BoxRec

gobbles wrote: One thing you also have to bear in mind when deriding the current day, is boxers in Mittee's age just had the old world to compete against. The professional boxing world these days includes the former Eastern Bloc. Sven Ottke, Markus Beyer and Mario Veit all came through the East German amateur system. If Calzaghe had been champion in the 80s, those sort of guys would not even have been considered.

After all, what was the state of German boxing (now among the strongest in the world) before the fall of the Berlin Wall?

Calzaghe became undisputed champion. Only two boxers have won WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO (he also won IBO) titles at same weight - Calzaghe and Hopkins. Saying someone probably could have won a title in this day and age, does not mean they would have. Winning the IBF title in Mittee's day was no great achievement, as Terry Marsh proved by beating a champion as poor as Jersey Joe Manley.

To be an undisputed champion these days is more difficult than it was in the Eighties. Although I realise there is still an obsession with America and the good old days on here. How good would Kelly Pavlik seem without Arthur Abraham and Felix Sturm out there?

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

gobbles wrote: One thing you also have to bear in mind when deriding the current day, is boxers in Mittee's age just had the old world to compete against. The professional boxing world these days includes the former Eastern Bloc. Sven Ottke, Markus Beyer and Mario Veit all came through the East German amateur system. If Calzaghe had been champion in the 80s, those sort of guys would not even have been considered.

After all, what was the state of German boxing (now among the strongest in the world) before the fall of the Berlin Wall?

Calzaghe became undisputed champion. Only two boxers have won WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO (he also won IBO) titles at same weight - Calzaghe and Hopkins. Saying someone probably could have won a title in this day and age, does not mean they would have. Winning the IBF title in Mittee's day was no great achievement, as Terry Marsh proved by beating a champion as poor as Jersey Joe Manley.

To be an undisputed champion these days is more difficult than it was in the Eighties. Although I realise there is still an obsession with America and the good old days on here. How good would Kelly Pavlik seem without Arthur Abraham and Felix Sturm out there?

LMAO you want to put Calzaghe in the 80s where there was no SMW division?? Fine he can kill himself to make 160 and get ripped to shreds by Hagler. Or face arguably the best LHW champ ever in Mike Spinks or the beast that was Qawi.

Its highly likely Calzaghe wouldnt be a champ in the 80s

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

gobbles wrote: One thing you also have to bear in mind when deriding the current day, is boxers in Mittee's age just had the old world to compete against. The professional boxing world these days includes the former Eastern Bloc. Sven Ottke, Markus Beyer and Mario Veit all came through the East German amateur system. If Calzaghe had been champion in the 80s, those sort of guys would not even have been considered.

After all, what was the state of German boxing (now among the strongest in the world) before the fall of the Berlin Wall?

Calzaghe became undisputed champion. Only two boxers have won WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO (he also won IBO) titles at same weight - Calzaghe and Hopkins. Saying someone probably could have won a title in this day and age, does not mean they would have. Winning the IBF title in Mittee's day was no great achievement, as Terry Marsh proved by beating a champion as poor as Jersey Joe Manley.


To be an undisputed champion these days is more difficult than it was in the Eighties. Although I realise there is still an obsession with America and the good old days on here. How good would Kelly Pavlik seem without Arthur Abraham and Felix Sturm out there?

LMAO you want to put Calzaghe in the 80s where there was no SMW division?? Fine he can kill himself to make 160 and get ripped to shreds by Hagler. Or face arguably the best LHW champ ever in Mike Spinks or the beast that was Qawi.

Its highly likely Calzaghe wouldnt be a champ in the 80s

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

gobbles wrote: One thing you also have to bear in mind when deriding the current day, is boxers in Mittee's age just had the old world to compete against. The professional boxing world these days includes the former Eastern Bloc. Sven Ottke, Markus Beyer and Mario Veit all came through the East German amateur system. If Calzaghe had been champion in the 80s, those sort of guys would not even have been considered.

After all, what was the state of German boxing (now among the strongest in the world) before the fall of the Berlin Wall?

Calzaghe became undisputed champion. Only two boxers have won WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO (he also won IBO) titles at same weight - Calzaghe and Hopkins. Saying someone probably could have won a title in this day and age, does not mean they would have. Winning the IBF title in Mittee's day was no great achievement, as Terry Marsh proved by beating a champion as poor as Jersey Joe Manley.

To be an undisputed champion these days is more difficult than it was in the Eighties. Although I realise there is still an obsession with America and the good old days on here. How good would Kelly Pavlik seem without Arthur Abraham and Felix Sturm out there?

LMAO you want to put Calzaghe in the 80s where there was no SMW division?? Fine he can kill himself to make 160 and get ripped to shreds by Hagler. Or face arguably the best LHW champ ever in Mike Spinks or the beast that was Qawi.

Its highly likely Calzaghe wouldnt be a champ in the 80s

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

gobbles wrote: One thing you also have to bear in mind when deriding the current day, is boxers in Mittee's age just had the old world to compete against. The professional boxing world these days includes the former Eastern Bloc. Sven Ottke, Markus Beyer and Mario Veit all came through the East German amateur system. If Calzaghe had been champion in the 80s, those sort of guys would not even have been considered.

After all, what was the state of German boxing (now among the strongest in the world) before the fall of the Berlin Wall?

Calzaghe became undisputed champion. Only two boxers have won WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO (he also won IBO) titles at same weight - Calzaghe and Hopkins. Saying someone probably could have won a title in this day and age, does not mean they would have. Winning the IBF title in Mittee's day was no great achievement, as Terry Marsh proved by beating a champion as poor as Jersey Joe Manley.

To be an undisputed champion these days is more difficult than it was in the Eighties. Although I realise there is still an obsession with America and the good old days on here. How good would Kelly Pavlik seem without Arthur Abraham and Felix Sturm out there?

LMAO you want to put Calzaghe in the 80s where there was no SMW division?? Fine he can kill himself to make 160 and get ripped to shreds by Hagler. Or face arguably the best LHW champ ever in Mike Spinks or the beast that was Qawi.

Its highly likely Calzaghe wouldnt be a champ in the 80s

Terence wrote:

gobbles wrote:That's a nonsense argument and completely away from the point. The divisions are what they are when they box in them. It's like saying that Ricky Hatton wasn't a real world champion, because light-welterweight wasn't one of the original eight divisions.

It is not easier per say to be a light-heavyweight champion now than a super-middleweight champion, the titles carry similar weight. Who knows how good Calzaghe might have been had he been forced to turn pro and box all his career at light-heavyweight?

But a division that could support Donnie LaLonde, Dennis Andries, JB WIlliamson, Marvin Johnson, Leslie Stewart, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Jeff Harding, Bobby Czyz and Slobodan Kacar during the 80s was clearly not all that.

Marvin, Eddie and Dennis would all have been fine names on Joe's LHW record, his SMW one also, if you will stretch to that. Marvin provided us with some wonderful moments, fights that can be watched again and again.

I respect that as an athlete there is a lot to be said for Joe churning out wins, but F-me (and this is no agenda) his fights were generally terrible to watch.

List the names the SMW division supported during Joe's time, you can find some of the poorer ones on his record, and then ask if it was 'all that'. It was not, clearly.

You are napalming your own argument with the post above.

gobbles wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

gobbles wrote: One thing you also have to bear in mind when deriding the current day, is boxers in Mittee's age just had the old world to compete against. The professional boxing world these days includes the former Eastern Bloc. Sven Ottke, Markus Beyer and Mario Veit all came through the East German amateur system. If Calzaghe had been champion in the 80s, those sort of guys would not even have been considered.

After all, what was the state of German boxing (now among the strongest in the world) before the fall of the Berlin Wall?

Calzaghe became undisputed champion. Only two boxers have won WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO (he also won IBO) titles at same weight - Calzaghe and Hopkins. Saying someone probably could have won a title in this day and age, does not mean they would have. Winning the IBF title in Mittee's day was no great achievement, as Terry Marsh proved by beating a champion as poor as Jersey Joe Manley.

To be an undisputed champion these days is more difficult than it was in the Eighties. Although I realise there is still an obsession with America and the good old days on here. How good would Kelly Pavlik seem without Arthur Abraham and Felix Sturm out there?

LMAO you want to put Calzaghe in the 80s where there was no SMW division?? Fine he can kill himself to make 160 and get ripped to shreds by Hagler. Or face arguably the best LHW champ ever in Mike Spinks or the beast that was Qawi.

Its highly likely Calzaghe wouldnt be a champ in the 80s

That's a nonsense argument and completely away from the point. The divisions are what they are when they box in them. It's like saying that Ricky Hatton wasn't a real world champion, because light-welterweight wasn't one of the original eight divisions.

It is not easier per say to be a light-heavyweight champion now than a super-middleweight champion, the titles carry similar weight. Who knows how good Calzaghe might have been had he been forced to turn pro and box all his career at light-heavyweight?

But a division that could support Donnie LaLonde, Dennis Andries, JB WIlliamson, Marvin Johnson, Leslie Stewart, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Jeff Harding, Bobby Czyz and Slobodan Kacar during the 80s was clearly not all that.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:
Stop trying to spin the argument, you were claiming Joe would do better in the 80s without havign to worry about Sovite Block fighters, when he would have been around the likes of Hagler, Spinks, Qawi, Muhammed, Hearns, Virgil Hill, Muhammed. Simple fact is in the early 80s Joe wouldn't have won a belt

And yes its allot easier to be a WBO belt holder fighting none top10 types than taking 1 of 2 belts (or both) from ATGs like Spinks/Qawi

gobbles wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:
Stop trying to spin the argument, you were claiming Joe would do better in the 80s without havign to worry about Sovite Block fighters, when he would have been around the likes of Hagler, Spinks, Qawi, Muhammed, Hearns, Virgil Hill, Muhammed. Simple fact is in the early 80s Joe wouldn't have won a belt

And yes its allot easier to be a WBO belt holder fighting none top10 types than taking 1 of 2 belts (or both) from ATGs like Spinks/Qawi

Try learning the difference between facts and opinion

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: What is the actual fact your pointing too here, please elaborate

gobbles wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: What is the actual fact your pointing too here, please elaborate

"Simple fact is in the early 80s Joe wouldn't have won a belt"

That supposed fact which is clearly an opinion.

As I said, if Dennis Andries was WBC champion, Calzaghe easily could have been

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

gobbles wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: What is the actual fact your pointing too here, please elaborate

"Simple fact is in the early 80s Joe wouldn't have won a belt"

That supposed fact which is clearly an opinion.

As I said, if Dennis Andries was WBC champion, Calzaghe easily could have been

I initally said 'Its highly likely Calzaghe wouldnt be a champ in the 80s', from 80-85 I can't see him toppling Spinks/Qawi, that is THE EARLY 80s, the division at the time was dynamite. A prime Hill or Hearns are 50-50 affairs, and thats giving props to Joe, both great fighters (as I don't dispute Joe also is). Barkley he beats, Andrias he beats, Lalonde he beats. It all depends on when he comes along and which titlist he faces.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:
I initally said 'Its highly likely Calzaghe wouldnt be a champ in the 80s', from 80-85 I can't see him toppling Spinks/Qawi, that is THE EARLY 80s, the division at the time was dynamite. A prime Hill or Hearns are 50-50 affairs, and thats giving props to Joe, both great fighters (as I don't dispute Joe also is). Barkley he beats, Andrias he beats, Lalonde he beats. It all depends on when he comes along and which titlist he faces.

gobbles wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:Who was more shot, Tyson or Jones? Tyson obviously.

Terence wrote:The step aside money was paid to Lewis for pragmatic reasons. It was paid out to allow the fight between Tyson and Holyfield to take place, and so Don King could stall Lewis, in the event Tyson lost, Holyfield got the title, and, after a few fights, Evander explicitly said he had decided to take on Lewis because Tyson had swerved Lewis to have a supposedly soft defence. Holyfield explains all this in the doc prior to Holyfield-Lewis.

The reason Lewis took the money is because Don King allegedly had the WBC sewn-up at the time. Lennox Lewis fought a fight against Lionel Butler to secure himself a ranking, only for the release of Tyson, who had not gone to prison in possession of a title, to throw everything into disarray. Tyson was installed as the WBC top contender, Lewis, despite promises to the contrary, was shunted down a notch, basically frozen out. On the BBC broadcast of that Lewis-Butler fight King talks aobut the release of Tyson and says his mystique justifies that WBC ranking re-installation, and that Lewis does not deserve the ranking because he does not excite.

Lewis could have easily then gone the WBO route, but he maintained that he wanted the WBC back, then he would move onto the other top three belts. Instead he waited and waited for his WBC chance, the step aside money was simply that, Lewis was in a no-win situation, he took the money and waited on the Tyson fight, which never came, because Tyson lost to Holyfield.

I skimmed the thread, the answer is Lewis by the way, so am not quite sure why the step aside issue came up, if it was brought up to suggest that Lewis was trying to dodge a tough Tyson fight consider who he fought in the interim period: Tommy Morrison (who was coming off a win in a minor classic over Razor Ruddock), Ray Mercer (who was one bad bastard at the time) and then the vacant tilt against McCall (iron jawed nutcase who had previously knocked Lewis out).

How does that equate to Lewis taking the money and running? He was frozen out of top fights, so took on the best available to him.

One of Joe's biggest wins was over a hyped up contender who then faded into oblivion, Lewis had a similar win, Grant, yet that is not a major Lewis win.

Joe's last fight, and win, was a long awaited fight with a finished Roy Jones. Lewis's last win came against a dangerous young fighter, at short notice.

As for Lewis losing to Vitali, nope, the points are not totted up until after the final belt, Lewis won where it counted, by landing the damaging shots in the body of the fight. VK blew his wad early and Lewis dogged him out.

Lewis had the better resume.

oliverfennell wrote:

Terence wrote:The step aside money was paid to Lewis for pragmatic reasons. It was paid out to allow the fight between Tyson and Holyfield to take place, and so Don King could stall Lewis, in the event Tyson lost, Holyfield got the title, and, after a few fights, Evander explicitly said he had decided to take on Lewis because Tyson had swerved Lewis to have a supposedly soft defence. Holyfield explains all this in the doc prior to Holyfield-Lewis.

The reason Lewis took the money is because Don King allegedly had the WBC sewn-up at the time. Lennox Lewis fought a fight against Lionel Butler to secure himself a ranking, only for the release of Tyson, who had not gone to prison in possession of a title, to throw everything into disarray. Tyson was installed as the WBC top contender, Lewis, despite promises to the contrary, was shunted down a notch, basically frozen out. On the BBC broadcast of that Lewis-Butler fight King talks aobut the release of Tyson and says his mystique justifies that WBC ranking re-installation, and that Lewis does not deserve the ranking because he does not excite.

Lewis could have easily then gone the WBO route, but he maintained that he wanted the WBC back, then he would move onto the other top three belts. Instead he waited and waited for his WBC chance, the step aside money was simply that, Lewis was in a no-win situation, he took the money and waited on the Tyson fight, which never came, because Tyson lost to Holyfield.

I skimmed the thread, the answer is Lewis by the way, so am not quite sure why the step aside issue came up, if it was brought up to suggest that Lewis was trying to dodge a tough Tyson fight consider who he fought in the interim period: Tommy Morrison (who was coming off a win in a minor classic over Razor Ruddock), Ray Mercer (who was one bad bastard at the time) and then the vacant tilt against McCall (iron jawed nutcase who had previously knocked Lewis out).

How does that equate to Lewis taking the money and running? He was frozen out of top fights, so took on the best available to him.

One of Joe's biggest wins was over a hyped up contender who then faded into oblivion, Lewis had a similar win, Grant, yet that is not a major Lewis win.

Joe's last fight, and win, was a long awaited fight with a finished Roy Jones. Lewis's last win came against a dangerous young fighter, at short notice.

As for Lewis losing to Vitali, nope, the points are not totted up until after the final belt, Lewis won where it counted, by landing the damaging shots in the body of the fight. VK blew his wad early and Lewis dogged him out.

Lewis had the better resume.

Agree with all of the above.

Crease wrote:In my opinion, it would have to e Joe Calzaghe...

Lewis losses to McCalll and Rahman greatly invaldiate his status as a "legend" in my book.

fist wrote:Calzaghe. He was more entertaining and generally more talented IMO - unified SMW and proved he was the best over many years. As for Lewis...never enjoyed any of his fights...jab, jab, jab. Sparked out twice and just not my cup of tea.

gobbles wrote: One thing that always strikes me is that when Lewis did box in the UK, the one "home" title defence of his main championship reign and one UK appearance in the last nine years of his career, about 4,000 people turned up. Why was he so unpopular? Why did no one care? It would be interesting to have this debate in five years time, with a bit more distance.

s9s wrote:Let me tell you this, the very very casual fan rarely talks about Calzaghe,they can only remember the Eubank fight, and the Jones/Hopkins, but they know the latter were past it.

The very very casual fans I know remember most of Lewis's fights, and Naseems as well. Benns & Eubanks go without saying. For me, the fact the fans still recall fights and opponents from this group (maybe less Eubank) means to me they acheived far more and fought better opponenets.

And as for myself, I can't recall most of Joes defences, whereas Lennox, I recall far more. Lennox, hands down for me, fought far better opponents the Calzaghe did.

yiddo14 wrote: Let me tell you, at the time Lewis fought Golota, he was considered anything but the nervous wreck he would later become in certain fights. He had just dished out two beatdowns on Riddick Bowe and practically ended his career and was on the verge of becmoing the next heavyweight badboy.
He was a very talented fighter too.
You can explain his mental disposition in later fights...it was because of the pounding Lewis laid on him.

oliverfennell wrote:

gobbles wrote: One thing that always strikes me is that when Lewis did box in the UK, the one "home" title defence of his main championship reign and one UK appearance in the last nine years of his career, about 4,000 people turned up. Why was he so unpopular? Why did no one care? It would be interesting to have this debate in five years time, with a bit more distance.

I was there and there were a lot more than that in attendance by the time the main event started. I think the London Arena had about a 20,000 capacity and the place was about 70% full by the start of the main event.