BoxRec

It's so difficult assessing Calzaghe's reign, the super middleweight division has never been unified and therefore there's never been one defined real king of the division and no linearity. Had Calzaghe fought and beaten Ottke then I think his superiority would have been beyond dispute.

Calzaghe, at least talent wise is certainly one of the best ever from these shores, but placing him in historical context is very difficult, as his divisions weakness is that it has not had many major fights.

I rate him highly for his tenure at the top, and the fact that he has seldom come close to being beaten in a long career. One of the best, yes, the best, who knows?

silkov wrote: Erm, I dont think so. Try looking at these guys records and the fighters they fought and then compare it to Joes 2 bums a year reign.

If you're name's Joe, you're allowed a bum of the month no?

Of course Joe would have hammered Ottke - different class.
Larry Holmes never met rival champs like Tate, Coetzee, Dokes - but no one remembers them now. Everyone knew who the real champ was.

One of the things that is being overlooked here is how often Calzaghe has looked basically very ordinary against very ordinary opposition... he recieved so much praise for the Lacy fight but the truth is that Lacy was exposed as being outrageously overrated rather than Joe really showing powers of greatness... to compare jc's victory over Lacy to say Turpins win over Robinson or Honeyghans win over Curry as some have done since is simply nonsense...

MightyWarrior wrote:

silkov wrote: Erm, I dont think so. Try looking at these guys records and the fighters they fought and then compare it to Joes 2 bums a year reign.

If you're name's Joe, you're allowed a bum of the month no?

Of course Joe would have hammered Ottke - different class.
Larry Holmes never met rival champs like Tate, Coetzee, Dokes - but no one remembers them now. Everyone knew who the real champ was.

Having seen Joe struggle in verious fights I dont see him as being in 'a different class' to Ottke... Sven wasnt pretty but he was awkward and effective and would have given Joe hell imo... which is pretty much why the fight never came off... comparing Calzaghe to Holmes is way off the mark...

Loftgroov wrote:You can only really make meaningful comparisons within a particular era. Comparing Calzaghe with Benn, Eubank, Collins etc makes some sense, but comparisons with e.g. Jimmy Wilde is just daft. People rattle off names of such fighters who they’ve probably never seen fight.

The question really should be, “is Calzaghe the best of his era”?

Good post. Every measurable sport in the world has progressed and improved. We run faster, lift heavier weights, throw further, jump higher <etc...> We also have specialist diet gurus, fitness coaches, strength coaches, speed coaches <etc....>

I find it difficult to read fight reports from the early part of last century and make a justified opinion on them. What are the reports not telling us? Did fighter 'A' walk in a striaght lines, was he suseptable to a certain punch, was the journalist by the bar for round 1-7 and made the report up? Did the writers actualy know a bean about boxing or were they simply sent there to report on a sport they knew little about.

What to believe next from yesteryear? man walks on water? man feeds thousands with 2 loaves and five fish? water into wine?


As for the question in hand. I cant feasibly believe he's one of the greatest UK p4p of all time. Also, barry did say "arguably"

silkov wrote: ... comparing Calzaghe to Holmes is way off the mark...

Well I wasn't going down the road of comparing JC and Holmes as fighters - Holmes is a legend, but I was just pointing out the fact that both never completely unified their titles ( as did what, 95% of champs over the last 20 years? ).

But I do find some things similar: Larry was heavily critisised during his reign for fighting apparent undeserving challengers and (or) bums: Zanon, Ocasio, Jones, LeDoux, Evangelista, Berbick...the list goes on.

Now some of these fighters turned out to be pretty good of course: but they certainly weren't seen like that at the time.

People didn't really appreciate Larry until he was past his prime, and like Lewis, I think the same will be true of Calzaghe: time will tell.

For instance, he got an almighty slating for destroying the unknown Mkrtchian, but then the guy went on to be champion of Europe. So not as bad as he was cracked up to be obviously.

MightyWarrior wrote:

silkov wrote: ... comparing Calzaghe to Holmes is way off the mark...

Well I wasn't going down the road of comparing JC and Holmes as fighters - Holmes is a legend, but I was just pointing out the fact that both never completely unified their titles ( as did what, 95% of champs over the last 20 years? ).

But I do find some things similar: Larry was heavily critisised during his reign for fighting apparent undeserving challengers and (or) bums: Zanon, Ocasio, Jones, LeDoux, Evangelista, Berbick...the list goes on.

Now some of these fighters turned out to be pretty good of course: but they certainly weren't seen like that at the time.

People didn't really appreciate Larry until he was past his prime, and like Lewis, I think the same will be true of Calzaghe: time will tell.

For instance, he got an almighty slating for destroying the unknown Mkrtchian, but then the guy went on to be champion of Europe. So not as bad as he was cracked up to be obviously.

Yes, but was there the large number of better names that never clashed with Holmes during his reign.

Page, Coetzee, Dokes, and Tate are the only ones I can think of who never faced Larry, but were these much better alternatives?

If Calzaghe would have encorporated the likes of Jones, Toney, Ottke etc etc etc in his reign - then we wouldn't be complaining about the likes of McIntyre, Pudwill etc.