BoxRec

Dont forget that when Jones was younger, Calzaghe was still afraid of flying.

He could have chased the glory. Hatton showed no fear of doing so.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:He beat the best guys available. He was the best fighter in his weight class for several years.
Hatton had two chances and couldn't compete. There are dozens of fighters better than Hatton who rarely get mentioned.

Hatton was the best guy in his weightclass for nearly five years. He was moderately competititive with Mayweather (better than can be said for most guys), and got blown away by a guy better than anyone Calzaghe faced, and better by a MILLION MILES than anyone not named Hopkins.

"Two chances and couldnt compete," is absurdly facile, even leaving alone the fact Calzaghe NEVER beats the 168lb. equivalent of a Mayweather or Pacquiao --- and thats from someone who picks him to beat Hagler.

Their whole careers, Hatton faced consistently better opposition. Calzaghe was the better boxer, but his achievements are not what they're being made out to be here.

Hatton was the best in his weight class for 5 years? Say what? What 5 years were they?
It is true that Calzaghe never beat a legend while they were in their prime. However, does anyone think that Calzaghe would have been dominated by Jones, Hopkins,Toney etc. like Hatton was?

Calzaghe beat better competition. Even you say that Hopkins was better than anyone that Hatton beat. Kessler was also better than anyone Hatton beat. Whats the argument, the 12th best fighter that Hatton beat was better than the 12th best that Calzaghe beat?
It's also worth point out that Calzaghe almost always won easily. It's not like he was struggling with the equivalent of a Luis Collazo.

Bad defeats have to count against you. If Hatton really was a great fighter, he would have been competitive against Pac and Mayweather.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:He could have chased the glory. Hatton showed no fear of doing so.

Hatton was also rewarded financially for it, Calzaghe wouldn't have been getting anything close to what Hatton was getting against Mayweather had he fought Jones in his LHW days. I agree that it goes against Calzaghe that didn't chase the best, but Hatton was earning millions doing so, how much do we honestly think Calzaghe would have gotten as a no-name-in-America opponent against RJJ back then?

I find that (the money argument) pretty feeble, to be honest.

Ambling Alp wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:He beat the best guys available. He was the best fighter in his weight class for several years.
Hatton had two chances and couldn't compete. There are dozens of fighters better than Hatton who rarely get mentioned.

Hatton was the best guy in his weightclass for nearly five years. He was moderately competititive with Mayweather (better than can be said for most guys), and got blown away by a guy better than anyone Calzaghe faced, and better by a MILLION MILES than anyone not named Hopkins.

"Two chances and couldnt compete," is absurdly facile, even leaving alone the fact Calzaghe NEVER beats the 168lb. equivalent of a Mayweather or Pacquiao --- and thats from someone who picks him to beat Hagler.

Their whole careers, Hatton faced consistently better opposition. Calzaghe was the better boxer, but his achievements are not what they're being made out to be here.

Hatton was the best in his weight class for 5 years? Say what? What 5 years were they?
It is true that Calzaghe never beat a legend while they were in their prime. However, does anyone think that Calzaghe would have been dominated by Jones, Hopkins,Toney etc. like Hatton was?

Calzaghe beat better competition. Even you say that Hopkins was better than anyone that Hatton beat. Kessler was also better than anyone Hatton beat. Whats the argument, the 12th best fighter that Hatton beat was better than the 12th best that Calzaghe beat?
It's also worth point out that Calzaghe almost always won easily. It's not like he was struggling with the equivalent of a Luis Collazo.

Bad defeats have to count against you. If Hatton really was a great fighter, he would have been competitive against Pac and Mayweather.

I said almost five years, and last I checked, four is close to five. The period in question is 2005-09.

"The argument," is that 90% of their careers, Hatton faced and beat better opponents --- and he did. And in which universe is Kessler a better fighter than Tszyu? That isnt even vaguely defensible viewpoint.

As for your classic red herring about Calzaghe not being likely to be obliterated by the 168lb. equivalent, Ive got news --- NOBODY expected Hatton to lose like he did. Nobody expected your boy Ali to survive Liston OR Foreman, either. The point is, Hatton took the risks, and Calzaghe didnt. He deserves no credit for what you thghnk would have happened. Thats the very bullsh!t Mayweather is so hated for. Besides, I DO think Calzaghe would lose pretty damn badly to a prime Jones. 8-4 is about as close as I think he could possibly get. Maybe Jones knocks him out in two rounds, though. Think thats unlikely? I do too, but no more unlikely than what Pacquiao did with Hatton.

Ambling Alp wrote:Bad defeats have to count against you. If Hatton really was a great fighter, he would have been competitive against Pac and Mayweather.

Bad defeats are part and parcel. Depending on who those bad defeats were to count for a lot. What is the tragedy here is one guy who is penalised for trying to fight the very best and attempt to attain greatness and one lauded for playing it 'safe' with this fallacy that retiring unbeaten somehow elevates one over the other. It is a myth.

I look at who they fought and who was willing I do not look at 20 odd defences against guys, most appallingly bad or the fact retiring undefeated as an 'End' argument. Hatton's wins compare favourably with anything Calzaghe did and he was willing to step up and risk his record and standing. Calzaghe did not and that, for me, is a major, major failing.

I personally don't rate either all that highly, if I am honest. However I rate Hatton a whole higher than Calzaghe, purely because of what he achieved. what he tried to achieve and the people he fought. Calzaghe only gets marks in one of those three.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:It's funny how Calzaghe's conquering of his fear of flying coincided with Hopkins and Jones' decline from their peak years

That's when the money was finally there. Bernard backed out of a trip there that he had agreed to for big money.

i said hatton because he wanted to fight the best when he and they were at thier best.

calzaghe i feel sat on a title for years and was happy fighting sub standard fighters before finally fighting lacy and kessler , i thought that calzaghe should have went to america to fight the best instead of just sitting at home

I say Calzaghe, but I don't say by a mile. I agree Calzaghe was matched soft and was essentially a paper champion throughout a large portion of his career. At the tail end though he put together a nice streak of solid wins. Most notably now over Hopkins, who would go on to become the Oldest Champion in Boxing history about 3 years after that defeat, which says all that needs to be said about how good he was then. The win over Roy Jones to me is Calzaghe's 4th best win behind Kessler and Lacy who were in their primes at the time Calzaghe whipped them. Still though Calzaghe was a double champion At 168 and 175 and was able to beat an ATG who would still go on to accomplish major victories in his career, so that gives him the edge. Hatton's career is nothing to sneeze at though, but I'd agree his victory over Tszyu doesn't quite match up to Calzaghe's win over B-Hop.

boxerbob wrote:i said hatton because he wanted to fight the best when he and they were at thier best.

calzaghe i feel sat on a title for years and was happy fighting sub standard fighters before finally fighting lacy and kessler , i thought that calzaghe should have went to america to fight the best instead of just sitting at home

There's a difference between fighting the best and beating the best. If fighting the best made you a legend, then Jerry Quarry would be an all time great. But he's not

Avoiding the best makes you no better.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Avoiding the best makes you no better.

Exactly.

The reason why boxing is a joke now, is because its become about who gets the most PPV's and who is undefeated.

Why on earth "fans" care about how much money the fighter is pocketing is beyond me.

If guys like Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard, Ali, Foreman, Frazier etc. were fighting today. They'd all be called frauds, overrated and "Exposed" after they lost. etc.

gilgamesh wrote:

boxerbob wrote:i said hatton because he wanted to fight the best when he and they were at thier best.

calzaghe i feel sat on a title for years and was happy fighting sub standard fighters before finally fighting lacy and kessler , i thought that calzaghe should have went to america to fight the best instead of just sitting at home

There's a difference between fighting the best and beating the best. If fighting the best made you a legend, then Jerry Quarry would be an all time great. But he's not

the guy hatton beat for his title beats anything on calzaghes record...hatton was rightly slated for his wbu reign , calzaghes wbo reign pre-lacy was terrible

gilgamesh wrote:If fighting the best made you a legend, then Jerry Quarry would be an all time great. But he's not

Actually, I would say that Quarry was a great fighter and a legend.

The Great John L wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:If fighting the best made you a legend, then Jerry Quarry would be an all time great. But he's not

Actually, I would say that Quarry was a great fighter and a legend.

Based on what? Getting knocked out by Norton or Frazier or was it the Ali KO losses that did it for ya?

observer1 wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Avoiding the best makes you no better.

Exactly.

The reason why boxing is a joke now, is because its become about who gets the most PPV's and who is undefeated.

Why on earth "fans" care about how much money the fighter is pocketing is beyond me.

If guys like Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard, Ali, Foreman, Frazier etc. were fighting today. They'd all be called frauds, overrated and "Exposed" after they lost. etc.

I agree too much importance is put on guys being undefeated these days to the point it's really hurting the sport and stopping the best fights from being made, but let's face it. At the time Calzaghe fought Lacy, Lacy was seen as the favorite by many to knock out Calzaghe and prove what a fraud he always was. It didn't happen that way.

gilgamesh wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:If fighting the best made you a legend, then Jerry Quarry would be an all time great. But he's not

Actually, I would say that Quarry was a great fighter and a legend.

Based on what? Getting knocked out by Norton or Frazier or was it the Ali KO losses that did it for ya?

Calling someone a legend or a great fighter is purely subjective. Jerry beat a host of world class HWs and he lost to some as well. I grew up watching him and he certainly is held in very high regard by many fans and boxing insiders alike. There are many fighters that I would call legends who never attained a championship or beat ATG fighters, but that hardly disqualifies them as legends.

Ambling Alp wrote:Calzaghe beat better competition. Even you say that Hopkins was better than anyone that Hatton beat. Kessler was also better than anyone Hatton beat.

I think that is very debatable. You are taking liberties here while trying to make your point. Is a prime Kessler a better pound-for-pound fighter than a prime Jose Luis Castillo?
I'm not sure about that, it's a close one.

Ambling Alp wrote:It's also worth point out that Calzaghe almost always won easily. It's not like he was struggling with the equivalent of a Luis Collazo.

Well first off, in that fight against Collazo Hatton struggled with his own weight, he didnm't fell comofrtable at Welterweight, so he moved back down again after the fight.

But Hatton was beating World Champions and former World Champions, Calzaghe wasn't (except the later stages of his career when he faced Hopkins, Jones JR, Lacy & Kessler).

Ambling Alp wrote:Bad defeats have to count against you. If Hatton really was a great fighter, he would have been competitive against Pac and Mayweather.

The fight against Mayweather was competitive, although Joe Cortez did his level best to make it not so.

The Great John L wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

The Great John L wrote: Actually, I would say that Quarry was a great fighter and a legend.

Based on what? Getting knocked out by Norton or Frazier or was it the Ali KO losses that did it for ya?

Calling someone a legend or a great fighter is purely subjective. Jerry beat a host of world class HWs and he lost to some as well. I grew up watching him and he certainly is held in very high regard by many fans and boxing insiders alike. There are many fighters that I would call legends who never attained a championship or beat ATG fighters, but that hardly disqualifies them as legends.

Look I know I'm coming across as s****ing on Quarry, and I shouldn't do that because I do respect him. I merely used him as an example that losing to the best of your generation doesn't put you on par with somebody who actually beat the best of that generation. I know he has his share of top notch wins over excellent fighters, but more often than not when he stepped up to the top level he was beaten. Quarry was a very good fighter, but he wasn't a legend.

gilgamesh wrote:Quarry was a very good fighter, but he wasn't a legend.

As I said, these things are subjective.

The Great John L wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:Quarry was a very good fighter, but he wasn't a legend.

As I said, these things are subjective.

Indeed, we'll just leave it at that

I would say Calzaghe cos in my opinion he beat better competition

Crease wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Calzaghe beat better competition. Even you say that Hopkins was better than anyone that Hatton beat. Kessler was also better than anyone Hatton beat.

I think that is very debatable. You are taking liberties here while trying to make your point. Is a prime Kessler a better pound-for-pound fighter than a prime Jose Luis Castillo?
I'm not sure about that, it's a close one.

Ambling Alp wrote:It's also worth point out that Calzaghe almost always won easily. It's not like he was struggling with the equivalent of a Luis Collazo.

Well first off, in that fight against Collazo Hatton struggled with his own weight, he didnm't fell comofrtable at Welterweight, so he moved back down again after the fight.

But Hatton was beating World Champions and former World Champions, Calzaghe wasn't (except the later stages of his career when he faced Hopkins, Jones JR, Lacy & Kessler).

Ambling Alp wrote:Bad defeats have to count against you. If Hatton really was a great fighter, he would have been competitive against Pac and Mayweather.

The fight against Mayweather was competitive, although Joe Cortez did his level best to make it not so.

Prime Castillo was definitely better than Kessler, but Ricky never fought him. Tszyu was closer to his best than JLC was, Kostya became shot when he lost. He was coming off of possibly his finest performance when he fought Ricky.

No shame in that Collazo fight, Luis was a formidable and gigantic Welter. And I totally agree with you, there is nothing counting against him for losing to Floyd and Pac. He isn't in their league, big deal.

Ambling Alp wrote: When Hatton fought elite competition, he got beat badly both times. Winning paper titles doesn't make you great.

This is nonsense, Hatton was THE Jr Welterweight champion of the world. Nothing paper about it.

Before it was all said and done Joe Calzaghe established himself as THE Super Middleweight Champion and THE Light Heavyweight Champion. You guys all seem to conveniently forget that.