. There is a lot of space between rubbish and a legend.

I don't remember this "viscous" body shot.

Azabache wrote:Oh well, he's rubbish then!

You or I could easily maintain that level of fitness for so many years and we could oh so easily stay unbeaten for..how many fights was it?

Read my opening paragraph.

I wonder if Calzaghe had been around in the seventies, if there would be such a need by some writers to talk him up, in an era where there was almost an embarrassment of riches. Is he really an icon of his sport, in global terms, in the same way as men such as Barry John, Gareth Edwards, JPR, Mervyn Davies, and of course the incomparable Gerald Davies? You could name several others.


That said he was a very fine fighter, and the consensus on here is that he sits inside the top ten fighters to come from these isles at around the six or seven mark.


ATG status though is usually only reserved for the top three or four from Britain, so his critics are arguing, not that he was a fine boxer, but that his record doesn't qualify him for ATG status. If however you disagree, and believe he could and should displace any of those top three or four, then no doubt you think he does qualify.

If he was here in the 70's he would have had to fight better fighters and there would be no need to talk him up. I rate Joe highly and have long been a big fan but I can't argue with the fact that many of his opponents were poor. As someone above said there is a margin between his talent and his record (or something along those lines) and it is him and Warren who are to blame.