Is Calzaghe the best white boxer since 1990?

[stujones]

The fights that redeem Calzaghe's legacy are Kessler and Hopkins - they proved how good he actually was, as most of the remainder of his career, barring the odd exception, was a bloated list of defences against sub-par challengers.

For me the lack of Nasim Richardson - for whatever reason was a massive reason for the Hopkins' performance vs Joe - Freddie Roach, for whatever reason, didn't see very enthusiastic about working with Hopkins. Hardly inspiring when the fight was getting close (I still see Hopkins as a winner), spoke at the end saying Hopkins won clearly but again just didn't look like he wanted to be there.

The Kessler and Hopkins fight, to some degree, show where Joe's stood. However, I would say to some degree. Kessler hasn't really had that "great" win over a peaking exceptional fighter to really show his standing. Froch.... yes, but that might be more of an aspect of where Froch is in the grand scheme of things - Ward showed both Froch and Kessler where their levels are and nothing is going to really over come that - they both lost big (despite the scoring saying otherwise for Froch).

Hopkins' advancing age (even in 2008) and lack of Nasim Richardson also leaves questions. I know I've had this debate with you on several occasions James, but for me that fight showed that a Hopkins of 90's and early 00's and with Richardson in the corner would have been a one sided affair.... others say (and I think your in that camp James if memory serves) that a more aggressive, fitter and less tactical Hopkins would have played into Joe's hands. I think Hopkins beat him in 2008 and would have won more clearly in his prime years.... WE JUST DON'T KNOW.

So even those fights, we still don't quite know how good Joe was. Would he have beaten a prime Jones, Hopkins, etc... Hell would he have even beaten a prime Winky Wright, Harry Simon etc. We just don't know. What they do show us is he was clearly a very good fighter and champion - up there with the true bests in his weight category??? can't answer either way. I have my own answer, but no evidence to support it either way.

[Crazyboy]

The fights that redeem Calzaghe's legacy are Kessler and Hopkins - they proved how good he actually was, as most of the remainder of his career, barring the odd exception, was a bloated list of defences against sub-par challengers.

For me the lack of Nasim Richardson - for whatever reason was a massive reason for the Hopkins' performance vs Joe - Freddie Roach, for whatever reason, didn't see very enthusiastic about working with Hopkins. Hardly inspiring when the fight was getting close (I still see Hopkins as a winner), spoke at the end saying Hopkins won clearly but again just didn't look like he wanted to be there.

The Kessler and Hopkins fight, to some degree, show where Joe's stood. However, I would say to some degree. Kessler hasn't really had that "great" win over a peaking exceptional fighter to really show his standing. Froch.... yes, but that might be more of an aspect of where Froch is in the grand scheme of things - Ward showed both Froch and Kessler where their levels are and nothing is going to really over come that - they both lost big (despite the scoring saying otherwise for Froch).

Hopkins' advancing age (even in 2008) and lack of Nasim Richardson also leaves questions. I know I've had this debate with you on several occasions James, but for me that fight showed that a Hopkins of 90's and early 00's and with Richardson in the corner would have been a one sided affair.... others say (and I think your in that camp James if memory serves) that a more aggressive, fitter and less tactical Hopkins would have played into Joe's hands. I think Hopkins beat him in 2008 and would have won more clearly in his prime years.... WE JUST DON'T KNOW.

So even those fights, we still don't quite know how good Joe was. Would he have beaten a prime Jones, Hopkins, etc... Hell would he have even beaten a prime Winky Wright, Harry Simon etc. We just don't know. What they do show us is he was clearly a very good fighter and champion - up there with the true bests in his weight category??? can't answer either way. I have my own answer, but no evidence to support it either way.

Prime example of how people can actually have a discussion without getting personnel, excellent form chaps.

If Joe isn't the best he would be up there as one of a top 3 in most lists I reckon.

[jamesmcdonnell]

The fights that redeem Calzaghe's legacy are Kessler and Hopkins - they proved how good he actually was, as most of the remainder of his career, barring the odd exception, was a bloated list of defences against sub-par challengers.

For me the lack of Nasim Richardson - for whatever reason was a massive reason for the Hopkins' performance vs Joe - Freddie Roach, for whatever reason, didn't see very enthusiastic about working with Hopkins. Hardly inspiring when the fight was getting close (I still see Hopkins as a winner), spoke at the end saying Hopkins won clearly but again just didn't look like he wanted to be there.

The Kessler and Hopkins fight, to some degree, show where Joe's stood. However, I would say to some degree. Kessler hasn't really had that "great" win over a peaking exceptional fighter to really show his standing. Froch.... yes, but that might be more of an aspect of where Froch is in the grand scheme of things - Ward showed both Froch and Kessler where their levels are and nothing is going to really over come that - they both lost big (despite the scoring saying otherwise for Froch).

Hopkins' advancing age (even in 2008) and lack of Nasim Richardson also leaves questions. I know I've had this debate with you on several occasions James, but for me that fight showed that a Hopkins of 90's and early 00's and with Richardson in the corner would have been a one sided affair.... others say (and I think your in that camp James if memory serves) that a more aggressive, fitter and less tactical Hopkins would have played into Joe's hands. I think Hopkins beat him in 2008 and would have won more clearly in his prime years.... WE JUST DON'T KNOW.

So even those fights, we still don't quite know how good Joe was. Would he have beaten a prime Jones, Hopkins, etc... Hell would he have even beaten a prime Winky Wright, Harry Simon etc. We just don't know. What they do show us is he was clearly a very good fighter and champion - up there with the true bests in his weight category??? can't answer either way. I have my own answer, but no evidence to support it either way.

These are excellent points Stu, and obviously, we will never know either

a) How a younger Hopkins would have done against Calzaghe.
b) what effect Nasim Richardson would have had on the outcome.

I do think that Hopkins style in his later years has allowed him to overcome technically limited fighter, by picking his spots, making them miss, and generally looking in control, he was able to steal rounds enough to win fights against far younger, fresher opponents.

Hopkins was probably at his peak in terms of the combination of his physicality and experience around the Trinidad fight (Christ, how many years ago) - he was certainly a lot more aggressive at that point, but still technically very good.

I think Calzaghe's own technique has been very underrated - mainly because he was very aggressive, but Joe had excellent footwork and his upper body movement was also excellent.

Overall, I consider Hopkins the greater fighter, his body of work is ludicrous, but that doesn't mean I think he would have beaten Calzaghe.

Hopkins weakness has always been speed and movement, and Calzaghe had both, as well as a great chin, an utter determination to win, and fantastic stamina.

It's a shame Hopkins turned down the chance to fight Calzaghe not long after the Tito fight, he was made a very good offer, and turned it down to fight for far less money. Was he scared? Perhaps not, but he certainly had an overrated sense of his own value.

Incidentally, I scored the fight properly when I watched it, and had it a draw. Calzaghe landed very little, Hopkins even less. Calzaghe won a few rounds just on aggression, because Hopkins was so negative.

P.S - no way Calzaghe beats a prime RJJ - no way. I think however, he would have kept RJJ honest, and given him a tougher fight that expected.

[Boxing Prospect]

In fairness to those suggesting that Hopkins wasn't in his prime, was Joe? His fingers were biscuits and style had to change as well. Just something to think about.

[polecateddy]

In fairness to those suggesting that Hopkins wasn't in his prime, was Joe? His fingers were biscuits and style had to change as well. Just something to think about.

He couldn't even spar and can't close his left hand now apparently. Perhaps if Joe had been at his peak, and punching harder he could have stopped Jones and Hopkins.

[oliverc]

In fairness to those suggesting that Hopkins wasn't in his prime, was Joe? His fingers were biscuits and style had to change as well. Just something to think about.

He couldn't even spar and can't close his left hand now apparently. Perhaps if Joe had been at his peak, and punching harder he could have stopped Jones and Hopkins.

If you could somehow pit a prime Joe against a prime Roy, i'm afraid there would only be one winner. I doubt Joe would've won a round.

[stujones]

The fights that redeem Calzaghe's legacy are Kessler and Hopkins - they proved how good he actually was, as most of the remainder of his career, barring the odd exception, was a bloated list of defences against sub-par challengers.

For me the lack of Nasim Richardson - for whatever reason was a massive reason for the Hopkins' performance vs Joe - Freddie Roach, for whatever reason, didn't see very enthusiastic about working with Hopkins. Hardly inspiring when the fight was getting close (I still see Hopkins as a winner), spoke at the end saying Hopkins won clearly but again just didn't look like he wanted to be there.

The Kessler and Hopkins fight, to some degree, show where Joe's stood. However, I would say to some degree. Kessler hasn't really had that "great" win over a peaking exceptional fighter to really show his standing. Froch.... yes, but that might be more of an aspect of where Froch is in the grand scheme of things - Ward showed both Froch and Kessler where their levels are and nothing is going to really over come that - they both lost big (despite the scoring saying otherwise for Froch).

Hopkins' advancing age (even in 2008) and lack of Nasim Richardson also leaves questions. I know I've had this debate with you on several occasions James, but for me that fight showed that a Hopkins of 90's and early 00's and with Richardson in the corner would have been a one sided affair.... others say (and I think your in that camp James if memory serves) that a more aggressive, fitter and less tactical Hopkins would have played into Joe's hands. I think Hopkins beat him in 2008 and would have won more clearly in his prime years.... WE JUST DON'T KNOW.

So even those fights, we still don't quite know how good Joe was. Would he have beaten a prime Jones, Hopkins, etc... Hell would he have even beaten a prime Winky Wright, Harry Simon etc. We just don't know. What they do show us is he was clearly a very good fighter and champion - up there with the true bests in his weight category??? can't answer either way. I have my own answer, but no evidence to support it either way.

These are excellent points Stu, and obviously, we will never know either

a) How a younger Hopkins would have done against Calzaghe.
b) what effect Nasim Richardson would have had on the outcome.

I do think that Hopkins style in his later years has allowed him to overcome technically limited fighter, by picking his spots, making them miss, and generally looking in control, he was able to steal rounds enough to win fights against far younger, fresher opponents.

Hopkins was probably at his peak in terms of the combination of his physicality and experience around the Trinidad fight (Christ, how many years ago) - he was certainly a lot more aggressive at that point, but still technically very good.

I think Calzaghe's own technique has been very underrated - mainly because he was very aggressive, but Joe had excellent footwork and his upper body movement was also excellent.

Overall, I consider Hopkins the greater fighter, his body of work is ludicrous, but that doesn't mean I think he would have beaten Calzaghe.

Hopkins weakness has always been speed and movement, and Calzaghe had both, as well as a great chin, an utter determination to win, and fantastic stamina.

It's a shame Hopkins turned down the chance to fight Calzaghe not long after the Tito fight, he was made a very good offer, and turned it down to fight for far less money. Was he scared? Perhaps not, but he certainly had an overrated sense of his own value.

Incidentally, I scored the fight properly when I watched it, and had it a draw. Calzaghe landed very little, Hopkins even less. Calzaghe won a few rounds just on aggression, because Hopkins was so negative.

P.S - no way Calzaghe beats a prime RJJ - no way. I think however, he would have kept RJJ honest, and given him a tougher fight that expected.

Agree with what you say, I think though what surprised me about the 2008 is how Hopkins beat Joe to the punch and quite a few occasions. I scored the fight pretty comfortable Hopkins (2 points, but I thought my card was kind to Joe) - when the deciding score card was being read I can remember saying to the TV "oh its Hopkins" cos if memory serves me it was a wide card. There is no way I thought Calzaghe won the fight wide. I could see if you might have gone 1-2 rounds for Joe, but for me Hopkins' ringcraft - always seeming to end each exchange with the eye catching shot (even if Joe might have landed 2 before Hopkins final one) was what was tipping the balance. There is a youtube montage of the fight I think called "Hopkins vs Calzaghe analysed, Hopkins robbed" - I agree with that montage entirely.

Yes, Hopkins had problems with a prime RJJ. I think Boxing Prospect makes a very valid point about how Fresh was Joe in 2008? Joe was quick, but was he quick enough for Hopkins? Was Joe himself quick enough in 2001/2002 to beat the prime Hopkins to the punch. He wasn't in 2008.

Such a shame, my belief is Hopkins would have beaten him pretty comfortably, Jones would have won every round against Joe - Joe was a beautifully managed fighter. The fact that we can even have a debate about these fights 5 years after Joe retired says it all.

We cannot with regards to Hatton and Mayweather/Pacquiao five years after Ricky (first) retired. Had he done the rounds with Gatti, Mitchell, Harris, Witter and beaten everyone he fought, but never fought those two.... perhaps we could have the same debate with Ricky and Ricky would be in the thread title and not Joe. Ricky was well capable of beating the Light Welter equivalents of who Joe faced.