Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 19 May 2009, 17:51

Just thinking about how Hatton would be remembered compared to Calzaghe as the pages of history go by.

Similar resumes but I suspect as time passes by people will say JC was better than Hatton, basically because he never lost a fight – I think that’s unfair. I’m not a Hatton ‘nuthugger’ by any stretch but basically you have to look at his two losses – I don’t think Joe ever fought a Pacquio or Mayweather, nothing like it in fact.

The equivalent would be for him to have fought Roy Jones around 2000 and I’m not even sure I can think of something similar to Manny Pacquio for Calzaghe to have tested himself against, certainly Kessler and Lacy aren’t in that league. Maybe if he had fought Hopkins in 2001 that would have been a test in that league.

We’ve probably done this thread before but I’m sitting on the train and didn’t have the time to search back so there we are :-)

chesh · Post by **chesh** » 19 May 2009, 18:11

Hatton had the greater career (not that it's necessarily over yet). Even a faded KT is a better win on his record than any of Cal's victories. Kessler is, undoubtedly, the best victory JC can claim, but even he is largely unproven at top level.

If the 2008 version of Jones could deck - and hurt - Calzaghe early, the prime RJ may well have finished him more quickly than Manny demolished Ricky. A younger, slightly more energetic BHop would have easily decisioned him. Had he faced the elite in their prime, he would now be regarded as an "Ordinary Joe".

sweetscience · Post by **sweetscience** » 19 May 2009, 18:18

chesh wrote:Hatton had the greater career (not that it's necessarily over yet). Even a faded KT is a better win on his record than any of Cal's victories. Kessler is, undoubtedly, the best victory JC can claim, but even he is largely unproven at top level.

If the 2008 version of Jones could deck - and hurt - Calzaghe early, the prime RJ may well have finished him more quickly than Manny demolished Ricky. A younger, slightly more energetic BHop would have easily decisioned him. Had he faced the elite in their prime, he would now be regarded as an "Ordinary Joe".

i think JC win over Bhop is better than Hattonsover KT, cause they were both elite and BHOP has had some good wins since his loss, too prove he aint shot where as KT never fought again

they both fought there share of bums but i think JC came good over the last 3 years and has gone beyond what hatton did in the ring

chesh · Post by **chesh** » 19 May 2009, 18:24

I take your point about the BHop win, but omitted to mention it due to its controversial and unconvincing nature. I did have Joe nicking it though.

gobbles · Post by **gobbles** » 19 May 2009, 19:28

chesh wrote:I take your point about the BHop win, but omitted to mention it due to its controversial and unconvincing nature. I did have Joe nicking it though.

Only people on here think that win was controversial. Even Hopkins has stopped claiming that. My view would be that the Hatton-Collazo fight was much more controversial that Calzaghe-Hopkins. Interesting that in that fight, Hatton was on the verge of defeat at the end, whereas Calzaghe always came on through the rounds. Also, regarding your Jones point, Eamonn Magee floored Hatton and badly hurt him in the next round. And Magee was nowhere near an elite fighter.

Of course Calzaghe will be remembered as the better. He was champion for far longer, never lost, was the better amateur, dominated his division completely unifying the world title, something Hatton never did. Of course, Calzaghe could have had a better career, he could have been more ambitious, he probably lost 2 years or so to injury, he probably lost a year to his divorce, he could have pushed for the Ottke fight earlier, rather than towards the end of Ottke's career. But, whatever people say on here, staying unbeaten for so long, constantly defending a title, takes an awful lot of doing.

What made him so great? He always found a way to win, even on the bad nights.

I love Ricky and what he's done, but I fear when he is remembered by "experts" in years to come, it will be as a good club fighter who was not top class. I think they will remember Calzaghe as top class.

n1ebf · Post by **n1ebf** » 19 May 2009, 20:04

I don't know if you define World Class and top class as two separate things but Hatton certainly was, still is, a world class fighter, without any doubt IMO.
However , Calzaghe was the better fighter of the two, no question about it. Better defensively and for a man 2 or 3 stone heavier he had faster hands than Ricky too. Sure he plotted a careful path, but any implication that Calzaghe never stepped up to the plate is just bullsh*t.
Anyone that's watched a few fights by both these fighters that knew what they were on about could ask this as a serious question. Calzaghe was a much more stylish fighter, more effective and generally makes Hatton, for all of his abilities, look a one-dimensional slugger.

chesh · Post by **chesh** » 19 May 2009, 21:15

I think there's a little confusion here. The question related to their standing in boxing history. The boxing historians may say Calzaghe was regarded as the more talented fighter, but the history books will show that Hatton had the better career. He fought and defeated more champs (at the time of the fight) and dared to test himself against the elite in their prime. The money a fighter earns is not always commensurate with their achievements, but the huge gulf in their earnings is a fairly good indicator of the different levels at which their careers played out.

gobbles · Post by **gobbles** » 19 May 2009, 21:53

chesh wrote:I think there's a little confusion here. The question related to their standing in boxing history. The boxing historians may say Calzaghe was regarded as the more talented fighter, but the history books will show that Hatton had the better career. He fought and defeated more champs (at the time of the fight) and dared to test himself against the elite in their prime. The money a fighter earns is not always commensurate with their achievements, but the huge gulf in their earnings is a fairly good indicator of the different levels at which their careers played out.

I don't think that's true or fair. Hatton fought a lot of guys right at the end of their careers. The only guy Hatton beat who can be said to have had any sort of career after losing to Hatton is Urango, but he only won the IBF title, so that's no great shakes.

Tszyu will always be remembered as Ricky's greatest win. But I think the Hopkins win rated as high as that. Whereas Hatton never beat hot, unbeaten fighters like Kessler or Lacy. Indeed, the only guy with a spotless record he fought was Mayweather.

The history books will not show that Hatton had the better career because the history books will have a picture of Ricky lying on the floor. Merely being in big fights that you lose does not make for a great career. The idea of boxing is to win.

dookus · Post by **dookus** » 19 May 2009, 22:51

gobbles wrote: The history books will not show that Hatton had the better career because the history books will have a picture of Ricky lying on the floor. Merely being in big fights that you lose does not make for a great career. The idea of boxing is to win.

Tell that to Thomas Hearns or Oscar De La Hoya, who lost most of their big fights. I'm not saying Hatton's on their level at all, but I do think the fights you're in can be as important as the ones you win to your legacy.

NazNaci1 · Post by **NazNaci1** » 19 May 2009, 23:13

gobbles wrote: I don't think that's true or fair. Hatton fought a lot of guys right at the end of their careers. The only guy Hatton beat who can be said to have had any sort of career after losing to Hatton is Urango, but he only won the IBF title, so that's no great shakes.

Tszyu will always be remembered as Ricky's greatest win. But I think the Hopkins win rated as high as that. Whereas Hatton never beat hot, unbeaten fighters like Kessler or Lacy. Indeed, the only guy with a spotless record he fought was Mayweather.

The history books will not show that Hatton had the better career because the history books will have a picture of Ricky lying on the floor. Merely being in big fights that you lose does not make for a great career. The idea of boxing is to win.

Dont agree with this at all. Does this mean Sugar Ray Robinson, because he lost alot bouts is not the greatest fighter ever? Or Hagler because he lost 4 fights? Maybe Ali isnt to considered either as he fought the best available but lost, in total 5 times?

Reid beat Calzaghe imo - Hopkins certainly ran him close, very very close even at his advanced aged and RJJ was just a shell. Eubanks was certainly past his prime, after a hard career, when Joe beat him.

Yes, Joe did beat Lacy and Kessler, all be it securing home advanage. Never once did JC venture outside his comfort zone unless his management was confident about his chances i.e almost certainly to win.

Ricky took gambles, facing Pac-Man and Mayweather, having numerous fights in the US - yeah so he lost but its the level of opposition that a fighter is judged upon.
JC couldve had a fight with a peak RJJ, so why didnt he? That fight there would have meant a lot lot more, even if he had lost, than the fights he has won.

JC gave a re-match to Viet, a guy he had pummelled in one round, why didnt he give Reid a re-match, or hopkins, for that matter?
I am not a JC hater or a RH lover, it is annoying however that ppl base their opinions on a fighters W/L record.
For level of opposition and 'putting it on the line' , Ricky wins hands down - for me, no question.

If winning is the criteria for greatness, where do we place that other Supermiddle legend, Sven Ottke? And Reid beat him up aswell.

yiddo14 · Post by **yiddo14** » 20 May 2009, 02:05

Unbeaten records mean nothing.

It's who you beat that what counts, unless of course you suffer defeats againt guys much worse than yourself(neither Joe or Ricky did, bar maybe Robin Reid)
Calzaghe had more talent, but Ricky had the better win on his record(Tszyu)although the Hopkins win is close.

Joe never lost(officially anyway)whilst Ricky only lost to truly great fighters, although if Hatton keeps going he would be at risk of losing to guys he would not have a few years ago which could detract from his legacy.

I would say they are close, and maybe Joe will be remembered better in the UK(who seem to not be able to look past the 0)and Ricky will be better remembered in the US.
Given the choice? I would say that any fighter would prefer second option.

Incidently, if Haye beats both Klits and Froch beats Kessler, Bute and then Dawson(massive tasks I know and very unliekely)then these two will be ranked higher than both. I know I make it sound simple, but who would have thought say, 3 years ago, that these two could feasibly outstrip both Hatton's and Calzaghe's "legacy"?

Finch · Post by **Finch** » 20 May 2009, 02:10

All this talk about Calzaghe fighting RJJ in RJJ's prime is bullshit. It then wouldn't have been fair because JC wouldn't have been in his prime......................

You could argue Calzaghe wasn't in his prime when he fought RJJ anyway, what with his brittle hands negating his power. Still doesn't change the fact he won every single round on every single card, and only not the first because of the knockdown. And all from a former heavyweight.

Or you could argue RJJ was good enough to put Calzaghe on the floor, only one of four men to actually do that. And two of them were when JC moved up in weight.

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » 20 May 2009, 02:45

Finch wrote:All this talk about Calzaghe fighting RJJ in RJJ's prime is bullshit. It then wouldn't have been fair because JC wouldn't have been in his prime......................

You could argue Calzaghe wasn't in his prime when he fought RJJ anyway, what with his brittle hands negating his power. Still doesn't change the fact he won every single round on every single card, and only not the first because of the knockdown. And all from a former heavyweight.

Or you could argue RJJ was good enough to put Calzaghe on the floor, only one of four men to actually do that. And two of them were when JC moved up in weight.

rofl!

Do tell us then, when was Joe's prime? Who was he facing? Why did he not leave the UK THEN, but leave the UK when RJJ and Hopkins were at the combined age of 83

Do answer these questions mate, then maybe you might get some credibility. Just maybe

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 20 May 2009, 03:30

Well, Calzaghe holds a 'Wii' edge.

Roco · Post by **Roco** » 20 May 2009, 03:40

I don't know how some on here can say that Calzaghe's win over Hopkins is better than Hattons over KT.

Calzaghe only just scraped past Hopkins by the skin of his teeth. Many had him losing. On the other hand Hatton won convincingly.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 20 May 2009, 04:28

From what I'm reading I don't feel there is a great case for either/or Ricky and Joe.

I think the person who said the history books will have a picture of Hatton stretched on the canvas is right - and I think that's sad because my point remains, Calzaghe fought nobody like Manny or PBF so you aren't comparing like for like.

I have them pretty much on a par in a historical context.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 20 May 2009, 06:56

I just see Joe as someone who made it to the p4p lists very late on in his career, then got out of boxing before things got too tough.

Joe was very close to the p4p throne, could have taken a bold weight glamble like Pac did 2 or 3 times (DLH, Hatton, even Diaz), by challenging cruiserweight champ Adamek. Don't tell me that couldn't have been hyped up into something big and held in Wales to a massive crowd. Don't tell me it wouldn't have been financially rewarding. If Kessler was big fight over here, so would Adamek also - and that would have made Joe a champ at 3 weights. Did he go for it, like fvck!

Though Joe has come through tough moments he seems a bit of a front runner - every advantage every time - who couldn't hide his glee when he could tee off on an aged legend who could barely see and could barely hit back. With Joe, where is the drama, where is the adversity.

Have to give him much credit for unifying super middle though - that was excellent. But it just seems that every time he promises greatness, he doesn't really follow through. Joe goes down in history for his '0' basically, but he's abit of a blank himself.

gobbles · Post by **gobbles** » 20 May 2009, 07:01

bengulnaci1 wrote:
gobbles wrote: I don't think that's true or fair. Hatton fought a lot of guys right at the end of their careers. The only guy Hatton beat who can be said to have had any sort of career after losing to Hatton is Urango, but he only won the IBF title, so that's no great shakes.

Tszyu will always be remembered as Ricky's greatest win. But I think the Hopkins win rated as high as that. Whereas Hatton never beat hot, unbeaten fighters like Kessler or Lacy. Indeed, the only guy with a spotless record he fought was Mayweather.

The history books will not show that Hatton had the better career because the history books will have a picture of Ricky lying on the floor. Merely being in big fights that you lose does not make for a great career. The idea of boxing is to win.
Dont agree with this at all. Does this mean Sugar Ray Robinson, because he lost alot bouts is not the greatest fighter ever? Or Hagler because he lost 4 fights? Maybe Ali isnt to considered either as he fought the best available but lost, in total 5 times?

Reid beat Calzaghe imo - Hopkins certainly ran him close, very very close even at his advanced aged and RJJ was just a shell. Eubanks was certainly past his prime, after a hard career, when Joe beat him.

Yes, Joe did beat Lacy and Kessler, all be it securing home advanage. Never once did JC venture outside his comfort zone unless his management was confident about his chances i.e almost certainly to win.

Ricky took gambles, facing Pac-Man and Mayweather, having numerous fights in the US - yeah so he lost but its the level of opposition that a fighter is judged upon.
JC couldve had a fight with a peak RJJ, so why didnt he? That fight there would have meant a lot lot more, even if he had lost, than the fights he has won.

JC gave a re-match to Viet, a guy he had pummelled in one round, why didnt he give Reid a re-match, or hopkins, for that matter?
I am not a JC hater or a RH lover, it is annoying however that ppl base their opinions on a fighters W/L record.
For level of opposition and 'putting it on the line' , Ricky wins hands down - for me, no question.

If winning is the criteria for greatness, where do we place that other Supermiddle legend, Sven Ottke? And Reid beat him up aswell.

Robinson is judged on his wins, so is Hagler. Merely comparing taking gambles is daft unless they won. Also, the Tszyu fight was razor tight until he was pulled out.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 20 May 2009, 07:05

chesh wrote:Hatton had the greater career (not that it's necessarily over yet). Even a faded KT is a better win on his record than any of Cal's victories. Kessler is, undoubtedly, the best victory JC can claim, but even he is largely unproven at top level.

If the 2008 version of Jones could deck - and hurt - Calzaghe early, the prime RJ may well have finished him more quickly than Manny demolished Ricky. A younger, slightly more energetic BHop would have easily decisioned him. Had he faced the elite in their prime, he would now be regarded as an "Ordinary Joe".

I would say that Calzaghe's victory over Eubank was his best victory, as Eubank was still 'living', he was a proven fighter of the highest calibre & Joe himself was unproven & up & coming.

gobbles · Post by **gobbles** » 20 May 2009, 07:06

Autobarn wrote:I just see Joe as someone who made it to the p4p lists very late on in his career, then got out of boxing before things got too tough.

Joe was very close to the p4p throne, could have taken a bold weight glamble like Pac did 2 or 3 times (DLH, Hatton, even Diaz), by challenging cruiserweight champ Adamek. Don't tell me that couldn't have been hyped up into something big and held in Wales to a massive crowd. Don't tell me it wouldn't have been financially rewarding. If Kessler was big fight over here, so would Adamek also - and that would have made Joe a champ at 3 weights. Did he go for it, like fvck!

Though Joe has come through tough moments he seems a bit of a front runner - every advantage every time - who couldn't hide his glee when he could tee off on an aged legend who could barely see and could barely hit back. With Joe, where is the drama, where is the adversity.

Have to give him much credit for unifying super middle though - that was excellent. But it just seems that every time he promises greatness, he doesn't really follow through. Joe goes down in history for his '0' basically, but he's abit of a blank himself.

If Pavlik had beaten Hopkins, I have no doubt Calzaghe would have faced Pavlik.

But he probably felt he was on the slide. He had been down in two successive fights, so a combination of no realistic challenges (Dawson's crowd was so small against Tarver the other day that they only opened up the bottom floor of a three-floor venue with a crowd of about 2,200 (that's less than saw Calzaghe-Delaney)) plus the feeling that he was over the top, plus the nagging of his family made him want to retire. What's wrong with that? You seem to criticise boxers for being "shells" then criticise Calzaghe for not boxing on until he was a shell.

yiddo14 · Post by **yiddo14** » 20 May 2009, 07:11

Terry D wrote:Getting floored by Magee brings you down a notch? I suppose that the knockdown suffered by Joe againt Kalary is discounted, beause, you know, it came againt Joe Calzaghe, and chips a little hole on Gobbles claims. As for Hatton being stopped twice, so was Lewis, and he is out there ahead of Calzaghe.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY ahead

landon · Post by **landon** » 20 May 2009, 07:13

Roco wrote:I don't know how some on here can say that Calzaghe's win over Hopkins is better than Hattons over KT.

Calzaghe only just scraped past Hopkins by the skin of his teeth. Many had him losing. On the other hand Hatton won convincingly.

wasnt hatton losing on the score cards v kt.. hopkins is still doin the business

Poncey · Post by **Poncey** » 20 May 2009, 07:17

bennie wrote:Well, Calzaghe holds a 'Wii' edge.

Wouldn't be surprised is Ricky and Campbell make their own for Fight Night. Or, God forbid, Enzo and Joe do a Redknapp.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 20 May 2009, 07:22

gobbles wrote:
Autobarn wrote:I just see Joe as someone who made it to the p4p lists very late on in his career, then got out of boxing before things got too tough.

Joe was very close to the p4p throne, could have taken a bold weight glamble like Pac did 2 or 3 times (DLH, Hatton, even Diaz), by challenging cruiserweight champ Adamek. Don't tell me that couldn't have been hyped up into something big and held in Wales to a massive crowd. Don't tell me it wouldn't have been financially rewarding. If Kessler was big fight over here, so would Adamek also - and that would have made Joe a champ at 3 weights. Did he go for it, like fvck!

Though Joe has come through tough moments he seems a bit of a front runner - every advantage every time - who couldn't hide his glee when he could tee off on an aged legend who could barely see and could barely hit back. With Joe, where is the drama, where is the adversity.

Have to give him much credit for unifying super middle though - that was excellent. But it just seems that every time he promises greatness, he doesn't really follow through. Joe goes down in history for his '0' basically, but he's abit of a blank himself.

If Pavlik had beaten Hopkins, I have no doubt Calzaghe would have faced Pavlik.

But he probably felt he was on the slide. He had been down in two successive fights, so a combination of no realistic challenges (Dawson's crowd was so small against Tarver the other day that they only opened up the bottom floor of a three-floor venue with a crowd of about 2,200 (that's less than saw Calzaghe-Delaney)) plus the feeling that he was over the top, plus the nagging of his family made him want to retire. What's wrong with that? You seem to criticise boxers for being "shells" then criticise Calzaghe for not boxing on until he was a shell.[/quote]well, he was still throwing his patented 1000 slaps, in the RJJ fight - seemed to have the same workrate as in the lacy fight...QUOTE MESS!!!!!!

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 20 May 2009, 07:37

gobbles wrote:
Autobarn wrote:I just see Joe as someone who made it to the p4p lists very late on in his career, then got out of boxing before things got too tough.

Joe was very close to the p4p throne, could have taken a bold weight glamble like Pac did 2 or 3 times (DLH, Hatton, even Diaz), by challenging cruiserweight champ Adamek. Don't tell me that couldn't have been hyped up into something big and held in Wales to a massive crowd. Don't tell me it wouldn't have been financially rewarding. If Kessler was big fight over here, so would Adamek also - and that would have made Joe a champ at 3 weights. Did he go for it, like fvck!

Though Joe has come through tough moments he seems a bit of a front runner - every advantage every time - who couldn't hide his glee when he could tee off on an aged legend who could barely see and could barely hit back. With Joe, where is the drama, where is the adversity.

Have to give him much credit for unifying super middle though - that was excellent. But it just seems that every time he promises greatness, he doesn't really follow through. Joe goes down in history for his '0' basically, but he's abit of a blank himself.
If Pavlik had beaten Hopkins, I have no doubt Calzaghe would have faced Pavlik.

But he probably felt he was on the slide. He had been down in two successive fights, so a combination of no realistic challenges (Dawson's crowd was so small against Tarver the other day that they only opened up the bottom floor of a three-floor venue with a crowd of about 2,200 (that's less than saw Calzaghe-Delaney)) plus the feeling that he was over the top, plus the nagging of his family made him want to retire. What's wrong with that? You seem to criticise boxers for being "shells" then criticise Calzaghe for not boxing on until he was a shell.

well Joe was throwing his patented 1000 shots in the Jones fight, so I doubt he was a shell! same workrate as lacy fight, in fact fought and moved and carried himself, very similar to in the lacy fight

Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Re: Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Re: Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Re: Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Re: Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Re: Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Re: Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Re: Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Re: Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Re: Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Re: Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Re: Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Re: Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Re: Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Re: Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Re: Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Re: Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Re: Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Re: Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Re: Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Re: Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Re: Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Re: Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Re: Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

Re: Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?