Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark

[Stuarty]

Pavlik - Lockett was pre-Hopkins. I think the problem is you're going off databases and records, and you're too young to have watched it all live and read the trade boxing papers at the time. Pavlik was a middleweight, and he was still proving himself there when his bubble suddenly burst against Hopkins.

I watched Hopkins-Pavlik live on Setanta and loved it. I was also reading Boxing News then. I generally post on memory so I concede that Lockett was before Hopkins as I've just had a look at the record.

So I actually watched these fights and wasn't any sort of internet nerd. I only started watching fights on youtube and posting in 2009 when I joined Boxec.

So there goes your theory, Grandad!

I watched that live as well. Hopkins was excellent as much as Pavlik was dreadful. Hopkins was only meant to be stepping stone as well if i remember correctly. Pavlik got completely owned.

[Boxerbeetle]

Honestly, I really don’t remember any particular call for Calzaghe to fight Pavlik at the time.

[Stuarty]

Honestly, I really don’t remember any particular call for Calzaghe to fight Pavlik at the time.

Pavlik kept mentioning Calzaghe all the time but i can't remember Calzaghe ever bothering with him. I remember after one Pavlik fight he said he's gonna have to 'shoot him in the leg' to stop him running... blah blah....

[Cyclops]

Honestly, I really don’t remember any particular call for Calzaghe to fight Pavlik at the time.

Pavlik kept mentioning Calzaghe all the time but i can't remember Calzaghe ever bothering with him. I remember after one Pavlik fight he said he's gonna have to 'shoot him in the leg' to stop him running... blah blah....

Pavlik was certainly chasing Joe that’s true. I recall hoping that the fight would be made. I think a fair few people liked it. Pavlik was a big MW. Like i said before Pavlik fought Hopkins who had just lost to Joe presumably to do a better job and draw Joe out but got schooled.

[stujones]

Wasn't it Antwun Echols that was well hyped at one stage.....wasnt he the one who had that up and downer with Brewer.

[gilgamesh]

Wasn't it Antwun Echols that was well hyped at one stage.....wasnt he the one who had that up and downer with Brewer.

Yeah that fight was crazy

[stujones]

There was a stage where Calzaghe seem to fighting losers of biggish fights....eg Mitchell after Ottke....Brewer after Echols....that grated a bit.

[ewenhay]

There was definately a number of fighters he could have / should have fought in his reign.

Ottke is the obvious one
Markus Beyer was another long reigning (over two spells) champion.
Eric Lucas
He fought David Starie but not his conqueror Dean Francis (but again not Calzaghe's fault her).
and yes in the era of fighters moving up and down - why couldn't he have tempted the likes of
Jermain Taylor, Kelly Pavlik, Harry Simon etc.

You can see why he wasn't exactly excited by those fights when he knew he only had 2 fights left and wanted to fight in the USA before retiring.

Plus he was moving up to light heavy for the last two fights.

[fanman]

i voted under-rated, only because some still raise questions.
claims that he bottled out of fights & nearly bottled out of the lacy fight, may well be true, but in the ring he was a warrior.

he cleaned up the smw division at a time when it was strongest in his era, ie. taking out lacy & Kessler.
only really missed out on ottke in his era, as both were a bit protected home town fighters for a while. though clearly calzaghe was much better.
won the recognized lhw at the end of his career over b hop, in an ugly fight.
no losses!
could have chased bigger fights earlier, but who knows how that would have played out.

[TopGun]

Froch was more confident than Joe....Joe was a better fighter....shame he lacked that confidence as I think thats what held Joe back, his Dad had to push him into a lot of fights.

[mickey1975]

Froch was more confident than Joe....Joe was a better fighter....shame he lacked that confidence as I think thats what held Joe back, his Dad had to push him into a lot of fights.

I think Joe was more confident. Had no confidence in his body holding up, though. Didn’t Audley used to help Froch because he suffered very badly with nerves in the amateurs? Then he got the mind coach in for Groves 2.

[Stuarty]

Froch was more confident than Joe....Joe was a better fighter....shame he lacked that confidence as I think thats what held Joe back, his Dad had to push him into a lot of fights.

I think Joe was more confident. Had no confidence in his body holding up, though. Didn’t Audley used to help Froch because he suffered very badly with nerves in the amateurs? Then he got the mind coach in for Groves 2.

Yip that's true. Froch used to struggle with nerves even in to the pros. You can tell even now that he's very image conscious.

[PredatorHayds]

Froch was more confident than Joe....Joe was a better fighter....shame he lacked that confidence as I think thats what held Joe back, his Dad had to push him into a lot of fights.

I think Joe was more confident. Had no confidence in his body holding up, though. Didn’t Audley used to help Froch because he suffered very badly with nerves in the amateurs? Then he got the mind coach in for Groves 2.

Haye used to help Froch before fights.

Froch had him in the dressing room a few times as a pro aswell.

Can’t remember the fight but someone had left a mic on. You hear Haye geeing Froch up.
Says something along the lines your getting paid to go and feck someone up. Enjoy it.

[Lenny Cravats]

There was a stage where Calzaghe seem to fighting losers of biggish fights....eg Mitchell after Ottke....Brewer after Echols....that grated a bit.

… Veit after Calzaghe.

[Onetimeonly]

Hopkins backed out and the thing with Jones is he wasn't a draw here but had a big HBO guarantee so that fight, and many others with Roy, never would have made cents. Seeking the best is one thing, but nobody would fight prime Roy for the same money as veit. As for the original question, like others have said it's a bit of both. Being in the States I think more underrate him here. Really tings the eye test, I think he'd be well in there with prime Jones. Roy didn't like south paws, strange because he wasn't a jabber.

[Ruthless-RKO]

Hopkins backed out and the thing with Jones is he wasn't a draw here but had a big HBO guarantee so that fight, and many others with Roy, never would have made cents. Seeking the best is one thing, but nobody would fight prime Roy for the same money as veit. As for the original question, like others have said it's a bit of both. Being in the States I think more underrate him here. Really tings the eye test, I think he'd be well in there with prime Jones. Roy didn't like south paws, strange because he wasn't a jabber.

Roy wasn’t a big draw?

[whiskey]

Hopkins backed out and the thing with Jones is he wasn't a draw here but had a big HBO guarantee so that fight, and many others with Roy, never would have made cents. Seeking the best is one thing, but nobody would fight prime Roy for the same money as veit. As for the original question, like others have said it's a bit of both. Being in the States I think more underrate him here. Really tings the eye test, I think he'd be well in there with prime Jones. Roy didn't like south paws, strange because he wasn't a jabber.

Roy wasn’t a big draw?

Exactly, Jones was a huge draw.

With regards that fight with a peak Roy Jones - "I wouldn't want to risk it"

He only fought Jones, when everyone else had flattened him. Even then, it was several years after Joe said himself in his own autobiography, that 'knocking out an old, shot Roy Jones would prove nothing' (then got dropped and won on points )

[Ezzard]

Hopkins backed out and the thing with Jones is he wasn't a draw here but had a big HBO guarantee so that fight, and many others with Roy, never would have made cents. Seeking the best is one thing, but nobody would fight prime Roy for the same money as veit. As for the original question, like others have said it's a bit of both. Being in the States I think more underrate him here. Really tings the eye test, I think he'd be well in there with prime Jones. Roy didn't like south paws, strange because he wasn't a jabber.

Agree.

[Onetimeonly]

Hopkins backed out and the thing with Jones is he wasn't a draw here but had a big HBO guarantee so that fight, and many others with Roy, never would have made cents. Seeking the best is one thing, but nobody would fight prime Roy for the same money as veit. As for the original question, like others have said it's a bit of both. Being in the States I think more underrate him here. Really tings the eye test, I think he'd be well in there with prime Jones. Roy didn't like south paws, strange because he wasn't a jabber.

Roy wasn’t a big draw?

No

[jameswilson]

I don’t know if it’s been mentioned but Calzaghe was actually signed and announced to fight Glen Johnson. I remember vividly Johnson was IBF champ only so I’ll have to look his record up to see if this could have been after he beat Roy Jones. Something tells me as well this was before he beat Jeff Lacy.

If history had been different I wonder what Joe’s career would have been like had the Johnson fight happened instead of the Lacy one. No doubt Joe would have won but would he have fought the light heavyweight greats earlier and remained undefeated is an interesting question.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Roy wasn’t a big draw?

Exactly, Jones was a huge draw.

With regards that fight with a peak Roy Jones - "I wouldn't want to risk it"

He only fought Jones, when everyone else had flattened him. Even then, it was several years after Joe said himself in his own autobiography, that 'knocking out an old, shot Roy Jones would prove nothing' (then got dropped and won on points )

Whilst not a coward in the ring, Joe had a pathological fear of defeat.

[ALI]

Lets be honest, for such a legnth of career, and such an obvious talent, Calzaghe's resume is poor. The only clear standout win is Kessler, who Andre Ward absolutely stood on his head.

Hindsight is a wonderfull thing, they say, it is very true in the case of Jeff Lacy. A beast going into their fight, quickly found out during and after their fight to be nothing of the sort. A hyped up plodder is all he was.

Hopkins and Jones, his career status is almost defined on these two fights alone. Given Jones was shot to bits, and Hopkins well on the slide, i find it crazy the way some people praise Calzaghe as the greatest British fighter ever. His resume absolutely does not stack up to such acclaim, it is very undeserving of such a status.

I have said it many times, and will say it again, if Hatton had not lead the way by stepping out of the Sports Network comfort zone of fighting B & C class opposition, toppling to great Tyszu, going on a title run, making it big in the USA, wiining a title in higher weight class, fighting Floyd, my belief is Calzaghe would have seen out his career without fighting any of his 4 biggest opponents in Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins and Jones. I honestly believe that. Hattons career progression spurred him into action, to push himself out of his comfort zone, and fight the bigger challenges. And now its all said and done, how he is rated as an all time great against what he actually achieved is bewildering to me. It seems he is rated as an all time great based on what people percieve he could have achieved, rather than what he actually did achieve, and that is wrong, very wrong.

[Deserter]

Hopkins well on the slide,

Hopkins was coming off wins over Tarver and Winky Wright and after Calzaghe beat the likes of Pavlik and Pascal, so while not at his peak, I think you're overstating the case there. You could make a similar case for Calzaghe himself at that stage of his career, so you can't characterize it as a peak Calzaghe facing a shot Hopkins.

I think you make some strong points, I just wanted to add a bit of balance on that one statement.

[Autobarn]

We need to get over the “question marks.”

Do we care even now that he didn’t fight Chad Dawson and Kelly Pavlik?

When Marcus Beyer died someone posted that Joe missed out an opportunity to secure his legacy by not facing Beyer in the day. Yet, Beyer settled into medciocre title defenses (after an inspired win over Ritchie Woodhall, away) and faded away into a KO of the year defeat to Kessler.

Joe was an extraordinary talent and thankfully he did prove himself with Kessler and Lacy both.

Definitely there was cynicism and opportunism in the matchmaking and he tested our patience above and beyond. However if he wasn’t the real deal, he might have been KO’d late by Eubank or Brewer; KO’d early by Mitchell; he wouldn’t have adjusted on the fly after his disastrous start vs Hopkins; wouldn’t have had the remarkable longevity.

I remember the Friday Nights spoiled by Joe’s injury withdrawals; I remember Joe slagging off Glen Johnson as a journeyman just before Johnson’s Fighter of the Year run; dismissing Pascal as “a joke” after Froch ground out a thrilling title debut victory; fighting down to Kabary Salem before Lucian Bute pounded and outclassed him... yet, he did it his way, and was a unique fighter with speed, strength, the ability to improvise AND a big boxing IQ.

[ALI]

Hopkins well on the slide,

Hopkins was coming off wins over Tarver and Winky Wright and after Calzaghe beat the likes of Pavlik and Pascal, so while not at his peak, I think you're overstating the case there. You could make a similar case for Calzaghe himself at that stage of his career, so you can't characterize it as a peak Calzaghe facing a shot Hopkins.

I think you make some strong points, I just wanted to add a bit of balance on that one statement.

And you are correct to add this balance. I actually agree with everything you say. Me saying Hopkins was well on the slide is wrong, he was clearly still an elite level fighter, beating some very big names, though i cant get away from the fact he was 43 years old. He adapted his style very well to suit his physical capabilities as a 43 year old, and had his way of crafting out his victories. Very few can do that in their forties, Hopkins is quite unique in that sense, but still, he was 43, still very good but he was not near his physical prime. He turned pro in 1988, beat Trinidad 8 years before he fought Calzaghe in 2008, 20 years after he turned pro. Age is not just a number, not when we are talking about boxing, 43 is old, period.

He scraped past a 43 year old conservative Hopkins, and gets huge acclaim for it? Sure Calzaghe was also passed his peak too when they fought, but thats his own fault for not getting it on with the bigger names in his pomp. I do give him big props for the Hopkins win, believe it or not, but to hang his hat on it is way OTT IMO.