Joe Calzaghe- All time great?

[chrisjs1985]

Thanks for the above Controversial...........

.....a good find and Joe's excellent book No Ordinary Joe has plenty of similar anecdotes. The injections were not once in a while procedures and especially towards the end of his career they were actually an absolute necessity.

What I do admire about Calzaghe - and which in turn was a huge factor in his success - was a fierce desire to prepare for fights in his own low key and very particular way.

Just completely out of limelight, no distractions whatsoever and trusting a set-up that was very basic in terms of facilities but excellent in terms of sharpening his skills, getting supremely fit and mentally right in the zone.

Reading Joe's book you get the sense that he was a very grounded, home-loving guy and also sufficiently strong-minded to resist offers to move to London and working with a named trainer in an 'established' gym.

I suppose it is a long-winded way of saying that Joe completely knew his own mind and was mentally a tough nut as well.......the extra ingredient was his extraordinary father Enzo who variously annoyed, inspired and protected him.

I read his book a while back too and enjoyed it. I was a big Calzaghe fan and had the pleasure of following his entire career and attending the Lacy and Kessler fights. The Lacy fight I was certain 100% he'd win and win well. I won a good chunk of change on that one but the Kessler fight I wasn't so sure. I had a beer with Kessler at the (then) M.E.N arena on the night of the Lacy fight. He was in a bar on the corner floor level and he was alone with his manager, nobody recognizing him and then me and my friend did. He said "How do you even know who I am", he was very happy to be recognized and had a talk with him. I asked "who do you hope will win" or something to that affect and he said "Calzaghe. I met them both yesterday and Lacy I shook his hand and he just tried to stare at me and was rude. Calzaghe was really nice and complimented me".

I grew up in England and started watching boxing in the early 90's so he was always a fighter I followed and enjoyed. Even back then I don't feel the public outside of Wales really valued or appreciated him. In Wales you could mention his name or see at his fights the people loved him and knew what they had. In England he was overshadowed by Hamed first and then Lewis and then Hatton. I was on a lunch break around 2006/2007 and the newspaper had the pound for pound top 10 in it and it had Calzaghe over Hatton and my co-workers were saying "That's nuts. How is Calzaghe better than Hatton" and I told them "He's MUCH better. It's not even close" and they were taken aback.

I've lived in Los Angeles for 10 years now and even among Boxing fans he seems to be a bit undervalued here. With my friends they act like Andre Ward was great and Calzaghe was just a hyped European

His low-key lifestyle and the fact he wasn't a braggart really stopped him being a superstar. If he was as brash and cocky as Hamed but as dedicated and focused as he was he'd have been huge on both sides of the pond. He was a great fighter.

[Jacopodb]

Considering he was blighted by hand injuries his entire career his career was very good. The win over Hopkins looks better in time.

Agreed Controversial........when his hands were good Calzaghe could be a fast, nasty and clinical finisher.

As his career progressed and the hands became more problematic he invested more into upping his impressive output, shot accuracy and got adept at managing fights. And there was still enough on his shots to stop blokes from wading-in.

I'd have loved to have seen in with Collins, Benn and Froch but sadly we'll never know what would have unfolded.

In his prime, he was a terrific powerpuncher by all means.

[oogiebe]

Considering he was blighted by hand injuries his entire career his career was very good. The win over Hopkins looks better in time.

Agreed Controversial........when his hands were good Calzaghe could be a fast, nasty and clinical finisher.

As his career progressed and the hands became more problematic he invested more into upping his impressive output, shot accuracy and got adept at managing fights. And there was still enough on his shots to stop blokes from wading-in.

I'd have loved to have seen in with Collins, Benn and Froch but sadly we'll never know what would have unfolded.

In his prime, he was a terrific powerpuncher by all means.

How much credit do we need to give this guy, in that he had to adjust his game and he was still great.

[elmersalsa]

Joe Calzaghe.

The best super middleweight of all time? Yes.
A top 100 ATG pound per pound? No!

He is in the same class of borderline top 100 greats like Oscar De La Hoya, Shane Mosley, GGG, Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, Mike Gibbons, Ismael Laguna, Ken Buchanan, Bob Montgomery, James Toney.....See?

[elmersalsa]

He's the best British boxer of all time without a doubt. He'd be in my top 10 pound for pound list of all time too. You could argue that when he beat Eubank, Hopkins and Jones they were all past it - but Calzaghe was no spring chicken when he beat the last two. He fought the best of his era and beat them - you can't ask for more.

The best British boxer? Excuse me? Have you heard of Bob Fitzsimmons?

[oogiebe]

Joe Calzaghe.

The best super middleweight of all time? Yes.
A top 100 ATG pound per pound? No!

He is in the same class of borderline top 100 greats like Oscar De La Hoya, Shane Mosley, GGG, Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, Mike Gibbons, Ismael Laguna, Ken Buchanan, Bob Montgomery, James Toney.....See?

Maybe...maybe a bit better, but not top 75 for sure. Arguments can be made for top 100. IMHO.

[Crease]

I'd have loved to have seen in with Collins, Benn and Froch but sadly we'll never know what would have unfolded.

Collins in the 90s and Froch in the 00s in particular... Benn was burnt out after his 2nd loss to Collins.

[Jacopodb]

Joe Calzaghe.

The best super middleweight of all time? Yes.
A top 100 ATG pound per pound? No!

He is in the same class of borderline top 100 greats like Oscar De La Hoya, Shane Mosley, GGG, Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, Mike Gibbons, Ismael Laguna, Ken Buchanan, Bob Montgomery, James Toney.....See?

As I see it, with all due respect, Calzaghe and his brittle hands would have outboxed the likes of Toney, just like Hopkins and Roy Jones Jr. were outboxed.
I don't believe that Calzaghe has ever "ducked" anyone... usually, fans claiming that great fighters "ducked" people, are just bloodthirsty cheerleaders, with a special sadomasochistic complex.
Calzaghe fought on equal terms with the greats, and succeeded: he's definitely, at least, all-time p4p top100, to me, until proven wrong.

[banjo]

I'd have loved to have seen in with Collins, Benn and Froch but sadly we'll never know what would have unfolded.

Collins in the 90s and Froch in the 00s in particular... Benn was burnt out after his 2nd loss to Collins.

He was burnt out long before then, never looked right after the McClellan fight.

[chrisjs1985]

Joe Calzaghe.

The best super middleweight of all time? Yes.
A top 100 ATG pound per pound? No!

He is in the same class of borderline top 100 greats like Oscar De La Hoya, Shane Mosley, GGG, Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, Mike Gibbons, Ismael Laguna, Ken Buchanan, Bob Montgomery, James Toney.....See?

As I see it, with all due respect, Calzaghe and his brittle hands would have outboxed the likes of Toney, just like Hopkins and Roy Jones Jr. were outboxed.
I don't believe that Calzaghe has ever "ducked" anyone... usually, fans claiming that great fighters "ducked" people, are just bloodthirsty cheerleaders, with a special sadomasochistic complex.
Calzaghe fought on equal terms with the greats, and succeeded: he's definitely, at least, all-time p4p top100, to me, until proven wrong.

I am an big fan of both Calzaghe and Toney and I'd have to agree Calzaghe would have beaten him. Styles make fights. Sure, Toney had more pure skill, better defense and looked the classier fighter but Calzaghe was more active, consistent and I don't see Toney KO'ing him therefore he'd just not win enough rounds against Joe.

[Jacopodb]

Joe Calzaghe.

The best super middleweight of all time? Yes.
A top 100 ATG pound per pound? No!

He is in the same class of borderline top 100 greats like Oscar De La Hoya, Shane Mosley, GGG, Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, Mike Gibbons, Ismael Laguna, Ken Buchanan, Bob Montgomery, James Toney.....See?

As I see it, with all due respect, Calzaghe and his brittle hands would have outboxed the likes of Toney, just like Hopkins and Roy Jones Jr. were outboxed.
I don't believe that Calzaghe has ever "ducked" anyone... usually, fans claiming that great fighters "ducked" people, are just bloodthirsty cheerleaders, with a special sadomasochistic complex.
Calzaghe fought on equal terms with the greats, and succeeded: he's definitely, at least, all-time p4p top100, to me, until proven wrong.

I am an big fan of both Calzaghe and Toney and I'd have to agree Calzaghe would have beaten him. Styles make fights. Sure, Toney had more pure skill, better defense and looked the classier fighter but Calzaghe was more active, consistent and I don't see Toney KO'ing him therefore he'd just not win enough rounds against Joe.

I'm no fan, for instance.
The problem with Toney was, I guess, his work-ethics: he's hugely talented, obviously more stylish than classy (now, Calzaghe is class), but you don't slur like that in your 50s, if you had fought responsibly: he even challenged Randy Couture... going at it with all that fat, was no good: he'd better have got back in shape and challenged a fair boxer... he wouldn't have gotten more brain concussion than what Couture inflicted him. I don't know, maybe he had bet on Couture, and made a lot of money, I don't know what's the payday for such a UFC fight... he must have had his reasons... Anyway, Calzaghe's work-ethics were the real deal. And, of course, great makings: speed, punching power, etc.

[Bodyshot3]

Joe C v James T would have been a truly fascinating match-up with both them in the right place physically/mentally.

I certainly don't see Toney doing a Lacy for example which is coming into the ring trying to headhunt Joe or bully/march him about the ring whilst getting pot-shotted to death and also emptying his tank. He was too smart for that.

Toney knew how to block a shot, would not come at fighters like Joe in straight lines and knew more than a bit about pacing himself and punch selection.

James could be tricky, patient and was skilled at nabbing rounds and creating scorecard pressure. He was also a big unit who Joe probably would not try to blast out even when his hands were good.

But Joe was so incredibly busy and also accurate at his best - from first to last bell - I think that nags away at James and the Welshman is winning the lion's share of some very close/contested rounds.

And with Toney in the other corner Joe's chin is tucked-in all night long (no Mitchell fight bravado) and he's always on the move and James is having to work really hard to score his points.

[Jacopodb]

Joe C v James T would have been a truly fascinating match-up with both them in the right place physically/mentally.

I certainly don't see Toney doing a Lacy for example which is coming into the ring trying to headhunt Joe or bully/march him about the ring whilst getting pot-shotted to death and also emptying his tank. He was too smart for that.

Toney knew how to block a shot, would not come at fighters like Joe in straight lines and knew more than a bit about pacing himself and punch selection.

James could be tricky, patient and was skilled at nabbing rounds and creating scorecard pressure. He was also a big unit who Joe probably would not try to blast out even when his hands were good.

But Joe was so incredibly busy and also accurate at his best - from first to last bell - I think that nags away at James and the Welshman is winning the lion's share of some very close/contested rounds.

And with Toney in the other corner Joe's chin is tucked-in all night long (no Mitchell fight bravado) and he's always on the move and James is having to work really hard to score his points.

Joe in his prime was a huge powerpuncher, but not very cunning crafty... as he grew older, he definitely developed tremendous ring-smarts, and maintained much of his speed, thanks to responsibile training, but was no longer, technically, a powerpuncher, due to his brittle bones-related issues... by the way, a half-way-there Calzaghe, could beat any version of Toney, to me. Calzaghe is a big guy, you've got to count that in, too. Size advantage.

[Bodyshot3]

It is great to chat Jacopodb and I am glad you like this fight as well

But I can't altogether agree with how you have described Joe. It is not that binary or segmented.

He certainly hit decently hard in his very early career and it is littered with early finishes......

.......but he had to be patient as well against people like Stephen Wilson, Edwards and to a certain extent Mark Delaney too because he was not a one-shot finisher. And in some of these early fights he needed to show his boxing head.

Delaney could not lay a glove him for example but had to be broken down and once Eubank got back up Joe was forced to fight smart.

There's also a period during his reign as a WBO champ where he is punching hard but also sometimes having to go the long route as well and that's because he is having to deal with those hands.

[Ambling Alp II]

He's the best British boxer of all time without a doubt. He'd be in my top 10 pound for pound list of all time too. You could argue that when he beat Eubank, Hopkins and Jones they were all past it - but Calzaghe was no spring chicken when he beat the last two. He fought the best of his era and beat them - you can't ask for more.

The best British boxer? Excuse me? Have you heard of Bob Fitzsimmons?

But elmer, remember your "winning the biggest three fights of your career" rule?
in his biggest three fights of his career, (Corbett, and the two Jeffries fight) Fitz only won one fight.
Meanwhile, Calzaghe won the three biggest fights of his career.
Therefore, Calzaghe is automatically better.

[oogiebe]

Yeah, Calzaghe would be my pick for best UK boxer P4P all time. But I don't use this great three fights shvt.

[Ambling Alp II]

You mean it should matter who the opponents actually are in a fighter's three biggest fights?

Aren't the opponents in everyone's three most important fights exactly even?

[oogiebe]

You mean it should matter who the opponents actually are in a fighter's three biggest fights?

Aren't the opponents in everyone's three most important fights exactly even?

Of course they aren't, but his total body of work and his style and adoptability make him my number one. I really don't know what you are saying here.

[Ambling Alp II]

I was just poking a little fun at elmersalsa. Maybe you didn't read that one or recall it.

There was a recent topic comparing Chavez and Hearns.
He ranked Chavez higher, based on Chavez winning two of the three of his biggest three fights (Edwin Rosario, Meldrick Taylor, and Pernell Whitaker) while Hearns lost his two of his biggest three. (Leonard and Hagler)

People pointed out the obvious fault in this reasoning - Chavez's two big wins were against opponents that clearly weren't not as good as the opponents form the two losses that Hearns had; Rosario and Taylor were clearly not as good as Leonard and Hagler.
It didn't matter to elmer. He just kept repeating his logic as if nobody pointed out how silly it was.

But here he favors Fitzsimmons over Calzaghe. I was pointing out that using his own reasoning that he has to favor Calzaghe, using his illogical reasoning of simply looking at their biggest fights without comparing the competition.

[Jacopodb]

It is great to chat Jacopodb and I am glad you like this fight as well

But I can't altogether agree with how you have described Joe. It is not that binary or segmented.

He certainly hit decently hard in his very early career and it is littered with early finishes......

.......but he had to be patient as well against people like Stephen Wilson, Edwards and to a certain extent Mark Delaney too because he was not a one-shot finisher. And in some of these early fights he needed to show his boxing head.

Delaney could not lay a glove him for example but had to be broken down and once Eubank got back up Joe was forced to fight smart.

There's also a period during his reign as a WBO champ where he is punching hard but also sometimes having to go the long route as well and that's because he is having to deal with those hands.

You obviously know Calzaghe's work better than I do: I only stated what looked pretty obvious to me, but had not been pointed out in your post.

There aren't two Joe Calzaghes, and he gradually got to change his style, to keep hitting and not getting hit: like all durable/valuable things (with the due exceptions), that thing happened gradually, but I've noticed a solid change in his fighting technique, over time.

When I didn't know about, and couldn't notice his brittle-hands issue, due to my lack of experience (that's when this forum serves me right...), I had thought about anything: age-related issues... a very improbable clemency towards his opponents... show business-related exigencies (not ending fights too early)... a secret deal with opponents (being dominated, but not hurt)... I was thinking about everything (but nothing convinced me, of course): I had no idea it was bone disease, for some reason.

[Onetimeonly]

You mean it should matter who the opponents actually are in a fighter's three biggest fights?

Aren't the opponents in everyone's three most important fights exactly even?

Hold on.....Fitzsimmons beat Corbett and calzaghe never fought Corbett. Fitzsimmons also had more fights. CASE CLOSED!!!!!!

[Bodyshot3]

You obviously know Calzaghe's work better than I do: I only stated what looked pretty obvious to me, but had not been pointed out in your post.

There aren't two Joe Calzaghes, and he gradually got to change his style, to keep hitting and not getting hit: like all durable/valuable things (with the due exceptions), that thing happened gradually, but I've noticed a solid change in his fighting technique, over time.

When I didn't know about, and couldn't notice his brittle-hands issue, due to my lack of experience (that's when this forum serves me right...), I had thought about anything: age-related issues... a very improbable clemency towards his opponents... show business-related exigencies (not ending fights too early)... a secret deal with opponents (being dominated, but not hurt)... I was thinking about everything (but nothing convinced me, of course): I had no idea it was bone disease, for some reason.

No probs mate and it is great to have a natter

By and large Joe's championship-class career was a stange mixture of being absolutely on the money when it mattered against 'A' Grade opponents and sometimes being disappointing against guys he was expected to obliterate like Salem, Thornberry, Jimenez and Ashira. I was going to add Bika to that list....but Bika was a nightmare for everyone!

The big thing for me.......which others have mentioned......is that Calzaghe always found a way a win because he prepared right in terms of being supremely fit, having a gameplan for the opponent and being able to adapt mid-fight.

[chrisjs1985]

Here's an old post I made on his career.

I'll try to offer a balanced and unbiased breakdown of his career. I think he's "overrated" by those that say matter of fact that he's the best British fighter ever because if you say that you either aren't going back far enough in history or are strictly going off what you've seen in your own lifetime (which is fine) but I've generally found him to be underrated in general by Boxing fans especially American Boxing fans. The truth usually lies in the middle but I'd say overall he's an underrated great.

First of all I think he was an exceptional fighter in the ring. He had great hand speed, good movement, fast feet although his punching technique sometimes wasn't pretty but the volume got the job done as his power overtime did diminish. He was a very adaptable fighter and always seemed in control for the majority of his contests. That ability to adapt on the fly and never look puzzled in the ring is very underrated and beyond an unbeaten record it's hard to show on paper. It's what makes him a tough out for some truly great fighters in and around his weight class in history. His balance was good, his defense wasn't stellar but he wasn't one to catch a ton of punches thanks to that adaptability and ability to turn it up in fights and completely take over. His chin was good too generally though he started to get dropped late in his career I never really saw him "hurt", buzzed perhaps but never did I think he's hurt or in danger.

His career. On paper what's not to like? 46-0 with 32 KO's, won every title at 168 and then became lineal and Ring champion at 175 to cap off his career. Defeated 10 other men who at one time or another held world titles, didn't have any controversial wins (the Reid and Hopkins fights weren't that close) and had a 10 year reign with 21 defenses. Of course the WBO belt wasn't fully respected in 1997 but it's fair to say he was one of the fighters who helped legitimize the belt and it was clear he was always the best at 168. In hindsight was his reign really inferior to Hopkins' at 160? Hopkins was a vacant belt against Segundo Mercado and then didn't unify until years later and his toughest opponent was the much smaller, but legendary Felix Trinidad. Hopkins had a technical draw in there were he just didn't fancy fighting that night and three defenses against Robert Allen. It also ended with him losing (though I believe he won both times) to Jermain Taylor. He was undisputed for six defenses and over three years though. Calzaghe's reign is at least in the argument with Hopkins' no matter what.

Competition
Now it appears this is the part where most have an issue with Calzaghe and I get where the detractors are coming from. From winning the title in October of 1997 to the unification fight vs. Lacy in March of 2006 his career always seemed like one of unfulfillment. Eubank at that time was a good victory for a young, upcoming fighter with limited experience. Sure he wasn't prime so on paper we may look at it and say "Oh well he's supposed to win", but it was a great way to introduce yourself into the division. From there it was a good opponent here and there but a number of injuries, time on the sidelines and utterly abysmal opponents. I don't care what Lacy did or didn't accomplish afterwards. Calzaghe ruined him. He was also an underdog especially with the US press and fans who didn't give him a prayer. That's a brilliant win made even better by the virtuoso performance. The Kessler win is also great given Kessler's stature and momentum coming in. This wasn't the oft-injured, semi-retired Kessler. This was prime Kessler and almost a 50/50 unification fight between two unbeaten champions with Calzaghe being almost a decade older. The Hopkins win is also excellent. Hopkins was 43 (but he was probably juiced to perfection let's face it), lineal champion after dominating Antonio Tarver (himself riding some great form and career momentum) and Winky Wright. He also had enough in the tank to utterly toy with Pavlik in his next fight and go on to unify titles in the division years later. It wasn't an ideal performance due to Hopkins' awful style but it was a clear victory over a fighter rightfully ranked highly on all pound for pound lists.

The rest
Sobot - average opponent but blow out so not a terrible 1st defense
Giminez - average opponent did what he's supposed to
Reid - good opponent recently lost his title but being a rivalry fight was up for it. Joe didn't fight well but got a clear cut win so I'd say it's a good win even though he performed below expectations
Thornberry - crap opponent, awful fight not a good performance despite dominating
Starie - solid domestic level opponent, dominated but awful fight and didn't look good
Sheika - good opponent at the time, also beat Glen Johnson to earn the shot. Excellent performance really looked the part
Woodhall - good opponent, not a world beater but recently relinquished champion. Nice entertaining fight.
Veit - good opponent, three good one's in a row. Veit was unbeaten and everyone expected a hard fight and Joe blew him out. Veit picked up his consistency again until he met Joe again.
McIntyre - awful opponent did what he was supposed to
Brewer - good opponent. Brewer should have won at least one of the Ottke fights and the ref stopped it way too quickly against Echols. Brewer came to fight and this was one of the more entertaining fights of Joe's career though it was a dominant win.
Jiminez - very ordinary opponent and boring fight. Did what he's supposed to
Pudwill - Terrible opponent, maybe the worst. Absolute blow out.
Mitchell - good opponent, ran Ottke very close in Germany and came to fight. Electrifying performance and overcame some adversity in entertaining style.
Mkhtaryen - Average unproven opponent did what he's supposed to.
Salem - Average opponent basically a waste of time and not a good performance.
Veit - Repeat match to a 1st round KO. Veit had rattled off a lot of wins (some decent) and was mandatory.
Ashira - Crap opponent and boring fight. Hurt his hand early and went the distance
Bika - Turns out he was decent and tough as hell. No shame in going the distance but not a pretty fight
Manfredo - Average opponent, undersized and basically just a "name" for the 20th defense due to "The Contender" series. Did what supposed to.
Jones - Badly faded and just a name. Calzaghe did what he wanted as he was supposed to and I think at this point that's all that mattered.

Didn't fight
Collins - Collins pulled out ducked him
Ottke - Wouldn't leave Germany were friendly judging and officiating helped him maintain an "unbeaten" career and Calzaghe was in his right not to go there, kick his ass and get robbed. Calzaghe would have dominated.
Johnson - Joe was in the wrong pulling out so much. Common opponents show Joe was obviously better and had he beaten Sheika he's have gotten the crack then. I refuse to believe the Johnson who was life and death with Woods three times would have given Joe much of a fight.
Hopkins earlier - It's Hopkins' fault. He was about to sign a deal in 2002 with Showtime giving him three fights. A mandatory, a fight with Harry Simon and Calzaghe and he walked away demanding $6m for the Calzaghe fight.
Jones earlier - Calzaghe just wasn't on Jones' radar and I think Warren was happy with that.
Froch - Bad timing. People don't like this but Froch turned the fight down in 2006 because he "wasn't ready" after yapping off for years then Joe vacated because he'd beaten all the champions and took his career to America.
Dawson - He wasn't going to get up for Dawson at that stage.

So overall I'd say his accomplishments, longevity and qualities as a fighter help cover up some of the dross he fought and he unquestionably is a great fighter who had a great career but one which could and should have been better but still a career he and his fans should be rightfully proud of. I'd personally rate him between 7-12, of fighters of the last quarter of a century (I'd personally have him closer to #7), the best British fighter of the last 50 years and as I put him on that "Top 10 British fighters" list #5 all-time from fighters from Britain and undoubtedly one of the top 10 European fighters of all-time.

[Ambling Alp II]

That is a lot to chew on. By and large I agree with most of it.
Here is where I disagree:

Jeff Lacy. I never got this. Never thought Jeff Lacy was that good before the their fight. Didn't hear of anyone who thought he was. Then after Calzaghe beat him , people were freaking out like it was this phenomenal feat?

And I remember thinking, what is going on? Jeff Lacy? The guy beat virtually nobody of any note before he fought Calzaghe. He won the title by beating Syd Vanderpool for a vacant title. Come on. He never beat any one worth mentioning after the fight either.

Hopkins? Yes, Hopkins was great for his age. But he was no longer a great fighter when Calzaghe. He showed his age in tow awful performances against Jermain Taylor

The Kessler win was legit. Kessler was a very good fighter and Calzaghe beat him convincingly.
Ultimately, I think Brits overrate him and the rest of the world underrates him.

[Jacopodb]

You obviously know Calzaghe's work better than I do: I only stated what looked pretty obvious to me, but had not been pointed out in your post.

There aren't two Joe Calzaghes, and he gradually got to change his style, to keep hitting and not getting hit: like all durable/valuable things (with the due exceptions), that thing happened gradually, but I've noticed a solid change in his fighting technique, over time.

When I didn't know about, and couldn't notice his brittle-hands issue, due to my lack of experience (that's when this forum serves me right...), I had thought about anything: age-related issues... a very improbable clemency towards his opponents... show business-related exigencies (not ending fights too early)... a secret deal with opponents (being dominated, but not hurt)... I was thinking about everything (but nothing convinced me, of course): I had no idea it was bone disease, for some reason.

No probs mate and it is great to have a natter

By and large Joe's championship-class career was a stange mixture of being absolutely on the money when it mattered against 'A' Grade opponents and sometimes being disappointing against guys he was expected to obliterate like Salem, Thornberry, Jimenez and Ashira. I was going to add Bika to that list....but Bika was a nightmare for everyone!

The big thing for me.......which others have mentioned......is that Calzaghe always found a way a win because he prepared right in terms of being supremely fit, having a gameplan for the opponent and being able to adapt mid-fight.

Yeah, very responsibile athlete: I don't agree with most champions-ducking-champions arguments: I think Joe, like Floyd Jr. and Rocky, could've waited until they could fight their opponents on equal terms, that's all: claiming a champion "not having fought earlier" another fighter, to take something away from that champion, has no point whatsoever, to me.
Blaming Floyd for not letting Mosley slaughter him while Floyd was still a "Pretty Boy", is ludicrous: same goes for Calzaghe vs Jones, Hopkins, etc.: they all fought on equal terms: all past their prime, but all still fit for World-class entertainment.