Joe Calzaghe - Question Mark

[Controversial]

It such a shame JC had such brittle hands, even before he turned pro his hands were a problem. He often couldn't spar due to hand injuries, just think how much better he would have been.

[PredatorHayds]

It such a shame JC had such brittle hands, even before he turned pro his hands were a problem. He often couldn't spar due to hand injuries, just think how much better he would have been.

When I saw JC in his early career he was a huge puncher.
One of the biggest one-punch fighters I’ve seen.
Then the hands became a complete mess.
The fact he was able to change his style completely and become of the Greatest ever British volume punchers deserves huge credit.
If that style change came from Enzo then he needs huge credit to.
I’d love if Enzo was to be entered in the Hall of Fame some day.

[ewenhay]

Calzaghe was brilliant. Yes he could have had some bigger fights in his peak years but let's have a reality check here.

[ALI]

Calzaghe was brilliant. Yes he could have had some bigger fights in his peak years but let's have a reality check here.

So whats your point?

[ewenhay]

Calzaghe was brilliant. Yes he could have had some bigger fights in his peak years but let's have a reality check here.

So whats your point?

That there are no question marks really.

He was a great fighter. As was Hopkins and Jones.

Even if he'd fought them earlier and lost they would all have been remembered as great fighters. All 3 were past their peak when they fought although Hopkins longevity is unprecedented.

Bringing up names like Pavlik to try and reduce Calzaghes legacy is a cheap shot. Is there a single person out there who really thinks he wouldn't have beaten Pavlik?

[ALI]

So whats your point?

That there are no question marks really.

He was a great fighter. As was Hopkins and Jones.

Even if he'd fought them earlier and lost they would all have been remembered as great fighters. All 3 were past their peak when they fought although Hopkins longevity is unprecedented.

Bringing up names like Pavlik to try and reduce Calzaghes legacy is a cheap shot. Is there a single person out there who really thinks he wouldn't have beaten Pavlik?

To reach true greatness, you have to beat the very best of your era, beat elite level opponents in their primes. Calzaghe never achieved that. Jones is not in the equation, Hopkins gets him some kudos, as does Kessler, but thats it.

In my mind their are no question marks. He was clearly an elite fighter, but one who failed to define it. He was way to comfortable under the arm of the Sports Network, Sky era, where the game was to promise one thing yet continually deliver another, i.e. sub par opposition with the lure of a big name down the road. The idea was to keep their headline acts winning, keep the money coming in and the buzz growing. People bought into it dor a while, but eventually the fans got absolutely sick of it. Calzaghe thought he could get away with it forever, then when Hatton stepped up his game, he realised he needed to do likewise, and so he made an effort at the tail end of his career to leave his mark and try to define a legacy. Thats how i see it anyway.

[Deserter]

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.

Careful mate, we may be banned from the forum for agreeing with each other like adults and not descending into name-calling!

[ewenhay]

That there are no question marks really.

He was a great fighter. As was Hopkins and Jones.

Even if he'd fought them earlier and lost they would all have been remembered as great fighters. All 3 were past their peak when they fought although Hopkins longevity is unprecedented.

Bringing up names like Pavlik to try and reduce Calzaghes legacy is a cheap shot. Is there a single person out there who really thinks he wouldn't have beaten Pavlik?

To reach true greatness, you have to beat the very best of your era, beat elite level opponents in their primes. Calzaghe never achieved that. Jones is not in the equation, Hopkins gets him some kudos, as does Kessler, but thats it.

In my mind their are no question marks. He was clearly an elite fighter, but one who failed to define it. He was way to comfortable under the arm of the Sports Network, Sky era, where the game was to promise one thing yet continually deliver another, i.e. sub par opposition with the lure of a big name down the road. The idea was to keep their headline acts winning, keep the money coming in and the buzz growing. People bought into it dor a while, but eventually the fans got absolutely sick of it. Calzaghe thought he could get away with it forever, then when Hatton stepped up his game, he realised he needed to do likewise, and so he made an effort at the tail end of his career to leave his mark and try to define a legacy. Thats how i see it anyway.

So if he'd beaten Pavlik and Jermaine Taylor you'd have been happy?

I suspect people would have said he was cherry picking smaller guys.

Sometimes I think the anti Calzaghe camp would never have been happy, regardless of who else he beat.

[Counter-puncher]

The way I recall it Jones had basically just gone up to 175 not long after Joe became WBO champ, the Hopkins fight was ‘allegedly’ dangled and turned down by Hopkins when he was still a middleweight (have I got this right?), other than them basically unless I am missing something you could only really say Froch (green challenger, then by the time he was a champ Joe was up to 175?), and Ottke, in terms of challenges at 168 Joe didn’t take on.

Up to 175 to test the waters with people like Johnson or Clinton Woods would probably gain him some decent legacy points and full in the gaps with the kind of depth Froch has of real mid-upper level fighters; problem with Joe is not just not many very good elite fighters, there’s not that many solid/decent ones either. The drop off after Robin fucken Reid is pretty steep FFS.

Anyway I’d definitely like to have seen him go up to 175 for Jones before Jones became crap. But then Jones wasn’t exactly Mr Challenges himself and was then waylaid by the Tarver fights and Johnson, so I don’t know what kind of window there was for Jones-JC at 175, I guess Joe was fighting some Evans Ashira type and Jones similarly crap fighters pre-Tarver?

Anyways I can see why there is shall we say disappointment or frustration with Calzaghe middle career, and I think it’s basically a desire to have seen his talent stretched, which as a massive gay fanboy I can totally get. I just can’t particularly criticise him for not fighting a particular individual like Ottke or Jones as there are for me understandable reasons they never happened. It’s more, like, just, do SOMETHING more. Woods, Johnson, Froch, he should really have beat Hopkins to exposing Pavlik if his/ Warrens matchmaking instincts weren’t so passive. But whoever the names or half-names were he needed 3 or 4 more of them on his record.

[Autobarn]

It such a shame JC had such brittle hands, even before he turned pro his hands were a problem. He often couldn't spar due to hand injuries, just think how much better he would have been.

When I saw JC in his early career he was a huge puncher.
One of the biggest one-punch fighters I’ve seen.
Then the hands became a complete mess.
The fact he was able to change his style completely and become of the Greatest ever British volume punchers deserves huge credit.
If that style change came from Enzo then he needs huge credit to.
I’d love if Enzo was to be entered in the Hall of Fame some day.

were the bad hands caused by his tendency to punch with the inside Iof his glove / incorrect technique?

Or was his incorrect technique a result of having brittle hands?

I never quite knew the answer to this one.

[PredatorHayds]

When I saw JC in his early career he was a huge puncher.
One of the biggest one-punch fighters I’ve seen.
Then the hands became a complete mess.
The fact he was able to change his style completely and become of the Greatest ever British volume punchers deserves huge credit.
If that style change came from Enzo then he needs huge credit to.
I’d love if Enzo was to be entered in the Hall of Fame some day.

were the bad hands caused by his tendency to punch with the inside Iof his glove / incorrect technique?

Or was his incorrect technique a result of having brittle hands?

I never quite knew the answer to this one.

IMO it was caused by having brittle hands.
Earlier in his career he punched through the target with the correct technique.

[margaret thatcher]

Joe was great. Hopkins win was clear and nice. Same vs Kessler. Jones win means very little

[Wee Tommy]

When I saw JC in his early career he was a huge puncher.
One of the biggest one-punch fighters I’ve seen.
Then the hands became a complete mess.
The fact he was able to change his style completely and become of the Greatest ever British volume punchers deserves huge credit.
If that style change came from Enzo then he needs huge credit to.
I’d love if Enzo was to be entered in the Hall of Fame some day.

were the bad hands caused by his tendency to punch with the inside Iof his glove / incorrect technique?

Or was his incorrect technique a result of having brittle hands?

I never quite knew the answer to this one.

His hands dictated his punching technique.

[mickey1975]

Joe was a serious banger before his hands went.

[Lenny Cravats]

Frustrating career - great skills, but fought in a weak era.
Good wins against Hopkins and Kessler. There's a bit of a gap in levels between those two and the rest.
It was all a bit of a mess back then.
The top guys didn't seem to be facing eachother. You can't point to anyone else active at that time, in the same division that has a better resume than JC.
In fact, Lacy was number 2 (or possibly 3) in the division after beating Sheika, who was never that good, an ancient Robin Reid, Rubin Williams (who went on one of the longest post-title-shot losing streaks in history) and Scott Pemberton - who's best win(s) were both over Sheika.

[Onetimeonly]

The way I recall it Jones had basically just gone up to 175 not long after Joe became WBO champ, the Hopkins fight was ‘allegedly’ dangled and turned down by Hopkins when he was still a middleweight (have I got this right?), other than them basically unless I am missing something you could only really say Froch (green challenger, then by the time he was a champ Joe was up to 175?), and Ottke, in terms of challenges at 168 Joe didn’t take on.

Up to 175 to test the waters with people like Johnson or Clinton Woods would probably gain him some decent legacy points and full in the gaps with the kind of depth Froch has of real mid-upper level fighters; problem with Joe is not just not many very good elite fighters, there’s not that many solid/decent ones either. The drop off after Robin fucken Reid is pretty steep FFS.

Anyway I’d definitely like to have seen him go up to 175 for Jones before Jones became crap. But then Jones wasn’t exactly Mr Challenges himself and was then waylaid by the Tarver fights and Johnson, so I don’t know what kind of window there was for Jones-JC at 175, I guess Joe was fighting some Evans Ashira type and Jones similarly crap fighters pre-Tarver?

Anyways I can see why there is shall we say disappointment or frustration with Calzaghe middle career, and I think it’s basically a desire to have seen his talent stretched, which as a massive gay fanboy I can totally get. I just can’t particularly criticise him for not fighting a particular individual like Ottke or Jones as there are for me understandable reasons they never happened. It’s more, like, just, do SOMETHING more. Woods, Johnson, Froch, he should really have beat Hopkins to exposing Pavlik if his/ Warrens matchmaking instincts weren’t so passive. But whoever the names or half-names were he needed 3 or 4 more of them on his record.

Jones wasn't a draw but he had a fat HBO guarantee. So guys like calzaghe or michalczewski are looking at coming to the states to fight a bad dude for less or the same money to defend their belt at home. Just a microcosm of how promoters stopping working and fighters getting over paid. Joe gives Roy hell at any point. And you're spot on with Hopkins, he was jumping to Showtime I think and ended up going back to hbo for hakkar. Joe did pull out of several Johnson fights if I recall correctly, but if we're being honest he's one of those fighters people love, and was very good, but nobody gets much credit for beating him.

[Bard of Boxrec]

Calzaghe/michalczewski would have been a barn burner. Shame the Pole was long gone by the time joe arrived at 175, although it would never have happened anyway obv

[Ruthless-RKO]

Carl Froch takes a big dump on the career of Hall of Famer Joe Calzaghe

Defeating Chris Eubank, Bernard Hopkins, Mikkel Kessler, Jeff Lacy, and Roy Jones Jr. during a stellar ring stint, Calzaghe won a place in the International Boxing Hall of Fame Class of 2014.

Despite these facts, ‘The Cobra’ is largely unimpressed. Froch decided to smear those achievements with a steaming pile of doubt as he picked apart each top opponent.

“(Joe Calzaghe) won the WBO belt on an undercard of a Prince Naseem Hamed fight in Sheffield,” Froch told Sky Sports. “He fought an old, faded Chris Eubank, who was weight drained.

“He won the WBO title and then he defended it for 10 years against, I don’t even know. I can’t remember the names of the guys he fought for 10 years. But he’s unbeaten in 46 fights, a Hall of Famer.”

The three-time world champion continued: “You can’t argue with his record. But he had 10 years of mediocrity, defending that title.

“Probably his best win was against an injured Kessler. Many say (it was) Jeff Lacy. Let’s be honest, Jeff Lacy was a hype job

“The Hopkins win was so close and so debatable. I think it was a 55-45 split in Hopkins’ favor on the night by all the top Americans (on press row). Very, very close.”

According to Froch, Calzaghe fought the best at the right time. And he should have lost at least once during his 46 bouts.

[Steveh583]

Carl Froch takes a big dump on the career of Hall of Famer Joe Calzaghe

Defeating Chris Eubank, Bernard Hopkins, Mikkel Kessler, Jeff Lacy, and Roy Jones Jr. during a stellar ring stint, Calzaghe won a place in the International Boxing Hall of Fame Class of 2014.

Despite these facts, ‘The Cobra’ is largely unimpressed. Froch decided to smear those achievements with a steaming pile of doubt as he picked apart each top opponent.

“(Joe Calzaghe) won the WBO belt on an undercard of a Prince Naseem Hamed fight in Sheffield,” Froch told Sky Sports. “He fought an old, faded Chris Eubank, who was weight drained.

“He won the WBO title and then he defended it for 10 years against, I don’t even know. I can’t remember the names of the guys he fought for 10 years. But he’s unbeaten in 46 fights, a Hall of Famer.”

The three-time world champion continued: “You can’t argue with his record. But he had 10 years of mediocrity, defending that title.

“Probably his best win was against an injured Kessler. Many say (it was) Jeff Lacy. Let’s be honest, Jeff Lacy was a hype job

“The Hopkins win was so close and so debatable. I think it was a 55-45 split in Hopkins’ favor on the night by all the top Americans (on press row). Very, very close.”

According to Froch, Calzaghe fought the best at the right time. And he should have lost at least once during his 46 bouts.

Pretty fair assessment by carl

[polecateddy]

I mean Froch can be very dismissive of Calzaghe's record, but any number of those so-called mediocre opponents - Sakio Bika for example - would probably have been a life and death struggle for Carl.

[bigjack]

Carl Froch takes a big dump on the career of Hall of Famer Joe Calzaghe

Defeating Chris Eubank, Bernard Hopkins, Mikkel Kessler, Jeff Lacy, and Roy Jones Jr. during a stellar ring stint, Calzaghe won a place in the International Boxing Hall of Fame Class of 2014.

Despite these facts, ‘The Cobra’ is largely unimpressed. Froch decided to smear those achievements with a steaming pile of doubt as he picked apart each top opponent.

“(Joe Calzaghe) won the WBO belt on an undercard of a Prince Naseem Hamed fight in Sheffield,” Froch told Sky Sports. “He fought an old, faded Chris Eubank, who was weight drained.

“He won the WBO title and then he defended it for 10 years against, I don’t even know. I can’t remember the names of the guys he fought for 10 years. But he’s unbeaten in 46 fights, a Hall of Famer.”

The three-time world champion continued: “You can’t argue with his record. But he had 10 years of mediocrity, defending that title.

“Probably his best win was against an injured Kessler. Many say (it was) Jeff Lacy. Let’s be honest, Jeff Lacy was a hype job

“The Hopkins win was so close and so debatable. I think it was a 55-45 split in Hopkins’ favor on the night by all the top Americans (on press row). Very, very close.”

According to Froch, Calzaghe fought the best at the right time. And he should have lost at least once during his 46 bouts.

Pretty fair assessment by carl

Then Froch picked up Joe's leftovers

[GPTM1403]

So the one thing we can state with certainty is that it still gets up Froch's (ample) hooter that he didn't get to fight Calzaghe and he is never going to stop the sniping.

[Ruthless-RKO]

So the one thing we can state with certainty is that it still gets up Froch's (ample) hooter that he didn't get to fight Calzaghe and he is never going to stop the sniping.

And DeGale wanted to fight Froch but he retired instead.

[My Name Is Earl]

Carl Froch takes a big dump on the career of Hall of Famer Joe Calzaghe

Defeating Chris Eubank, Bernard Hopkins, Mikkel Kessler, Jeff Lacy, and Roy Jones Jr. during a stellar ring stint, Calzaghe won a place in the International Boxing Hall of Fame Class of 2014.

Despite these facts, ‘The Cobra’ is largely unimpressed. Froch decided to smear those achievements with a steaming pile of doubt as he picked apart each top opponent.

“(Joe Calzaghe) won the WBO belt on an undercard of a Prince Naseem Hamed fight in Sheffield,” Froch told Sky Sports. “He fought an old, faded Chris Eubank, who was weight drained.

“He won the WBO title and then he defended it for 10 years against, I don’t even know. I can’t remember the names of the guys he fought for 10 years. But he’s unbeaten in 46 fights, a Hall of Famer.”

The three-time world champion continued: “You can’t argue with his record. But he had 10 years of mediocrity, defending that title.

“Probably his best win was against an injured Kessler. Many say (it was) Jeff Lacy. Let’s be honest, Jeff Lacy was a hype job

“The Hopkins win was so close and so debatable. I think it was a 55-45 split in Hopkins’ favor on the night by all the top Americans (on press row). Very, very close.”

According to Froch, Calzaghe fought the best at the right time. And he should have lost at least once during his 46 bouts.

Pretty fair assessment by carl

Kinnel Carl...i reckon he spouts a lot of Calzaghe stuff tongue-in-cheek, but he meant the Hopkins comment.
No way Hopkins won that. And Bernard knows it. IMO he embarassed himself with his antics when realising his
lost cause.

There's plenty of fluff in Joe's ledger though. They should have pushed for the Pavlik fight over there. He
would have received genuine acclaim beating the unbeaten, 'next big thing' at Joe's own weight for crying out loud.
I don't know if it was ever a starter realistically, but i'm sure i remember the paymasters pushing for it. Hopkins was
a poor seller, and two unbeaten ( the touted next PFP king against an unbeaten 'legend') had all the ingredients
to re-define his career, especially in the States. As it was, Hopkins snaffled the glory by schooling the
new kid on the block, via poor sales.

But i would have loved to see Froch/Calzaghe.

[banjo]

Anybodies career can be picked apart even Froch's, Taylor was a middleweight who'd been ruined by Pavlik, Abraham was a middleweight, he barely beat Dirrell, Johnson was an old biddy and Bute was a hype job.