BoxRec

The only criticism of Calzaghe that I have is that he could have been more active...

I wanted him to fight Markus Beyer, (Reckon JC would have won) but I thought it would've been an interesting fight.

The other opponents that he missed were Glen Johnson - and I reckon Joe would have beat him as well.

And at the ned of his career, Dawson was mentioned as "The Next Big Thing" - Cal could have outpointed him.

Crease wrote:

Knucklez wrote:Overrated bum, at best.

That is despicable. My friend let me inform you of two things:

1. Bums do NOT hold a Major World Title for over 10 years.

2. Bums do NOT beat the likes of Hopkins and Jones Jr.

Of course he's not a bum. I like him as a fighter (mostly). However...

It'll be a cold day in Hell before I recognise the WBO as major.

A fighter does not make a belt, IMO. Besides, one of the relatively few things I don't like about Calzaghe was his insulation, sitting on that belt all that time. I would call the WBO minor if Joe Louis held it. You have to do more than pick up that lightweight trinket HBO are obsessed with hyping as somehow legitimate.

I mean, fear of flying!? Really, Joe? Considering your late-career exploits, that's pretty weak.

Glen Johnson was there, not eventually going through with that fight is joe's greatest flaw imo.

sg1985 wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:A fighter does not make a belt, IMO. Besides, one of the relatively few things I don't like about Calzaghe was his insulation, sitting on that belt all that time. I would call the WBO minor if Joe Louis held it. You have to do more than pick up that lightweight trinket HBO are obsessed with hyping as somehow legitimate.

I mean, fear of flying!? Really, Joe? Considering your late-career exploits, that's pretty weak.

What fights were there though? Otke? Yeah, definitely should have happened, but he didn't make a bee line for Joe either. Hopkins turned Joe down in '02. Jones said he wouldn't have fought him back in the day, although I do suspect that was just part of the pre-fight chat, but Roy was feasting himself on nobodies at 175 anyway before Joe even won a belt at 168. He also beat a decent fighter for the belt, it was an old Eubank, who'd already lost to Collins but he was still decent enough.

Not inaccurate, but not exactly the full picture, either. For one, we're not discussing Ottke's greatness --- we're discussing Calzaghe's, & in that respect, Ottke was a pertinent fight he made no effort whatsoever to materialise.

In regard to Jones & Hopkins, Calzaghe reported a pretty laughable, "fear of flying" as one reason he wouldn't fight them. I remember thinking at the time how absurd that was, but it reached new levels of ridiculous when he went to the States to feed on a well past-it Hopkins, & the corpse of Jones.

All-in-all, Calzaghe was a very, very good fighter. His record is evidence he could've beaten better men than he faced, if they were around in a deeper era --- & one thing I'm always at pains to point out to people in regards to a fighter having a flawless record is that is something far more difficult to maintain than people realise. "Oh, such & such had sh!t competition, etc." well, an awful lot of great fighters had an awful lot of mediocre opponents, but almost all of them lose at some point, so credit to Calzaghe for 46-0-0, however he is far from blameless when it comes to the Ottke-Hopkins-Jones issue.

sg1985 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Glen Johnson was there, not eventually going through with that fight is joe's greatest flaw imo.

When was that? I don't even remember talk of that. Good fighter Glen Johnson, lost to a lot of fighters who I think he;s better than too.

I don't remember the exact time frame, but the fight was signed more than once and Calzaghe kept pulling out. It was pre-Lacy and that's a big reason why a lot of people thought he would bail on that fight too.

sg1985 wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

sg1985 wrote: What fights were there though? Otke? Yeah, definitely should have happened, but he didn't make a bee line for Joe either. Hopkins turned Joe down in '02. Jones said he wouldn't have fought him back in the day, although I do suspect that was just part of the pre-fight chat, but Roy was feasting himself on nobodies at 175 anyway before Joe even won a belt at 168. He also beat a decent fighter for the belt, it was an old Eubank, who'd already lost to Collins but he was still decent enough.

Not inaccurate, but not exactly the full picture, either. For one, we're not discussing Ottke's greatness --- we're discussing Calzaghe's, & in that respect, Ottke was a pertinent fight he made no effort whatsoever to materialise.

In regard to Jones & Hopkins, Calzaghe reported a pretty laughable, "fear of flying" as one reason he wouldn't fight them. I remember thinking at the time how absurd that was, but it reached new levels of ridiculous when he went to the States to feed on a well past-it Hopkins, & the corpse of Jones.

All-in-all, Calzaghe was a very, very good fighter. His record is evidence he could've beaten better men than he faced, if they were around in a deeper era --- & one thing I'm always at pains to point out to people in regards to a fighter having a flawless record is that is something far more difficult to maintain than people realise. "Oh, such & such had sh!t competition, etc." well, an awful lot of great fighters had an awful lot of mediocre opponents, but almost all of them lose at some point, so credit to Calzaghe for 46-0-0, however he is far from blameless when it comes to the Ottke-Hopkins-Jones issue.

I'm not saying he's blameless, the flying excuse is pretty poor, but Hopkins did turn the fight down in '02, Ottke is the only name missing of his record for me, a younger version of Hopkins and Roy wouldn't go a miss, but other than that he fought pretty much everyone worth fighting in his weight class. He could have been a star much sooner if he'd gone over and won the Hopkins fight in '02, maybe not in the style he won it in when he faced him mind. I agree about the record, it isn't easy to keep an unblemished record. Never seeing a fighter lose makes it hard to gauge how good they really were IMO, I know that sounds odd but not seeing what can beat him, and what style or whatever he can't handle or how he does under real pressure means I never really got a grasp on his true ability, does that make any sense?

I think he knew he wasn't beating Hopkins in '02. You keep referring to Hopkins turning down the fight then, but Calzaghe essentially shut the door on it ever happening outside the UK. That is pretty significant, & when he turned around & suddenly, "lost the fear of flying" when Hopkins & Jones were shot, it spoke very poorly of him, IMO.

Also, in fairness to Hopkins, Calzaghe was no one on the world stage in 2002. Hopkins was basking in the light of the Trinidad coup. Calzaghe was nowhere near as alluring.

Are you sure? I thought Hopkins tried to double his purse for a UK fight. At which point did Calzaghe do a 180 on fighting overseas?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

sg1985 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Glen Johnson was there, not eventually going through with that fight is joe's greatest flaw imo.

When was that? I don't even remember talk of that. Good fighter Glen Johnson, lost to a lot of fighters who I think he;s better than too.

I don't remember the exact time frame, but the fight was signed more than once and Calzaghe kept pulling out. It was pre-Lacy and that's a big reason why a lot of people thought he would bail on that fight too.

Yes, it was definitely scheduled twice. Not just mooted, or under negotiation, but actually signed and sealed with dates and venues. One of the two occasions was to be a double-header with Hatton. Johnson was IBF champion at the time, so Calzaghe was supposed to be bidding to become a two-weight world holder then.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

sg1985 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Glen Johnson was there, not eventually going through with that fight is joe's greatest flaw imo.

When was that? I don't even remember talk of that. Good fighter Glen Johnson, lost to a lot of fighters who I think he;s better than too.

I don't remember the exact time frame, but the fight was signed more than once and Calzaghe kept pulling out. It was pre-Lacy and that's a big reason why a lot of people thought he would bail on that fight too.

Thats not correct. JC was due to fight Johnson in July 2006 but JC broke his hand and the fight was postponed. The next fight was planned for February 2007 but Johnson then lost his title to Clinton Woods in September 2006.

There must be quit a few Brits posting on this thread because some of these posts. His record makes me cringe. I respect his ability and all but his record is crap. The best fighter he beat was either Kessler or Hopkins. Kessler is nowhere near H.O.F. status but he is good. Hopkins was past his prime but definitley a good fighter still. That was an awfully close fight. His title reign is a joke. Jermain Taylor might have a more legit record than Calzaghe and nobody is considering him H.O.F. material.

Controversial wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

sg1985 wrote: When was that? I don't even remember talk of that. Good fighter Glen Johnson, lost to a lot of fighters who I think he;s better than too.

I don't remember the exact time frame, but the fight was signed more than once and Calzaghe kept pulling out. It was pre-Lacy and that's a big reason why a lot of people thought he would bail on that fight too.

Thats not correct. JC was due to fight Johnson in July 2006 but JC broke his hand and the fight was postponed. The next fight was planned for February 2007 but Johnson then lost his title to Clinton Woods in September 2006.

A quick Google produces differing info from what you have provided.

http://www.secondsout.com/uk-boxing-new ... ncellation

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

sg1985 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Glen Johnson was there, not eventually going through with that fight is joe's greatest flaw imo.

When was that? I don't even remember talk of that. Good fighter Glen Johnson, lost to a lot of fighters who I think he;s better than too.

I don't remember the exact time frame, but the fight was signed more than once and Calzaghe kept pulling out. It was pre-Lacy and that's a big reason why a lot of people thought he would bail on that fight too.

Saad, I think there are reports that state he really was close to bailing on Lacy too.

He said himself (in his book) that his dad had to talk him round with regards to taking the Lacy fight and basically on the day/eve of the fight he still wasn't feeling confident at all.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
A quick Google produces differing info from what you have provided.

http://www.secondsout.com/uk-boxing-new ... ncellation

How does it differ?

Johnson and Calzaghe were also due to meet twice in 2004 but JC also pulled out both times because of a back injury.

It maintains that Calzaghe pulled out before Woods/Johnson. You said Woods beating Johnson is why the fight didn't happen.

I'm not sure why you're pointing out more times that he pulled out against Johnson, that was my point to begin with that you said was incorrect.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:It maintains that Calzaghe pulled out before Woods/Johnson. You said Woods beating Johnson is why the fight didn't happen.

I'm not sure why you're pointing out more times that he pulled out against Johnson, that was my point to begin with that you said was incorrect.

You were criticising JC for pulling out of the Johnson fight (his greatest flaw in your words). My response was to show they were all injury related, he didn't pull out for no reason. The last fight fell apart because Johnson lost to Woods.

Joe Calzaghe-All time great? No. Above average boxer? Yes.

Controversial wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:It maintains that Calzaghe pulled out before Woods/Johnson. You said Woods beating Johnson is why the fight didn't happen.

I'm not sure why you're pointing out more times that he pulled out against Johnson, that was my point to begin with that you said was incorrect.

You were criticising JC for pulling out of the Johnson fight (his greatest flaw in your words). My response was to show they were all injury related, he didn't pull out for no reason. The last fight fell apart because Johnson lost to Woods.

No, I criticized him for never fighting him and then you corrected me with nothing.

dberry wrote:Joe Calzaghe-All time great? No. Above average boxer? Yes.

Pretty fair assessment, whether one agrees or not. You could call him an all-time greta of the Super-Middles, though, since it's a young division.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

dberry wrote:Joe Calzaghe-All time great? No. Above average boxer? Yes.

Pretty fair assessment, whether one agrees or not. You could call him an all-time greta of the Super-Middles, though, since it's a young division.

I think that counts, he is like a more accomplished Ricardo Lopez.

Lopez, to me, is a great for the ages --- true all-time material, transcending his division. Calzaghe does not do this, IMO.

Lopez might very well be the best fighter I've seen in my lifetime, having watched fighters live, that is.

But he certainly didn't do anything to separate himself from Calzaghe. Wesley Mouzon had all time talent, at some point it comes down to credentials. I'm just saying if Calzaghe isn't an all time great, neither is Lopez.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:But he certainly didn't do anything to separate himself from Calzaghe. Wesley Mouzon had all time talent, at some point it comes down to credentials. I'm just saying if Calzaghe isn't an all time great, neither is Lopez.

I understand. I base my respect for Lopez on doing things I saw virtually no one else do --- I agree that career-wise, they are comparable. As great fighters & what they can do, however...

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:But he certainly didn't do anything to separate himself from Calzaghe. Wesley Mouzon had all time talent, at some point it comes down to credentials. I'm just saying if Calzaghe isn't an all time great, neither is Lopez.

I understand. I base my respect for Lopez on doing things I saw virtually no one else do --- I agree that career-wise, they are comparable. As great fighters & what they can do, however...

That's fair, for the record i would consider them both all time greats. Those divisions are here to stay and neither of them will ever be outdistanced far enough to be out of the conversation. Not in a century or two, that's good enough for me.