fist wrote:Didnt Otke fight Pudwell? Every fighter has crap names on their resume. It doesnt negate their talent and certainly doesnt negate achievements - if you win a title, you win a title. And Calzaghe did the lot. Every belt.
Very true and while Joe did face diabolical opposition and fighters who were past their best you only have to look at Hopkins record and pick out some of the tosh and has-beens on there, Lipsey, Hakkar, Daniels, Allen, Frank, James etc.
Jones has fought some crap as well, as did Tyson, Lewis, Hagler, Duran, Benn, Eubank, McCallum and many others.
Yes but only only difference is the 'lesser' opponents on Hopkins' and RJJ's resume's would be considered the best opponenets on Calzaghe's..
Yes that's right Richard Frazier would knock Lacy the fvck out and Robert Allen would take Kessler to school.
Terry D wrote:Not bringing up Tocker would be like having a Top Ten of cheesy songs and missing out 'The Birdie Song'. How many crap wins were there for each of the good ones? How many absolutely dire Sky Joe Calzaghe nights? Lots of them.
As for Hatton-Hutchinson, this is about Calzaghe. Tocker may have been a sub but to be brutally honest Joe had scheduled fights against pants opposition year in and year out. Re-read my posts so far. You miss every point.
As for Hatton, what is wrong? You brought in Joe and Hopkins to bolster your argument, and failed, now you are bringing in Hatton, what next?
The win over Reid was razor tight also, why did Joe never give him a rematch? They don't do rematches, aside from Veit, but he only did that to keep his prestigious WBO title, why fight Reid? For pride maybe. For the fans, the fight was good, why not repeat it, you can now say it was everyone else's fault but Joe's but the one consistent factor in Joe's career has been the man himself.
I am playing fantasy boxing? You are the guy bringing every other boxer into the argument, that is hardly going off the facts is it? The facts show that Joe had a terrible career for a long period. He attempted to pull out of every major fight that he had signed. Was persuaded to fight Lacy by his dad. Then fought two terrible matches before Kessler, and then took on two old men, men that he should have fought years ago, but had neither the profile or inclination to take on (with the two being linked).
You also fail to understand the point. I said he had options to renegotiate his SN contracts, he went with them after being with Duff, why not renegotiate one when he was on the one hand bragging about his SMW dominance (and down talking Ottke) whilst at the same time bemoaning the lack of a big fight? Is it purely because he was only interested in money, as you claim? In that case he was his own worst enemy and is to blame for not getting the big fights, fights that would have made him money should he have won them.
Hatton went to the USA after a big win, he demanded one of the best fighters in the world, Kostay, and got him, crucially at home, crucially because, unlike Joe, he had a fan following and public appeal. Joe had neither, and lacked the personality outside the ring to build them, add that to his in-ring inability to take on the best challengers and you have a question of necessity. Hatton did not need to go to the USA to get his big fight, he could have sat on the Tszyu win for 10 more fights.
The goal for Hatton, as far as I could see in conversations around the time (and I did not work for any promoter so I have no reason to lie) focussed on getting Floyd into the ring, for decent money yes, but getting him was the main focus.
Just look at the fights. Floyd goes to welter. So they test the waters. Floyd goes to light middle, so they duck back down and grab a title to set-up the Castillo fight. He beats Castillo in Floyd's hometown and next thing you know he gets Floyd. They seemed to build to it.
Yes, Hobson offered a lot of money, and Hatton took it, but the focus (on the training and fighting side certainly) was to get Floyd, the best fighter in the world, to fight. In the meantime he made money, he also took on two men, Tszyu and Floyd, who were far tougher, and closer to their best, than the men Joe has fought. Or ever will fight.
Didnt Otke fight Pudwell? Every fighter has crap names on their resume. It doesnt negate their talent and certainly doesnt negate achievements - if you win a title, you win a title. And Calzaghe did the lot. Every belt.
Oh for Christ's sake - yes, every fighter has some crap on their resume - but it's about the AMOUNT of crap. Ottke fought pretty much everyone in the division except Calzaghe and he took on current champions to get his belt in the first place, winning his title from Brewer. Look at Ottke's record as champion, and it is clearly superior to Calzaghe's. It's not until the end of Calzaghe's reign that we see a good level of opponent.
It was not a direct comparison to Ottke's record, I was merely pointing out that all champions have questionable defences, it is unavoidable, because of the subjectivity involved in peoples' opinions of fighters. On this site for example, just about every fighter who graces the ring is flawed in some way. As for Ottke, as mentioned, some crap defences but more importantly some disgraceful results, where he clearly lost but was given the result.
And once again, the main point was that dodgy defences do not negate talent or achievements i.e. winning every single belt in a division, going undefeated, taking two of the belts off an unbeaten dangerous champ.
stujones wrote:No banjo, but I reckon Allen would have beaten Lacy.... Allen was alot better than Sheika who gave Lacy fits.
You must be basing this on Lacy of late? He hasn't even been 50% of the fighter he was before Calzaghe destroyed him.
Would Ottke have done that to Lacy? No chance....
He didn't look 50% of the fighter who destroyed Shot Reid and Pemberton when he fought Vanderpol (he was losing before he landed a shot that troubled him I think in the 7th) or Sheika - a fight that was close.
No Ottke wouldn't have done what Joe done, but he would have won decisively.
As for Robert Allen, he was made to look like a plodder vs Bernard, but he was not bad at all. Beat some good names and got an eliminator.
Another much maligned Hopkins opponent, Morade Hakkar he was an EBU champion who beat the still decent Sarnavia.
Roy jones
Bernard Hopkins
Mikkel Kessler
Jeff Lacy
Mario Viet (1st fight)
Byron Mitchell
Miguel Angel Jimenez
Charles Brewer
Richie Woodhall
Omar Sheika
David Starie
Rick Thornberry
Robin Reid
Chris Eubank
Mark Delaney
Not a bad record at all, added in with the offers he made to fight Hopkins earlier and Ottke and both were refused.
An interms of him only facing fighters who had been exposed you just need to look at Delaney, Viet, Kessler and Lacy, and the fighters with only one loss; Sakio Bika, Evans Ashira, Mger Mkrtchian, Miguel Jimenez, Omar Sheika, David Starie, Robin Reid and Branko Sobot.
Not to mention being a two weight champion having fought the top in both Super Middle and Light Heavy, plus a multiple belt holder.
It is ridiculous to say he has had a poor career and only fought gimmies and sure things. You may not like his style or approach and he may get nervous a lot, but he is a great figter with a great record, I think it actually stands up better than a lot of other hall of famers who fought many more patsys than Joe.
Anyway just my analysis of the situation, I know it has all been said before, but it needs to be said again, his record is good, great even.
