"BREAK JOE LOUIS'S 25 DEFENCES ALL TIME RECORD" ..

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 16 Oct 2006, 10:13

In the minds of JC & ITV, and now thanks to them millions of casual sports fans, only a few more defences and JC will actually break Joe Louis' record.

Correct me if i'm wrong but Joe Louis reigned for 12 years & defended a title that dated back to the dawn of man (slight exaggeration) 25 times.

Joe Calzaghe won a belt that was invented in 1989 devoid of any lineage, and was allowed to defend it against whoever he liked for 8 years.

By my count (and i'm shit at maths):

Louis has 25 defences of an undisputed world title, to date.

Calzaghe has 19 defences of a meaningless alpha-belt.
1 defence of a world title belt.
0 defences of the undisputed title.

If JC really is going to beat Joe Louis' record, f-ck me he better get his arse in gear. Has to chin Kessler next and then defend the title TWENTY SIX times!! At 34 already that is going to be one hell of a task.

To summarise, I hope i'm not the only one who found ITVs bullshitting the general public not only offensive to intelligence, (extremely) creative with the truth, BUT worst of all very disrespectful to Joe Louis.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 16 Oct 2006, 10:43

Thing is, boxing is different these days. It's just a reality that a long reigning champ has to fight his share of nobodies. Otherwise they wouldn't be long term champs. Same goes for Jones, Hopkins, Pedroza, Larry Holmes in particular, Virgil Hill, etc.

Let's not forget, Louis fought some bad fighters who couldn't pull up Jameel McCline's jockstrap. (On top of the great wins, vs Conn & Schmeling for example).

You can't just say that Calzaghe's title is meaningless. He has fought SOME good fighters, he won a unification, beat 6 titlists, won 10x 12 rounders, & has a lot of big fight experience. It all adds up & makes him a very hard man to beat as well as one who CAN seal a legacy by fighting excellent super middles & light heavies.

Does that mean that Johnny Tapia, Mark Johnson, Barrera, etc etc weren't champions for long portions of their careers?

But I agree with your main point. He has to lift it & there isn't a lot of time. Maybe it's good that he didn't have THE big fight. Because he's saved himself for now. & now the international barriers are crumbling down. This is an exciting time for 160, 168 & 175-pounders.

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 16 Oct 2006, 12:52

viciousmaussa wrote:Does that mean that Johnny Tapia, Mark Johnson, Barrera, etc etc weren't champions for long portions of their careers?.

No they weren't and Calazage is still not a Linear Champion - if he unifys with Kessler he will be. There are many great fighters who don't get to be champ from old times - Langford, Wills - were champs of sort but never alowed to fight for world titles. Also Moore/Charles weren't champs for much of their careers depite been the best at 175, maybe ever

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 16 Oct 2006, 13:17

Anybody who puts Joe Calzaghes title reign on a par with Joe Louis' should be taken into a small dark room and beaten about the body with a big stick.

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 16 Oct 2006, 14:26

KOJOE90 wrote:Anybody who puts Joe Calzaghes title reign on a par with Joe Louis' should be taken into a small dark room and beaten about the body with a big stick.

Correct. Great post by the way, overhand.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 16 Oct 2006, 14:34

WBO paperbelt "defenses" have nothing in common with defenses of the world championship a la Joe Louis.

ABA Boxing · Post by **ABA Boxing** » 16 Oct 2006, 15:41

Im more worried that Nikolay Valuev will beat Marciano's unbeaten record.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 16 Oct 2006, 16:21

Good post Overhand. I actually have nothing to contribute to this thread because you said it.

nickcat0 · Post by **nickcat0** » 17 Oct 2006, 04:27

It doesn't really matter if Calzaghe "beats" Louis' record .

Those who know anything about boxing will still know the difference between an all-time great and someone who is one of the better fighters of his generation .

Those who don't know the difference .......... well , does their opinion matter ?

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 17 Oct 2006, 04:59

Indeed, utter claptrap. This reminds me of all the utter cobblers dreamt up by Sauerlands PR people when Dariusz Michaelszweski's 'world record' title defence of the light heavyweight title was approaching, comparing Dariusz' achievements with such luminaries as Joe Louis, Archie Moore, and Rocky Marciano. Rightly met with withering scorn, as is this load of old bobbins.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 17 Oct 2006, 05:46

If he beats Kessler, he has totaly legitimized himself. He wouldn't need 25 defences. I say go for the big fights. His hands won't hold up for six defenses.

I do think it's ridiculous for ppl to say that Calzaghe wasn't a world champion till last year. That is ridiculous. Lacy went after Calzaghe because he felt Joe was the #1 of the champions.

& it is blasphemy to say disregard the world title wins of people like Mark 'Too Harp' Johnson, Barrera and Johnny Tapia - just because you don't like WBO.

Barrera's WBO super bantamweight title was just as legit as his make believe 'World People's Championship' up at feather. After he beat Naz he got lucky v Morales, THEN took on an old small Tapia and a too old Kelley. When did he cease to be champion? Shouldn't he have got 'stripped'? LOL

And what of Tarver's 'Ring' & 'World' light heavyweight title?

Tarver and Johnson gave up their WBC & IBF titles to fight each other, getting 'magazine' & internet titles - because they were the best @ the weight. But the guys who scrabbled over their leftover WBC title, Adamek & briggs, proved to be the better class of fighters. Whereas Tarver took it to himself to fight oldies Jones and Hopkins who deserved no ranking.

Compare Tarver-Johnson I & II to Adamek-Briggs I & II.

Modern day boxing is quite a bit different to the 1940s. You have to accept the way it is as a reality.

Also, is everyone FVCK blind to the exciting changes that are happening in the sport? In the super middleweight division every international barrier is breaking down. We've had two unifications in one year. Calzaghe (Wales) vs Lacy (USA). Kessler (Denmark) vs Beyer (Germany). The best are having to fight the best. There is more of a demand. Showtime, and now HBO, have seen where the product is & to their credit they have been marketing it.

Below super middle, the best are fighting - ie Wright-Taylor.

Above super middle, the best are fighting - ok, the Tarver-Johnson fights petered out. But then we had the Hopkins masterclass and now the Adamek-Briggs wars.

There's no way that the big fights CAN'T happen now!

And all ppl can do is fantasise over the old days. I'm thrilled as to where the sport's going.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 17 Oct 2006, 05:57

Yes, you cannot compare eras, and therefore it's utterly ridiculous to compare the reign of Calzaghe to Louis, which is precisely what they are trying to do. Although Louis reigned in a relatively weak era for heavyweights, he was still the UNDISPUTED champion, no questions about the fact that he was the utterly dominant force of his era, and this despite losing his best years to the war effort.

So any comparisons with Louis are utterly facile and deserve to be treated with contempt, which is precisely what we are saying here.

Calzaghe's time at the top is impressive, but bears no relation to the reign of Louis.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 17 Oct 2006, 06:21

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Yes, you cannot compare eras, and therefore it's utterly ridiculous to compare the reign of Calzaghe to Louis, which is precisely what they are trying to do. Although Louis reigned in a relatively weak era for heavyweights, he was still the UNDISPUTED champion, no questions about the fact that he was the utterly dominant force of his era, and this despite losing his best years to the war effort.

So any comparisons with Louis are utterly facile and deserve to be treated with contempt, which is precisely what we are saying here.

Calzaghe's time at the top is impressive, but bears no relation to the reign of Louis.

It is facile. & Sports Network take us for idiots. You're right, bringing that up.

But it's also silly to say someone isn't a champion because they held a WBO title. That is where a lot of this comes from - if it's WBO it doesn't count. To me, Calzaghe proved he was the #1 by beating up Brewer, Mitchell & Woodhall. All recently dethroned, all closely dethroned - but then beaten with no question marks by JC.

It's no wonder a lot of Brit middles/super middles fought for WBO titles in the 1990s. Just as a lot of top Americans went for IBF in the same era.

The WBO and the IBF were (to my knowledge) the first to approve of day before weigh ins. I can't remember a bigger/more drained group of middles that Jones, Collins (massive, both), Toney, Watson, Eubank, Benn (all dehydrated at 160).

This also led to a quite shocking size difference in the Hopkins-Jones fight. Hopkins doesn't put on more than a few pounds post weigh in. Jones puts on 15.

This did allow the titles to get polarised across countries, when the WBO went in the pockets of the likes of Hearn & then Warren, making it a bit of a 'British world title' in the 90s: Steve Robinson being the prime example. And I'll admit, there were some dreadful WBO scandals in the 1990s. But I think Naz and then Calzaghe - being so good - have proven that a Brit with a WBO belt can be considered champion. Calzaghe's IBF belt helps, I'll admit.

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 17 Oct 2006, 06:31

Calzaghe only confirmed he was #1 when he beat Lacy. Before that it was all speculation. The WBO is a free for all, you can defend against anybody.

I dont like at Calzaghes fights as legit title fights because the belt didnt even exist until 89 and there is no quality control on WBO challengers. I also dont look at Ricky Hattons WBU 'reign' as legit, just because he later would beat Tszyu.

The game is so diluted with all these belts its sacrilige to compare these lengthy Eubank/Naz/Calzaghe/Hatton-type manufactured reigns to the old timers who were legitimately #1 in their divisions and held on to the titles for so long.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 17 Oct 2006, 06:43

overhand_right wrote:Calzaghe only confirmed he was #1 when he beat Lacy. Before that it was all speculation. The WBO is a free for all, you can defend against anybody.

Of course it's a load of PR bull, we all know that. Just like with Dariusz a few years back, like James says.

But your comment above, you have to admit, pretty much refered to the Joe Louis reign too, rose tinted specs or not. Joe also defended his title against any bum they could rustle up for awhile too, and that's a fact.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 17 Oct 2006, 06:48

Yes, this is undeniable, Joe made no bones about it either, however, although it was possible to defend your title against a load of old lardbuckets in those days, those fights were interspersed with contests against the best contenders, at least in some cases.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 17 Oct 2006, 06:48

overhand_right wrote:Calzaghe only confirmed he was #1 when he beat Lacy. Before that it was all speculation. The WBO is a free for all, you can defend against anybody.

I dont like at Calzaghes fights as legit title fights because the belt didnt even exist until 89 and there is no quality control on WBO challengers. I also dont look at Ricky Hattons WBU 'reign' as legit, just because he later would beat Tszyu.

The game is so diluted with all these belts its sacrilige to compare these lengthy Eubank/Naz/Calzaghe/Hatton-type manufactured reigns to the old timers who were legitimately #1 in their divisions and held on to the titles for so long.

I think he was #1 almost certainly when he stopped Mitchell. The same Mitchell who barely lost to Ottke. But the ABYSMAL 2004 & 2005 cast doubts.

But nowadays the WBC are getting caned, for letting Pong Wong not fight a mandatory for five years as champ. The IBF are in disgrace for the JM Marquez episode among others. Shit, the WBC allowed Wilfredo Gomez to fight more than one guy with a made up record, in the late 70s/early 80s. These days, the WBO heavyweight champion IS counted as one of the title holders.

Draw the line at the WBU, I say.

But like I say. Maybe it's a good thing Calzaghe didn't erase all doubts before this year. Because boxing is really making progress. I mean, all of a sudden the top middles, super middles and light heavies are all fighting each other. Regardless of what country they come from.

There is something to look forward to & the world is paying attention at last.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 17 Oct 2006, 06:51

I think the main reason we are seeing this beginning to happen, is there are so few established stars, which is making it hard for the promoters to make money. Aside from Mosley, DLH, Barrera, Morales, Hatton, how many big draws are there in world boxing right now. Most of the guys on that list are on their way out, and there is NOBODY with a following in the heavyweight division, at least nobody easily saleable on the US networks.

That being the case, they've got to find some way to make big shows, and so we are seeing some unification fights finally happening, but it's been a long time coming, and I think they've left it a bit late because I don't see a huge surge in public or media interest in the sport.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 17 Oct 2006, 07:12

That's one good thing. With fewer stars, the emphasis is one making great fights. Then stars are born. That's what Showtime have been doing, but when an outstanding fighters gets recognised, HBO steal them. Showtime's motto being to malke great fights & HBO's attitude to manufacture stars.

Since 2004, the quality of matchups has really gone up, in general.

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 17 Oct 2006, 08:02

Rematches and trilogys have gone up way too much IMO. So many of these rematches are pointless. Pac destroyed Morales. Why a 3rd fight? Mosley beat Vargas up, why a rematch?

In fact everytime a fight goes 12 rds it seems to lead to another 12 rd rematch. Its booooring!!

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 17 Oct 2006, 08:24

You think so? Well, as Morales won the 1st, I think there's a reasonable call for it, if both fighters want it, then why not. If, and it's a big if, it's a shot in the arm for Morales, and if he loses, it's pretty much the end of the line, and it sets up a Barrera rematch for pacman.

These things used to happen A LOT more in the old timers era. Robinson fought LaMotta 6 times, Ezzard Charles fought Archie Moore 5 times. There were a lot more rivalries that got played out to their conclusion.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 17 Oct 2006, 08:36

I think the 2nd fight was pretty decisive with Pac and Morales. Imagine if Bowe fought Holyfield again in 1995, after spanking him the same year? feels a bit like that.

There is the feelig that Morales can improve with this new fitness program, I suppose.

I get the feeling Manny will be kept well away from Guzman (although Guzman's two previous fights are marred by weight controversies).

Pac v St Clair would be a war! I think St Clair would've beaten Harrison. One of Harrison's lucky escapes, having to fight NEITHER St Clair nor Guzman. Even when these fights were made.

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 17 Oct 2006, 12:37

MightyWarrior wrote:
overhand_right wrote:Calzaghe only confirmed he was #1 when he beat Lacy. Before that it was all speculation. The WBO is a free for all, you can defend against anybody.
Of course it's a load of PR bull, we all know that.

Thing is, MW, most of us might know this but for an ITV audience, the 'we' becomes the watching public...and 'we' certainly don't know it's bollocks.

Where is the balance? Where is someone on TV or in the print media saying "Statements like this are absolute rubbish and insulting to the sport and its history"?

And this counts even if Joe Louis knocked over a few bums. Hey, I'm a big Calzaghe fan, but these comparisons are ludicrous.

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 17 Oct 2006, 12:51

My point exactly Mr McNeilly, us hardcores here are the MINORITY.

My old man has watched boxing his whole life. in 2001 when Rahman fought LL in SA, the introduced him as "the former WBU heavyweight champion of the world". My old man turned to me and said "Rahman used to be champ??!"

As you can imagine i groaned & attempted to explain the alphabet situation. The BBC and Jim Neilly certainly didn't.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 17 Oct 2006, 12:54

MightyWarrior wrote:But your comment above, you have to admit, pretty much refered to the Joe Louis reign too, rose tinted specs or not. Joe also defended his title against any bum they could rustle up for awhile too, and that's a fact.

Sure Joe Louis fought some less than great challengers but that was mainly due to the fact that Joe Louis was a much busier Champion than Joe Calzaghe and unlike Calzaghe would often run out of 'elite' challengers to fight.

And as for the 'Bum Of The Month' tag sure the likes of Jack Roper and Nathan Mann were no Ron Lyle or Joe Frazier but they were still good fighters and not really 'bums'. Also this was a good earner for Louis as people would still pay to see him fight lesser opponents because they knew Louis would soon face a serious challenge as soon as one was available.

"BREAK JOE LOUIS'S 25 DEFENCES ALL TIME RECORD" ..

"BREAK JOE LOUIS'S 25 DEFENCES ALL TIME RECORD" ..

Re: "BREAK JOE LOUIS'S 25 DEFENCES ALL TIME RECORD"