BoxRec

Jones and Toney are considered by most to be the best to have fought and held titles at the weight. The fact Benn and Eubank would not go near either kind of puts any claim to owning the division to bed, IMO.

We have a great legacy at the weight, but definately dont own it.

Calzaghe is considered to be one of the best to have fought at the weight, but really, he spent most of his career defending the WBO against nobodies. His best wins at SM are Lacy, who is now known to be nothing special, and Kessler, who i'd put Froch above - i had him winning both fights, and Ward stood Kessler on his head, buts or not buts. For someone considered to be one of the very best to have ever fought at the weight Calzaghe's resume is weak, very weak.

Calzaghe has the 20 defences, unbeaten factors - and for the sceptical he did unify afterward and is inducted the IBHOF. He had serious handspeed, physical strength and fitness - always stayed on top of his opponent and was superb at adapting to his opponents. Serious credentials even if his career was frustrating to follow with the injury pullouts and the paucity of big fights until 2006.

Autobarn wrote:Calzaghe has the 20 defences, unbeaten factors - and for the sceptical he did unify afterward and is inducted the IBHOF. He had serious handspeed, physical strength and fitness - always stayed on top of his opponent and was superb at adapting to his opponents. Serious credentials even if his career was frustrating to follow with the injury pullouts and the paucity of big fights until 2006.

I agree with everything you say, but for someone who was a career super middle and is considered to be one of the best ever to fight at the weight, his resume is very weak. Its a fair point to make, i'd be surprised if any knowledgeable boxing fan disagreed.

I often wondered if Hatton had not led the way by fighting Tyszu, then big fights stateside with Mayweather in the mix, would Calzaghe ever have left his comfort zone to fight Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins. I have always had my doubts about that, anyone else wonder about that?

Calzaghe - AGAIN?

The guy was a legend end of.

Hopkins was past his best when Calzaghe beat him - yeah right, he went on winning world titles for years.

Calzaghe is the best British fighter of all time. I can't even be arsed to argue anymore, some people will argue black is white and they will never back down.

Parrotting '20 defences! 20 defences!' is a useful way of obscuring a lot of names like Tocker Pudwill, Mario Weit, Will McIntyre and the gang. 20 defences of a belt younger than most the people using this forum. 20 defences of a belt Joe himself dismissed in his 1995 Boxing Monthly interview as being a cheap belt too easy to win. There's a reason why he was called 'sick note' and derided prior to fighting Jeff Lacy, and that wasn't because he had been beating up dangerous contenders. There's a reason why after bashing McIntyre Jim Grey asked him, 'When are you going to fight somebody?' and that wasn't because he had been beating up dangerous contenders either.

Some British fans are mouth foaming patriots and those that were bums before became gods of war the moment Calzaghe beat Lacy. It was convenient to revise their skills, or simply merge them under a big number, rather than confront how paper thin his precious 46-0 is.

Ian1973 wrote:Calzaghe - AGAIN?

The guy was a legend end of.

Hopkins was past his best when Calzaghe beat him - yeah right, he went on winning world titles for years.

Calzaghe is the best British fighter of all time. I can't even be arsed to argue anymore, some people will argue black is white and they will never back down.

Very naive point of view.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Parrotting '20 defences! 20 defences!' is a useful way of obscuring a lot of names like Tocker Pudwill, Mario Weit, Will McIntyre and the gang. 20 defences of a belt younger than most the people using this forum. 20 defences of a belt Joe himself dismissed in his 1995 Boxing Monthly interview as being a cheap belt too easy to win. There's a reason why he was called 'sick note' and derided prior to fighting Jeff Lacy, and that wasn't because he had been beating up dangerous contenders. There's a reason why after bashing McIntyre Jim Grey asked him, 'When are you going to fight somebody?' and that wasn't because he had been beating up dangerous contenders either.

Some British fans are mouth foaming patriots and those that were bums before became gods of war the moment Calzaghe beat Lacy. It was convenient to revise their skills, or simply merge them under a big number, rather than confront how paper thin his precious 46-0 is.

Nailed it

As good as Calzaghe was, where were his fights against Green? Beyer? Ottke (okay, not entirely his fault)? Lucas? Mundine? Siaca? There were a LOT of missed fights against fellow titlists and world level fighters that would have built a far better legacy for himself than the one he has. To say he cleaned the division out is revisionism par excellence - you don't do that just by beating Kessler.

ALI wrote:

Autobarn wrote:Calzaghe has the 20 defences, unbeaten factors - and for the sceptical he did unify afterward and is inducted the IBHOF. He had serious handspeed, physical strength and fitness - always stayed on top of his opponent and was superb at adapting to his opponents. Serious credentials even if his career was frustrating to follow with the injury pullouts and the paucity of big fights until 2006.

I agree with everything you say, but for someone who was a career super middle and is considered to be one of the best ever to fight at the weight, his resume is very weak. Its a fair point to make, i'd be surprised if any knowledgeable boxing fan disagreed.

I often wondered if Hatton had not led the way by fighting Tyszu, then big fights stateside with Mayweather in the mix, would Calzaghe ever have left his comfort zone to fight Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins. I have always had my doubts about that, anyone else wonder about that?

he absolutely did my head in, I was never a fan until he surpassed the potential he'd shown in bits vs brewer, Mitchell, woodhall, sheika.

The fights that never happened, an endless source of frustration. The garbage matchup and even more garbage fight vs manfredo. The bad PR, dismissing a fight with Glen Johnson because he's a "journeyman"- & then Johnson wins a belt making him ring mag fighter of the year!; ridiculing Hopkins' age leading in to their light heavyweight encounter! And how about existing in a parallel universe with Sven ottke, who also made huge # title defences at 168.

But Joe was consistent, fitness wise, haD huge longevity, when his promoter gave him the fights he didn't let down -and vs lacy and Kessler his performances surpassedwhat we, or probably be, feltcapable of. Always felt the extra he showed,taking their titles and unbeaten records, "made up" a bit for the past. and give him credit for "exposing" lacy, whom everyone else felt to be a monster, with 1000 punches.

I wonder if Collins had been able and wliling to fight, maybe joe would've learned more, quicker, and felt readied for big fights. Always felt "British and Irish" boxing was robbed of a genuine classic, here.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Parrotting '20 defences! 20 defences!' is a useful way of obscuring a lot of names like Tocker Pudwill, Mario Weit, Will McIntyre and the gang. 20 defences of a belt younger than most the people using this forum. 20 defences of a belt Joe himself dismissed in his 1995 Boxing Monthly interview as being a cheap belt too easy to win. There's a reason why he was called 'sick note' and derided prior to fighting Jeff Lacy, and that wasn't because he had been beating up dangerous contenders. There's a reason why after bashing McIntyre Jim Grey asked him, 'When are you going to fight somebody?' and that wasn't because he had been beating up dangerous contenders either.

Some British fans are mouth foaming patriots and those that were bums before became gods of war the moment Calzaghe beat Lacy. It was convenient to revise their skills, or simply merge them under a big number, rather than confront how paper thin his precious 46-0 is.

Good post. But nobody's perfect. There's the good and the bad. I give him credit for coming out of obscure tile reign.

dookus wrote:As good as Calzaghe was, where were his fights against Green? Beyer? Ottke (okay, not entirely his fault)? Lucas? Mundine? Siaca? There were a LOT of missed fights against fellow titlists and world level fighters that would have built a far better legacy for himself than the one he has. To say he cleaned the division out is revisionism par excellence - you don't do that just by beating Kessler.

The fights I mourn are Collins in what would've been an amazing passing of the torch matchup and in hindsight a chance for collins to prove he was great.

And Dean Francis, wonderful textbook boxer with a punch who learned how to pace himself, but unlike Joe his injuries kept him well away from the world scene. Calzaghe v Francis would've been a rely nice matchup between two young men.

And maybe evenUK based Harry simon, who holds a classic win over with winky Wright...if he'd kept out of trouble wouldn't have been surprised if the wbo holder at 154 & 160 would've moved up another weight. Fun fights to talk about!

Boxing was frustrating back then especially in UK heavy divisions- took recession and warriors like froch to take more direct route.

Autobarn wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:Parrotting '20 defences! 20 defences!' is a useful way of obscuring a lot of names like Tocker Pudwill, Mario Weit, Will McIntyre and the gang. 20 defences of a belt younger than most the people using this forum. 20 defences of a belt Joe himself dismissed in his 1995 Boxing Monthly interview as being a cheap belt too easy to win. There's a reason why he was called 'sick note' and derided prior to fighting Jeff Lacy, and that wasn't because he had been beating up dangerous contenders. There's a reason why after bashing McIntyre Jim Grey asked him, 'When are you going to fight somebody?' and that wasn't because he had been beating up dangerous contenders either.

Some British fans are mouth foaming patriots and those that were bums before became gods of war the moment Calzaghe beat Lacy. It was convenient to revise their skills, or simply merge them under a big number, rather than confront how paper thin his precious 46-0 is.

Good post. But nobody's perfect. There's the good and the bad. I give him credit for coming out of obscure tile reign.

Its the Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins wins at the tail end of his career that make up most of the credibility he has today - when you really think about it, from a 46 & 0 career winning his first world title in 1997, it was 2006 and 17 title defences later before he finally fought Lacy, by which time Joe was around 34 years old, 35 when he fought Kessler and 36 when he fought Hopkins. He hid out in the wilderness for the majority of his career, i'm not naive enough to forgive and forget and stick labels on him like 'legend' and 'best ever' etc just because he beat those three names, thats a fools game.

Calzaghe smashed Francis in the ams and it would have gone no differently in the pros.

The calzaghe conundrum is pretty much a banal constant on forums. Either you focus totally on records in which case you belittle his achievements, or you rely on the eye-test and make some degree of allowance for the 90% putrid defences he made. It bemuses me that people seem to think they are expressing anything other than the utterly self-evident, here.

I think they would've matched well as pros, Francis really came on nicely before the shoulder went. Not saying he'd have beaten Joe but I think he'd have been a level or at least half above Woodhall and Reid. it'd have been a nice offensive matchup and I think Francis would've gone for it with that solid balance, subtle movement and sharp, straight and short punching, making it more memorable than most...I don't see him getting dismissed like Mario veit etc

Joe never really developed a defense against a good, straight, fast, well timed right hand.

Calzaghe over here, Virgil hill in north Dakota, ottke in germany, rjj on hbo (!) Albeit $5m guarantee each fight ensured fewer terrible drops in quality during the light heavy reign, canizales in Texas, and d-mark dariusz in Germany - they all did it.l, milking titles.

Less acceptable these days.

Counter-puncher wrote:Calzaghe smashed Francis in the ams and it would have gone no differently in the pros.

The calzaghe conundrum is pretty much a banal constant on forums. Either you focus totally on records in which case you belittle his achievements, or you rely on the eye-test and make some degree of allowance for the 90% putrid defences he made. It bemuses me that people seem to think they are expressing anything other than the utterly self-evident, here.

I don't think his defences were as bad as is made out, there was some shite in there, but also fighters like Eubank, Reid, Woodhall, Brewer, Mitchell and Bika that get ignored and people just focus on Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins.

Autobarn wrote:

dookus wrote:Boxing was frustrating back then especially in UK heavy divisions- took recession and warriors like froch to take more direct route.

all the eddie hearn critics have a short memory.

frank allegedly milked that cow.

dookus wrote:As good as Calzaghe was, where were his fights against Green? Beyer? Ottke (okay, not entirely his fault)? Lucas? Mundine? Siaca? There were a LOT of missed fights against fellow titlists and world level fighters that would have built a far better legacy for himself than the one he has. To say he cleaned the division out is revisionism par excellence - you don't do that just by beating Kessler.

That's true but, whilst those names would look more impressive than some of the others he defended against, none of the above would really have added very much to Calzaghe's resume - is there any doubt that he would have beaten them all with relative ease?

The complete refusal to go to America to challenge RJJ in his pomp, however, is much more damning. I don't think it's in question that Calzaghe valued his unbeaten record far higher than he valued testing himself against the very best.

hitman_hatton1 wrote:

Autobarn wrote:

dookus wrote:Boxing was frustrating back then especially in UK heavy divisions- took recession and warriors like froch to take more direct route.

all the eddie hearn critics have a short memory.

frank allegedly milked that cow.

He drove us all mad, that bloke.

Boxerbeetle wrote:

dookus wrote:As good as Calzaghe was, where were his fights against Green? Beyer? Ottke (okay, not entirely his fault)? Lucas? Mundine? Siaca? There were a LOT of missed fights against fellow titlists and world level fighters that would have built a far better legacy for himself than the one he has. To say he cleaned the division out is revisionism par excellence - you don't do that just by beating Kessler.

That's true but, whilst those names would look more impressive than some of the others he defended against, none of the above would really have added very much to Calzaghe's resume - is there any doubt that he would have beaten them all with relative ease?

The complete refusal to go to America to challenge RJJ in his pomp, however, is much more damning. I don't think it's in question that Calzaghe valued his unbeaten record far higher than he valued testing himself against the very best.

Calzaghe's record would be much more like Froch's in terms of level of opposition if the above six names were swapped for Pudwill, Manfredo, Veit x 2, etc, and especially if he had made the fight with Glencoffe Johnson when that was touted. That is the whole point of discussing someone's record as opposed to their ability, and it's why people say Calzaghe has such a weak resume for someone of his undoubted ability.

And no it is not a given that he would have just walked through all of them - Mundine and Green especially were talented, tricky fighters at their best who had very good wins against world-level fighters around the same time as Calzaghe was defending his WBO strap against noone in particular. Wins over those two would have made him undoubtedly the best at his weight instead of what he was, a man whose potential wasn't really realised until the comparatively late Kessler and Lacy wins.

He could beat Mundine one-handed

dookus wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:

dookus wrote:As good as Calzaghe was, where were his fights against Green? Beyer? Ottke (okay, not entirely his fault)? Lucas? Mundine? Siaca? There were a LOT of missed fights against fellow titlists and world level fighters that would have built a far better legacy for himself than the one he has. To say he cleaned the division out is revisionism par excellence - you don't do that just by beating Kessler.

That's true but, whilst those names would look more impressive than some of the others he defended against, none of the above would really have added very much to Calzaghe's resume - is there any doubt that he would have beaten them all with relative ease?

The complete refusal to go to America to challenge RJJ in his pomp, however, is much more damning. I don't think it's in question that Calzaghe valued his unbeaten record far higher than he valued testing himself against the very best.

Calzaghe's record would be much more like Froch's in terms of level of opposition if the above six names were swapped for Pudwill, Manfredo, Veit x 2, etc, and especially if he had made the fight with Glencoffe Johnson when that was touted. That is the whole point of discussing someone's record as opposed to their ability, and it's why people say Calzaghe has such a weak resume for someone of his undoubted ability.

And no it is not a given that he would have just walked through all of them - Mundine and Green especially were talented, tricky fighters at their best who had very good wins against world-level fighters around the same time as Calzaghe was defending his WBO strap against noone in particular. Wins over those two would have made him undoubtedly the best at his weight instead of what he was, a man whose potential wasn't really realised until the comparatively late Kessler and Lacy wins.

It is, just that it was spread over a much longer period of time, with some shite defences mixed in. If those names were swapped then the two wouldn't even compare.

The announcement of Buglioni's challenge to Chudinov got me thinking about Autobarn's post above...

Not only have Brits (& an Irishman) had a ridiculously fine time of it in this division, there's been more completely & utterly undeserving (in terms of "earning the right to be there", please indulge my little fantasy that that's actually a thing anyone cares about ever) world title challengers from these shores at twelve stone than in any other division I can think of. We've had (off the top of my head):

British middleweight champ Neville Brown fighting for the WBO title (never fought at the weight, lost for the EBU strap a division lower two years before)

Cornelius Carr fighting for the WBO (British champ, zero defences made before challenge)

Nicky Piper for the WBC (off the back of two eliminators for the British title)

Lou Gent for the WBC (did he win the WBC international title back when that was a thing?)

Sam Storey for the WBO (off the back of sweet fornicate-all)

David Starie for the whichever straps Ottke held (off the back of a loss in a domestic-level fight)

Paul Smith (WBA, off the back of sweet fornicate-all)

Robin Reid (WBC, off the back of sweet fornicate-all)

I know no-one cares, like, but I can't think of another division where so many lower-level guys have been drafted so many times. It's like there's a special Holy Writ for Brits weighing twelve stone in the sanctioning bodies' offices.

Autobarn wrote:Calzaghe over here, Virgil hill in north Dakota, ottke in germany, rjj on hbo (!) Albeit $5m guarantee each fight ensured fewer terrible drops in quality during the light heavy reign, canizales in Texas, and d-mark dariusz in Germany - they all did it.l, milking titles.

Less acceptable these days.

^ that's what I meant to say, yes. Hill's reign in North Dakota was pure comedy gold.

The Calzaghe debate has been done to death. Who he fought - Eubanks, Reid, sheika, woodhall, brewer, Mitchell, lacy, bika, Hopkins and jones jr.

Who he should have fought too - Collins, benn, Larsen, liles, Johnson, ottke, Pavlik,