Calzaghe or Hatton in the history books?

[Dioufy]

A 44-year old man who had lost two of his last four fights?

[stujones]

How did Joe become the man? Svenny was the man for the most part of Joe's career.

[Dioufy]

Precisely.

And Joe lost to BHOP.

[Dioufy]

Sg,

It was Froch's first defence, and it was away from home. Please tell me who else Froch should've fought instead of Taylor. Bika, Salem, Mkrtchyan, Mitchell, Pudwill, McIntyre or Veit?

It was an amazing first defence, so please don't try to diminish that.

It may say Calzaghe lost, but some feel differently. Me included.

[Dioufy]

So you're saying that Froch's first defence was a bit bobbins? And the opponent could've been improved?

[Dioufy]

But there's a difference. Calzaghe had been a champ for over ten years, whereas Froch was newly crowned.

[Dioufy]

And didn't Taylor beat BHOP twice?

[fist]

There was a lot more than just Ottke... I won't name them all - as its been said many times.

I think 2001 Joe was around his pomp... 4 years a champion... 28 years of age, smashed Mario Veit in a round. Still hadn't hit the canvas. Then was the time for him to face the likes of Ottke, Jones, Hopkins, Dariusz, etc etc.

He tried to fight Hopkins, but Hopkins pulled out effectievly, you know this. As for Jones, he said at the press conferences before their fight that politics meant that they would have not been able to make the fight earlier on. When Joe was a younger champ the risk reward ratio was not good enough to so called living legends - it took him demolishing Lacy and the deterioration in both Hopkins and Jones' careers for them to be motivated to make a fight with Joe. It was a good opportunity for them, both with losses on their records taking on an undefeated, younger, world champ - they couldnt lose :-)

Anyway, as for the question, Calzaghe will be remembered as the better fighter - why? Cos he was. More talented, versatile, faster, amazing stamina etc etc. That is not demeaning Hatton, its just the way it is - Calzaghe was a better fighter. Unifying the division against a two belt undefeated hungry champ in Kessler was an amazing achievement. You can always look at people he could have fought, many of the names often in different weight categories and some unobtainable due to politics, but the truth is he was the very best at SMW when he unified the division. In beating all comers he nullified the competition, nullified the quality and pound for pound status of other fighters, thus, there was no opportunity for him to fight a living SMW legend cos by beating the best in the division they were unable to progress to that level of class - Kessler being the most obvious example; if it had not been for Calzaghe he'd have no doubt unified the division, still had a zero on his record and possibly gone on to be a SMW great - may well still do so.

As someone else said on this thread, Calzaghe had some impressive wins and when struggling ALWAYS carved out a win. Even the Hopkins and Jones fights which many criticise, were impressive in terms of going over to America, being hit cold, getting back up and doing the business.

As for prime Jones verses Joe, well I personally think that if in a hypothetical match between a prime Jones and a prime Calzaghe (couple of years ago), unlike many on here I think it is entirely possible Joe would have won. Truth is, their primes were at different times.

Pound for pound - Joe was better than Hatton.

[Dioufy]

Sg,

Please tell me where I said Froch has achieved more... You're arguing with yourself here.

Calzaghe was 1/3 on going into the fight with Hopkins. The consensus on here was that Calzaghe would UD him in a boring fight. Froch was 11/10 to beat Taylor just before the fight. Both tough fights for Calzaghe and Froch, but Froch didn't sit on his WBO world-title for ten years until a 44-year old man appeared. Froch went for the jugular straight away and his win over Taylor (I had Froch losing by four points at the end of the 11th) was a whole lot better than Calzaghe's win over BHOP. I am not saying Froch is better, because he isn't, but he does want to fight the best all the time, something of which Calzaghe never did unless he has a substantial advantage.

It's the same with Haye. Just want to test themselves against the best, with no pre-fight advantages.

[Dioufy]

I think Kessler stops Froch and BHOP schools him. Calzaghe is better and has achieved more, but if he had the same philosophy as Haye, Hatton or Froch then he could've achieved a hell of a lot more. It's a massive shame he wasn't confident enough.

[Dioufy]

Froch, Pavlik, Ottke, Beyer, Michalczewski, prime Jones, younger BHOP (even if it meant taking reduced money), Reid rematch, BHOP rematch, Dawson, Mundine and possibly Woods. Surely some of these names are better than the ones of his resume during his ten year WBO reign. There are more, but they are off the top of my napper.

[Dioufy]

Calzaghe said he would "slap Froch down in three", but then retired. Surely an easy £5m is worth three rounds of boxing? Froch's wins against Pascal and Taylor, not to mention that Froch holds Calzaghe's old belt should be incentive enough for him to fight Froch.

Yes, Clinton Woods. I would've paid to see it.

[Dioufy]

Froch has stated numerous times that he would go up to 172lbs - surely Calzaghe could've made that.

[Dioufy]

But it would earn a shit-load of money. A Dawson fight wouldn't. Plus they're both British - it's a fight our public would clamor for. 172lbs would be fair. Froch isn't a big 168lb'er and Calzaghe isn't a big 175lb'er. Meet in the middle and it's perfect.

[Dioufy]

Froch was WBC mandatory when Calzaghe gave up the belt - it could've happened then, and it could happen now.

[Dioufy]

But you said he would've been criticized for it, and I disagree. Especially in comparison to the pile of crap that usually qualifies for a shot at Calzaghe. Am I right in thinking that Calzaghe has only ever had two mandatories - both Veit? That is a bit of a joke.

[Dioufy]

But two mandatories in ten years and it was against a bum. It tells me a lot that Calzaghe gave the WBC belt up when Froch become mandatory. I think Calzaghe would beat him, but I guess Joe doesn't think it would be that easy.

[Dioufy]

I preferred him to fight Hopkins but Calzaghe gave up the belt as soon as Froch got into that position. And BHOP was seen as shot when he faced Calzaghe - it's only his performance against Pavlik that made the win look very good. But I had Calzaghe losing.

"I don't do rematches"

Hmmmm - Mario Veit!!

[stujones]

There was a lot more than just Ottke... I won't name them all - as its been said many times.

I think 2001 Joe was around his pomp... 4 years a champion... 28 years of age, smashed Mario Veit in a round. Still hadn't hit the canvas. Then was the time for him to face the likes of Ottke, Jones, Hopkins, Dariusz, etc etc.

He tried to fight Hopkins, but Hopkins pulled out effectievly, you know this. As for Jones, he said at the press conferences before their fight that politics meant that they would have not been able to make the fight earlier on. When Joe was a younger champ the risk reward ratio was not good enough to so called living legends - it took him demolishing Lacy and the deterioration in both Hopkins and Jones' careers for them to be motivated to make a fight with Joe. It was a good opportunity for them, both with losses on their records taking on an undefeated, younger, world champ - they couldnt lose :-)

Anyway, as for the question, Calzaghe will be remembered as the better fighter - why? Cos he was. More talented, versatile, faster, amazing stamina etc etc. That is not demeaning Hatton, its just the way it is - Calzaghe was a better fighter. Unifying the division against a two belt undefeated hungry champ in Kessler was an amazing achievement. You can always look at people he could have fought, many of the names often in different weight categories and some unobtainable due to politics, but the truth is he was the very best at SMW when he unified the division. In beating all comers he nullified the competition, nullified the quality and pound for pound status of other fighters, thus, there was no opportunity for him to fight a living SMW legend cos by beating the best in the division they were unable to progress to that level of class - Kessler being the most obvious example; if it had not been for Calzaghe he'd have no doubt unified the division, still had a zero on his record and possibly gone on to be a SMW great - may well still do so.

As someone else said on this thread, Calzaghe had some impressive wins and when struggling ALWAYS carved out a win. Even the Hopkins and Jones fights which many criticise, were impressive in terms of going over to America, being hit cold, getting back up and doing the business.

As for prime Jones verses Joe, well I personally think that if in a hypothetical match between a prime Jones and a prime Calzaghe (couple of years ago), unlike many on here I think it is entirely possible Joe would have won. Truth is, their primes were at different times.



Pound for pound - Joe was better than Hatton.

2001/2002 - was just about Joe's best period. It was also Jones' and Hopkins'.

I've maintained Kessler still plays a critical part in Joe's legacy..... lets see what he does.

Sg - you say Joe became the man when Sven retired, cause someone had to.

Joe has retired, so why cannot Froch be that "someone" who had to be the man. He's had the best win out of the current 4 champions. Should Kessler be considered the man - he's not exactly fought stellar opponents since losing, Bute was a winner in a controvesial fight with Andrade. So why not Froch.

[hitman_hatton1]

fair play you're right, but imo kessler is by far the best fighter in the division, we'll have to see what happens if or when that fight happens.

yep.

froch has to beat kessler to be no1.

simple as tbh.

[Dioufy]

I prefer in to fight Hopkins but Calzaghe gave up the belt as soon as Froch got into that position. And BHOP was seen as shot when he faced Calzaghe - it's only his performance against Pavlik that made the win look very good. But I had Calzaghe losing.

it was a horrible fight, and if hopkins had taken one step forward in the whole fight he may have won. but in temrs of legacy who was the fight to take, a then unknown to the world and sadly still alot of england at the time or a world known all timer? and so what if its only the pavlik win that makes it look good, at least we saw that fight to put calzaghe-hopkins in some kind of context.

I said I preferred Calzaghe to fight Hopkins, but now I want Joe to fight Froch. I would've been in favour of a Calzaghe/Froch fight when Carl was mandatory, as I believe in them. Evidently Joe and the WBO don't, which is a massive shame for boxing.

[Dioufy]

I said I preferred the BHOP fight but would've been in favour of a Froch/Calzaghe battle too. No contradiction there, my friend.

[Dioufy]

I said it could've (not should've) happened then, as it could theoretically happen now.

[Dioufy]

Don't be daft. Mayweather/Calzaghe should never happen. Froch/Calzaghe should happen right now.

[Dioufy]

Not even when Froch was mandatory to him? Of course if was viable.