Calzaghe vs Echols?

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 03 Jan 2005, 18:38

from fightnews.com

By Craig Watt
Sports Network promoter allegedly today confirmed to Fightnews that they are trying to match unbeaten WBO 168lb champion Joe Calzaghe with Antwun Echols (31-5-1) for the Welshman's 16th defense of the crown on February 11th at the MEN Arena in Manchester. Calzaghe is unbeaten in 38 fights and could face the 33 year old Echols who has mixed with many top names at middleweight including two fights with Bernard Hopkins. He lost a 12 round decision to Anthony Mundine for the vacant WBA 168 pound title in September 2003 and also holds victories over recent Joe Calzaghe opponents Kabary Salem (W12) and Charles Brewer (KO3). Echols' name has also been mentioned as an opponent for IBF 168lb champion Jeff Lacy. Warren is meeting with the UK Amateur Boxing Association monday to finalise the line-up in the first of the proposed pro-am series in the UK that is likely to include Athens Olympic Silver Medallist Amir Khan on the undercard. Also on the undercard will be WBO#3 / WBA#6 and IBF#9 Michael Gomez (32-5) who takes on European Union Champion Willie Limond (24-1) in a high class bout at super-featherweight over 12 rounds.

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 03 Jan 2005, 18:41

sorry about the multi threads, computer is doing strange things

bigped · Post by **bigped** » 03 Jan 2005, 18:55

Dont know how accurate this info is mate, mentions gomez vs limmond, which is not on as far as i know?? so that puts doubt into the other fight>>??

sure all will be clear within the next few weeks, sayin that if this fight is to be put on could be an ok bout this guy Antwun Echols,, went 12 rounds with hopkins and then 10 rounds. Also stopped Salem which joe couldnt do and got rid of charles brewer in 3 which took joe 12, so could be a step up.

but like i say wait and see what happens...

Bard of Boxrec · Post by **Bard of Boxrec** » 03 Jan 2005, 19:06

echols did not stop salem.

this would have been a great matchup 3 years ago. unfortunately, as usual Allegedly has conveniently waited till the guy got beaten by another top supermiddleweight.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 03 Jan 2005, 19:11

Riddick Blowe wrote:echols did not stop salem.

this would have been a great matchup 3 years ago. unfortunately, as usual Allegedly has conveniently waited till the guy got beaten by another top supermiddleweight.

Exactly. Echols was mooted as an opponent 2/3 years back when he'd given Hopkins a fairly decent argument and had just moved up. Now it's just another defence against an opponent with fading ambition.

Lefthookhappy19 · Post by **Lefthookhappy19** » 03 Jan 2005, 19:50

Echols is done. Known for his punching power a few years ago and at middle, at super he couldn't even hurt Mundine once in 12 rounds.

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 03 Jan 2005, 19:53

Calzaghe W12 if this fight happens.

bigbaddaddydanny · Post by **bigbaddaddydanny** » 03 Jan 2005, 21:17

Damn this only proves how chicken Calzaghe is - here sure knows how to pick'em. But compared to the opposition he has faced in his latest fights this is never the less a step up. But it would be nice to see Calzaghe against either Kessler, Lacy, Reid, Vanderpool, Grant, Larsen, Green or even Froch. But that will probably never happen.

coneye · Post by **coneye** » 03 Jan 2005, 22:31

What another load of crap Echols is shot , Mundine with less than 20 fights in his WHOLE LIFE handled him with ease

Typical fight for a Warren fighter , They continue to make a joke off british boxing

Sweet P · Post by **Sweet P** » 04 Jan 2005, 02:42

coneye wrote:What another load of crap Echols is shot , Mundine with less than 20 fights in his WHOLE LIFE handled him with ease

Typical fight for a Warren fighter , They continue to make a joke off british boxing

Mundine did a Ruiz and held him every time he came in. Ecchols is still better than the bums that have been mentioned for him.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 04 Jan 2005, 06:40

Echols is still a better fighter than Salem, but he's definetly past his prime.

Sweet P · Post by **Sweet P** » 04 Jan 2005, 08:07

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Echols is still a better fighter than Salem, but he's definetly past his prime.

Yeh he is past his prime but after Calzaghe's big layoff he wouldn't want to jump straight back in against the other top 168 ponders.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 04 Jan 2005, 08:15

If Calzaghe performs as he did against Salem, Echols is definetly a threat, despite not being able to land against Mundine, he can still bang, and Calzaghe hasn't been that hard to hit of late.

I don't think there's anything wrong with this fight particularly, decent opponent, but Calzaghe needs to really have a busy '05, time is ticking away and he is fighting less often and not facing world level operators often enough.

Despite all that's been said, I have always rated Calzaghe highly, and I hope this is the year he really makes a go of it.

Bard of Boxrec · Post by **Bard of Boxrec** » 04 Jan 2005, 08:30

calzaghe might lose if echols brings any desire to the table.

could be nice odds on an echols ko.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 04 Jan 2005, 09:37

Should have happend as soon as he beat Brewer, since then Brewer looked shot (IMO) vs Calzaghe (balance was poor) and also got beaten badly by Viet. Given Mundine's form since his victory over Echols it starts to paint not such a rosey a picture.

It would be an exciting fight to watch, but it really has come to late. Scott Pemberton is definately more worthy, even Mario Viet is more deserving of this fight. The Brewer win was highly controvesial.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 04 Jan 2005, 09:47

I think you mean the Mitchell win, he beat Brewer by miles on points.

As for the Mitchell stoppage, I thought it was a good one, he was getting drilled and his eyes were in the back of his head.

coneye · Post by **coneye** » 04 Jan 2005, 09:52

Say what you want but Echols is definetly a shot fighter, but then again he still could be more than what they want for Joe, don't worry if they even get a sniff Atwon is hitting hard in the gym it will unexplainedly fall through

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 04 Jan 2005, 10:12

Well it's a helluva lot better than Veit 2, that's for certain.

And why is Echols now a shot fighter? I don't see it. A shot fighter is one whose legs and reflexes have gone.
He's only lost to Hop and Mundine in the last 5 years - Hop being the only guy to ever stop him.
And just because a safetly first Mundine out boxed him in Oz, does not make the guy shot. One paced maybe, but not shot.
Joe would probably try to blast him, as usual, and it could be a very good fight. I reckon the American is still probably one of the hardest hitters around....
Now whether is actualy happens or not.....that's another, alleged, story.

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 04 Jan 2005, 10:20

Stu means the Brewer v Echols fight was highly controversial, which it was although Echols really did mess up Brewer at the end with his big right hand. A couple more head shots from Echols and I don't think too many would have complained about the stoppage even though Echols did have to climb off the canvas himself 2 or 3 times himself.

If this is Calzaghe's next opponent I personally won't be disappointed, it's the non-punchers that make me really grumble.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 04 Jan 2005, 10:33

Yes, Sheika was supposedly 'shot' and just took Lacy the distance.

Shot is a word which is very much overused, and I don't feel it applies in this case.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 04 Jan 2005, 10:53

The degree of Echol's 'shotness' is not the point really, the point is that it's yet another defence with the odds stacked heavily in Calzaghe's favour. Sure it's probably his best opponent since Brewer but that really isn't saying a lot.

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 04 Jan 2005, 11:01

I agree with Goz, even though it's not the worst possible fight available it's just another one of those contests that if made you just feel a little bit let down by the whole thing, there doesn't seem to be a real element of danger...a 50/50 feel, it is always stacked heavily in Calzaghe's favour to win. He needs a challenge badly to reignite his career, if it was Larsen, Kessler, Green, Lacy etc going in there i would be more forgiving but this is a "nothing" fight for me if it is eventually made...Calzaghe UD12 Echols.

bugs · Post by **bugs** » 04 Jan 2005, 12:17

Not sure that I see Kessler, Larsson or Green as particularly better than Echols.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 04 Jan 2005, 12:27

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I think you mean the Mitchell win, he beat Brewer by miles on points.

As for the Mitchell stoppage, I thought it was a good one, he was getting drilled and his eyes were in the back of his head.

What I meant was Echols' win over Brewer - sorry for the confusion, now that was controvesial. But yes, I did think the Mitchell vs Calzaghe fight was stopped a little early, its not as if Mitchell couldn't hurt Calzaghe.

I would actually probably prefer a Mitchell rematch to this one. Echols is an improvement on his last two opponent, but is he in anyones' top ten.

bugs · Post by **bugs** » 04 Jan 2005, 12:41

I dont think there is too much between the super middles, Calzaghe stands above them all, Lacy looks reasonable then there are a load of reasonable, but not oustanding fighters behind them.