Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark

[Taansend]

I think a BOTH option would have been good. He's over rated by some & under rated by others (a bit like Beckham).

Was a fan since his amateur days - first to win consecutive ABA's in 3 weights since WWII I remember Boxing News saying at the time - but his career was a bit dull in the middle when he could have been fighting better opposition. But that's a common British malaise especially around that time.

I don't care about a fighter being undefeated. I mean, good for them, but it's not a big deal to me.

He was very very good but I felt his career could have been better - even with a loss or three.

[Autobarn]

One last thing I would say is that Carl Froch has proven a big problem for Calzaghe's legacy.

Whilst Joe had fought B class fighters for a long time, Carl Froch - when he rose to prominence often fought the best fighters in the world consistently, fight after fight - it was either a highly ranked contender or a fellow Champion or a former Champion.

Yeah agree. Froch used to annoy me constantly going on about Calzaghe when at the time Calzaghe was leagues above him. Froch proved himself though and fought anyone who's anyone during his career. I still think Calzaghe would've boxed rings round Froch and made him look daft. Maybe it's a blessing in disguise for Froch that fight never happened when he was shouting for it because he might not have went on and had the great career he did. I'm a fan of both but Joe was all wrong for Carl.

even if he lost Carl would've made it into an exciting fight.

Great thing about Joe, he traded, varied his attack, and while his defence was ok he was not elusive. No one really tried to back Joe up, made a huge stand. They usually either went for left hooks or right hands - seldom both. When I look at the Froch of the Bute fight, prime Froch sticking to a game plan, he does have tools to trouble Joe.

Joe was wrong for him, but so was Eubank for Nigel Benn, their first fight was wonderful, and it showed Benn he still had things to work on to reach the elite level, which he did. Think it would've been similar with Froch.

[Covfefe]

One last thing I would say is that Carl Froch has proven a big problem for Calzaghe's legacy.

Whilst Joe had fought B class fighters for a long time, Carl Froch - when he rose to prominence often fought the best fighters in the world consistently, fight after fight - it was either a highly ranked contender or a fellow Champion or a former Champion.

Yeah agree. Froch used to annoy me constantly going on about Calzaghe when at the time Calzaghe was leagues above him. Froch proved himself though and fought anyone who's anyone during his career. I still think Calzaghe would've boxed rings round Froch and made him look daft. Maybe it's a blessing in disguise for Froch that fight never happened when he was shouting for it because he might not have went on and had the great career he did. I'm a fan of both but Joe was all wrong for Carl.

even if he lost Carl would've made it into an exciting fight.

Great thing about Joe, he traded, varied his attack, and while his defence was ok he was not elusive. No one really tried to back Joe up, made a huge stand. They usually either went for left hooks or right hands - seldom both. When I look at the Froch of the Bute fight, prime Froch sticking to a game plan, he does have tools to trouble Joe.

Joe was wrong for him, but so was Eubank for Nigel Benn, their first fight was wonderful, and it showed Benn he still had things to work on to reach the elite level, which he did. Think it would've been similar with Froch.

Bute stood against the ropes and took whatever Carl could throw for large sections of that fight, Joe isn't going to do that, and Joe has a decent enough chin that I don't think Carl can crack it without the kind of serious volume he had to lay on Bute.

[samwbr]

Robin Reid , their opponent in kind, picks Froch to beat Calzaghe.

[samwbr]

Yeah agree. Froch used to annoy me constantly going on about Calzaghe when at the time Calzaghe was leagues above him. Froch proved himself though and fought anyone who's anyone during his career. I still think Calzaghe would've boxed rings round Froch and made him look daft. Maybe it's a blessing in disguise for Froch that fight never happened when he was shouting for it because he might not have went on and had the great career he did. I'm a fan of both but Joe was all wrong for Carl.

even if he lost Carl would've made it into an exciting fight.

Great thing about Joe, he traded, varied his attack, and while his defence was ok he was not elusive. No one really tried to back Joe up, made a huge stand. They usually either went for left hooks or right hands - seldom both. When I look at the Froch of the Bute fight, prime Froch sticking to a game plan, he does have tools to trouble Joe.

Joe was wrong for him, but so was Eubank for Nigel Benn, their first fight was wonderful, and it showed Benn he still had things to work on to reach the elite level, which he did. Think it would've been similar with Froch.

Bute stood against the ropes and took whatever Carl could throw for large sections of that fight, Joe isn't going to do that, and Joe has a decent enough chin that I don't think Carl can crack it without the kind of serious volume he had to lay on Bute.

It was a shellacking that could have been waved off in the 4th before the inevitable stoppage in 5. I think Froch would have beaten anyone in front of him that night, it was a fantastic performance.

[Autobarn]

Yeah agree. Froch used to annoy me constantly going on about Calzaghe when at the time Calzaghe was leagues above him. Froch proved himself though and fought anyone who's anyone during his career. I still think Calzaghe would've boxed rings round Froch and made him look daft. Maybe it's a blessing in disguise for Froch that fight never happened when he was shouting for it because he might not have went on and had the great career he did. I'm a fan of both but Joe was all wrong for Carl.

even if he lost Carl would've made it into an exciting fight.

Great thing about Joe, he traded, varied his attack, and while his defence was ok he was not elusive. No one really tried to back Joe up, made a huge stand. They usually either went for left hooks or right hands - seldom both. When I look at the Froch of the Bute fight, prime Froch sticking to a game plan, he does have tools to trouble Joe.

Joe was wrong for him, but so was Eubank for Nigel Benn, their first fight was wonderful, and it showed Benn he still had things to work on to reach the elite level, which he did. Think it would've been similar with Froch.

Bute stood against the ropes and took whatever Carl could throw for large sections of that fight, Joe isn't going to do that, and Joe has a decent enough chin that I don't think Carl can crack it without the kind of serious volume he had to lay on Bute.

froch's positioning and repertoire were superb that night and leads me to think he'd have been able to have good exchanges with Joe. Froch, because he was in with a good southpaw, was right in it, initiating rather than waiting. This is encouraging work.

Of course joe is more mobile and better than Bute, with better fighting spirit, etc etc

Joe got pelted with right after right by a good but underpowered Ritchie Woodhall. One of Joe's few action fights. What if soneone bigger and stronger and more naturally aggressive tried sustained attacks of left hooks and rights. Not saying Froch would knock him out in five - just that he'd be able to be intensely competitive.

On the other hand, some fights Froch used zero strategy (Kessler I and Groves I) and if he didn't defend himself, and waited for Joe to come to him, he'd give the fight completely away - though he'd muster enough rallies to make for an enjoyable fight he'd be a step behind all night.

[Ruthless-RKO]

It's a fair question, but let's be honest - which of those other belt holders would really have been much of an improvement on Calzaghe's resume? It's a piss poor list, much worse than I remember, and I'd say Calzaghe already fought the pick of the bunch in Reid / Woodhall / Mitchell. Ottke would have been the only major scalp out of that list

I agree with you partially. Looking at the World Champs lists above, I was struck by the poor standard of fighter on them.

However, I do think that just focusing on the WBC, WBA & IBF lists can be misleading...

For me, there's no doubt that Joe could have defended against a better class of opposition had he truly committed to doing, from when he was WBO Champ of the Super Middleweight division the years of 1997-2007.

In the late 90s, I look at the likes of Hopkins & Jones Jr (as I said earlier) but also what about the likes of James Toney? Michael Nunn?

And what about the 2000s, Jermain Taylor? Kelly Pavlik? Surely they could be enticed to move up a single division for a big-money payday.

I had a look at a few archive top 15 WBO ranks from the time that Joe was champion. Who he could have fought as voluntary.

2000-2005: Rudy Markussen, Librado Andrade, Scott Pemberton, Anthony Mundine, Charles Brewer, Mads Larsen, Otis Grant, Robert Stieglitz, Syd Vanderpool, Mger Mkrtchyan, Eric Lucas, Danilo Haussler, Jurgen Braehmer, Mario Veit..

Names I have missed out are ones that he did fight, it looked like either WBO ranked weak fighters or, the best in the division held other belts. Or maybe the division was weak overall. Joe just never made his presence felt.

[Boxerbeetle]

It's a fair question, but let's be honest - which of those other belt holders would really have been much of an improvement on Calzaghe's resume? It's a piss poor list, much worse than I remember, and I'd say Calzaghe already fought the pick of the bunch in Reid / Woodhall / Mitchell. Ottke would have been the only major scalp out of that list

I agree with you partially. Looking at the World Champs lists above, I was struck by the poor standard of fighter on them.

However, I do think that just focusing on the WBC, WBA & IBF lists can be misleading...

For me, there's no doubt that Joe could have defended against a better class of opposition had he truly committed to doing, from when he was WBO Champ of the Super Middleweight division the years of 1997-2007.

In the late 90s, I look at the likes of Hopkins & Jones Jr (as I said earlier) but also what about the likes of James Toney? Michael Nunn?

And what about the 2000s, Jermain Taylor? Kelly Pavlik? Surely they could be enticed to move up a single division for a big-money payday.

I had a look at a few archive top 15 WBO ranks from the time that Joe was champion. Who he could have fought as voluntary.

2000-2005: Rudy Markussen, Librado Andrade, Scott Pemberton, Anthony Mundine, Charles Brewer, Mads Larsen, Otis Grant, Robert Stieglitz, Syd Vanderpool, Mger Mkrtchyan, Eric Lucas, Danilo Haussler, Jurgen Braehmer, Mario Veit..

Names I have missed out are ones that he did fight, it looked like either WBO ranked weak fighters or, the best in the division held other belts. Or maybe the division was weak overall. Joe just never made his presence felt.

Out of that list Calzaghe did fight Veit (twice!), Mkrtchyan and Brewer (unless I'm misunderstanding your post?).

[Crease]

If we are talking about fighters that we'd like to have seen Joe fight, I'd pick Markus Bayer.

[Boxerbeetle]

As I've written many times on here before, I'm a huge Calzaghe fan and followed his career closely from the amateurs as we're both from South Wales so he was always covered by the local press before making it big.

However, I do think he is in danger of becoming slightly overrated (as do a lot of fighters after they retire). He had some good wins and a couple of excellent performances, but I do think his record flatters him - the middle of his career was absolutely dire (and anyone remember his performance against Salem? Truly awful).

If Calzaghe had stepped out of his comfort zone and chased the big names in America when they were actually close to their primes, we'd have found out a lot more about him, and I suspect he wouldn't have retired undefeated but may be remembered slightly more fondly.

[Ruthless-RKO]

If we are talking about fighters that we'd like to have seen Joe fight, I'd pick Markus Bayer.

Same.. He protected his own 0..

You don't have to retire undefeated to be remembered. TBH, how many American's actually know his name? Maybe more after he fought B-Hop and RJJ

[dirk2686]

A defence of Calzaghe is that the WBO ranked weak fighters and therefore he couldn't do anything but fight those put in front of him.

An equally valid criticism is you can't end up over-valuing the WBO title to the detriment of your career. Move weight, pay fighters in different weights enough that they will fight you and get some names on your record. It's one thing saying super middle wasn't great for years but there were loads of names in and around the division that he never fought.

[Ruthless-RKO]

October 2006 Before he fought Bika and Manfredo Jr

CHAMPION JOE CALZAGHE (Sup Champ) GB
1 1. Rudy Markussen DEN
2 2. Robert Stieglitz DEU
3 3. Denis Inkin RUS
4 4. Carl Froch GB
5 5. Allan Green USA
6 6. Lucian Bute (Int-Cont) ROM
7 7. Jeff Lacy USA
8 8. Mario Veit DEU
9 9. Victor Oganov RUS
10 10. Cristian Sanavia ITA
11 11. Mger Mkrtchian ARM
12 12. Jean Paul Mendy FRA
13 13. Sakio Bika AUST
14 14. Hector Velazco ARG
15 15. Francisco Antonio Mora (Latino) ARG

He picked Bika ranked 13..

A couple of months before Peter Manfredo, Jr. fight, he was ranked number 5..
---------------------------------------
A month after the Kessler fight, (December 2007).. This was the WBO rankings.. You can see the names there.. Instead he moved up..

CHAMPION JOE CALZAGHE (Sup Champ) GB
1 Juergen Braehmer DEU
2 Jean Pascal (NABO) CAN
3 Denis Inkin RUS
4 Mikkel Kessler DEN
5 Jermain Taylor USA
6 Carl Froch GB
7 Robert Stieglitz DEU
8 Jean Paul Mendy FRA
9 Karoly Balzsay (Int-Cont) HUN
10 Cristian Sanavia ITA
11 Edison "Pantera" Miranda COL
12 Sakio Bika
13 Librado Andrade MEX
14 Allan Green USA
15 Kariz Kariuki (Asia-Pacific) KEN

[dookus]

I would have liked to see him fight Green, Mundine, Johnson and Beyer (not to mention Ottke - not that Ottke ever wanted to). Never was convinced by all the rhetoric that he "cleaned the division out", as undoubtedly good as he was.

[magwitch]

Calzaghe simply valued his "0" too much and was happy defending his title against bums for years. He bottled it against Johnson a couple of times. He got some great wins but totally wasted his talent because he was a bottler.

It also didn't help his legacy that he took on two over the hill fighters and got dropped in the first round against them both. He'll go down as a great fighter who wasted his career. He must look back and wished he'd taken more chances as he was good enough to beat anyone around his time. If he didn't have the Kessler win on his record no one would be talking about him anymore.

I think the point is, he set himself up for life. I doubt he regrets that.

Beat some very good fighters. Personally I don’t think he gets enough credit for stopping Woodhall. Woodhall was one tough nut, with a bit of skill to go with it. It does sound like he was at the end of it tho. I remember even his entrance music that night was “one more time...”

[magwitch]

I never knew about any of this “ducking” Glenn Johnson business...

[Exoddus]

I never knew about any of this “ducking” Glenn Johnson business...

I think it was 4 times. I remember allegedly having to pay money to Glenn Johnson twice I think for fights that didn't happen. Enzo Calzaghe tried for years to get Joe in with the top fighters but Joe wasn't having any of it. I remember Joe being on about 35 wins and saying he's defended the belt x numbers of times etc and Enzo just turns around looks Joe in the face and simply says to him "yeah, but you've not fought anyone yet" during an interview with them both.

Enzo knew his son was good enough to beat anyone. Joe wouldn't have wins over Kessler, Lacy or Hopkins if not for his dad. Because he wouldn't have fought them.

[magwitch]

I never knew about any of this “ducking” Glenn Johnson business...

I think it was 4 times. I remember allegedly having to pay money to Glenn Johnson twice I think for fights that didn't happen. Enzo Calzaghe tried for years to get Joe in with the top fighters but Joe wasn't having any of it. I remember Joe being on about 35 wins and saying he's defended the belt x numbers of times etc and Enzo just turns around looks Joe in the face and simply says to him "yeah, but you've not fought anyone yet" during an interview with them both.

Enzo knew his son was good enough to beat anyone. Joe wouldn't have wins over Kessler, Lacy or Hopkins if not for his dad. Because he wouldn't have fought them.

Joe wanted to pull out of the Lacy fight, but his Dad convinced him it would be easy! ....of course, with hindsight it was...but how many Dads don’t back their sons to the hilt like that? Not many perhaps.

Is there a parallel with Mayweather to be made here or am I barking up the wrong tree? A fighter that takes no risks by being OUT of the ring, and ONE who takes no risks whilst IN the ring......Probably two different animals altogether - but the avoidance of risk is present in both. In Mayweather’s case though, it’s an art imho. The risks were there - but he was, by some margin, too damn good.

[rio]

One thing people forget and don't mention is that froch got offer the calzaghe fight by Frank and turned it down

[dirk2686]

One thing people forget and don't mention is that froch got offer the calzaghe fight by Frank and turned it down

The ins and outs of said deal would be interesting. If you go back to reports of Calzaghe fights at the time the aftermath was almost always full of 'we're in talks with Hopkins/we're negotiating with Johnson' type comments which never actually materialised. Froch being offered a pittance is an offer; doesn't mean he should take it.

There was a lot of talk about Calzaghe Pavlik but Joe said he (Pav) had been offered the fight at a previous point and he knocked it back. Turns out Pavlik was a kid who'd had about three eight rounders or something daft.

[samwbr]

Calzaghe vacated when Froch was made his mandatory didnt he?

[Boxerbeetle]

Is there a parallel with Mayweather to be made here or am I barking up the wrong tree? A fighter that takes no risks by being OUT of the ring, and ONE who takes no risks whilst IN the ring......Probably two different animals altogether - but the avoidance of risk is present in both. In Mayweather’s case though, it’s an art imho. The risks were there - but he was, by some margin, too damn good.

Not really. Mayweather only really started taking no risks when he moved up a few weights and his hands were repeatedly injured. Mayweather in the first half of his career was superbly aggressive when he wanted to be. I strongly recommend you watch his fights against Gatti, N'Dou and Corrales.

[Counter-puncher]

Reviewing a fighters career having actually watched more han two of his fights, now there's an innovative idea. It's crazy but it might just catch on

[magwitch]

Is there a parallel with Mayweather to be made here or am I barking up the wrong tree? A fighter that takes no risks by being OUT of the ring, and ONE who takes no risks whilst IN the ring......Probably two different animals altogether - but the avoidance of risk is present in both. In Mayweather’s case though, it’s an art imho. The risks were there - but he was, by some margin, too damn good.

Not really. Mayweather only really started taking no risks when he moved up a few weights and his hands were repeatedly injured. Mayweather in the first half of his career was superbly aggressive when he wanted to be. I strongly recommend you watch his fights against Gatti, N'Dou and Corrales.

I believe there was a fighter by name of Sharmba Mitchell on the Ricky Hatton - Ben Tackie card.....I was there. I could be getting mixed up with Lacy......they may even both have boxed that night. Anyway, long story short - Sharmba Mitchell was A1 for Active Service!.........some years later I saw a video on the superb KOTV show on channel 4 of Sharmba Mitchell versus Mayweather......

So I get your point. Mitchell was the shizzle back then and Mayweather TOOK IT TO HIM. This was exactly the k8nd of fight where you find your level if indeed you are human - and Mayweather walloped him. It was highly impressive stuff - which by your post you probably already know

This is why you won’t catch me dissing Mayweather, in a nutshell.
It comes down to experience in my book too. He wasn’t born more gifted than anybody, but having Floyd & Roger Mayweather training you from 2 or 3....you are going to have advantages - in boxing.

[Jackson328]

I remember a few years ago seeing an interview with the legendary Bert Randolph Sugar and the interviewer mentioned his book 'Bert Sugars 100 Greatest Boxers of All Time' or something, I still have it in the attic actually. Bert talked about meeting up with some retired fighter or other who was irked that he wasn't in the book or should have been higher up in the top 100 list etc and Bert told him that part of his rationale when rating fighters careers was how they responded to defeat. I think the only unbeaten fighter who made his list was Marciano who was pretty much the top heavyweight during his peak years anyway. Bert said he didn't rate boxers until they'd been beaten because thats how the very best prove their greatness, he bemoaned the modern day obsession with the 'O' on a fighters slate and blamed that plus the alphabet titles as boxings biggest problems in the modern era.

I do think that Calzaghe became obsessed with his 'O' later in his career and there was often talk of brittle hands and other injuries too, maybe thats why he allegedly swerved some risky matches? I think most of us would be very happy with a career like Joe's but if we're being brutally honest it still seems a case of what might have been with him because I believe he was the best SM for pretty much his whole reign. in his defence you have to say that when he did step up he usually delivered, the Kessler, Lacy and Hopkins fights proved that. I think his win against Hopkins, although a horrible fight, stands the test of time when you consider what Hopkins did afterwards in his career. Calzaghe/Froch could have been one for the ages but Joe's prime had long gone before Carl reached his in my opinion. There is a lot of 'coulda, shoulda, woulda' about Joe's resume but he still had a stellar career in both the am's and the pro's.

Just for the record, I believe that a prime Calzaghe beats a prime Froch by UD but undoubtedly Carl stands higher on my all time British top 10 list and his resume is much more handsome too.