Joe Calzaghe

First topic message reminder :

On this day in 2009 Joe Calzaghe announced his retirement with a record of 46 (32)-0-0, as a two weight unbeaten World Champion.

What was your take on Joe Calzaghe?

In fairness on this occassion Haz is right, it really is not a contest, Lewis has a record full of very good wins and a couple of great ones whilst Calzaghe has very few.

Lewis- Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker, Morrison, Tua, Golota, Briggs, Holyfield, Vitali, Grant, Mason, Tyson, McCall, Akinwande, Mavrovic, Botha and Rahman

Calzaghe- Eubank, Woodhall, Reid, Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins, Jones, Mitchell, Brewer and Bika

Another difference between the two is their routes to the title, Lewis went the traditional way of European, Commonwealth and British titles whereas Calzaghe fast tracked to the WBO. Lewis did clean out the division, he beat his greatest challengers and he did beat a few of the new bread, the latter is certainly not true of Calzaghe.

He isn't right....I'm not right either...

If someone has Louis number 1 heavy as many do then they aren't wrong even if I think it's a joke...

It's about opinions....

Happy for people to have Lewis higher..

Great fighter...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Never said he wasn't avoided....

The fact remains undefeated Bowe raises Lewis to the next level..

Say it again I have no beef with posters who have Lewis higher...

I just think there is a case for Calzaghe..

Depending on how much you invest into someone being laid out twice..

Some invest more than others..

He avenged those losses, though. Big plus.

Calzaghe spent most of his career milking a WBO belt. He had to be forced into facing Lacey. The Kessler win was his best (that Kessler was a better fighter than Froch) and the Hopkins win is notable (especially considering he had to climb off the floor and contend with Hopkins' ridiculous histrionics).

Lewis looked like God against Ruddock, Golota, Grant, Botha etc. He has that good brace of wins over Holyfield, the fabulous Rahman leveller (he was perfect that night) and the win over Vitali (when he was shot).

He has a better championship reign, was avoided for years and scored most of his best wins on the road. Bruno, Morrison, Mercer etc. knock spots off the likes of Woodhall, Reid and the German guy.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He isn't right....I'm not right either...

If someone has Louis number 1 heavy as many do then they aren't wrong even if I think it's a joke...

It's about opinions....

Happy for people to have Lewis higher..

Great fighter...

Some opinions are better thought out than others, though!

Hammersmith harrier wrote:In fairness on this occassion Haz is right, it really is not a contest, Lewis has a record full of very good wins and a couple of great ones whilst Calzaghe has very few.

Lewis- Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker, Morrison, Tua, Golota, Briggs, Holyfield, Vitali, Grant, Mason, Tyson, McCall, Akinwande, Mavrovic, Botha and Rahman

Calzaghe- Eubank, Woodhall, Reid, Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins, Jones, Mitchell, Brewer and Bika

Another difference between the two is their routes to the title, Lewis went the traditional way of European, Commonwealth and British titles whereas Calzaghe fast tracked to the WBO. Lewis did clean out the division, he beat his greatest challengers and he did beat a few of the new bread, the latter is certainly not true of Calzaghe.

Good argument and nice someone can put it forward without chucking in first grade insults..

I invest more into defeats than  you do....Shouldn't be getting squashed by journeymen...You've overlooked the negative. .

But fairplay..

Second best boxer from Wales behind Wilde. Top three from Britain - joint with Lewis.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:In fairness on this occassion Haz is right, it really is not a contest, Lewis has a record full of very good wins and a couple of great ones whilst Calzaghe has very few.

Lewis- Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker, Morrison, Tua, Golota, Briggs, Holyfield, Vitali, Grant, Mason, Tyson, McCall, Akinwande, Mavrovic, Botha and Rahman

Calzaghe- Eubank, Woodhall, Reid, Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins, Jones, Mitchell, Brewer and Bika

Another difference between the two is their routes to the title, Lewis went the traditional way of European, Commonwealth and British titles whereas Calzaghe fast tracked to the WBO. Lewis did clean out the division, he beat his greatest challengers and he did beat a few of the new bread, the latter is certainly not true of Calzaghe.

Good argument and nice someone can put it forward without chucking in first grade insults..

I invest more into defeats than  you do....Shouldn't be getting squashed by journeymen...You've overlooked the negative. .

But fairplay..

Agree with Truss here, when assessing Lewis' career nobody ever considers those heavy defeats and how he shouldn't really be losing to those fighters (even if he avenged them).

The Vitali argument is also ludicrous given that it was stopped due to injury.

shenglong2015 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:In fairness on this occassion Haz is right, it really is not a contest, Lewis has a record full of very good wins and a couple of great ones whilst Calzaghe has very few.

Lewis- Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker, Morrison, Tua, Golota, Briggs, Holyfield, Vitali, Grant, Mason, Tyson, McCall, Akinwande, Mavrovic, Botha and Rahman

Calzaghe- Eubank, Woodhall, Reid, Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins, Jones, Mitchell, Brewer and Bika

Another difference between the two is their routes to the title, Lewis went the traditional way of European, Commonwealth and British titles whereas Calzaghe fast tracked to the WBO. Lewis did clean out the division, he beat his greatest challengers and he did beat a few of the new bread, the latter is certainly not true of Calzaghe.

Good argument and nice someone can put it forward without chucking in first grade insults..

I invest more into defeats than  you do....Shouldn't be getting squashed by journeymen...You've overlooked the negative. .

But fairplay..

Agree with Truss here, when assessing Lewis' career nobody ever considers those heavy defeats and how he shouldn't really be losing to those fighters (even if he avenged them).

The Vitali argument is also ludicrous given that it was stopped due to injury.

I count those losses. As it is, I have Lewis just ahead of Calzaghe. If it wasn't for those losses, I would have Lewis miles and miles ahead of Calzaghe.

Atila wrote:

shenglong2015 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:In fairness on this occassion Haz is right, it really is not a contest, Lewis has a record full of very good wins and a couple of great ones whilst Calzaghe has very few.

Lewis- Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker, Morrison, Tua, Golota, Briggs, Holyfield, Vitali, Grant, Mason, Tyson, McCall, Akinwande, Mavrovic, Botha and Rahman

Calzaghe- Eubank, Woodhall, Reid, Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins, Jones, Mitchell, Brewer and Bika

Another difference between the two is their routes to the title, Lewis went the traditional way of European, Commonwealth and British titles whereas Calzaghe fast tracked to the WBO. Lewis did clean out the division, he beat his greatest challengers and he did beat a few of the new bread, the latter is certainly not true of Calzaghe.

Good argument and nice someone can put it forward without chucking in first grade insults..

I invest more into defeats than  you do....Shouldn't be getting squashed by journeymen...You've overlooked the negative. .

But fairplay..

Agree with Truss here, when assessing Lewis' career nobody ever considers those heavy defeats and how he shouldn't really be losing to those fighters (even if he avenged them).

The Vitali argument is also ludicrous given that it was stopped due to injury.

I count those losses. As it is, I have Lewis just ahead of Calzaghe. If it wasn't for those losses, I would have Lewis miles and miles ahead of Calzaghe.

Do you accept then that he lost to two fighters he should not have lost to?

shenglong2015 wrote:

Atila wrote:

shenglong2015 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:In fairness on this occassion Haz is right, it really is not a contest, Lewis has a record full of very good wins and a couple of great ones whilst Calzaghe has very few.

Lewis- Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker, Morrison, Tua, Golota, Briggs, Holyfield, Vitali, Grant, Mason, Tyson, McCall, Akinwande, Mavrovic, Botha and Rahman

Calzaghe- Eubank, Woodhall, Reid, Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins, Jones, Mitchell, Brewer and Bika

Another difference between the two is their routes to the title, Lewis went the traditional way of European, Commonwealth and British titles whereas Calzaghe fast tracked to the WBO. Lewis did clean out the division, he beat his greatest challengers and he did beat a few of the new bread, the latter is certainly not true of Calzaghe.

Good argument and nice someone can put it forward without chucking in first grade insults..

I invest more into defeats than  you do....Shouldn't be getting squashed by journeymen...You've overlooked the negative. .

But fairplay..

Agree with Truss here, when assessing Lewis' career nobody ever considers those heavy defeats and how he shouldn't really be losing to those fighters (even if he avenged them).

The Vitali argument is also ludicrous given that it was stopped due to injury.

I count those losses. As it is, I have Lewis just ahead of Calzaghe. If it wasn't for those losses, I would have Lewis miles and miles ahead of Calzaghe.

Do you accept then that he lost to two fighters he should not have lost to?

Anyone can lose a fight. Henry Armstrong, Sugar Ray Robinson, Joe Louis, Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, Muhammad Ali etc.. all lost to fighters that they "shouldn't have lost to". The fact is though, Lewis made up for those losses.

Anyone can lose a fight..

Which makes Calzaghe's record look better....

But I have no problem with those who have Lewis higher..

Just think Joe is being under sold.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Is there any logical argument against Lewis being Britain's greatest fighter - other than Jimmy Wilde.

Calzaghe is a tad overrated. Great late flourish to his career but the majority of that WBO reign was pretty turgid.

The Lewis', Wilde and Buchanan are the clear top four with Driscoll, Berg, Hamed, Conteh, Welsh, Calzaghe, Froch, Moran, Lynch and Winstone rounding off a top 14.

You got to be kidding me, you have seriously not got Ted Kid Lewis in your top 4 he is regarded by most boxing historians as our greatest fighter ever, most of the names you have put there are not even fit to be on the same post as him. The only debate i can see in terms of best British fighter is number 1 is which Lewis you like Ted Kid or Lennox and in fairness to Haz, Jimmy Wilde.
Calzaghe was a top fighter no doubt, but his record would look different if he had left these shores and took on the tough challenges like fight a younger Roy Jones because i think he would have been outclassed and stopped, i also think a fresher Hopkins beats him comfortably. I had the Robin Reid fight as a draw and he didn't want any part of a rematch either. That said for me JC is definitely well into top 10 in all time Brits list.

Atila wrote:

shenglong2015 wrote:

Atila wrote:

shenglong2015 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:In fairness on this occassion Haz is right, it really is not a contest, Lewis has a record full of very good wins and a couple of great ones whilst Calzaghe has very few.

Lewis- Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker, Morrison, Tua, Golota, Briggs, Holyfield, Vitali, Grant, Mason, Tyson, McCall, Akinwande, Mavrovic, Botha and Rahman

Calzaghe- Eubank, Woodhall, Reid, Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins, Jones, Mitchell, Brewer and Bika

Another difference between the two is their routes to the title, Lewis went the traditional way of European, Commonwealth and British titles whereas Calzaghe fast tracked to the WBO. Lewis did clean out the division, he beat his greatest challengers and he did beat a few of the new bread, the latter is certainly not true of Calzaghe.

Good argument and nice someone can put it forward without chucking in first grade insults..

I invest more into defeats than  you do....Shouldn't be getting squashed by journeymen...You've overlooked the negative. .

But fairplay..

Agree with Truss here, when assessing Lewis' career nobody ever considers those heavy defeats and how he shouldn't really be losing to those fighters (even if he avenged them).

The Vitali argument is also ludicrous given that it was stopped due to injury.

I count those losses. As it is, I have Lewis just ahead of Calzaghe. If it wasn't for those losses, I would have Lewis miles and miles ahead of Calzaghe.

Do you accept then that he lost to two fighters he should not have lost to?

Anyone can lose a fight. Henry Armstrong, Sugar Ray Robinson, Joe Louis, Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, Muhammad Ali etc.. all lost to fighters that they "shouldn't have lost to". The fact is though, Lewis made up for those losses.

Calzaghe didnt

shenglong2015 wrote:

Atila wrote:

shenglong2015 wrote:

Atila wrote:

shenglong2015 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:In fairness on this occassion Haz is right, it really is not a contest, Lewis has a record full of very good wins and a couple of great ones whilst Calzaghe has very few.

Lewis- Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker, Morrison, Tua, Golota, Briggs, Holyfield, Vitali, Grant, Mason, Tyson, McCall, Akinwande, Mavrovic, Botha and Rahman

Calzaghe- Eubank, Woodhall, Reid, Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins, Jones, Mitchell, Brewer and Bika

Another difference between the two is their routes to the title, Lewis went the traditional way of European, Commonwealth and British titles whereas Calzaghe fast tracked to the WBO. Lewis did clean out the division, he beat his greatest challengers and he did beat a few of the new bread, the latter is certainly not true of Calzaghe.

Good argument and nice someone can put it forward without chucking in first grade insults..

I invest more into defeats than  you do....Shouldn't be getting squashed by journeymen...You've overlooked the negative. .

But fairplay..

Agree with Truss here, when assessing Lewis' career nobody ever considers those heavy defeats and how he shouldn't really be losing to those fighters (even if he avenged them).

The Vitali argument is also ludicrous given that it was stopped due to injury.

I count those losses. As it is, I have Lewis just ahead of Calzaghe. If it wasn't for those losses, I would have Lewis miles and miles ahead of Calzaghe.

Do you accept then that he lost to two fighters he should not have lost to?

Anyone can lose a fight. Henry Armstrong, Sugar Ray Robinson, Joe Louis, Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, Muhammad Ali etc.. all lost to fighters that they "shouldn't have lost to". The fact is though, Lewis made up for those losses.

Calzaghe didnt

Rematched Mario Veit but not Robin Reid?

Hagler didn't rematch Hearns but rematches Obelmijas..

It happens..

I know but fanboys see this as irrelevant because Joe never lost. Even Floyd had two rematches after relatively competitive fights

shenglong2015 wrote:

Atila wrote:

shenglong2015 wrote:

Atila wrote:

shenglong2015 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:In fairness on this occassion Haz is right, it really is not a contest, Lewis has a record full of very good wins and a couple of great ones whilst Calzaghe has very few.

Lewis- Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker, Morrison, Tua, Golota, Briggs, Holyfield, Vitali, Grant, Mason, Tyson, McCall, Akinwande, Mavrovic, Botha and Rahman

Calzaghe- Eubank, Woodhall, Reid, Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins, Jones, Mitchell, Brewer and Bika

Another difference between the two is their routes to the title, Lewis went the traditional way of European, Commonwealth and British titles whereas Calzaghe fast tracked to the WBO. Lewis did clean out the division, he beat his greatest challengers and he did beat a few of the new bread, the latter is certainly not true of Calzaghe.

Good argument and nice someone can put it forward without chucking in first grade insults..

I invest more into defeats than  you do....Shouldn't be getting squashed by journeymen...You've overlooked the negative. .

But fairplay..

Agree with Truss here, when assessing Lewis' career nobody ever considers those heavy defeats and how he shouldn't really be losing to those fighters (even if he avenged them).

The Vitali argument is also ludicrous given that it was stopped due to injury.

I count those losses. As it is, I have Lewis just ahead of Calzaghe. If it wasn't for those losses, I would have Lewis miles and miles ahead of Calzaghe.

Do you accept then that he lost to two fighters he should not have lost to?

Anyone can lose a fight. Henry Armstrong, Sugar Ray Robinson, Joe Louis, Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, Muhammad Ali etc.. all lost to fighters that they "shouldn't have lost to". The fact is though, Lewis made up for those losses.

Calzaghe didnt

Good for Joe. You must rate Kell Brook very highly then, seeing as how he hasn't lost.

Warren syndrome...Dave..

It does hurt Calzaghe I agree..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Warren syndrome...Dave..

It does hurt Calzaghe I agree..

People only really warmed to Eubank after he took on the toughest fights at the end of his career against JC and carl Thompson. I'm willing to wager that had Calzaghe fought and even lost to the likes of RJJ in his pomp he'd be even more well thought of for giving it a go.

Think Benn and Watson are being disrespected a little there..

Eubank's personality was his problem. .

Still is..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:In fairness on this occassion Haz is right, it really is not a contest, Lewis has a record full of very good wins and a couple of great ones whilst Calzaghe has very few.

Lewis- Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker, Morrison, Tua, Golota, Briggs, Holyfield, Vitali, Grant, Mason, Tyson, McCall, Akinwande, Mavrovic, Botha and Rahman

Calzaghe- Eubank, Woodhall, Reid, Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins, Jones, Mitchell, Brewer and Bika

Another difference between the two is their routes to the title, Lewis went the traditional way of European, Commonwealth and British titles whereas Calzaghe fast tracked to the WBO. Lewis did clean out the division, he beat his greatest challengers and he did beat a few of the new bread, the latter is certainly not true of Calzaghe.

Good argument and nice someone can put it forward without chucking in first grade insults..

I invest more into defeats than  you do....Shouldn't be getting squashed by journeymen...You've overlooked the negative. .

But fairplay..

do think you have to equate the division he's fighting in, he was knocked out. it happens all the time in heavyweight division with the amount of power the fighters carry. its hardly like he was outboxed in any. calzaghe got hit clean by hopkins and old jones not particular heavy punchers (well jones by that point wasnt). you get hit clean in the heavyweight division you get punished more often and you margin for error is a lot smaller

Calzaghe DID (IMO) clear out the division. Won the IBF by beating Lacy. Then the WBA/WBC the next year by beating Kessler. The toughest tests at the time (Hopkins, Tarver, Taylor, Pavlik?) were not fighting in his division at that point.

Shame it came a bit late.

James Toney and Roy Jones would have probably been too much for him, but their reigns at SMW came way before Joe's peak. They're the guys that Benn and Eubank should have been fighting!

compelling and rich wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:In fairness on this occassion Haz is right, it really is not a contest, Lewis has a record full of very good wins and a couple of great ones whilst Calzaghe has very few.

Lewis- Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker, Morrison, Tua, Golota, Briggs, Holyfield, Vitali, Grant, Mason, Tyson, McCall, Akinwande, Mavrovic, Botha and Rahman

Calzaghe- Eubank, Woodhall, Reid, Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins, Jones, Mitchell, Brewer and Bika

Another difference between the two is their routes to the title, Lewis went the traditional way of European, Commonwealth and British titles whereas Calzaghe fast tracked to the WBO. Lewis did clean out the division, he beat his greatest challengers and he did beat a few of the new bread, the latter is certainly not true of Calzaghe.

Good argument and nice someone can put it forward without chucking in first grade insults..

I invest more into defeats than  you do....Shouldn't be getting squashed by journeymen...You've overlooked the negative. .

But fairplay..

do think you have to equate the division he's fighting in, he was knocked out. it happens all the time in heavyweight division with the amount of power the fighters carry. its hardly like he was outboxed in any. calzaghe got hit clean by hopkins and old jones not  particular heavy punchers (well jones by that point wasnt). you get hit clean in the heavyweight division you get punished more often and you margin for error is a lot smaller

Marciano didn't lose...Jeffries didn't until the stupid Johnson fight years after retirement. .

They were heavies.

I was always a little cold on Calzaghe when he was fighting, and the passing of time hasn't really done too much to change that. I wouldn't deny that he was a very, very good fighter with an impressive record, but in the proper, all-time sense that's what he is to me; very good, but not great.

I tend to feel that a lot of half-truths, embellishments and myths have been applied to the Calzaghe legacy in recent years. I think he gets let off far too easily for time it took him to unify a title, take on a genuine star name, the way in which he never actively sought the big fights etc.

He was unbeaten, but the problem is his die-hard fans tend to suggest this means he was unbeatable - they aren't the same thing. Appreciate that even against B-Level opponents it's still an achievement to come out on top 46 times on the spin, but for about three quarters of his world championship years he simply wasn't fighting the best or biggest-name opponents available to him. As an example, though not all of Floyd's match-making was tip-top, comparing Calzaghe to Mayweather is absolutely absurd in my opinion. His best wins were the superb performance against the undefeated Kessler and a scrappy, not particularly impressive (though still just about fair, for me) split decision against an ageing Hopkins. Outside of that, solid wins against Eubank, Reid, Mitchell and a domination of Lacy. But that's the form line of a very good fighter, not a great one in my eyes.

If he'd been avoided by the likes of Ottke, or had tried to make an impression at 175 when the likes of Jones and Michalczewski were still there, then I'd cut him a bit more slack. But I've never seen a shred of evidence which makes me think that Calzaghe ever had the remotest interest in making those fights. Sure, Ottke wasn't exactly breaking down walls to get to Calzaghe, either, but that doesn't mean that Calzaghe should get a pass. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that jazz. Ottke doesn't get talked up as an all-time great, whereas Calzaghe does in some quarters. That's the difference.

As Calzaghe lumbered to an unimpressive showing against David Starie on the Tyson-Francis undercard (it's little wonder the Americans weren't too interested in Calzaghe for the two or three years following that), Ian Darke himself noted in his commentary that Calzaghe being a threat, or even opponent, to Roy Jones was a 'ludicrous notion.' Today people talk as if he was always seen as being top drawer, but in reality Calzaghe was generally seen as just another alphabet title holder for a long, long time - he definitely went some way towards correcting that in the final years of his career, but Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins (given the circumstances and timing) and the charred remains of Jones aren't enough to catapult him in to the great bracket, for me. Lacy was the forerunner of Bute it would appear, Kessler's subsequent career show that he himself wasn't from the elite (albeit he likewise was very good) and the way that Calzaghe against a past-prime Hopkins unfolded leaves serious doubt about whether he'd have been able to get the job done against a better version of B-Hop.

A great of these Isles, but not of boxing in general, for me. I'd put him behind Lewis.

Ian Darke himself noted in his commentary that Calzaghe being a threat, or even opponent, to Roy Jones was a 'ludicrous notion.'

Don't see why it's ludicrous given some of the dross Jones opted to fight during his LH tenure. Nothing to suggest JC wouldn't have been as competitive, if not more so that the likes of Rich Hall, David Telesco etc and nothing to indicate that, outside of a fear of flying, there was any reason why he couldn't make the trip across the pond and the necessary jump in weight to at least have a go.

I think, also, there's a bit of revisionism at work with regard to Joe's career. Like Hopkins at middle, Calzaghe held a portion of a championship for much of his career and, after he ultimately became undisputed champ, there was a notion he'd been the real champion all along.

In reality: Calzaghe was a top contender at 168 for much of his career. He ultimately became super middleweight champion against Kessler and made only two defences (against Manfredo and Bika). He then became light heavyweight boss against Hopkins 9a top achievement) but defended only once against a shot fighter.

Don't wanna start murder but just want to ask a general question, if Joe Clazaghe was English and not Welsh do you believe opinions on him would differ?

I just feel that his record his head and shoulders above Prince Naz for example but the two of them are viewed differently when looking at world level fighters.....

shenglong2015 wrote:Don't wanna start murder but just want to ask a general question, if Joe Clazaghe was English and not Welsh do you believe opinions on him would differ?

I just feel that his record his head and shoulders above Prince Naz for example but the two of them are viewed differently when looking at world level fighters.....

No, I don't think so. I think Calzaghe is, in the main, regarded more highly than Naz (who is often highlighted as a bit of a wasted talent).

Interestingly, both were regarded as the true champ in their respective divisions - a feat which is pretty rare for a Brit. The only others from recent memory are: Hatton (light welter), Haye (cruiser), Lewis (heavy) and Fury (heavy).

shenglong2015 wrote:Don't wanna start murder but just want to ask a general question, if Joe Clazaghe was English and not Welsh do you believe opinions on him would differ?

I just feel that his record his head and shoulders above Prince Naz for example but the two of them are viewed differently when looking at world level fighters.....

As a Welsh man I personally don't think this is true. Just think Joe didn't have the personality to win fans.

His achievements are more noteworthy than Hatton and if he had the Hatton support he would have been able to get the fights that would have defined him as a great.

He was like a British Andre Ward for much of his career in that he was very skilled but couldn't draw curtains so brought no money but plenty of risk.

Ward probably was more ambitious.....But I get your point...

Stayed with Warren far too long..

shenglong2015 wrote:Don't wanna start murder but just want to ask a general question, if Joe Clazaghe was English and not Welsh do you believe opinions on him would differ?

I just feel that his record his head and shoulders above Prince Naz for example but the two of them are viewed differently when looking at world level fighters.....

Probably yes. Welsh people would not like him as much.

huw wrote:

shenglong2015 wrote:Don't wanna start murder but just want to ask a general question, if Joe Clazaghe was English and not Welsh do you believe opinions on him would differ?

I just feel that his record his head and shoulders above Prince Naz for example but the two of them are viewed differently when looking at world level fighters.....

As a Welsh man I personally don't think this is true. Just think Joe didn't have the personality to win fans.

His achievements are more noteworthy than Hatton and if he had the Hatton support he would have been able to get the fights that would have defined him as a great.

He was like a British Andre Ward for much of his career in that he was very skilled but couldn't draw curtains so brought no money but plenty of risk.

Wasn't Andre Ward involved in the Super 6?

I don't think nationality plays a part at all but no surprise to see who brought that up.

Calzaghe would have had more respect from me if he had fought some of the the other champions instead of clinging on to the WBO all his career and only fought Jones and Hopkins when they were in decline.Lewis for me beats him hands down for the top spot as the best British fighter ever.

I think, there's some fair debate going on re calzaghe's wbo days. The Reid fight was very close. The opposition in general a bit poor, at the time he was getting flak for his fear of flying and for not pushing frank to make the big fights. He seemed happy in his comfort zone.

But to me, there was little doubt you were watching a quality operator, he took most of his opponents apart or outclassed (out slapped!) them when his hands had gone.

Did Chris really compare him to Ottke? I think he did!

The competition may have been similar but the performances were miles apart and you sure has hell wouldn't have any sane champion going to Germany to fight slippery sven...The Reid debacle wasn't an isolated incident... And Sven was never coming to Wales was he?!

He was every bit as convincing as ward was against an unbeaten Kessler (tenuous I know as styles make fights etc). I'd have ward as slight favourite against him but it's a very live fight.

I felt watching the Hopkins fight that it showed maybe JC was just shy of the very elite... Ie it looked likely from that that bhop would have taken him in his prime... Two considerations though. Firstly, although younger, there were signs calzaghe himself had slowed a bit (maybe the weight more than age), secondly bhop has the style to make most look crap. Manny isn't not great because Marquez had his number. The same Marquez that couldn't beat chris John.

On balance, it's true his career took too long to warm up and lacks prime stellar names. He's not on his own there though.

I don't think the gap with Lewis is as big as some because the two defeats do count against Lennox, but I'd still take his record... Just don't think the gap is a chasm.

milkyboy wrote:Did Chris really compare him to Ottke? I think he did!

No no no, not quite milkman! Guess I didn't articulate my point well enough!

No doubting that, in pure fighting terms, there's no comparison at all between the pair. Ottke wasn't in Calzaghe's league; as you say, Calzaghe at least got the job done legitimately and routinely put on exemplary performances, whereas the majority of Ottke's notable victories were generally dubious at best, outright shams at worst. Ottke's best win - in the sense that you can at least make a claim that he possibly nicked the fight - was Mitchell. But even then I had Mitchell edging it narrowly.

My point was more about just how low-risk Calzaghe's career was for the most part. Generally when that particular hypothetical fight gets mentioned, the stock response as to why it never happened is 'Ottke showed no interest' or something along those lines. I don't disagree with that statement at all, but the exact same could be said of Calzaghe in that case - it just seldom is. Calzaghe was the demonstrably better fighter but that doesn't mean he's entitled to zero scrutiny compared to his less gifted contemporaries in that regard.

I just find Calzaghe's ledger a bit thin on real quality for my liking, if we're talking about someone who deserves 'great' status. And I feel the blame is largely at his door for it.

shenglong2015 wrote:

huw wrote:

shenglong2015 wrote:Don't wanna start murder but just want to ask a general question, if Joe Clazaghe was English and not Welsh do you believe opinions on him would differ?

I just feel that his record his head and shoulders above Prince Naz for example but the two of them are viewed differently when looking at world level fighters.....

As a Welsh man I personally don't think this is true. Just think Joe didn't have the personality to win fans.

His achievements are more noteworthy than Hatton and if he had the Hatton support he would have been able to get the fights that would have defined him as a great.

He was like a British Andre Ward for much of his career in that he was very skilled but couldn't draw curtains so brought no money but plenty of risk.

Wasn't Andre Ward involved in the Super 6?

Yes, this is how he has got his biggest fights. People avoid a Ward type fighter as he is very dangerous and there is little money to be made.

Similar to Calzaghe is that big fights were hard to make. Not enough money for the potential risk.

huw wrote:

shenglong2015 wrote:

huw wrote:

shenglong2015 wrote:Don't wanna start murder but just want to ask a general question, if Joe Clazaghe was English and not Welsh do you believe opinions on him would differ?

I just feel that his record his head and shoulders above Prince Naz for example but the two of them are viewed differently when looking at world level fighters.....

As a Welsh man I personally don't think this is true. Just think Joe didn't have the personality to win fans.

His achievements are more noteworthy than Hatton and if he had the Hatton support he would have been able to get the fights that would have defined him as a great.

He was like a British Andre Ward for much of his career in that he was very skilled but couldn't draw curtains so brought no money but plenty of risk.

Wasn't Andre Ward involved in the Super 6?

Yes, this is how he has got his biggest fights. People avoid a Ward type fighter as he is very dangerous and there is little money to be made.

Similar to Calzaghe is that big fights were hard to make. Not enough money for the potential risk.

I'm not sure I'd go along with that. It was Warren and Calzaghe that went along the European route (in old money, the majority of his WBO run would probably have been a European title reign). Calzaghe pulled out of numerous bouts with Glen Johnson (who'd made a name for himself over here via his fights with Clinton Woods) and earned himself a reputation as someone a bit unreliable (a bit of a sick note in the way Haye is perceived today). Warren used the likes of Hatton and Calzaghe to prop up his promotions and Joe seemed fairly happy with being brought along at the pace he was. It took him until his 10th defence to face decent international competition in Charles Brewer (his toughest opponent since an old, moth-eaten Eubank). That drew only 5000 fans and so the feeling was that Joe would have to travel to the US to land a big fight (which he wouldn't do for something like another six years). Hatton went for it (and eventually cut himself free of Warren).

Also I don't recall anyone avoiding Ward - certainly prior to the Super Six (a tournament he started as the 10-1 joint outsider). He was brought along very slowly prior to that.

Afterwards, everyone seemed happt to take him on. Froch refused a rematch but I know Kessler sought one. The sticking point was that Ward wouldn't travel and then got himself in a promotional snafu.

hazharrison wrote:
I'm not sure I'd go along with that. It was Warren and Calzaghe that went along the European route (in old money, the majority of his WBO run would probably have been a European title reign). Calzaghe pulled out of numerous bouts with Glen Johnson (who'd made a name for himself over here via his fights with Clinton Woods) and earned himself a reputation as someone a bit unreliable (a bit of a sick note in the way Haye is perceived today). Warren used the likes of Hatton and Calzaghe to prop up his promotions and Joe seemed fairly happy with being brought along at the pace he was. It took him until his 10th defence to face decent international competition in Charles Brewer (his toughest opponent since an old, moth-eaten Eubank). That drew only 5000 fans and so the feeling was that Joe would have to travel to the US to land a big fight (which he wouldn't do for something like another six years). Hatton went for it (and eventually cut himself free of Warren).

Also I don't recall anyone avoiding Ward - certainly prior to the Super Six (a tournament he started as the 10-1 joint outsider). He was brought along very slowly prior to that.

Afterwards, everyone seemed happt to take him on. Froch refused a rematch but I know Kessler sought one. The sticking point was that Ward wouldn't travel and then got himself in a promotional snafu.

I always felt that Ward couldn't get the fights because nobody wanted to fight him, this is probably an assumption on my part due to the way Froch was never keen and I thought others felt the same.

Difficult to judge Joe without knowing the full story from his mouth. Maybe he was loyal to Warren who was the biggest promoter in the UK and one of the biggest in the world and didn't want to move away from him.

It could have been a confidence thing and he just never backed himself to be able to go to a different country and perform without the comfort of his home nearby.

It was also in his book Ordinary Joe (great read by the way - I have a copy and could pay someone to take it from me) it says there was a fight with Hopkins scheduled and then Hopkins went back on the deal and said he wanted more money. Maybe he just couldn't get the big fights because of situations like this.

For me the biggest problem he had was that it was a pretty poor division when he came into it. Benn, Watson, Eubank, RJJ, Collins, Toney and Hopkins had been around slightly before his time and either retired or moved divisions when fights should have been possible. Had he been around a couple of years earlier he could have got to these guys at the right weight and would have probably beaten most if not all of them. He would then be regarded far higher.

The only fight there that I think he would have struggled with is RJJ and that is mainly because the two styles would be very difficult to predict. Would RJJ's flashy skills have been enough against someone with such high work rate and Joe did pack a pop at that stage of his career or would RJJ have been able to avoid most of the flurries and could him with counters.

People talk about the Hopkins fight being so close it shows that Hopkins would have been able to beat him at Hopkins' peak. Joe was also past his best and whilst I agree that had Hopkins been younger it would have been better for Hopkins it would also have meant Joe was younger so feel this would have again evened itself out and made it another close fight that Joe would have pinched.

Hopkins was 43 .........Age was more of an issue for him than an aging Calzaghe....

The tank goes big style at middle age..

Younger Hopkins would beat younger Joe.....in my opinion.....

Think he rode the Warren bus too long..............Hatton got off it to fight the best....

But he still had a top notch career....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Hopkins was 43 .........Age was more of an issue for him than an aging Calzaghe....

The tank goes big style at middle age..

Younger Hopkins would beat younger Joe.....in my opinion.....

Think he rode the Warren bus too long..............Hatton got off it to fight the best....

But he still had a top notch career....

Hatton leaving Warren meant very little risk for Hatton.

Hatton had the fan base to fill stadiums, Joe had the fans base to fill sports halls.

As boxing fans I think we are in agreement about Joe's standing, one of Britain's best but not quite in that ATG level. Just feel the disagreement is on what he could have done to change this, without the fan base he was stuck to Warren until after the Lacey fight as that fight actually made him the star.

Hatton left so he could get the fights....

Warren has a habit of milking that most dairy farmers would be proud of....

You're proud of Joe and have every right to be..

huw wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Hopkins was 43 .........Age was more of an issue for him than an aging Calzaghe....

The tank goes big style at middle age..

Younger Hopkins would beat younger Joe.....in my opinion.....

Think he rode the Warren bus too long..............Hatton got off it to fight the best....

But he still had a top notch career....

Hatton leaving Warren meant very little risk for Hatton.

Hatton had the fan base to fill stadiums, Joe had the fans base to fill sports halls.

As boxing fans I think we are in agreement about Joe's standing, one of Britain's best but not quite in that ATG level. Just feel the disagreement is on what he could have done to change this, without the fan base he was stuck to Warren until after the Lacey fight as that fight actually made him the star.

I'm definitely not knocking Joe as a fighter. He was one of those rare fighters who could let everything go and keep going round after round. He had
balls, a good chin, could really whack before his hands went and was as game as a rooster.

I remember Hopkins trying that prison stare on him and Joe just laughing like a maniac - he was one of the few who had the jump on Hopkins pre-fight. You couldn't intimidate Calzaghe.

At the time, it was positioned that Calzaghe was fighting a done for old man in hopkins and he was strong favourite going into the fight. But Bhop's ability to negate his opponent's strengths even at the at age had made him beat tarver wand winky in his previous two fights, and destroy an unbeaten pavlik the fight after. It's a result that looks better for Joe in hindsight.

Hopkins had developed a style to negate the years, calzaghe's high output doesn't necessarily lend itself so well to advancing years.

Whichever, I felt calzaghe won the fight but that hopkins looked the better fighter, and i'd have backed him to win had they fought nearer hopkins prime.

Whilst I accept the argument he stayed in his comfort zone, and it annoyed me at the time, there aren't actually many fighters he missed out on. Ottke obviously, glen johnson the other, but johnson was at light heavy for the vast majority of calzaghe's career. It just wasn't a great division.

Moving up to fight Jones is the obvious one, and he is on record as making comments about fighting for money and not chasing risky fights, which don't help him.

I'm surprised to see Haz, not rating him though. It might have been a 'european' route to start with, but where were the big yank names at super middle? there weren't any... there was no de facto number 1 he was avoiding. A bunch of wbc no marks, who couldn't last a couple of defences and super sven (and the ottke fight was always going to be tricky to make).

He stuck at his weight, cleared out his division, eventually including beating a number of past and future belt holders, then moved up. Is that not what you advocate?

milkyboy wrote:At the time, it was positioned that Calzaghe was fighting a done for old man in hopkins and he was strong favourite going into the fight. But Bhop's ability to negate his opponent's strengths even at the at age had made him beat tarver wand winky in his previous two fights, and destroy an unbeaten pavlik the fight after. It's a result that looks better for Joe in hindsight.

Hopkins had developed a style to negate the years, calzaghe's high output doesn't necessarily lend itself so well to advancing years.

Whichever, I felt calzaghe won the fight but that hopkins looked the better fighter, and i'd have backed him to win had they fought nearer hopkins prime.

Whilst I accept the argument he stayed in his comfort zone, and it annoyed me at the time, there aren't actually many fighters he missed out on. Ottke obviously, glen johnson the other, but johnson was at light heavy for the vast majority of calzaghe's career. It just wasn't a great division.

Moving up to fight Jones is the obvious one, and he is on record as making comments about fighting for money and not chasing risky fights, which don't help him.

I'm surprised to see Haz, not rating him though. It might have been a 'european' route to start with, but where were the big yank names at super middle? there weren't any... there was no de facto number 1 he was avoiding. A bunch of wbc no marks, who couldn't last a couple of defences and super sven (and the ottke fight was always going to be tricky to make).

He stuck at his weight, cleared out his division, eventually including beating a number of past and future belt holders, then moved up.  Is that not what you advocate?

I definitely do rate Calzaghe - just think that Lewis had a much better career. Calzaghe eventually cleaned out 168 but his championship reign was gone in an eyeblink - he didn't reign over the division for long at all. I put a lot of stock in fighters who dominate a division which - due to a combination of promotional wrangles, self-doubt and lack of obvious rivals - Calzaghe didn't do until 2007.

He should have fought Ottke earlier and Kessler, too. Kessler was his main rival from as far back as 2004.

He was a legit two weight (lineal) world champ, though, which is huge.

He'd have had to go to Germany for ottke. Look what happened to Reid. Not sure it's a fair stick to beat him with and its the only name missing from his resume at super middle over his era. We all know he'd have mullered him anyway.

Lewis took a long time to unify too Haz and didn't do a whole bundle after if that's your criteria, though granted more than calzaghe.  A few good wins and a knockout from Rahman. The biggest criticism of Lewis after the two ko defeats is that the big names were past their prime.

In both instances you can look at their career and say, that having proved themselves the man eventually, and who they beat over the course of their careers, that they proved themselves the best fighter at their weight of their generation retrospectively. With fragmented belts and politics often that's all you can do these days.

Whichever, Lewis still a better record for me too.

milkyboy wrote:He'd have had to go to Germany for ottke. Look what happened to Reid. Not sure it's a fair stick to beat him with and its the only name missing from his resume at super middle over his era. We all know he'd have mullered him anyway.

Lewis took a long time to unify too Haz and didn't do a whole bundle after if that's your criteria, though granted more than calzaghe.  A few good wins and a knockout from Rahman. The biggest criticism of Lewis after the two ko defeats is that the big names were past their prime.

In both instances you can look at their career and say, that having proved themselves the man eventually, and who they beat over the course of their careers, that they proved themselves the best fighter at their weight of their generation retrospectively. With fragmented belts and politics often that's all you can do these days.

Whichever, Lewis still a better record for me too.

A win over Ottke in Germany would have been huge.

Lewis was ready to unify in 1991 - he was kept away from the championship until 1999 (Ok, he dropped the ball against McCall which didn't help). Olympic gold medallist, undisputed champ (with five defences - should really have been six with the Holyfield draw). 8 lineal defences. He also did it in the US in the main (and was routinely booed throughout). His opposition was a notch better, too.

Calzaghe fought a lot of Warren-type cannon fodder who he shouldn't have even been sparring with. He put in two great performances towards the end of his career. I reckon Lennox put in a fair few more.

They're the two best Brits from the modern era, though, for me (along with Ken Buchanan).

You have to stop Ottke to win in Germany..

Who can blame anybody who didn't have to fight him... avoiding that fight.

Fighters probably thought the same about fighting Calzaghe in the UK, you'd have to stop him to get a win.

Atila wrote:Fighters probably thought the same about fighting Calzaghe in the UK, you'd have to stop him to get a win.

Well they weren't going to outwork him were they, silly argument