Calzaghe, through your eyes; all time great, or all time very good?

First topic message reminder :

Alright chaps, just a quick, simple one here.

Last month OneTwo posted a thread about how strong Joe Calzaghe's Hall of Fame (the rubbish Canastota one, not our exclusive and all-round better one!) credentials would or wouldn't have been had he never faced and beaten Hopkins and the shell of Roy at 175 lb at the tail end of his career, having previously donned at least one version of the Super-Middleweight title for a full decade.

General consensus was that, with that additional swansong at Light-Heavyweight, Calzaghe's career made him a dead cert for the IBHOF, and that even if he'd have called it a day after sewing up all remaining business against Kessler at 168, he'd probably still have enough going for him to warrant his place.

However, as we know, it most certainly doesn't take an all-time great to make the Hall in many cases; Ingemar Johansson, Daniel Zaragoza, Barry McGuigan, Arturo Gatti, Eugene Criqui and a score of others are proof enough of this.

Wider acclaim among hardcore boxing fans means a lot more, I feel, than the call from Canastota. Obviously, we're no paragon of standard setting either; we all have our own ideas of what makes an all-time great, which aspects of a fighter and their career should be prioritized ahead of others, what balance to strike between statistics, the eye test and other elements etc. But I thought it might be a decent idea to put our own standards to the test to see if we can reach any kind of consensus here.

No need to go in to Calzaghe's record in any great depth here to refresh you all on it, of course - we've been there before. So, over to you. Are you comfortable calling Calzaghe a 'great' fighter? Or was he just a great talent, without the necessary achievements to do that talent justice? Was he neither of those things, perhaps?

Any comments appreciated. Ta.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Then again I don't see Calzaghe being laid out by either Johnson or Tarver either, they were of very similar age when the Kessler and Johnson fights happened. I don't think it's fair to say that Calzaghe was at the peak of his powers because by that stage his hands had let him down to such an extent he had no meaningful power and as a result had to rely on his engine to win.

Yeah, but fighters peak and decline at different ages. Calzaghe may have not been at his peak against Kessler but he was closer to it then Jones was against Johnson. It also leads to the question as to when Calzaghe's peak really was as his best wins came late in his career.

Strongback wrote:Kessler would be seen by many as the 3rd greatest supermiddleweight of all time.  He didn't look that basic when he beat Froch even though by that time he was starting to show the wear of a pro career that began when he was 19 years old.

The Calzaghe and Kessler of the night they fought each other  were better than anything Froch has displayed in any fight in my opinion.

Kessler probably is the third greatest SMW of all time but its always been until recently a weak division sandwiched in-between two more prestigious ones. In the same way your mate Haye would be seen by many as being one of the greatest cruiserweights of all time.  
I actually like Kessler but he's always been a pretty standard, upright European style boxer. Accurate puncher with a nice jab but also fairly stiff with slow feet. He beat Froch in a close fight but again, Froch is hardly an astute boxer, more instead a rugged fighter who relies heavily on his physical toughness.

hampo171 wrote:I agree C&R, Joe knew what he was doing. Last fight take a name that is still huge in the sport and making a huge amount of cash.

Plus Tarver was signed to fight Dawson, which he lost and then rematched and Johnson had lost to Dawson in April so not sure he would have even been in contention.

Calzaghe was offered a chance to fight Johson for his first of a 3 fight deal with the American fighters, but instead agreed terms with Manfredo Jnr. Warren and Johnson both seem to have agreed with this. Johnson couldn't make SMW so Warren agreed a catchweight fight. Apparently it was Joe and his fathers decision to take on the easier Manfredo, as they didn't want to risk the Hopkins fight by taking on the more dangerous Johnson.

Joe also turned down an good offer from Pavlik for his final fight, as he didn't want to risk his zero. So took on the easier fight which was Jones.

Then again Lance he took on the far more dangerous Kessler in between the fights with Manfredy and Hopkins which was a far bigger risk.

Benson, it's difficult to pinpoint Calzaghes peak but I don't think it was at the tail end of his career, his hand problems were almost getting the better of him. Although I wouldn't say he beats Hopkins or Jones at their peaks I don't think he gets embarrassed by either and would have given the pair a damn good fight.

Benson

I think the Kessler that Calzaghe fought was much more impressive than the version Froch fought. The level  of the performances in that fight are absolutely exceptional in my view. Kessler is better than a stand up European fighter as I have read a few times on 606V2 but not elsewhere.

I was thinking of doing a "David Haye: What Do You Think He's On" thread. What do you think?  

All depends on where your ATG threshold line is drawn.

If Hopkins qualifies as an ATG then Calzaghe probably has to.

If ATG is reserved only for the likes of SRR, Ali, Mayweather etc, then probably not.

Strongback wrote:I was thinking of doing a "David Haye: What Do You Think He's On" thread. What do you think?  

LOL.
To be honest, I can't see an article like that staying up for very long. It will be taken as being libellous no matter how you try to word it.
To be honest, I think you could replace Haye's name with pretty much every well known HW over the past 30 years and the question will remain the same.

What fights do the board think JC should have taken at SMW?

Were his rivals taking these fights?

ATG for me, definitely British ATG borderline world ATG but I'd say he is just over that line.

Beat Eubank for the title who was a very good fighter.

Beat Lacy who was expected to go on to great things and probably would have if it wasn't for Joe ruining him (look at Foreman after Ali destroyed him).

Beat Kessler who was another very good fighter.

Then you have his victories over BHop and RJJ who are both ATG's.

For me that is a good resume in itself, how many other modern fighters have two ATG's on their record and no blemishes?

So for me that covers opposition.

He was champion for over 10 years, gets the longevity.

He had the talent (haven't seen anyone claim he hasn't).

Unified one division and won another title and became the man (Ring) at another weight.

Was also unbeaten - this is what I think probably lets him down at least in the UK. We like our fighters to have proved they have what it takes to come back from a loss (Eubank was much more popular a fighter after he lost than when he was winning).

I'm not a big fan of doing this as I don't think you should run down another fighter to build another but will try to use this one as just an example to emphasise the point.

Lennox, 3 ATG's on his legder: Tyson, Holyfield, Vitali. Again all late in his career.

Was only champion at one weight (admitedly nowhere for him to have gone).

A couple of losses against far inferior fighters (regardless of whether he made ammends).

Didn't have the longevity.

Yet Lewis would be in for me so I can see no way of saying no to Calzaghe.

Now if we aren't going to put the likes of Lewis or Calzaghe in then it looks like a modern fighter will need a Mayweather like resume to get in and he is pretty unique.