Joe Calzaghe?

Joe Calzaghe.
Modern great?
A career full of stay busy fights after winning a title from a faded euro level world champion?
What's your take?

I think he was great

He beat Hopkins, even though Hopkins got away with all of the cheating in the world

Severely hampered by hand injuries and still managed to take the 0's of Lacy (In an absolutely anihilation) and a Prime Kessler

His resume could have (and should have) been greater but we can say that about a lot of fighters

No chance is he an all time great. Brit great yes. All time great, NO!

I always get torn on Joe, see a few people touting him as an ATG but just don't see it, had some good wins as has been mentioned but think the rest of his record really stands against him (or maybe i'm just being picky?).

Agree with Adam, he's a British great. (and still deserves a lot of respect I might add)

Ten years....and Kessler....Lacy and Hoppo match up to Pedrosa's record..

He's a great apparently..So Calzaghe is too...

Best fighter to come out of the UK that I can remember..

Hearn gets a lot of stick but I imagine Quigg...Crolla etc would still have their belts if Warren were managing them..

How many times did Hatton defend that awful WBU belt..

Calzaghe got lost in easy money Street....Overall though he did enough.

But what is an ATG?

You talking top 200 greatest fighters ever?

Or top 20?

I think he is one of the best super middleweights, if not the best of all time

So if you are a great in a division surely that makes you an all time great

No?

He isn't on the level of Pacquiao, Mayweather or Jones

But if you start talking about greats of a division, then absolutely

I just don't think he is BF, one of these days we'll find something we agree on but not today methinks :-)

I don't really like rating ATG's as i can't justify my opinion over someone else's really and things change often in the sport so how do we really rate them and how far down do we go down an ATG list as you say.

There's greats of the sport and I don't think Calzaghe is one of them as (for me) there just isn't that wow factor with him. Still a great boxer though and definitely deserves our respect.

BoxingFan88 wrote:But what is an ATG?

You talking top 200 greatest fighters ever?

Or top 20?

I think he is one of the best super middleweights, if not the best of all time

So if you are a great in a division surely that makes you an all time great

No?

He isn't on the level of Pacquiao, Mayweather or Jones

But if you start talking about greats of a division, then absolutely

I try to limit it to about 50/60 fighters, so much so that the likes of Benitez and Hearns were great but not ATG's, with that in mind Calzaghe isn't amongst that company so would be a British great.

Still a great boxer, just not SRL like.

He is the best fighter from these shores and has a couple of great wins. Kessler and Hopkins are good scalps.

Myself I rate Hamed higher, on the whole he's got a stronger resume and was simply amazing to watch.

Derbymanc wrote:I just don't think he is BF, one of these days we'll find something we agree on but not today methinks :-)

I don't really like rating ATG's as i can't justify my opinion over someone else's really and things change often in the sport so how do we really rate them and how far down do we go down an ATG list as you say.

There's greats of the sport and I don't think Calzaghe is one of them as (for me) there just isn't that wow factor with him. Still a great boxer though and definitely deserves our respect.

Haha mate maybe we will some day

I wouldn't put him in a top 50 for example (But I know jack all about boxing before my era)

It depends on how wide an ATG list is, but I don't put him on the level of Floyd, Jones, Pacquiao etc

Definitely one of the best from these shores though!

Talent wise he is much better than perhaps his resume is

Probably stayed stuck in the Warren Boxing Organisation for a bit too long

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Myself I rate Hamed higher, on the whole he's got a stronger resume and was simply amazing to watch.

When you put that into perspective, Hamed could possibly be higher and Barrera clowned him, then Pacquiao absolutely battered Barrera, sort of shows how far some of our guys are off that list

Don't think Hamed has a better resume.....Robinson..Boom Boom...Kelly...Ingle and the Irish kid...Isn’t better than Reid...Lacey..Eubank..Hopkins and Kessler..

Before you factor in longevity.

Calzaghe's two wins against Kessler and Hopkins are his saving grace. Of course the one sided dismantling of the hyped Jeff Lacy brought him huge attention. Lacy was never the same after that. Maybe Jeff wasn't that good to begin with. But Joe beat a fellow undefeated champ like he was a novice.

Another frustrating fighter, as in he clearly had it in him to go through every supermid at the time. But you have to think that he was selling out arenas and probably getting 90% of the purse. If he fought the best then his earnings may have not been much more as there would have been a more even split. Shame really. If he did fight Froch and won, then considering what Froch has achieved would have had a good reflection on him.

Warren's WBO days..

An all-time great is what it says - one of the greatest fighters of all time! The very best of the best.

As good a fighter as Joe was, he isn't even close to being in that conversation. He's one of Britain's greatest ten fighters (and I'd fancy he'd be nearer the top of that list than the bottom) but there's an argument over whether he even achieved greatness. He was certainly very, very good.

For me, Lennox Lewis and Jimmy Wilde are the two greatest British fighters who ever lived (depending what you do with Fitz). Calzaghe would be in the following group with Ken Buchanan, Jim Driscoll, "Kid" Lewis et al.
Hamed would maybe make the top ten.

Calzaghe was lineal champ at two weights (which is some feat these days) and a deserved Hall of Famer (based on their criteria).

To put it into some context: Roberto Duran, Ray Leonard and Marvin Hagler are ATGs (top 30 guys). Benitez and Hearns - both of whom lost their biggest fights - were great fighters (and rate somewhere in the top 80 maybe). You could make an argument for Hearns to be a lot higher than Benitez and potentially in the ATG bracket, but it's tough.

Calzaghe probably wouldn't crack a top 100.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Don't think Hamed has a better resume.....Robinson..Boom Boom...Kelly...Ingle and the Irish kid...Isn’t better than Reid...Lacey..Eubank..Hopkins and Kessler..

Before you factor in longevity.

I agree. Kessler and Hopkins are better than anything on Hamed's record.

Just waiting for Steffan to appear now...

I put Calzaghe in the 'very, very good' bracket, not the great one. He just hasn't got the results for that.

All told, he fought 24 world title fights, but only a quarter of those (give or take) were of any real significance if you're comparing his record to other would-be greats; Eubank, Reid, Lacy, Bika, Kessler and Hopkins. Amongst that lot there were admittedly some outstanding performances and dominant wins, such as Lacy and Kessler, but also some really hard slogs where he only just got over the line, like Reid and Hopkins, combined with the dour, ugly win against Bika.

Collectively I think that list of opponents reads good but not great, especially if you factor in Bernard's age when Joe fought him. Yes, he won them all, but the mixed bag of performance quality and dominance in that form line suggests to me that this is where Calzaghe found his maximum level.

How it took Calzaghe so long to take a unification fight at 168 I'll never know. It's not like Super-Middleweight was brimming with quality during his tenure, either; Ottke, Beyer, Liles and the like were hardly crème de la crème, but nonetheless were better than the guys that Calzaghe was feasting off between winning the WBO against Eubank in 1997 and unifying against Lacy in 2006, with the exception of Reid. Most of them held their various titles for a good while as well, so there was a window there.

I'm not putting a guy who spent nine years almost unremittingly happy to rack up defences of a section of a splintered title against generally bang-average opponents in the all-time great bracket. Even if unifying at 168 didn't float his boat during that period, why not look towards 175 to get the juices flowing? We all know the 'Crown Jules' comment he made concerning Jones Jr., but there were the two Johnsons (Glen and Reggie), there was Tarver, there was Michalczewski etc. Ample opportunity to prove his worth on the bigger stage over the years, yet for whatever reason none of this happened.

I've got no doubt that Calzaghe could, and likely would have beaten all of the above I've mentioned apart from a younger Jones, who was just a different animal on a different level. But if you don't make the fights, then you don't get the results and can't get the credit that goes with them.

Longevity not important then Chris ??

Jack Dempsey is great.......Calzaghe beat fighters better than he he fought..

Remember who is great before ruling people out is my advice....

There are levels of great......No one is putting Joe up with Robinson..

But he more than matches the greatness of others.........

Fighters are rated on who they fight not who they don't.......Or else what is the point..

I'd have Louis at 19....instead of 2.

Longevity does matter Truss, don't get me wrong. But it matters a lot less if it exists in isolation and isn't matched with a consistently decent level of opposition. In a career as long as Calzaghe's you have to accept there's going to be some low-key names, but those names were just too frequent when it comes to Joe for my liking. As I said above, there was a seven year run where every single fight was low key in the grand scheme of things!

I think if you're going to stay put in a division for a decade without losing and it's not awash with big names, the least you need to do if you want to be great is go to the trouble of unifying. Now Calzaghe did do that eventually, of course, and deserves credit for it - but the problem is, he left it so late that it gave him very little time left in his career afterwards to build on it. That's the frustrating part, for me. Had had the tools to take care of business at 168 years before he eventually did, which would have left him a lot more time to secure those big-money fights he prioritied towards the end of his career (hence the Jones Jr. farce).

I wonder had Calzaghe been in THIS era, with Social media etc, would it have been different

Probably not as isn't BJS against 37 in the world this weekend.....unless Calzaghe went with Hearn of course

BoxingFan88 wrote:I wonder had Calzaghe been in THIS era, with Social media etc, would it have been different

Probably not as isn't BJS against 37 in the world this weekend.....unless Calzaghe went with Hearn of course

Warren isn't completely to blame here. Calzaghe pulled out of numerous fights. Warren had to pay off Glen Johnson twice (when Calzaghe pulled out) and very nearly pulled out of the Lacy fight (he had to be persuaded to ignore a niggle and persevere).

88Chris05 wrote:Longevity does matter Truss, don't get me wrong. But it matters a lot less if it exists in isolation and isn't matched with a consistently decent level of opposition. In a career as long as Calzaghe's you have to accept there's going to be some low-key names, but those names were just too frequent when it comes to Joe for my liking. As I said above, there was a seven year run where every single fight was low key in the grand scheme of things!

I think if you're going to stay put in a division for a decade without losing and it's not awash with big names, the least you need to do if you want to be great is go to the trouble of unifying. Now Calzaghe did do that eventually, of course, and deserves credit for it - but the problem is, he left it so late that it gave him very little time left in his career afterwards to build on it. That's the frustrating part, for me. Had had the tools to take care of business at 168 years before he eventually did, which would have left him a lot more time to secure those big-money fights he prioritied towards the end of his career (hence the Jones Jr. farce).

Seems like looking for reasons not to make him great buddy in my opinion....

I chuck Jack Dempsey in there who avoided fighters and had a less impressive CV....and Calzaghe needs to unify all of a sudden....

But hey consensus is on your side for what it's worth....and greatness is in the eye of the beholder..

I get your points just think with Calzaghe..Goalposts tend to be moved....Same with most modern fighters....

Think people forget the guys who already make the greatness grade..

I couldn't put JC anywhere near an ATG list. Great boxer, yes. British ATG, yes. Boxing ATG, no. For me, his record doesn't read that well. There are names there, but we aren't talking a prime Eubank, we aren't talking a prime Hopkins and we aren't talking a prime RJJ. Jeff Lacy, good win but now we can look back on it, not all that impressive. Kessler is easily his best win for me. Fighting Peter Manfredo Jr 4 fights beofre retirement doesn't do him any favours in my eyes either.

Why isn't Lacey a good win ??

Nazario beat Rosario after Chavez trounced him....

Do we discredit Chavez win.....No.

EX7EY wrote:I couldn't put JC anywhere near an ATG list. Great boxer, yes. British ATG, yes. Boxing ATG, no. For me, his record doesn't read that well. There are names there, but we aren't talking a prime Eubank, we aren't talking a prime Hopkins and we aren't talking a prime RJJ. Jeff Lacy, good win but now we can look back on it, not all that impressive. Kessler is easily his best win for me. Fighting Peter Manfredo Jr 4 fights beofre retirement doesn't do him any favours in my eyes either.

I said Lacy is a good win

Damning it with faint praise.....

Yes, because I am genuinely not that impressed with it. Who had Lacy really fought before JC? It's hardly a list of A list opposition is it. Then took an absolute beating off of JC and has a very speckled record after that. So no, for me not that impressive. I won't argue with anybody that has a different opinion. But we are talking about ATG criteria here, not just wheher JC was any good!

I actually still rate the Lacy win. Hindsight is wonderful.

Many were picking Lacy to win, including myself. Perhaps he did turn into a bit of a hype job, but he looked pretty good before Joe dismantled him. He definitely wasn't the same after Calzaghe.

I also agree that Kessler is his best win.

AdamT wrote:I actually still rate the Lacy win. Hindsight is wonderful.

Many were picking Lacy to win, including myself. Perhaps he did turn into a bit of a hype job, but he looked pretty good before Joe dismantled him. He definitely wasn't the same after Calzaghe.

I also agree that Kessler is his best win.

33 out of 34 American writers said Lacy was going to destroy Calzaghe

And Calzaghe beat him with one hand

Lacy struggled with the southpaw stance and got an absolute hiding.......Like Rosario v Chavez....

Was he a hype job...Unfortunately we will never know because he got more abuse than any fighter should be exposed to..

Like I've mentioned before......If all avenues are exhausted pull your fighter out....

He should have been pulled out..

It was one of the most one sided 12 round beatings I have ever seen. He should of been pulled out after 8 or 9.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing you are right. And it is easy to dismiss certain accomplishments when you look back on them.

I do think Lacy was a good win, I genuinely do. But, whenever you are talking about putting somebody into a list of ATG's, then surely you always have that benefit of hindsight and in fact to include somebody on such a list, hindsight is actually required!

For me, I just find it hard to rank that victory because of a - how comprehensive it was and b - the fact Lacy was a shell after it. That doesn't mean I don't respect the win though.

EX7EY wrote:Hindsight is a wonderful thing you are right. And it is easy to dismiss certain accomplishments when you look back on them.

I do think Lacy was a good win, I genuinely do. But, whenever you are talking about putting somebody into a list of ATG's, then surely you always have that benefit of hindsight and in fact to include somebody on such a list, hindsight is actually required!

For me, I just find it hard to rank that victory because of a - how comprehensive it was and b - the fact Lacy was a shell after it. That doesn't mean I don't respect the win though.

So Starling gets no credit for Honeyghan.....Who was a shell after and was comprehensively slapped..

Strike Liston 1 and 2 as top wins for Ali....

Nunn destroyed the olympic and number 1 middle in Tate who never recovered.........

Perverse kind of hindsight.......

In fairness though, Truss, it's not just what came afterwards, but what came before as well. Guys like Honeyghan and Liston might have been shells after they lost to Startling and Ali respectively, but they had pretty lofty achievements to their credit beforehand. Honeyghan had toppled the pound for pound number one in Curry, had sparked a future long-reigning 154 lb title holder in Rossi and scored a win over a future lineal Welter champion in Blocker. Liston had annihilated Floyd Patterson, who still had some good fights left in him, two times over and had come out on top of a round-robin with genuinely dangerous Heavyweights like Williams, Folley, Machen, Valdes etc., a couple of whom could certainly have been Heavyweight champion had the brittle-chinned Patterson got round to fighting them.

On the other hand, Lacy's best win before facing Calzaghe was probably Robin Reid (I'm struggling to think of another notable name on his record before that point), and this was a Reid who had already seen better days. It's not as if any of the guys Lacy had beaten went on to do big things after losing to him.

88Chris05 wrote:In fairness though, Truss, it's not just what came afterwards, but what came before as well. Guys like Honeyghan and Liston might have been shells after they lost to Startling and Ali respectively, but they had pretty lofty achievements to their credit beforehand. Honeyghan had toppled the pound for pound number one in Curry, had sparked a future long-reigning 154 lb title holder in Rossi and scored a win over a future lineal Welter champion in Blocker. Liston had annihilated Floyd Patterson, who still had some good fights left in him, two times over and had come out on top of a round-robin with genuinely dangerous Heavyweights like Williams, Folley, Machen, Valdes etc., a couple of whom could certainly have been Heavyweight champion had the brittle-chinned Patterson got round to fighting them.

On the other hand, Lacy's best win before facing Calzaghe was probably Robin Reid (I'm struggling to think of another notable name on his record before that point), and this was a Reid who had already seen better days. It's not as if any of the guys Lacy had beaten went on to do big things after losing to him.

I agree with everything you've wrote........But they were destroyed later on.....Lacy was destroyed earlier....

You can't really use hindsight to suggest it wasn't a top win for JC when you destroy an unbeaten guy rated the best at his weight....Who was a shell after.....

Because everything that came later was irrelevant..

Appreciate that, Truss, but if a guy (even if there's a lot of hype around him and he's looked really good in the early goings of his career) gets hammered in his first really significant fight and then goes on to do nothing afterwards, it's fair enough to question if they were ever really that good in the first place. If, like Honeyghan and Liston, they've got a string of impressive wins to their credit before they get brought back down to Earth, it's a lot harder to do so.

For what it's worth, I think Lacy was a good win for Calzaghe, hence why I mentioned it in his six really significant victories earlier. While I think he was perhaps overrated beforehand to an extent, I think Calzaghe deserves the benefit of the doubt in the sense that Lacy probably didn't achieve anything afterwards because the beating that Joe dished out totally diminished him physically and mentally, rather than being down to having zero talent.

But nevertheless, his lack of big wins either side of facing Joe and the fact that one (albeit very heavy) defeat totally derailed his career means I can't really go overboard in talking up the win. It was a good one, but not great.

The thing is Truss I'm not suggesting it wasn't a top win for JC. It was a very good win. All I'm saying is when you're looking back at a fighters career, you do have the benefit of hindsight so when you are talking about putting them on your ATG list then surely you have to take everything into consideration.

If Lacys record had been better prior to him getting destroyed by JC then I would give it far more credit than I am prepared to right now. And if he'd still gone on to bigger things after the JC demolition job, again I would give it more credit.

Agaij just to reiterate, I am not taking anything away from JC for the beating he out on Lacy, but I'm also not going to go crazy about it when I'm deciding if I feel JC should be regarded as an ATG.

Like a lot on here I suspect I have probably spent more than a healthy amount of time either writing on forums or thinking how Calzaghe deserves to be remembered and his standing in the game and am probably still not satisfied I have 100% answered the question or alighted on a position I will not waver on.
 
I do find a lot of sympathy and agreement with Chris’ position. Eight years into a reign before you even unify a small part of the title is pretty poor going. There is some mitigation in that for the bulk of his reign Ottke was in possession of some of the belts and am pretty sure Sven had little to no interest in fighting Calzaghe, be it here or in Germany. However having said that there were also times the likes of Beyer, Woodhall and Catley were beltholders, at least one of these could and should have been added to his ledger. If claims he was always chomping at the bit for the Jones fight (I have my doubts) were true picking up another belt would have gone a good way to making this happen.
 
However as Haz has said guys who win Ring belts in two divisions nowadays are still pretty rare so Joe’s achievements in doing so should not be downplayed and like Haz if I was to do my top ten Brits again I am confident Joe would still find himself in the top five. Throw into that his first ballot entry to the Hall of fame (deserved in my opinion) and he did not really have too shabby a career.
 
I am not sure if anybody else has seen it, but the documentary Mr Calzaghe is worth a watch. Watching that it gave me pause for thought as to whether all this talk of whether he was an all-time great was looking at his career incorrectly, or at least showed a lack of understanding of what was important to Joe. Watching the documentary it seems clear that what mattered to Joe was that when he started his career he started it with his father in his corner (who had no formal training or experience as a trainer) and that come hell or high water he was going to finish it with him in his corner.
 
Watching the documentary it seems pretty clear that if the price of having greater success or bigger fights was dumping his father or relocating to the US (worth remembering Warren was the only show in town in the UK) it was a price he was not willing to pay. You can argue whether this is small minded or shows a lack of ambition, but for me this is harsh. Look at Hatton, he swapped and changed promoters, secured the bigger fights in the States, but at what cost? He has no relationship with his parents to speak of and clearly struggles with life after boxing. Joe has got out of the game with his brains intact, seems reasonably well adjusted, has a few quid in the bank and he had his father by his side every step of the way and still has a terrific relationship with him. I get the impression he values  the last of these more than anything else, and in fairness he is probably right to do so.

I think Joshua would be Wlad's best win....

If Josh takes a real hiding and loses to Ortiz after then its sloppy seconds..

Unbeaten fighters have plenty of confidence...Not just the physical aspect but the mental one goes after defeat...

Camacho was never the same after Rosario ironically..

I watched enough of Lacy to see had plenty of talent..

My opinion for what it is worth.....Consensus is with you..

Like I said if Rosario had been battered by JCC after beating Ramirez 1.......You could say he never beat anybody......and puke on that win..

What happened later with Lacy really has no relevance...If he'd been pulled out earlier perhaps it would be relevant....

Calzaghe ruined young Lacy - there's no doubt about that. If I had to find an equivalent, I'd go with David Reid's beating at the hands of Felix Trinidad. Like Lacy, Reid was a top amateur, who was good enough to pick up an alphabet belt fairly quickly in the pros. Both looked highly talented (though Lacy seemed better suited to the pros). While Trinindad also effectively finished Fernando Vargas, "El Feroz" was able to hang tough with some good fighters post-Felix (albeit with some pep pills).

Though Camacho was cowed by Rosario, I don't think he was physically diminished (more mentally). And Liston went on a decent unbeaten run after throwing the Ali fights.

The Lacy win was more about the performance. Calzaghe was just unreal in that fight.

BoxingFan88 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Myself I rate Hamed higher, on the whole he's got a stronger resume and was simply amazing to watch.

When you put that into perspective, Hamed could possibly be higher and Barrera clowned him, then Pacquiao absolutely battered Barrera, sort of shows how far some of our guys are off that list

Styles make fights..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

BoxingFan88 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Myself I rate Hamed higher, on the whole he's got a stronger resume and was simply amazing to watch.

When you put that into perspective, Hamed could possibly be higher and Barrera clowned him, then Pacquiao absolutely battered Barrera, sort of shows how far some of our guys are off that list

Styles make fights..

It's a cop out answer but Hamed had mentally checked out years before that fight, it's testament to his ability that he was still beating the calibre of fighter he was. Compare him in the fights with Boom boom and Kelley; in one he was motivated and punch perfect and the other he was showing signs of what was to come, a pot shotter looking for a knock out with one punch.

Bungu, Soto, Ingle, McCullough, Vazquez, Kelley, Johnson, Molina, Medina, Hardy and Robinson is better than Calzaghes reign for sure.

re hamed...&. there's a school of thought that hamed just couldn't cut it when he finally met an a-list operator and another that says if he still had ingle in his corner and his head screwed on the outcome might have been very different. We'll never know for sure, but personally I'm in the definitely a different fight, and likely a different outcome camp. But it's ifs and ands, record books say he lost comprehensively to the best fighter he fought.

As for JC, the record lacks quality, though it looks better in hindsight, as bhop resurrected his career. Watching their fight it seemed hard to believe that calzaghe would have won in bernards prime. Maybe that's a marker.

However, at his best he was a very difficult proposition for anyone. Fast hands, terrific work rate. He was also a brave fighter. For me guys who stand in the pocket and throw combinations, know they're in trouble if they miss and are always open to counters. He did that plenty with some big hitters. Always prepared to take 1 to land 2. My guess is against the true greats that asset might prove his downfall.

Re his other big name fights, Eubank was post prime, Reid is the black mark from a performance perspective. There are caveats with Lacey, although the performance was exceptional regardless, but the kessler fight (with home advantage) was an excellent win against an unbeaten and confident opponent.

Like alway, it depends where you personally draw the 'great' line. I suspect on record he falls just shy for me.

British great

Had Froch problems and Bernard rematch problems towards the end of his career

And before Calzaghe fans have a go at me..

Froch had Triple G problems and Chunky problems at the backend of his career

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

BoxingFan88 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Myself I rate Hamed higher, on the whole he's got a stronger resume and was simply amazing to watch.

When you put that into perspective, Hamed could possibly be higher and Barrera clowned him, then Pacquiao absolutely battered Barrera, sort of shows how far some of our guys are off that list

Styles make fights..

It's a cop out answer but Hamed had mentally checked out years before that fight, it's testament to his ability that he was still beating the calibre of fighter he was. Compare him in the fights with Boom boom and Kelley; in one he was motivated and punch perfect and the other he was showing signs of what was to come, a pot shotter looking for a knock out with one punch.

Bungu, Soto, Ingle, McCullough, Vazquez, Kelley, Johnson, Molina, Medina, Hardy and Robinson is better than Calzaghes reign for sure.

Holding that list under a microscope: Bungu and McCullough weren't featherweights (and Hamed looked poor against Wayne). Vasquez, too, was better at super bantam (and was at the back end of a long career). Billy Hardy - God love him - was a world class bantam but not a world class feather. Johnson and Kelley were faded when Hamed fought them (more faded than Hopkins had been against Calzaghe - if less far gone than Roy).

His most impressive featherweight wins, for me, were Robinson, Kelley, Medina and Ingle. The best fighter he faced took him to the cleaners (in Barrera).

Calzaghe has plenty of Cesar Soto-level opponents: Charles Brewer and Byron Mitchell, for example.

Calzaghe's wins over Kessler and Hopkins outstrip any of Hamed's. While Lacy, Reid, Eubank, Woodhall, Veit, Mitchell and Bika are a solid enough list and a match for Hamed's record.

milkyboy wrote:re hamed...&. there's a school of thought that hamed just couldn't cut it when he finally met an a-list operator and another that says if he still had ingle in his corner and his head screwed on the outcome might have been very different. We'll never know for sure, but personally I'm in the definitely a different fight, and likely a different outcome camp. But it's ifs and ands, record books say he lost comprehensively to the best fighter he fought.

As for JC, the record lacks quality, though it looks better in hindsight, as bhop resurrected his career. Watching their fight it seemed hard to believe that calzaghe would have won in bernards prime. Maybe that's a marker.

However, at his best he was a very difficult proposition for anyone. Fast hands, terrific work rate. He was also a brave fighter. For me guys who stand in the pocket and throw combinations, know they're in trouble if they miss and are always open to counters. He did that plenty with some big hitters. Always prepared to take 1 to land 2. My guess is against the true greats that asset might prove his downfall.

Re his other big name fights, Eubank was post prime, Reid is the black mark from a performance perspective. There are caveats with Lacey, although the performance was exceptional regardless, but the kessler fight (with home advantage) was an excellent win against an unbeaten and confident opponent.

Like alway, it depends where you personally draw the 'great' line. I suspect on record he falls just shy for me.

I think Hamed should have stayed at super bantam. Warren guided him towards Robinson because he was probably the easiest title holder to knock off at that point (with the likes of Barrera and Hector Acero Sanchez at 122 - from memory).

Hamed's motivation never seemed to be the same after Robinson. He made the mistake of getting his family involved in his management and gradually stopped listening to Ingle (while believing divine providence was bailing him out of fights). Compared to what he'd been, he looked rubbish against the likes of Medina, McCullough, Soto, Ingle etc. and it culminated in a Maidana vs Broner-type spanking against Barrera.

I think he'd have had a better career at 122 - and if he'd kept his mojo, would have been in the mix with Barrera, Morales, Jones and McKinney.