BoxRec

I'm not entirely convinced by compubox or any type of punch stat stastics. Calzaghe vs Hopkins is one of the fights in which the compubox figures are always highlighted. All very well, but I often ask why are these stats always shown? Because it is a surprising stat, these don't measure punch effectiveness, shot selection and ring generalship.

Agree Expe on punch stats, it certainly isn't the be all and end all - go on punch stats and Joe didn't lose a round - that says it all. It does not give us an idea of who won the fight as you said a couple posts ago it could have gone either way.

As Hopkins and Roach both said, independently, if Joe landed all those shots why isn't Hopkins' face looking like it was in a fight.

Re - Hopkins vs Pavlik, Bernard did throw over 60 more shots than vs Calzaghe, landing over 50 more - he was a good bit busier.

stujones wrote:I'm not entirely convinced by compubox or any type of punch stat stastics. Calzaghe vs Hopkins is one of the fights in which the compubox figures are always highlighted. All very well, but I often ask why are these stats always shown? Because it is a surprising stat, these don't measure punch effectiveness, shot selection and ring generalship.

Agree Expe on punch stats, it certainly isn't the be all and end all - go on punch stats and Joe didn't lose a round - that says it all. It does not give us an idea of who won the fight as you said a couple posts ago it could have gone either way.

As Hopkins and Roach both said, independently, if Joe landed all those shots why isn't Hopkins' face looking like it was in a fight.

Re - Hopkins vs Pavlik, Bernard did throw over 60 more shots than vs Calzaghe, landing over 50 more - he was a good bit busier.

Hopkins wasn't particularly marked up, but he never really is and most of the shots were lighter ones, but overall Joe threw more, landed more and was better defensively than Hopkins, for me that's enough for him to take the fight.

orbtastic wrote:

dr_devious wrote:Jimmy Wilde is the greatest ever British fighter. Lennox and Joe are probably the greatest world champions in terms of longevity, also depends on whether you count Bob Fitzsimmons as British

What's his best two wins?

Probably Joe Lynch and Young Zulu Kid. Name another British boxer who is often named best ever boxer in their weight division as Jimmy Wilde is at flyweight

dr_devious wrote:

orbtastic wrote:

dr_devious wrote:Jimmy Wilde is the greatest ever British fighter. Lennox and Joe are probably the greatest world champions in terms of longevity, also depends on whether you count Bob Fitzsimmons as British

What's his best two wins?

Probably Joe Lynch and Young Zulu Kid. Name another British boxer who is often named best ever boxer in their weight division as Jimmy Wilde is at flyweight

Joe Calzaghe - Super Middleweight

expe wrote:

stujones wrote:I'm not entirely convinced by compubox or any type of punch stat stastics. Calzaghe vs Hopkins is one of the fights in which the compubox figures are always highlighted. All very well, but I often ask why are these stats always shown? Because it is a surprising stat, these don't measure punch effectiveness, shot selection and ring generalship.

Agree Expe on punch stats, it certainly isn't the be all and end all - go on punch stats and Joe didn't lose a round - that says it all. It does not give us an idea of who won the fight as you said a couple posts ago it could have gone either way.

As Hopkins and Roach both said, independently, if Joe landed all those shots why isn't Hopkins' face looking like it was in a fight.

Re - Hopkins vs Pavlik, Bernard did throw over 60 more shots than vs Calzaghe, landing over 50 more - he was a good bit busier.

Hopkins wasn't particularly marked up, but he never really is and most of the shots were lighter ones, but overall Joe threw more, landed more and was better defensively than Hopkins, for me that's enough for him to take the fight.

It was time consuming and not hugely enjoyable but I watched this entire fight in slow motion. Calzaghe hardly landed a clean blow, while Hopkins was scoring regularly on the counter with clean shots. I scored the fight for Calzaghe when I watched it on tv. I thought Hopkins put in a pathetic performance with his fouling and play acting although Joes punches seemed to have little effect I thought he was 'busier' and more aggressive so scored for him. Watching it in slow mo I found it hard to give Joe more than three rounds.

Tomasino wrote:

expe wrote:

stujones wrote:I'm not entirely convinced by compubox or any type of punch stat stastics. Calzaghe vs Hopkins is one of the fights in which the compubox figures are always highlighted. All very well, but I often ask why are these stats always shown? Because it is a surprising stat, these don't measure punch effectiveness, shot selection and ring generalship.

Agree Expe on punch stats, it certainly isn't the be all and end all - go on punch stats and Joe didn't lose a round - that says it all. It does not give us an idea of who won the fight as you said a couple posts ago it could have gone either way.

As Hopkins and Roach both said, independently, if Joe landed all those shots why isn't Hopkins' face looking like it was in a fight.

Re - Hopkins vs Pavlik, Bernard did throw over 60 more shots than vs Calzaghe, landing over 50 more - he was a good bit busier.

Hopkins wasn't particularly marked up, but he never really is and most of the shots were lighter ones, but overall Joe threw more, landed more and was better defensively than Hopkins, for me that's enough for him to take the fight.

It was time consuming and not hugely enjoyable but I watched this entire fight in slow motion. Calzaghe hardly landed a clean blow, while Hopkins was scoring regularly on the counter with clean shots. I scored the fight for Calzaghe when I watched it on tv. I thought Hopkins put in a pathetic performance with his fouling and play acting although Joes punches seemed to have little effect I thought he was 'busier' and more aggressive so scored for him. Watching it in slow mo I found it hard to give Joe more than three rounds.

Trouble with watching it in slo mo is the human eye which at the end of the day is how you judge a fight doesnt do that with replays and slo mo.
For me faking injuries puts a boxer on a par with these diving footballers and if we are watching a replay on slo mo then the first thing id do is DQ hopkins it really was bad how much he tried to actualy cheat

We are going a bit around in circles, but if Tomasino said that in slow mo these punches missed, then why does the fans who scored it for Joe always cite these compubox figures?

Yes Jonp valid point about the problems of viewing it in slow motion, complete true - but at the same time why are we becoming so reliant on compubox (which is, I believe, just a bloke pressing a button as he is viewing the fight live) and as I've said repeatedly why is the argument "well Compubox said Joe landed more shots on Hopkins then any fighter ever" worth a toss - at the end of the day is Compubox 100% accurate, no. Even if it was, it does not give a reflex of effectiveness of punches landed, defensive skills, gamesmanship, ring generalship and other aspects of the noble art.

I believe Compubox figures are brought up for this fight especially to make the case for Joe - its the one thing that can. Aspects that a more subjective (and I mean more subjective, compubox is subjective in its own right) fell in Hopkins' favour clear.

Hopkins might have feigned injury, might have tried to buy time, but that's the refs job not the officials and coz the ref didn't do his job probably you shouldn't change the card - even if you want to dock points. You cannot call George Groves the winner against Froch coz the Froch was in more trouble than George.

stujones wrote:We are going a bit around in circles, but if Tomasino said that in slow mo these punches missed, then why does the fans who scored it for Joe always cite these compubox figures?

Yes Jonp valid point about the problems of viewing it in slow motion, complete true - but at the same time why are we becoming so reliant on compubox (which is, I believe, just a bloke pressing a button as he is viewing the fight live) and as I've said repeatedly why is the argument "well Compubox said Joe landed more shots on Hopkins then any fighter ever" worth a toss - at the end of the day is Compubox 100% accurate, no. Even if it was, it does not give a reflex of effectiveness of punches landed, defensive skills, gamesmanship, ring generalship and other aspects of the noble art.

I believe Compubox figures are brought up for this fight especially to make the case for Joe - its the one thing that can. Aspects that a more subjective (and I mean more subjective, compubox is subjective in its own right) fell in Hopkins' favour clear.

Hopkins might have feigned injury, might have tried to buy time, but that's the refs job not the officials and coz the ref didn't do his job probably you shouldn't change the card - even if you want to dock points. You cannot call George Groves the winner against Froch coz the Froch was in more trouble than George.

I honestly hated Hopkins after that fight. Even though it was close and also obvious that Joe missed a lot, I still scored it for him. It was only when folk kept on with Hopkins is robbed stuff and then someone posted the slo motion video. I thought eff that I'm not wasting my time. I then realised that if someone took the time to post it in slo mo then I should watch it for accuracy sake...I was shocked.

Pointless back and forth discussion really because IMO neither Calzaghe or Lewis was greatest British fighter, it's took over the thread, I'd say they are amongst the top 10 but the names I'm about to mention are all ahead of them IMO.

John "Jack" Broughton (original boxing hall of famer)
Ted "Kid" Lewis
Bob Fitzsimmons
Duke McKenzie ( only ever British 3 weight world champion )
Randolph Turpin
Ken Buchannan

Boxingcutsman wrote:Pointless back and forth discussion really because IMO neither Calzaghe or Lewis was greatest British fighter, it's took over the thread, I'd say they are amongst the top 10 but the names I'm about to mention are all ahead of them IMO.

John "Jack" Broughton (original boxing hall of famer)
Ted "Kid" Lewis
Bob Fitzsimmons
Duke McKenzie ( only ever British 3 weight world champion )
Randolph Turpin
Ken Buchannan

Duke McKenzie was a good fighter and he was 3 weight world champion, but Bob Fitzsimmons was as well and the quality of opposition for his world title fights wasn't great and he only won 6 of 10 world title fights, 2 of the defeats inside the distance, one of those in the first round. Jack Broughton died in 1789, nearly a century before the Marquess of Queensbury rules were introduced and only fought in bare knuckle fights. The others are good shouts though.

john conteh never gets enough credit

stevieb_8006 wrote:john conteh never gets enough credit

Only beat one world champion though and that was Rondon who seems to have been more or less done by the time he fought Conteh.

Conteh could have been the best. He had great competitors to go up against and prove his greatness, it's a shame he lost his love of the game before his career was over. Nearly a great fighter.

expe wrote:

stevieb_8006 wrote:john conteh never gets enough credit

Only beat one world champion though and that was Rondon who seems to have been more or less done by the time he fought Conteh.

yeah agreed, he never gets a mention tho when people discuss british champs.

I think an Calzaghe was a lot of smoke and mirrors. Incredible record and some great performances but I just can't take to him being called one of the greats. Prime jones gets him out of there in a couple of rounds if he wanted to. I think prime Benn and Eubank would beat him too. Benn in particular would have being too much.

He was incredibly lucky that the division emptied out whilst he fought comparative puddings and then he beat an unprepared (mentally) lacy, Kessler who was ok but no great, the remnants of jones and the lazy Hopkins.

If your a glass is half full kind of guy Calzaghes one of the greatest human competitors to ever walk the face of the earth, half empty and he's just a cherry picker who barely mixed in top class. I'm somewhere in the middle. Even all these years later.

Poor Robin, bit of a stich up that - doubt he would have gotten a decision anyway, as he wasn't really dominating enough to get the win, but he really wasn't done any favours - It still rankles me to this day that he got totally shafted by Roger Tillerman in his fight with Ottke. He was dominating Ottke, who looked pretty much shot to me - but was risking disqualification as the ref was taking points off for hitting his opponent - and at one point even helped Ottke up after Reid chinned him and dropped him with a left hook, and didn't administer a count at all, just literally ignored the knockdown.

Still to this day, the most blatantly piece of bent refereeing I've ever seen in my life. Tillerman was hired to do everything possible to ensure that Ottke kept his title - strangely promoted to an A class referee and given a world title fight, despite having little or not experience as anything but an amateur referee.[/quote]

To my dying day I will believe that the referee was in on a fix in that fight. I watched it live, I've watched it twice since, both times with the commentary muted. It is an out and out fixed outcome. I would bet my life on it. The judge who turned in the 117-112 score cannot possibly have been honest. Reid said "at least Dick Turpin wore a mask when he robbed people" ! Reid did more than enough to win, but it was a case of if the fight goes the distance, the officials will take care of it. Of that I'm absolutely rock solid certain. Robbing bxxxxxds.

Jeff Thomas wrote:I think an Calzaghe was a lot of smoke and mirrors. Incredible record and some great performances but I just can't take to him being called one of the greats. Prime jones gets him out of there in a couple of rounds if he wanted to. I think prime Benn and Eubank would beat him too. Benn in particular would have being too much.

He was incredibly lucky that the division emptied out whilst he fought comparative puddings and then he beat an unprepared (mentally) lacy, Kessler who was ok but no great, the remnants of jones and the lazy Hopkins.

If your a glass is half full kind of guy Calzaghes one of the greatest human competitors to ever walk the face of the earth, half empty and he's just a cherry picker who barely mixed in top class. I'm somewhere in the middle. Even all these years later.

I would have put my life on it that peak Joe stops peak Benn. And Jones hardly stopped anyone in a couple of rounds, let alone the best 12st around other than him.

mickey1975 wrote:

Jeff Thomas wrote:I think an Calzaghe was a lot of smoke and mirrors. Incredible record and some great performances but I just can't take to him being called one of the greats. Prime jones gets him out of there in a couple of rounds if he wanted to. I think prime Benn and Eubank would beat him too. Benn in particular would have being too much.

He was incredibly lucky that the division emptied out whilst he fought comparative puddings and then he beat an unprepared (mentally) lacy, Kessler who was ok but no great, the remnants of jones and the lazy Hopkins.

If your a glass is half full kind of guy Calzaghes one of the greatest human competitors to ever walk the face of the earth, half empty and he's just a cherry picker who barely mixed in top class. I'm somewhere in the middle. Even all these years later.

I would have put my life on it that peak Joe stops peak Benn. And Jones hardly stopped anyone in a couple of rounds, let alone the best 12st around other than him.

Couldn't agree more. The super-middleweight version of Benn wouldn't have beaten Joe and he'd have outworked Eubank as well. You say Kessler was OK (which seems extremely harsh), but Kessler against Benn and Eubank at Super Middle would be pick'ems... and I say that as someone who was a huge Benn fan.

I'm with Jeff.

FWIW like Kessler a lot.

But James The Heat Kinchen would've kicked his arse for fun, let alone Nigel fvcking Benn.

ttornado wrote:Sure it didn't say greatest Welsh champion, his that for sure.
Lennox is the best British champion, in terms of competition.

Jimmy Wilde head and shoulders above Calzaghe and anyone else from the British Isles too.

And yes, I do realise he was very very short.

mickey1975 wrote:

Jeff Thomas wrote:I think an Calzaghe was a lot of smoke and mirrors. Incredible record and some great performances but I just can't take to him being called one of the greats. Prime jones gets him out of there in a couple of rounds if he wanted to. I think prime Benn and Eubank would beat him too. Benn in particular would have being too much.

He was incredibly lucky that the division emptied out whilst he fought comparative puddings and then he beat an unprepared (mentally) lacy, Kessler who was ok but no great, the remnants of jones and the lazy Hopkins.

If your a glass is half full kind of guy Calzaghes one of the greatest human competitors to ever walk the face of the earth, half empty and he's just a cherry picker who barely mixed in top class. I'm somewhere in the middle. Even all these years later.

I would have put my life on it that peak Joe stops peak Benn. And Jones hardly stopped anyone in a couple of rounds, let alone the best 12st around other than him.

Disagree. Joe would never stop Benn. Benn had too much heart and Joe didn't / couldn't punch with the required force to stop Benn. Joe was busy but Benn was relentless and fearless. Benn takes a tigh decision, in which he drops Joe, for me.

As for Jones, at his peak, he if he couldn't stop 'em, he'd just batter them. Joe would be no exception, though I would favour Jones pulling off stoppage, of some kind. It could be early, you couldn't rule it out completely.

Joe's legacy and its credence has taken over this thread, somewhat. Benn and Eubank @ SMW, would be more than a match for 'our Joe. Joe was a great fighter, but longevitiy, the '0', and deceptive wins overr Hoppkins and Jones seem to catapult his standing, when in truth, Prince Naz had far more ability, more titles, fought some of the best around his weight and unofficially unified the belts. Yeah, he lost to another ATG when his interests waned but he, for me, is above Joe. Just my personal opinion.

Taansend wrote:

ttornado wrote:Sure it didn't say greatest Welsh champion, his that for sure.
Lennox is the best British champion, in terms of competition.

Jimmy Wilde head and shoulders above Calzaghe and anyone else from the British Isles too.

And yes, I do realise he was very very short.

OK, I defer to superior knowledge. That was some record. My vote is for the Mighty Atom now.
Although most of his wins are over fighters with a losing record, but a different day and things weren't the same I guess.

.edit, wrong thread

ttornado wrote:

Taansend wrote:

ttornado wrote:Sure it didn't say greatest Welsh champion, his that for sure.
Lennox is the best British champion, in terms of competition.

Jimmy Wilde head and shoulders above Calzaghe and anyone else from the British Isles too.

And yes, I do realise he was very very short.

OK, I defer to superior knowledge. That was some record. My vote is for the Mighty Atom now.
Although most of his wins are over fighters with a losing record, but a different day and things weren't the same I guess.

Most of the records of fighters back in Wildes day are incomplete.

In Joe's own words about fighting Roy Jones Jr (many years before he did)

"I could probably give Jones a tough fight, probably the best fight he's ever had," said Calzaghe. "But I know my capabilities and unless I got paid the crown jewels I wouldn't want to risk it."

Joe was a boxing great but nobody can deny he didn't always go after the best opponents. If Joe had been active around the time of the super six, I could have seen him offering excuses to not enter it.

Despite all that, he had more natural talent and could have beaten anyone at super middle today with the possible exception of Ward.