Calzaghe not great: Eubank

STP · Post by **STP** » 11 Jun 2007, 01:46

Former WBO super-middleweight champ Chris Eubank claims that current WBO super-middleweight champion Joe Calzaghe is not a great fighter.

"Joe Calzaghe I'd consider great champion," said the Brighton bombast. "In that he takes on all-comers and throws everything. Thomas Hearns is another I'd consider great champion.

"You certainly couldn't consider me great champion, for example. I tried to get away with doing bare minimum and for a long time I did - I mastered boxing.

"Naseem Hamed I don't consider great champion for other reasons, in that he got hit and quit. Joe Calzaghe on the other hand gets hit and comes back.

"So what we have is lots of evidence to suggest that Joe Calzaghe is great champion. However, we have zero to suggest that Joe Calzaghe is a great fighter, absolutely zilch."

Eubank feels that a fighter cannot be considered 'great' until he's tasted defeat and won again.

"It's how one responds to defeat that determines ones greatness," he said.

"I was undefeated in 43 fights, and fought far better opponents than Joe has - I beat great fighters like Benn and Watson, great fighters in that they came back from losses to do great things, I beat a southpaw in Germany who was a former and future world champion - say if Joe loses his next fight, that's when we'll see what he's made of as far as greatness is concerned.

"You get me?"

Eubank also makes it clear that, in his opinion, you have to wait until someone has completed his career before labelling him.

"What I've learned is that you have to wait until a fighters career in finished before you determine his status. You cannot determine a status during a fighters career - only in the most special cases.

"Taking me for example, I got rave reviews in my early professional fights in the States and I got rave reviews in my early days on Screensport. It was good, it made me feel like the Second Coming!

"But when I was on top, both the media and fans kicked me to pieces. It wasn't until my last three fights that I got the respect I always craved - taking my beatings like a man while trying my heart out to win, and then losing gracefully with dignity intact... instead of winning arrogantly with peacock strut in full flow!

"I get lasting respect from the people because I stayed the course. I go beyond being remembered, because I stayed the course.

"If I went beyond that though, coming back again then my dignity would be in question and I would not have left that respect in the minds of the people.

"If Evander Holyfield got out after the Tyson fights, he would have left an awesome memory in the minds of the people. But he's lost respect from me since in all honesty.

"Naseem is probably the greatest example I can give. Nigel would be another one - rave reviews at the start, respect throughout but then hissed out in his last fight.

"With Naseem though, even when he was a young kid just starting out it was as if he was already the greatest British boxer for all-times, like it was a full-gone conclusion.

"He was even being described as the best boxer people had ever seen in the time he was a novice pro!

"But when push came to shove, and when his career had ended as it has now, he made good champion and nothing more.

"With Joe, we are positive that he is great champion in this moment in time. But what if he lost a fight, went AWOL and fading into oblivion? He might not be remembered as great champion let alone a great fighter, if he was remembered at all."

He then goes on to compare boxing legacies with reality TV shows.

"Look at the Big Brother contestants each year, this is just an example I'm giving you. At the time they get all this attention, the ones who stay in the house long or make an impression you think are going to be in the public eye forever. Yet where are they now? There's only Jade Goody.

"You probably can't even remember, you'd need to see clips of the past shows to be reminded. Yet at the time they are at the forefront, where you can't consider them vaporizing - at the time, you understand?"

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 11 Jun 2007, 02:24

So Chris says Joe is sort of great and Jade Goody is great.

I hope Warren doesn't read this, he'll get ideas about Joe's next fight. Who needs Kessler?

Goody also has previous sporting conquests, she entered last years London marathon...

Abbo · Post by **Abbo** » 11 Jun 2007, 04:44

That's a very interesting and very lucid piece, where's it from?

Greg Nicholas · Post by **Greg Nicholas** » 11 Jun 2007, 04:57

This is probably the most lucid ive ever read or heard from Eubank.. ususally you dont have a fcking clue what the guys talking about..

I agree that unless JC suffers a loss we'll never know how he'd of responded to true adversity which all the greats had to to be considered great.. and there's no reason why he shouldn't suffer a loss if he gets in there with Winky, Hopkins and Kessler-guys who are streets above anything he's ever faced in his life (Eubank had looked Rubbish since the Close fights with the exception of Wharton fight)..

If he doesn't get in there with Winky, Hopkins and Kessler then it's simply because he's not great material in that he's priced himself away, simple as that.. no better than fcking Eubank himself! If the alleged one allegedly Mr allegedly wont let JC in there with Winky, Hopkins or Kessler outside of Millenium Stad or O2 Arena with all ticket sales money (due to Amir Khan on undercard) and rights to the fights for himself then it's upto JC, if he wants to be great, to ditch Mr alleged allegedly..

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 11 Jun 2007, 05:36

Eubank is correct in that Calzaghe isnt great, but for the wrong reasons. Part of being great is how you respond to a defeat, but if a fighter beats the best fighters of his generation and remains undefeated, especially across different weight divisions, then the guy would be an all-time great. Joe isnt great because he hasnt pushed himself to beat the best fighters available. He has stuck to his comfort zone i.e. the WBO SM title, and has missed out on opportunities to stake a claim as an ATG. Beating Kessler would repair some damage to his reputation, but Joe is about 35 and isnt going to get any better.
Joe is a special talent, but imo hasnt made the most of this talent because he hasnt fought all the best fighters e.g. Jones, Hopkins, Kessler etc

Crew2 · Post by **Crew2** » 12 Jun 2007, 02:12

STP wrote: "I was undefeated in 43 fights, and fought far better opponents than Joe has - I beat great fighters like Benn and Watson, great fighters in that they came back from losses to do great things"

Is Chris forgetting that Joe beat him.? Hes saying Benn and Watson are great by coming back defeats and doing great things, well doesnt that make him great by coming out of retirement and putting up a great fight against Calz then coming back from the loss to Calz to give Carl Thomson those great fights at cruiser ( two great performances ) ??

Crew2 · Post by **Crew2** » 12 Jun 2007, 02:18

Greg Nicholas wrote:Eubank had looked Rubbish since the Close fights

He looked rubbish in the Close fights;) looked rubbish against Sherry & Stretch as well.

He always seemed to look garbage against the 'lesser' opponents whereas against the 'better' opponents-Benn, Watson, Lindell Holmes, Graziano Rocchigiani, Thornton and Wharton-he could look fantastic and do some fantastic stuff.

He looked pretty good against Calz for a few rounds too, but soon got scrappy and just looked drain through the years of starving himself and Benn 1, Watson 2 and ludicrous SKY deal all catching up with him i guess. I think the only reason he looked a little better in the Thomson fights is becos it was Thomson, a big donkey!

Greg Nicholas · Post by **Greg Nicholas** » 12 Jun 2007, 05:46

Benn and Watson were in their primes, they were all tussling to emerge and go on to great things but shortened eachothers careers and lives.. while Eubank had so many miles on the clock by the time he fought JC plus took the fight on short notice and hadn't looked sharp, Wharton fight aside, for about 15 fights..

STP · Post by **STP** » 15 Jun 2007, 05:13

He looked pretty sharp against Rocky in Germany son and very sharp in the one after the Collins loss (Bruno Godoy)

monkeybusiness · Post by **monkeybusiness** » 15 Jun 2007, 14:35

I do like Eubank, but I don't agree you HAVE to lose in order to prove you are great.
Though I do agree Calzaghe isn't great. He has only ever fought one or two decent fighters. Too many easy touches, whether that is his fault for picking and choosing or just bad luck that he campaigned in a weak division.

STP · Post by **STP** » 16 Jun 2007, 10:47

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sybpkIr4KQ

Calzaghe not great: Eubank

Calzaghe not great: Eubank

Re: Calzaghe not great: Eubank