Cazaghe should be a superstar!

[pundit]

I used to believe that. But fighting Lacy and Kessler (and the deal with Showtime to fight Hopkins) makes that proposition seem unreasonable.

Are we really supposed to believe that Calzaghe just woke up one day, and had some miraculous change of heart, deciding to reinvent his entire career?

Lacy and Hopkins are/were easy cashcow fights. The one that really counts is Kessler.

Still, better than nothing.

[eeler1]

There is no doubt in my mind that there were some names Joe wanted to face that he couldn't get in the ring, but also that there are others he didn't make enough effort to make happen. There were a lot of challengers, people like say Larsen, who were not superstars, but had credentials far superior to the bottom feeders of the WBO. There was also the likes of Beyer, Lucas, genuine champions which Calzaghe didn't face, and also Mundine, Green etc.

Now, I am confident Calzaghe would have beaten any of these men, but he never faced them, which is a bit of a shame.

I have almost forgiven this after witnessing him dismantle Lacy, and dominate Kessler, but it's still a case of what might have been.

If Calzaghe had fought and beaten those men, in addition to Lacy and Kessler, I think he would probably be thought of as P4P top dog by now, or very very close to it at number 2.

This is a very good post.

On the one hand, JC has made me a believer, with the win over Kessler. But now I'm kinda mad that he has spent most of his career against mediocre to bad opposition. He coulda beat anyone and everyone in his division, looks like to me. Yes, it is a bit of a shame.

[stujones]

Agree with James' post... However, unfortunately Joe not fighting those fighters (Ottke and Beyer, not Mundine/Larsen) isn't like say Lennox not fighting Michael Moorer. At their prime, there was no fighter that Joe beat that beat them also.... These were legitimate challenges, no one could say hand on heart with 100% conviction, and with evidence with who else has beaten them, that Beyer and Ottke didn't stand a chance.

Michael Moorer was a good fighter, but his performances against Holyfield, Tua, Botha show that really he stood not much of a vs Lewis. Ottke and Beyer did beat some good names and had comparable results against the same fighters. Beyer especially looked awesome in his first reign as champion.

Now, I can appreciate if some have seen my posts as very much Anti Calzaghe - they are not. Other fighters have the same problem and it will ALWAYS damage their legacy (like RJJ never fighting his natural rival in Michaelswecki, Lennox Lewis never fighting Bowe, Trinidad never fighting Quartey). However, Calzaghe has 2 or 3 natural rivals that he should have fought and for me, will ALWAYS dent his legacy.

[jjfc]

However, Calzaghe has 2 or 3 natural rivals that he should have fought and for me, will ALWAYS dent his legacy.

But here's my problem (and I note again that I was an American Calzaghe skeptic): how can you say this post- Lacy and Kessler? Is your theory that Calzaghe spent his entire career ducking people, and then just decided to fight the best opposition at the last minute?

Further, I can't hold not fighting Ottke against Calzaghe or anyone really. You can't complain about people not fighting you if your record is littered with irregularities.

And let me say, I think Brewer and Mitchell were much better than Beyer.

[nickd]

However, Calzaghe has 2 or 3 natural rivals that he should have fought and for me, will ALWAYS dent his legacy.

But here's my problem (and I note again that I was an American Calzaghe skeptic): how can you say this post- Lacy and Kessler? Is your theory that Calzaghe spent his entire career ducking people, and then just decided to fight the best opposition at the last minute?

Further, I can't hold not fighting Ottke against Calzaghe or anyone really. You can't complain about people not fighting you if your record is littered with irregularities.

And let me say, I think Brewer and Mitchell were much better than Beyer.

I wouldn't say he was ducking, but he was happy coasting in his comfort zone for a long long time. Only when his career was coming to a conclusion did he then seek out the best guys in the division. I am pretty sure when Calzaghe looks back on his career he'll always think he should have upped it sooner - he might not admit it but I am sure he'll think it. Greatness has probably eluded him because of it I am afraid.

[MightyWarrior]

Btw, am I the only one who found Calzaghe's performance in the fight's second half quite "Ottke"-esque? Boxing from the distance, jumping in and out with blistering speed, sidestepping and working the angles, and spoiling his opponent's offensive attempts. Never out to hurt his opponent, but carving out a safe points victory.

No. Because Calzaghe came forward, pressed the action of the fight, and kept it entertaining.

Also, he didn't need to rely on dodgy judging or reffing.

But probably the biggest difference between Calzaghe and Ottke was that this fight happened at all. Calzaghe was willing to fight his major opponents, while Ottke, in retrospect, has to be viewed as a cheating coward.

I made a comment about fighting style, mate. Seems this aspect has eluded you.

Big difference, Ottke, when ahead, would circle and avoid contact, doing his best to kill the round & stay out of punching range, while throwing a few pleading glances to the house ref. Much like Felix Strum.

At least Joe keeps punching, even when miles ahead as in the Lacy fight.

Calzaghe is a different level to Ottke, who was never in a fight he wasn't favorite to win. You can see why the Germans kept him clear of Joe now.

[jjfc]

Beyer especially looked awesome in his first reign as champion.

Yeah, a close points win over Richie Woodhall and beating Reif Laksi before being ko'd by Catley. Clearly, the stuff of Louis, Marciano, and Sugar Ray Robinson.

What is this nonsense? Are you the same guy who scored Calzaghe-Kessler a draw?

[stujones]

However, Calzaghe has 2 or 3 natural rivals that he should have fought and for me, will ALWAYS dent his legacy.

But here's my problem (and I note again that I was an American Calzaghe skeptic): how can you say this post- Lacy and Kessler? Is your theory that Calzaghe spent his entire career ducking people, and then just decided to fight the best opposition at the last minute?

Further, I can't hold not fighting Ottke against Calzaghe or anyone really. You can't complain about people not fighting you if your record is littered with irregularities.

And let me say, I think Brewer and Mitchell were much better than Beyer.

It doesn't matter who ducked who IMO. The consensus of opinion is that Riddick Bowe ducked Lennox Lewis - does that mean it doesn't affect Lewis' legacy... of course it does.

Ottke's reign is NOT LITTERED with irregularities - TWO FIGHTS (Larsen and Reid) - the rest he won legitmately. I don't know you, and I don't want to make a huge stereotype - but most American's (good blokes) who I dealt with on an American forum, had hardly ever seen Ottke fight - so when the likes of Brewer, Mitchell and a few others shouted "robbery" they just agreed - no chance. I've had the mispleasure of seeing all of Ottke's title fights and these were the only two that I have a problem with, and the only reason I have a problem with the Reid fight was cause of the point deduction and the no scoring of a KD by the ref. My card, being in accordance to the ref's instructions, said the Ottke won the fight. Had Reid been given a fair deal by the ref - then Reid would have won.

What about Calzaghe vs Mitchell (premature stoppage), Calzaghe vs Reid (controvesial scoring) - you could even say Calzaghe vs Manfredo (stoppage) and Calzaghe vs Kessler (wideness of cards)as irregularites. Both fighters have shared Home fighters advantages in their career.

Beyer was an excellent fighter in his first reign - when he smashed Richie Woodhall. His chin was sound and he always had more pop than Ottke - I would have favoured him over Ottke, who beat the two fighters you mentioned. I would have favoured Woodhall over the two fighters you mentioned.

Kessler and Lacy are quality defences - but Roy Jones, Bernard Hopkins (prime) and James Toney they are not. It would be a bit like Lewis beating the likes of Vitali, Tua, Grant etc - but without Tyson, Holyfield (especially) and even, Akinwande, McCall, Bruno.

No-one can say hand on heart with 100% conviction that Lacy and Kessler are better than Ottke and Beyer. If they do, then they are just being bias. You don't legitmately beat the likes of Mundine, Glen Johnson, Brewer, Mitchell, Tate, Woodhall, Markussen, Branco is your somekind of a joke fighter. Beyer was way past his best when he fought Kessler - prime for prime its a tough one to call.

[jamesmcdonnell]

I don't know about that being Hopkins prime Stu, Hopkins learnt to box in jail, and then as a pro, he started late and had no amateur career. Hopkins like many fighters in that situation had to learn as he fought. I think Jones had a massive advantage therefore when they fought.

[pundit]

However, Calzaghe has 2 or 3 natural rivals that he should have fought and for me, will ALWAYS dent his legacy.

But here's my problem (and I note again that I was an American Calzaghe skeptic): how can you say this post- Lacy and Kessler? Is your theory that Calzaghe spent his entire career ducking people, and then just decided to fight the best opposition at the last minute?

Further, I can't hold not fighting Ottke against Calzaghe or anyone really. You can't complain about people not fighting you if your record is littered with irregularities.

And let me say, I think Brewer and Mitchell were much better than Beyer.

It doesn't matter who ducked who IMO. The consensus of opinion is that Riddick Bowe ducked Lennox Lewis - does that mean it doesn't affect Lewis' legacy... of course it does.

Ottke's reign is NOT LITTERED with irregularities - TWO FIGHTS (Larsen and Reid) - the rest he won legitmately. I don't know you, and I don't want to make a huge stereotype - but most American's (good blokes) who I dealt with on an American forum, had hardly ever seen Ottke fight - so when the likes of Brewer, Mitchell and a few others shouted "robbery" they just agreed - no chance. I've had the mispleasure of seeing all of Ottke's title fights and these were the only two that I have a problem with, and the only reason I have a problem with the Reid fight was cause of the point deduction and the no scoring of a KD by the ref. My card, being in accordance to the ref's instructions, said the Ottke won the fight. Had Reid been given a fair deal by the ref - then Reid would have won.

What about Calzaghe vs Mitchell (premature stoppage), Calzaghe vs Reid (controvesial scoring) - you could even say Calzaghe vs Manfredo (stoppage) and Calzaghe vs Kessler (wideness of cards)as irregularites. Both fighters have shared Home fighters advantages in their career.

Beyer was an excellent fighter in his first reign - when he smashed Richie Woodhall. His chin was sound and he always had more pop than Ottke - I would have favoured him over Ottke, who beat the two fighters you mentioned. I would have favoured Woodhall over the two fighters you mentioned.

Kessler and Lacy are quality defences - but Roy Jones, Bernard Hopkins (prime) and James Toney they are not. It would be a bit like Lewis beating the likes of Vitali, Tua, Grant etc - but without Tyson, Holyfield (especially) and even, Akinwande, McCall, Bruno.

No-one can say hand on heart with 100% conviction that Lacy and Kessler are better than Ottke and Beyer. If they do, then they are just being bias. You don't legitmately beat the likes of Mundine, Glen Johnson, Brewer, Mitchell, Tate, Woodhall, Markussen, Branco is your somekind of a joke fighter. Beyer was way past his best when he fought Kessler - prime for prime its a tough one to call.

Good and fair pos, except that I rate Ottke indeed higher than Beyer. Beyer was always vulnerable and a tad inconsistent.

[jjfc]

I have seen Brewer-Ottke I, and I scored it for Brewer. To say, you scored Brewer-Ottke I for Ottke is fine. To say it's not controversial, is just silly. Even pundit admits that fight is questionable.

And it's not to say that I don't think Ottke won close fights. I scored him a winner against Johnson.

To compare Calzaghe-Mitchell or Calzaghe-Reid (I won't even dignify the Manfredo/Kessler stuff) with what went on over the course of Ottke's career is insulting.

[stujones]

I don't know about that being Hopkins prime Stu, Hopkins learnt to box in jail, and then as a pro, he started late and had no amateur career. Hopkins like many fighters in that situation had to learn as he fought. I think Jones had a massive advantage therefore when they fought.

Sorry, and I don't mean to sound sarcastic here, but I don't think I refered to Jones fighting Hopkins in his prime. When I said "Hopkins (prime)" I meant for Joe to have faced him in his prime not in 2008.

Just for the record though, Hopkins mark 1993 was way closer to his prime than Hopkins mark 2008. Personally, I think Jones would have beaten any version of BHOP 10 times out of 10 and its hard to guage how green BHOP was cause he didn't lose for something like 12 years after the fight. However, yes - I don't think Hopkins was quite in his prime when he fought Jones and not sure where I said it... So yeah, I agree. Its a bit like Kessler now, what happens if he reigns for say 6 years after Joe retires - will he be not in his prime now? Difference is, I aint so confident Joe could beat the current Kessler (if that is prime or not, we don't know) 10 times out of 10. Personally, I would favour Kessler to win more than 5 times - but hey, no problems if you completely disagree.

Jones did meet James Toney in his prime.... any problems Toney faced in the run up were entirely of his doing and that shouldn't be held against RJJ and BHOP did beat Tito in his prime, yes you could say he wasn't at his best weight - but most people were saying how refreshed he looked at Middle and electric.

[jamesmcdonnell]

I don't know about that being Hopkins prime Stu, Hopkins learnt to box in jail, and then as a pro, he started late and had no amateur career. Hopkins like many fighters in that situation had to learn as he fought. I think Jones had a massive advantage therefore when they fought.

Sorry, and I don't mean to sound sarcastic here, but I don't think I refered to Jones fighting Hopkins in his prime. When I said "Hopkins (prime)" I meant for Joe to have faced him in his prime not in 2008.

Just for the record though, Hopkins mark 1993 was way closer to his prime than Hopkins mark 2008. Personally, I think Jones would have beaten any version of BHOP 10 times out of 10 and its hard to guage how green BHOP was cause he didn't lose for something like 12 years after the fight. However, yes - I don't think Hopkins was quite in his prime when he fought Jones and not sure where I said it... So yeah, I agree. Its a bit like Kessler now, what happens if he reigns for say 6 years after Joe retires - will he be not in his prime now? Difference is, I aint so confident Joe could beat the current Kessler (if that is prime or not, we don't know) 10 times out of 10. Personally, I would favour Kessler to win more than 5 times - but hey, no problems if you completely disagree.

Jones did meet James Toney in his prime.... any problems Toney faced in the run up were entirely of his doing and that shouldn't be held against RJJ and BHOP did beat Tito in his prime, yes you could say he wasn't at his best weight - but most people were saying how refreshed he looked at Middle and electric.

Ahh right, understand, it read as something different, but like Toney, you've only yourself to blame.

As for who would beat who 10 out of 10, that's all supposition.

I agree Hopkins was nearer his prime then than now, no doubt. Hopkins is a much better fighter now, but physically he's too far from his peak to be truly effective. When he fought Jones, he was inexperienced, but was a way way more dangerous fighter.

He was at his peak around Trinidad and the couple of years before I'd say. The age and experience combined to make him a great fighter.

Same with Lennox Lewis, peaked about 32-36, due to greater experience and technical perfection than the early gifted but flawed fighter.

[stujones]

I have seen Brewer-Ottke I, and I scored it for Brewer. To say, you scored Brewer-Ottke I for Ottke is fine. To say it's not controversial, is just silly. Even pundit admits that fight is questionable.

And it's not to say that I don't think Ottke won close fights. I scored him a winner against Johnson.

To compare Calzaghe-Mitchell or Calzaghe-Reid (I won't even dignify the Manfredo/Kessler stuff) with what went on over the course of Ottke's career is insulting.

So name the littered with irregularities.

I think whether you call a fight controvesial or not, should be based on your card and MAYBE the consensus of opinion. For example, I have heard SOME people think that Castillo vs Mayweather 1 was controvesial. Jim Gray (or was it Merchant) thought it was controvesial. Most people I have spoken too agree with the decision, like I do - so therefore do I consider it controvesial - NO.

I have heard some say that Brewer beat Ottke, but most of those people have ADMITTED to seeing only highlights. The General consensus I have heard is the Ottke won, my card had Ottke winning. Fair enough if you had Brewer winning. Do you think its controvesial yes, do I think its controvesial - No - I have no problems with the winner.

With the Larsen fight - opinion seems to be pretty split on the winner, I scored it to Larsen - do I think its controvesial yes. Do I have a problem if you scored it to Ottke - Not really, but I did think it was pretty clear.

Reid vs Calzaghe - similar - opinion split, I scored it to Reid - do I think its controvesial yes. Do I have a problem if you scored it to Calzaghe - No, not at all.

How can I say if a fight is controvesial if I agreed with the opinion. I personally have a major problem with the scoring of Calzaghe vs Kessler and there is even a seperate thread on here about it - so its not like I am the only one. I don't have a problem with the outcome, but it could suggest that you need a 3 round start to beat Joe in Wales?

I just don't understand why can't you compare Ottke's luck with Joe's when thus far your only example you have - is one close fight that you yourself have no problem if you scored it to Sven. How is that ANY different to Calzaghe vs Reid. Hows is Mitchell vs Calzaghe any less dubious?

Or is it because Germany has a bigger reputation than Britain for controvesy?

[jjfc]

I just don't understand why can't you compare Ottke's luck with Joe's when thus far your only example you have - is one close fight that you yourself have no problem if you scored it to Sven. How is that ANY different to Calzaghe vs Reid. Hows is Mitchell vs Calzaghe any less dubious?

Easy. Calzaghe has ONE controversial decision - Reid. That's it. Ottke has Brewer I, Larsen, Reid, and Johnson. (Unlike you, I don't determine wheter a fight is controversial based on my opinion. I scored Trinidad-DLH for Trindad, but the fight's still controversial.) What is this "general consensus" that Ottke won Brewer I? Are we polling Ottke's family? People who scored Calzaghe/Kessler a draw?

If you think the stoppages of Mitchell and Manfredo are comparably "dubious" as the ref's behavior in the Ottke/Reid fight. I just fundamentally disagree.

[Autobarn]

I think history will be kind to Joe. Following his career he had many critics, but like Hopkins he's done it his way and it has worked.

It's Catch 22. If he'd had all those fights he should've had, I doubt he would've been around now to stun us in very good company.

[stujones]

I just don't understand why can't you compare Ottke's luck with Joe's when thus far your only example you have - is one close fight that you yourself have no problem if you scored it to Sven. How is that ANY different to Calzaghe vs Reid. Hows is Mitchell vs Calzaghe any less dubious?

Easy. Calzaghe has ONE controversial decision - Reid. That's it. Ottke has Brewer I, Larsen, Reid, and Johnson. (Unlike you, I don't determine wheter a fight is controversial based on my opinion. I scored Trinidad-DLH for Trindad, but the fight's still controversial.) What is this "general consensus" that Ottke won Brewer I? Are we polling Ottke's family? People who scored Calzaghe/Kessler a draw?

If you think the stoppages of Mitchell and Manfredo are comparably "dubious" as the ref's behavior in the Ottke/Reid fight. I just fundamentally disagree.

Well thanks for bringing more than one example - Johnson I do fundamentally disagree with - I don't know one person who thought Johnson won and it was a fair decision. Yes, you could say Johnson was weight drained etc - but no way did he win the fight, the only reason that was controvesial was cause Johnson moaned about it after. The other 3 I'll grant you were close - and two of which I have a problem with...

Ottke's style naturally means alot of his rounds will be open to a different interpretation, as opposed to Joe whose style meant he would win the round clear. However, looking at Joe's record I do think the scoring was a little kind to him in the Bika, Kessler and Reid fights. Not saying for one minute he shouldn't have had his hand raised - just that it would appear that rounds that were open to interpretation were given to Joe, just like they were Sven. However, Sven has had more of those rounds in his career - no doubt.

And when two of the 4 common opponents said it would be a tough fight to call (not sure of Brewer's view) then its a crying shame, for both's career, that they never faced up. I am not trying to be a Sven nuthugger here - I think Joe would have beaten him - but no-one is daring to mention Sven as Superstar or ATG, but Joe is getting these accolades - undeservedly IMO. The winner of a fight might have got the accolade - but they never fought and its a crying shame.

What is so wrong with calling Kessler vs Calzaghe a draw - if you did a "worst case scenerio" (for Joe) of people score cards on here and other sites scoring the fight and give everyround in which two or more people have scored for Kessler (or level) then it could be argued that Kessler won. There are a fair few score cards on here for example that give Kessler the 1st and the 10th round, as well as the other 4 that it would seem the MAJORITY thought he won. There are also one or two cards (not mine) who thought Kessler did enough to share one of the mid rounds - but then didn't give him the 1st and/or the 10th.

The majority only disagree with me on two rounds, but the same majority conceed that the 10th especially was a toughie to score and some have said so was the 1st.

[jjfc]

If Ottke's rounds are more subject to interpretation (and I agree they are). One would think close decisions would break roughly even. Or there would be the stronger possibility that OTTKE would be robbed in one fight over the course of his career. You have to be amazed that the breaks always seem to go his way even in a fight where he is the challenger. Combine this with the ref's behavior in the Reid fight. And you can say as you like to put it "hand on heart" that there is nothing suspcious about Ottke's career?

Also, if we are going to add "wide cards" into the evaluation. You seem to be pressing your luck to assume that Ottke's never had "wide cards" in his career. I'm not going to run through my tapes though.

I know NO ONE other than you who had a draw. Given the subjectivity and diversity of opinion in boxing, that's a VERY strong statement.

Let's put this all together: you think Calzaghe's career is equally shady as Ottke's, you scored every fight close fight except Larsen for Ottke, you scored Calzaghe/Reid for Reid and scored the Kessler fight a draw, you think if Kessler/Calzaghe fought 10 times Kessler would win more often than not, you think Beyer's first (two fight) title reign was "awesome" because of his "great chin" despite it ending in KO against Catley.

Looking at all that objectively, what do you think an outside observer would think about your views about Calzaghe?

[pundit]

If Ottke's rounds are more subject to interpretation (and I agree they are). One would think close decisions would break roughly even. Or there would be the stronger possibility that OTTKE would be robbed in one fight over the course of his career. You have to be amazed that the breaks always seem to go his way even in a fight where he is the challenger. Combine this with the ref's behavior in the Reid fight. And you can say as you like to put it "hand on heart" that there is nothing suspcious about Ottke's career?

Also, if we are going to add "wide cards" into the evaluation. You seem to be pressing your luck to assume that Ottke's never had "wide cards" in his career. I'm not going to run through my tapes though.

I know NO ONE other than you who had a draw. Given the subjectivity and diversity of opinion in boxing, that's a VERY strong statement.

Let's put this all together: you think Calzaghe's career is equally shady as Ottke's, you scored every fight close fight except Larsen for Ottke, you scored Calzaghe/Reid for Reid and scored the Kessler fight a draw, you think if Kessler/Calzaghe fought 10 times Kessler would win more often than not, you think Beyer's first (two fight) title reign was "awesome" because of his "great chin" despite it ending in KO against Catley.

Looking at all that objectively, what do you think an outside observer would think about your views about Calzaghe?

Until last Saturday, Calzaghe's career was every bit as shady as Ottke's -- and much more shameful, owing to allegedly's mismanagement. At least Ottke took several legit contenders the IBF placed in front of him (rather than have them chosen by his manager), in this process fought the legit #3 several times, and won handsomely each time.

It's only with the Kessler win that Calzaghe's all-career status has moved above Ottke's.

[Autobarn]

Joe definitely beat Brewer better than Ottke did, and Mitchell, and either Pudwill or McIntyre (one of whom I think went the distance with Sven).

Sven was a good boxer who knew how to pickpocket his way to steal rounds and edge fights. He beat good opponents, many of whom were whiners looking for sympathy. But it doesn't look good that he was gifted vs Reid and Larsen (late career admittedly), that he should have lost to THOMAS TATE by TKO not keeping his belt via TD, etc.

Calzaghe is a more domineering fighter. Ottke won a unification. Calzaghe won two. Both made the same # of title defenses. Ottke definitely didn't want anything to do with Lacy, at the end of his career (Lacy was Ottke's #1 contender for the IBF). Joe destroyed Lacy, winning every round, and proving his longevity was better than Ottke's.

[johnswan1]

Joes had 2 career defining fights - Jeff Lacy was a legitimate dangerman and a contestant to best SM in the world before he fought Calzaghe. However, his style was made to measure and he got trounced.

I disagree with you on Lacy. Lacy was the perfect opponent for a pseudo-superfight: impressive KO record, the right passport, but limited skills and easy to defeat.

Kessler, by contrast, was a real challenge -- as Saturday's fight showed.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Just remember Calzaghe was the betting underdog for the Lacy fight. "Easy to defeat" - credit must be given to Joe for that, most pundits (excuse the pun) were split on the winner.

[pundit]

Joe definitely beat Brewer better than Ottke did, and Mitchell, and either Pudwill or McIntyre (one of whom I think went the distance with Sven).

None of this says much. Joe beat Brewer when Brewer was over the hill (he lost his next meaninful bout to Mario Veit), while Ottke faced prime Brewer twice. Mitchell came off a clear points loss to Ottke when fighting Calzaghe. Ottke boxed boxed Pudwill's ears off in an extremely one-sided bout. He didn't fight McIntyre (and in general, a clear ponts win isn't any better or worse than a TKO. It just points to a different style).

Sven was a good boxer who knew how to pickpocket his way to steal rounds and edge fights. He beat good opponents, many of whom were whiners looking for sympathy. But it doesn't look good that he was gifted vs Reid and Larsen (late career admittedly), that he should have lost to THOMAS TATE by TKO not winning a TD, etc.

Come on. He dominated Tate twice from A to Z.

Calzaghe is a more domineering fighter. Ottke won a unification. Calzaghe won two.

The one that matters is the Kessler unification bout. This was #1 vs. #2. Ottke never did this.

Both made the same # of title defenses. Ottke definitely didn't want anything to do with Lacy, at the end of his career (Lacy was Ottke's #1 contender for the IBF).

BS. 3 months after Ottke's retirment fight (Kranjc) Lacy had an eliminator for the IBF #2 spot (vs. Tsypko). Lacy wasn't on the radar screen when Ottke retired. Besides, Lacy would have been taylor made for Ottke (as for any other good, mobile boxer).

Joe destroyed Lacy, winning every round, and proving his longevity was better than Ottke's.

Sure. Ottke's style was all based on quick feet. As soon as his legs slowed he wan't competitive any more. I have no beef with Calzaghe being the more accomplished fighter than Ottke -- I do insist though that he gained that status only last Saturday.

[pundit]

Joes had 2 career defining fights - Jeff Lacy was a legitimate dangerman and a contestant to best SM in the world before he fought Calzaghe. However, his style was made to measure and he got trounced.

I disagree with you on Lacy. Lacy was the perfect opponent for a pseudo-superfight: impressive KO record, the right passport, but limited skills and easy to defeat.

Kessler, by contrast, was a real challenge -- as Saturday's fight showed.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Just remember Calzaghe was the betting underdog for the Lacy fight. "Easy to defeat" - credit must be given to Joe for that, most pundits (excuse the pun) were split on the winner.

Thanks. I for my part had little doubt that Lacy would be easy prey for Joe. Thus my assessment has nothing to do with hindsight.

[stujones]

If Ottke's rounds are more subject to interpretation (and I agree they are). One would think close decisions would break roughly even. Or there would be the stronger possibility that OTTKE would be robbed in one fight over the course of his career. You have to be amazed that the breaks always seem to go his way even in a fight where he is the challenger. Combine this with the ref's behavior in the Reid fight. And you can say as you like to put it "hand on heart" that there is nothing suspcious about Ottke's career?

Also, if we are going to add "wide cards" into the evaluation. You seem to be pressing your luck to assume that Ottke's never had "wide cards" in his career. I'm not going to run through my tapes though.

I know NO ONE other than you who had a draw. Given the subjectivity and diversity of opinion in boxing, that's a VERY strong statement.

Let's put this all together: you think Calzaghe's career is equally shady as Ottke's, you scored every fight close fight except Larsen for Ottke, you scored Calzaghe/Reid for Reid and scored the Kessler fight a draw, you think if Kessler/Calzaghe fought 10 times Kessler would win more often than not, you think Beyer's first (two fight) title reign was "awesome" because of his "great chin" despite it ending in KO against Catley.

Looking at all that objectively, what do you think an outside observer would think about your views about Calzaghe?

I never said Ottke's reign wasn't suspicious - I have said that Ottke was gifted a decision vs Larson. Thats all there needs to be said, one iffy decision = problem. I am not saying that Calzaghe shouldn't be ranked higher than Sven. All I am saying is that Joe should have fought him, you said that you didn't blame Joe for not going there cause his career was "littered" with irregularities. One dubious referreeing call and between us 2 fights (whats irregular about the Johnson fight when both agree the right man got his arm raised). Hardly littered.

Why should it be down to just Sven to go to UK to challenge Joe? I've named 2 fights in which I think (and I aint the only one) that Joe got a tad fortunate with. The only two times (due to his undoubted ability) that his reign looked in real pressure of being over and he had a bit of the rub of the green. Joe might think he needs a KO to score a draw out in Germany, but why is it so wrong for Sven not to think "christ, if Joe backs me up once, the fight could get stopped" . Or "my speciality of accurate single shots through the guard wasn't enough for Reid, why should it be for me".

Despite what you believe, I aint no Sven nuthugger or Calzaghe hater - but BOTH liked to be homeboys too much. Both had legitimate claims to be #1 fighter when they were active (Sven more so IMO) - so both thought "why should we give up home advantage" its cost them dear. I don't see why you could not blame Joe for going to Germany, but then blame Sven for not going to Wales.

The way Hagler / Hopkins etc became ATG is by claring up the devision as oppose to moving up. Thats fine, as long as the devision is cleared up. Had Hopkins not faced the likes of Joppy and Holmes then nope - he wouldn't be an ATG also. RJJ DID miss out on some key names, as has Floyd Mayweahter - but they have made up for it by fighting Key names in other devisions.

Sven was a champion of equal pedigree for 8 years and to a lesser extent Markus Beyer was a champion on and off for 5 years. These were key fights and the Beyer fight could have been made, Markus showed he would travel. Markus didn't fulfil his potential, but still was a 3 time champion - its a bit like Naz claiming he cleared up the devision and then avoiding Manuel Medina.

Regarding my card - a fair few have it 7-5... Thats only one round out from mine. Even the guys who have it 8-4 can see why I gave the two rounds to Kessler. I don't have a problem with anyone who scored it 8-4 to Joe, although 8-3-1 or 9-3 Joe I think is being VERY harsh on Kessler.

Markus' chin was fine, but he had a major psychological problem about the final round. He looked the bee knees destroying Woodhall, who was a fine fighter. I think had Joe fought Beyer immediately after that - the bookies odds would have been interesting.

[jjfc]

Calzaghe's career was every bit as shady as Ottke's -- and much more shameful, owing to allegedly allegedly's mismanagement. At least Ottke took several legit contenders the IBF placed in front of him (rather than have them chosen by his manager), in this process fought the legit #3 several times, and won handsomely each time.

Look, if I had the judges gift me a decision when I was the challenger, I'd certainly have nothing to fear as the champ.