Jones and Calzaghe generation

[fist]

Like I said, Calzaghe's career choices are not that bad in context of the era in which he fought. I think it stands up well to his peers.

Shame though that Jones, Toney, Hopkins and Calzaghe (throw in Nunn too) could not have engaged in a true set of rivalries with multiple fights. They all had the ability but in the end lacked the ambition.

When you compare them with the likes of Pac and Barerra who basically took on anyone and everyone in and around their weight classes then I don't think it's close.

Hmm Im not sure about the comparisons to the likes of Barerra, Morales, Pac man etc. They all fought each other and lost to each other at times, with no one dominating. So why do we consider them legends? Or do we? I've always felt the legendary status of these fighters was somewhat mythical. What did they accomplish to make them legends? If one had dominated the rest then fair enough. I am not trying to undermine their achievements or abilities, but there is sometimes a sense of embelleshment around these fighters. Naseem on the other hand, as much as everyone says he was found out in losing to Barerra, I still feel that on his day he was better than any of them. He fought terribly against Barrera, but lets not forget, it was not a shut out and there were no KOs. I wish he had stayed focussed and trained hard because he could have been a legend. Certainly the most entertaining and exciting fighter I have ever seen.

[hitman_hatton1]

debuted since 89.

jones jr
calzaghe
lewis
barrera
morales
pac
oscar
mosley
tito
mayweather jr
winky

out of that lot my top 3 would be.

mayweather jr
jones jr
calzaghe

[observer1]

Hopkins cannot be blamed for a lack of natural opponents - Joe had stacks of fellow champions he never faced.

'nuff said.

Even then Hopkins went against prime fighters as an under-dog.

Calzaghe i think has never gone into a fight as an under-dog. Says alot.

[Asterix]

Hopkins cannot be blamed for a lack of natural opponents - Joe had stacks of fellow champions he never faced.

'nuff said.

Even then Hopkins went against prime fighters as an under-dog.

Calzaghe i think has never gone into a fight as an under-dog. Says alot.

Calzaghe was apparently an underdog against Lacy. Must've been against Eubank as well.

[thepocketrocket]

He wasnt an underdog against Eubank...jesus christ, the revisionism on that one is incredible..Eubank was late notice and had to lose loads of weight, Calzaghe was a bif favourite

[Asterix]

He wasnt an underdog against Eubank...jesus christ, the revisionism on that one is incredible..Eubank was late notice and had to lose loads of weight, Calzaghe was a bif favourite

No revisionism. I wasn't even into boxing back then. Calm down.

[thepocketrocket]

He wasnt an underdog against Eubank...jesus christ, the revisionism on that one is incredible..Eubank was late notice and had to lose loads of weight, Calzaghe was a bif favourite

No revisionism. I wasn't even into boxing back then. Calm down.

Im calm at you mate,I wouldnt start getting tetchy

Ive just been hearing that line for ages, its used as a way of justifying Joes waste of a career

Its the same as Hamed-Kelley...I read an article on my home site of BBN and the write mentioned how many people thought Kelley would have too much for him...I know thats crap, Kelley was being used as a good name well past his best for Hamed to look good in front of the yank audience! Hamed struggled and the hype machine told Joe public what they REALLY thought before the fight

[glahn]

Still no one has presented this mythical list of world class fighters Calzaghe could PLAUSIBLY have faced during his reign. The one most people mention is Ottke, and whilst it's a fight that most people wanted to see at the time I don't think you can say Calzaghe was avoiding Ottke at all. I think Calzaghe genuinely wanted the fight - maybe Ottke even wanted the fight - but the politics got in the way. I'm 100% confident that Calzaghe would have won, either way. It's like the people who criticise Jones for not fighting Michalchewski. Okay, we would have all liked to have seen the fight when they were both in their primes, but does anyone really think Dariusz would have won? Seriously?

Anyway... aside from Ottke, who was there? Also, the people criticising Calzaghe's list of defenses - weak as it unquestionably was at times - need to look at the people Jones fought between Virgil Hill and John Ruiz and then get back to me.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

In terms of top5 wins, I don't think Joe comes near the top since '89

Jones- Toney, Hopkins, Tarver, Ruiz, McCallum/Hill
Toney - Nunn, McCallum, Barkley, Jirov, Holyfield
LEwis - Holyfield, Tyson, Tua, Rudduck, Vitali
Delahoya - Whitaker (controversal), Chavez, Vargas, Quartey (dodgy), MA Gonzalez
Mayweather - Delahoya, Castillo (twice), Corrales, Hatton, Judah/Hernandez
Hopkins - Trinidad, Tarver, Pavlik, Winky Wright, Glen Johnson
Trinidad - Delahoya (dodgy), Whitaker, Joppy, Vargas, Reid
Barrera - Morales (twice - 3times for me), MkKinney, Hamed, Tapia,
Pacquaio - Barrera (twice), Morales (twice), D Diaz
Calzaghe - Hopkins (controversal), Lacy (unproven), Kessler, Eubanks, Mitchell
Hamed - Kelly, Johnson, Sotto, Medina, Bungu/Vasquez

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Still no one has presented this mythical list of world class fighters Calzaghe could PLAUSIBLY have faced during his reign. .

Top Champions/Contenders that he didn't face: Jones (prime), Hopkins (prime - not sure either wanted it enough), Glen Johnson (dropped out 2 times), Otke, Beyer, Vanderpool, Mundine, Reid rematch (it was a controversal SD), Taylor, Pavlik, Froch, Echols, Mads Larson, Branco, Thomas Tate, James Butler, Winky Wright, Chad Dawson, Tarver

[observer1]

Hopkins cannot be blamed for a lack of natural opponents - Joe had stacks of fellow champions he never faced.

'nuff said.

Even then Hopkins went against prime fighters as an under-dog.

Calzaghe i think has never gone into a fight as an under-dog. Says alot.

Calzaghe was apparently an underdog against Lacy. Must've been against Eubank as well.

Against Eubank he was not the Under-dog, Eubank was well passed it by then. He lost 2 of his 5 previous fights before facing Calzaghe (or before Calzaghe decided it was time to Prime v Prime against a Legend).

Eubank lost his next 2 fights after Calzaghe and retired.

Against Lacey, Lacey was expected to surprise and shock the champion. He was the under-dog imo, but was schooled. In Hindsight it's safe to say there was fuss over nothing. Lacey turned out to be yet another over-hyped prospect.

Most fighters have a controversial SD.

Calzaghe's Fight against a 43 year old Hopkins was controversial, but could be argued both ways as to who won. But his SD against the likes of Reid was way too controversial. The fact that Calzaghe did not even have the class to give Reid a Re-Match says alot about him

[Autobarn]

The thing is, a lot of these fighters lost to guys that Joe would end up beating. Beyer & Mundine (Kessler); Catley (Woodhall, albeit controversial); Winky & Tarver (Hopkins); Johnson (Sheika); Liles (Mitchell). Also, guys like Pemberton, Markussen (IBF mandatory), wouldn't come over to fight.

I'm not so sure about Glen Johnson. It seemed to be Calzaghe's ultimate low when he pulled out twice, dismissed Johnson as a journeyman - and GJ goes on to win fighter of the year 2005. IF Joe had gone up & beaten Johnson (IBF light heavy title), he wouldn't have been at super middle for his famous wins over Lacy & Kessler, champions in their absolute primes. So I'm not fussed he didn't fight Johnson (would love to see it now, though - as if, I know...).

There is a lot of revisionism going on. Joe has given us boxing fans some very bad times in 2004 and 2005, and I think we "punish" him for it by saying he should have fought everyone & done everything. Britain was cut off from the boxing mainstream pre 2005. Showtime simply didn't want Joe in big money fights after the Starie and Reid fights (not ready, too messy) in the early '00s.

TV has a big say in what happens. example, I think Naz brought the spotlight to the featherweights (and thereabouts), which probably helped great rivalries between MAB, Morales, Pac, JMM to all happen without too much fuss. By contrast, the likes of Calzaghe, RJJ & Hopkins...HBO made it very worthwhile for Jones just to defend vs the Eric Hardings, Derek Harmons and co - HBO wanted Jones badly, fvck the actual fights - taking easy money in non events. Calzaghe & Hopkins bid their time until all conditions were in their favour, taking big fights on their own terms & getting recognition in their mid 30s when fighters had to come to THEM. Interestingly, Hopkins hadn't even won big fights til he was 36, Calzaghe's age right now...

[BAMBI]

Jones by UD

[fist]

Still no one has presented this mythical list of world class fighters Calzaghe could PLAUSIBLY have faced during his reign. .

Top Champions/Contenders that he didn't face: Jones (prime), Hopkins (prime - not sure either wanted it enough), Glen Johnson (dropped out 2 times), Otke, Beyer, Vanderpool, Mundine, Reid rematch (it was a controversal SD), Taylor, Pavlik, Froch, Echols, Mads Larson, Branco, Thomas Tate, James Butler, Winky Wright, Chad Dawson, Tarver

The only two big names in there that some would say could have beaten Joe are Hopkins and Jones. The former dropped out of a done deal - not Calzaghe's fault. And Jones has said numerous times that they would have fought had it not been for management taking a selective route. Glen Johnson, couldnt have beaten Joe - good tryer, but limited. As for Pavlik, people have only just started calling for that fight and Joe indicated that it could happen, however, its all been scuppered since he got hammered. So that particular fight is not legitmate to point out. As for Froch, he is just a contender and came at the wrong time - maybe if gets a title it can happen. As for Reid, he beat him. Otke - why would anyone want to fight him and have the fight stolen from you. And the others...you mention no great forces, just average to good names, some of which were in different weights.

Its a poor poor list basically, and the same principles could be applied to any fighter including Jones and Hopkins. And dont give me that about moving up weights - Calzaghe earns my respect for sticking at one weight and unifying. It is an absolute rarity to see two undefeated champs in the same division come together to fight it out - and thats why the Kessler / Calzaghe fight gets my respect.

And as mentioned before many of the so-called legends of other weights over the last decade or so are arguably contrived legends - all fighting each other in legendary rematches, all losing and beating each other, no one dominating. So what makes each one a legend? Not much really. US media builds them up and you know what, if Calzaghe had not fought Lacy he would have continued to be hyped up by the US, with people believing he is an awsome force. Lacy was the favourite by far going into that match - he gets schooled, and people immediately state he was overrated, which is probably correct. Many of the so-called living and fighting legends with plenty of losses on their records might also be over-rated, but they are given their dues for beating or drawing with other over-rated fighters.

Calzaghe on the other hand has lost to no one and in beating Kessler I believe he temporarily stopped an excellent fighter becoming great.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Still no one has presented this mythical list of world class fighters Calzaghe could PLAUSIBLY have faced during his reign. .

Top Champions/Contenders that he didn't face: Jones (prime), Hopkins (prime - not sure either wanted it enough), Glen Johnson (dropped out 2 times), Otke, Beyer, Vanderpool, Mundine, Reid rematch (it was a controversal SD), Taylor, Pavlik, Froch, Echols, Mads Larson, Branco, Thomas Tate, James Butler, Winky Wright, Chad Dawson, Tarver

The only two big names in there that some would say could have beaten Joe are Hopkins and Jones. The former dropped out of a done deal - not Calzaghe's fault. And Jones has said numerous times that they would have fought had it not been for management taking a selective route. Glen Johnson, couldnt have beaten Joe - good tryer, but limited. As for Pavlik, people have only just started calling for that fight and Joe indicated that it could happen, however, its all been scuppered since he got hammered. So that particular fight is not legitmate to point out. As for Froch, he is just a contender and came at the wrong time - maybe if gets a title it can happen. As for Reid, he beat him. Otke - why would anyone want to fight him and have the fight stolen from you. And the others...you mention no great forces, just average to good names, some of which were in different weights.

Its a poor poor list basically, and the same principles could be applied to any fighter including Jones and Hopkins. And dont give me that about moving up weights - Calzaghe earns my respect for sticking at one weight and unifying. It is an absolute rarity to see two undefeated champs in the same division come together to fight it out - and thats why the Kessler / Calzaghe fight gets my respect.

And as mentioned before many of the so-called legends of other weights over the last decade or so are arguably contrived legends - all fighting each other in legendary rematches, all losing and beating each other, no one dominating. So what makes each one a legend? Not much really. US media builds them up and you know what, if Calzaghe had not fought Lacy he would have continued to be hyped up by the US, with people believing he is an awsome force. Lacy was the favourite by far going into that match - he gets schooled, and people immediately state he was overrated, which is probably correct. Many of the so-called living and fighting legends with plenty of losses on their records might also be over-rated, but they are given their dues for beating or drawing with other over-rated fighters.

Calzaghe on the other hand has lost to no one and in beating Kessler I believe he temporarily stopped an excellent fighter becoming great.

Its ok saying Joe would have beat everyone but your supposed to prove it in the ring, something he wouldn't do. Just because he ultimately beat men, who beat some of the men he avoided doesn't excuse avoiding others. Foreman could say 'I don't need to fight Muhammed Ali, I beat Frazier and Norton and they beat Ali', but when it came down to it Ali dominated him.

Calzaghe's competition from 2000-2006 (up until Lacy), was piss poor and many of those names on the list were a long way above what he fought, I think he only face 1-2 top 10 opponent in a 5 year period. I take it you weren't following boxing during this perior because Calzaghe was the laughing stock of boxing back then and wasn't thought of P4P top30.

If you think thats a poor list you must think Calzaghe's pre-Lacy resume is piss poor

[stujones]

Still no one has presented this mythical list of world class fighters Calzaghe could PLAUSIBLY have faced during his reign. The one most people mention is Ottke, and whilst it's a fight that most people wanted to see at the time I don't think you can say Calzaghe was avoiding Ottke at all. I think Calzaghe genuinely wanted the fight - maybe Ottke even wanted the fight - but the politics got in the way. I'm 100% confident that Calzaghe would have won, either way. It's like the people who criticise Jones for not fighting Michalchewski. Okay, we would have all liked to have seen the fight when they were both in their primes, but does anyone really think Dariusz would have won? Seriously?

Anyway... aside from Ottke, who was there? Also, the people criticising Calzaghe's list of defenses - weak as it unquestionably was at times - need to look at the people Jones fought between Virgil Hill and John Ruiz and then get back to me.

Good post on Roy, but what Roy did different to Jones was when negotations broke down in the big fights.... Collins, Michaelswecki, Tyson - Joe would seek out a different, meaningful challenge - not continue to fight lesser guys for 8 years. Mainly in moving up or down. But yes, Jones deserves criticisms for not fighting Michaelsweski - and would have been debated much like Joe is now had he not done the Heavyweight thing.

Just for memory - Collins negotation broke down.... Jones moved up, DM negotations broke down.... Jones fought Ruiz..... Tyson negotation broke down..... Jones fought Tarver.

Aside from Michaelsweski, those names you mention are pretty much it for the Light Heavyweights, he fought everyone else of note.

Plus - Hopkins, Toney and Hill are better than anyone Joe fought (outside Hopkins then).

Joe - even Ottke aside could have fought Beyer (the #3 Super Middle post Jones), Echols was championed in the states, Catley beat Beyer and most people saw him beating Woodhall, and Glencoffe Johnson would have been a fantastic fight if Joe would have fought him after his first fight with Tarver.

[fist]

Top Champions/Contenders that he didn't face: Jones (prime), Hopkins (prime - not sure either wanted it enough), Glen Johnson (dropped out 2 times), Otke, Beyer, Vanderpool, Mundine, Reid rematch (it was a controversal SD), Taylor, Pavlik, Froch, Echols, Mads Larson, Branco, Thomas Tate, James Butler, Winky Wright, Chad Dawson, Tarver

The only two big names in there that some would say could have beaten Joe are Hopkins and Jones. The former dropped out of a done deal - not Calzaghe's fault. And Jones has said numerous times that they would have fought had it not been for management taking a selective route. Glen Johnson, couldnt have beaten Joe - good tryer, but limited. As for Pavlik, people have only just started calling for that fight and Joe indicated that it could happen, however, its all been scuppered since he got hammered. So that particular fight is not legitmate to point out. As for Froch, he is just a contender and came at the wrong time - maybe if gets a title it can happen. As for Reid, he beat him. Otke - why would anyone want to fight him and have the fight stolen from you. And the others...you mention no great forces, just average to good names, some of which were in different weights.

Its a poor poor list basically, and the same principles could be applied to any fighter including Jones and Hopkins. And dont give me that about moving up weights - Calzaghe earns my respect for sticking at one weight and unifying. It is an absolute rarity to see two undefeated champs in the same division come together to fight it out - and thats why the Kessler / Calzaghe fight gets my respect.

And as mentioned before many of the so-called legends of other weights over the last decade or so are arguably contrived legends - all fighting each other in legendary rematches, all losing and beating each other, no one dominating. So what makes each one a legend? Not much really. US media builds them up and you know what, if Calzaghe had not fought Lacy he would have continued to be hyped up by the US, with people believing he is an awsome force. Lacy was the favourite by far going into that match - he gets schooled, and people immediately state he was overrated, which is probably correct. Many of the so-called living and fighting legends with plenty of losses on their records might also be over-rated, but they are given their dues for beating or drawing with other over-rated fighters.

Calzaghe on the other hand has lost to no one and in beating Kessler I believe he temporarily stopped an excellent fighter becoming great.

Its ok saying Joe would have beat everyone but your supposed to prove it in the ring, something he wouldn't do. Just because he ultimately beat men, who beat some of the men he avoided doesn't excuse avoiding others. Foreman could say 'I don't need to fight Muhammed Ali, I beat Frazier and Norton and they beat Ali', but when it came down to it Ali dominated him.

Calzaghe's competition from 2000-2006 (up until Lacy), was piss poor and many of those names on the list were a long way above what he fought, I think he only face 1-2 top 10 opponent in a 5 year period. I take it you weren't following boxing during this perior because Calzaghe was the laughing stock of boxing back then and wasn't thought of P4P top30.

If you think thats a poor list you must think Calzaghe's pre-Lacy resume is piss poor

Firstly, you assume wrong. And secondly, my points related purely to the list that was put together about people Joe should have fought. My points still stand - some of its not his fault i.e. the two biggest names mentioned, some of them were pretty average and would have caused Joe no problems, other were different weights, and some he'd already beaten. It just highlights how floored that argument is.

I'll reitterate, Joe lost to no one, and he gains my respect for sticking in his division and unifying. That fight was definately no given for him, but they both wanted to make the fight to prove who was the very best. I respect that.

[stujones]

Fist,

If you are going on should have, would have, could have then wouldn't we have many fights. You can't just dismiss Ottke, Beyer, Johnson etc as people who wouldn't have had a chance so its no problem that Joe fought them. I never thought Joe would have a life and death struggle with Robin Reid and all of these are better than him.

I don't think anyone from Welterweight down could touch Mayweather - does that mean that I wouldn't be fussed to see Mayweather vs Margarito.

[fist]

Fist,

If you are going on should have, would have, could have then wouldn't we have many fights. You can't just dismiss Ottke, Beyer, Johnson etc as people who wouldn't have had a chance so its no problem that Joe fought them. I never thought Joe would have a life and death struggle with Robin Reid and all of these are better than him.

I don't think anyone from Welterweight down could touch Mayweather - does that mean that I wouldn't be fussed to see Mayweather vs Margarito.

Stu I see what your saying and fair enough, but I was simply trying to make the point that the gaps people mention are embellished or at least dis-proportionate to his acheivements, bearing in mind that some of the fights that did not materialise were not his fault and that some of them were less of a challange than some of the fights that did actually happen. I wouldn't be making the point if people did not hark on over and over again with their criticisms. Yes his resume could be better, but it has an array of decent world champs, ex champs and contenders. He's undefeated, unified the division, won the respect of the british public and has the support of many living great boxers. Yes he has his flaws and clearly many on this site have been frustrated with the path he has taken, but those criticsms need to be proportionate IMO.

[stujones]

Fair call, Fist... and contary to the views I would imagine most think I have on Joe - I do rate him, and I aint disputing he is a great. In the Jones, Hopkins, Oscar bracket... no. I would have him in the Casamayor, Wright bracket - which is no mean achievement.

I'm not even frustrated by Joe's career - the boy did good, his proffesionalism needs to be applauded. My main frustration is this "legendary" status he as acquired based on his 3 latter career wins, one of which is in Joe's own words, could have gone either way (and I also think he drew with Kessler, but I'm in the minority there).

I don't think you can say you cleaned out the devision when the two main champions he never faced.... and no, Jones never cleaned out the Light Heavy devision also - but the Heavyweight thing was something special. I have no doubts Beyer would have been game to take on Joe.

[DavidPayne]

Still no one has presented this mythical list of world class fighters Calzaghe could PLAUSIBLY have faced during his reign. The one most people mention is Ottke, and whilst it's a fight that most people wanted to see at the time I don't think you can say Calzaghe was avoiding Ottke at all. I think Calzaghe genuinely wanted the fight - maybe Ottke even wanted the fight - but the politics got in the way. I'm 100% confident that Calzaghe would have won, either way. It's like the people who criticise Jones for not fighting Michalchewski. Okay, we would have all liked to have seen the fight when they were both in their primes, but does anyone really think Dariusz would have won? Seriously?

Anyway... aside from Ottke, who was there? Also, the people criticising Calzaghe's list of defenses - weak as it unquestionably was at times - need to look at the people Jones fought between Virgil Hill and John Ruiz and then get back to me.

I made this point extensively on another thread. A various points the other sanctioning bodies have rcognised;

Glen Catley, Christian Sanavia, Syd Vanderpool, Antony Mundine, Eric Lucas, Markus Beyer, Sven Ottke off the top of my head.

Calzaghe fought Brewer and Mitchell once they lost titles, and in Brewers case been stopped by Echols.

For every Manfredo, Mjkretchen, McIntrye, Thornberry, Ashira, Pudwill there could have been a Johnson, Woods, Reid II, Eastman, Echols or the guys listed above. I appreciate no fighter fights hall of famers in every contest and Mayweather has had some gimme's as has Jones as did Ali but Calzaghe has missed out key bouts, at key times and hid behind the WBO belt or his promoter as his excuse.

I think he's a first class fighter, gifted and unflinchingly professional - though his commentary that he wasn't "fully prepared" for Hopkins left me cold and undermines his status as the dedicated professional he purports to be.

However, there is no escaping he has fought doughnuts frequently, been injury prone and fallen out of numerous fights along the way. He should, in part be grateful, he was kept relevant by his promoter when his fragile body was letting him down. Of course, his marriage break up also seemed to coincide with lots of "injuries".

And I haven't mentioned Tarver, Abraham, Froch, Pavlik, Taylor, Wright, Dawson...........

I recognise Calzaghe's considerable achievements; Eubank (on 12 days notice), Brewer (knocked out 2 fights previous by Echols), Reid (won by a gnats bollack), Woodhall (never fought again), Mitchell (retired for 4 years after bout), Lacy (terrific performance but not the super fight it was regarded as, only the shot that preceded it elevated it above the level Calzaghe should have been on for routine defences) and Kessler (genuine, teak tough, strong leading contender) and Hopkins, was decked and messed around but clearly won.

But if you slotted in a Reid rematch, a Catley and Beyer fight around 2000-2001 and maybe a Mundine fight in 2003 and that Johnson fight in 2004 - there would be preciously little debate, Cal would have been favourite in all and more than likely won and his record would have stood comparison with Jones easily.

Calzaghe is a world class fighter, with 'only' a very good resume. His unbeaten status is a thing to cherish and wonder at, but it would negligent not to apply a context and landscape to how he's preserved it.

[Ezzard]

Like I said, Calzaghe's career choices are not that bad in context of the era in which he fought. I think it stands up well to his peers.

Shame though that Jones, Toney, Hopkins and Calzaghe (throw in Nunn too) could not have engaged in a true set of rivalries with multiple fights. They all had the ability but in the end lacked the ambition.

When you compare them with the likes of Pac and Barerra who basically took on anyone and everyone in and around their weight classes then I don't think it's close.

Hmm Im not sure about the comparisons to the likes of Barerra, Morales, Pac man etc. They all fought each other and lost to each other at times, with no one dominating. So why do we consider them legends? Or do we? I've always felt the legendary status of these fighters was somewhat mythical. What did they accomplish to make them legends? If one had dominated the rest then fair enough. I am not trying to undermine their achievements or abilities, but there is sometimes a sense of embelleshment around these fighters. Naseem on the other hand, as much as everyone says he was found out in losing to Barerra, I still feel that on his day he was better than any of them. He fought terribly against Barrera, but lets not forget, it was not a shut out and there were no KOs. I wish he had stayed focussed and trained hard because he could have been a legend. Certainly the most entertaining and exciting fighter I have ever seen.

By your rationale then I don't think there is a single legend in the generation.

Hamed was IMO embarrassed by Barerra. Exciting and entertaining but not in the same class in the end.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Fair call, Fist... and contary to the views I would imagine most think I have on Joe - I do rate him, and I aint disputing he is a great. In the Jones, Hopkins, Oscar bracket... no. I would have him in the Casamayor, Wright bracket - which is no mean achievement.

I'm not even frustrated by Joe's career - the boy did good, his proffesionalism needs to be applauded. My main frustration is this "legendary" status he as acquired based on his 3 latter career wins, one of which is in Joe's own words, could have gone either way (and I also think he drew with Kessler, but I'm in the minority there).

I don't think you can say you cleaned out the devision when the two main champions he never faced.... and no, Jones never cleaned out the Light Heavy devision also - but the Heavyweight thing was something special. I have no doubts Beyer would have been game to take on Joe.

Cannot see how on earth you had the fight with Kessler a draw Stu, I respect your opinion on most things, but you really must have had shit in your eye.

I agree about the bullshit regarding Calzaghe's legend. Were he not still unbeaten, nobody would be talking like that, and I have to say part of me secretly hopes he loses to Jones just to stop all the talk.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Still no one has presented this mythical list of world class fighters Calzaghe could PLAUSIBLY have faced during his reign. The one most people mention is Ottke, and whilst it's a fight that most people wanted to see at the time I don't think you can say Calzaghe was avoiding Ottke at all. I think Calzaghe genuinely wanted the fight - maybe Ottke even wanted the fight - but the politics got in the way. I'm 100% confident that Calzaghe would have won, either way. It's like the people who criticise Jones for not fighting Michalchewski. Okay, we would have all liked to have seen the fight when they were both in their primes, but does anyone really think Dariusz would have won? Seriously?

Anyway... aside from Ottke, who was there? Also, the people criticising Calzaghe's list of defenses - weak as it unquestionably was at times - need to look at the people Jones fought between Virgil Hill and John Ruiz and then get back to me.

I made this point extensively on another thread. A various points the other sanctioning bodies have rcognised;

Glen Catley, Christian Sanavia, Syd Vanderpool, Antony Mundine, Eric Lucas, Markus Beyer, Sven Ottke off the top of my head.

Calzaghe fought Brewer and Mitchell once they lost titles, and in Brewers case been stopped by Echols.

For every Manfredo, Mjkretchen, McIntrye, Thornberry, Ashira, Pudwill there could have been a Johnson, Woods, Reid II, Eastman, Echols or the guys listed above. I appreciate no fighter fights hall of famers in every contest and Mayweather has had some gimme's as has Jones as did Ali but Calzaghe has missed out key bouts, at key times and hid behind the WBO belt or his promoter as his excuse.

I think he's a first class fighter, gifted and unflinchingly professional - though his commentary that he wasn't "fully prepared" for Hopkins left me cold and undermines his status as the dedicated professional he purports to be.

However, there is no escaping he has fought doughnuts frequently, been injury prone and fallen out of numerous fights along the way. He should, in part be grateful, he was kept relevant by his promoter when his fragile body was letting him down. Of course, his marriage break up also seemed to coincide with lots of "injuries".

And I haven't mentioned Tarver, Abraham, Froch, Pavlik, Taylor, Wright, Dawson...........

I recognise Calzaghe's considerable achievements; Eubank (on 12 days notice), Brewer (knocked out 2 fights previous by Echols), Reid (won by a gnats bollack), Woodhall (never fought again), Mitchell (retired for 4 years after bout), Lacy (terrific performance but not the super fight it was regarded as, only the shot that preceded it elevated it above the level Calzaghe should have been on for routine defences) and Kessler (genuine, teak tough, strong leading contender) and Hopkins, was decked and messed around but clearly won.

But if you slotted in a Reid rematch, a Catley and Beyer fight around 2000-2001 and maybe a Mundine fight in 2003 and that Johnson fight in 2004 - there would be preciously little debate, Cal would have been favourite in all and more than likely won and his record would have stood comparison with Jones easily.

Calzaghe is a world class fighter, with 'only' a very good resume. His unbeaten status is a thing to cherish and wonder at, but it would negligent not to apply a context and landscape to how he's preserved it.

One thing I would take issue with; Brewer was rather unlucky to lose against Echols, he decked Echols 3 times, and the ref didn't stop it, then Echols dropped him twice and it was stopped. I've seen the fight and it was highly controversial in my book. He wasn't destroyed by Echols, it was a fight which could have gone either way, and in my opinion, it was stopped prematurely. However, the truth remains, Calzaghe took on Brewer and not echols.......

[Autobarn]

I've been a Calzaghe critic but some of this is getting a little bit obsessive. Should he have fought everyone and moved up and down from super middle to light heavy like a yo-yo? Catley one month, Johnson the next...

Pre 2006 his title fights were definite non events. I wonder if we need to put things in some sort of context though.

1) Showtime said Joe wasn't ready for big fights based on Reid and Starie struggles - in other words, no American money for big fights. 2) Not all challengers want to come to the UK to face an unbeaten title holder (Markussen, Pemberton). 3) After RJJ moved up to 175, US TV weren't interested in super middle until Lacy... 4) Joe's avoidant personality and Warren's low risk way of operating & closeness to WBO who didn't throw dangerous names at Joe. 5) If Joe had foguth tougher comp earlier, there'd be more wear and tear, his hands would be done in, & wouldn't be having the big fights now. You know, the big fights that we've been staying up til 5am to watch.

Now, however he is doing something - super middle unified, & then fights in Vegas and NY for "stay at home Joe". Hopkins and RJJ are simply still bankable names, while potentially more exciting ones like Taylor and Pavlik have been mishandled & devalued. This is the fault of HBO. Fighters, we all know, will go to where the money is. The money is with the greedy old codgers right now.

Bernard Hopkins didn't have a big win until he was 36. To his credit, Joe beat Lacy when he was about 34, Kessler when he was 35 or 36...I just think long unfashionable reigning champs just keep on plodding along until the big names upcoming at the weight have to come to them. It's frustrating and stubborn, but Joe has reached a point where top fighters are calling him out.

Of course, I'd rather see Froch or Glen Johnson in there in terrific fights. But these are hard fights for less reward.