Cazaghe should be a superstar!

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 07 Nov 2007, 15:00

jjfc wrote:[
Look, if I had the judges gift me a decision when I was the challenger, I'd certainly have nothing to fear as the champ.

And you say my posts are not being very subjective - your now calling a close fight a gift.

jjfc · Post by **jjfc** » 07 Nov 2007, 15:33

Look I follow the evidence where it leads me.

I thought that Calzaghe was not trying to make fights. Then he had the fight with Lacy (as a betting underdog), then he had a deal with Hopkins, then he fought Kessler. I'm left with two options either he had a total change of heart or I was wrong and he was trying to make fights his entire career, and the economics/challengers came through towards the end. I'm willing to admit my mistakes.

With Ottke, he wins his very first title fight in a very controversial decision. There are multiple decisions that go is his way, despite having what you ADMITTED is a style open to interpretation. The ref in Reid gifts him the fight. No controversial decision go against Ottke. No refs interfere in a way that negatively affects him (like Ortega in Round 8). Is the evidence conclusive that Ottke's career is shady? No. But with some evidence that it is, and NO evidence that it isn't. I have to lean towards suspicion.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 07 Nov 2007, 16:10

jjfc wrote:Look I follow the evidence where it leads me.

I thought that Calzaghe was not trying to make fights. Then he had the fight with Lacy (as a betting underdog), then he had a deal with Hopkins, then he fought Kessler. I'm left with two options either he had a total change of heart or I was wrong and he was trying to make fights his entire career, and the economics/challengers came through towards the end. I'm willing to admit my mistakes.

I believe indeed that Calzaghe had a change of heart. He understood that the value of his entire career was at risk if he would not take up a truly serious and meaningful challenge. Which he did with Kessler. I suppose he had to pressure risk-averse allegedly quite a bit into this.

With Ottke, he wins his very first title fight in a very controversial decision. There are multiple decisions that go is his way, despite having what you ADMITTED is a style open to interpretation. The ref in Reid gifts him the fight. No controversial decision go against Ottke. No refs interfere in a way that negatively affects him (like Ortega in Round 8). Is the evidence conclusive that Ottke's career is shady? No. But with some evidence that it is, and NO evidence that it isn't. I have to lean towards suspicion.

Fine; but as stujones has pointed out you could make a very similar point with Calzaghe.

Overall, the bottom line is that Ottke and Calzaghe have both been fine champs, distingushing themselves in the 168 division. With the Kessler win under his belt, Calzaghe has distinguished himself a notch or two more.

jjfc · Post by **jjfc** » 07 Nov 2007, 16:42

But my whole point with the Ortega example is that it is different when I have SEEN refs make controversial decisions against Calzaghe . Do you really believe that in Germany a ref would have pulled Ottke off of a hurt opponent in the biggest fight of his career?

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 07 Nov 2007, 16:48

jjfc wrote:But my whole point with the Ortega example is that it is different when I have SEEN refs make controversial decisions against Calzaghe . Do you really believe that in Germany a ref would have pulled Ottke off of a hurt opponent in the biggest fight of his career?

Hard to say as Ottke rarely hurt opponents (the few times he did though it was lights out). But, no, I wouldn't have considered this impossible.

Overall, Ottke held a more respected belt over wide stretches of hs career which came with fewer degrees of freedom for his management to manipulate -- the occasionaly incompetent ref notwithstanding. For example, Ottke had to fight tough mandatories with some regularity, while for Calzaghe this concept hardly existed. It was basically up to Warren against who Calzaghe would "defend".

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 07 Nov 2007, 16:59

jjfc wrote:Look I follow the evidence where it leads me.

I thought that Calzaghe was not trying to make fights. Then he had the fight with Lacy (as a betting underdog), then he had a deal with Hopkins, then he fought Kessler. I'm left with two options either he had a total change of heart or I was wrong and he was trying to make fights his entire career, and the economics/challengers came through towards the end. I'm willing to admit my mistakes.

With Ottke, he wins his very first title fight in a very controversial decision. There are multiple decisions that go is his way, despite having what you ADMITTED is a style open to interpretation. The ref in Reid gifts him the fight. No controversial decision go against Ottke. No refs interfere in a way that negatively affects him (like Ortega in Round 8). Is the evidence conclusive that Ottke's career is shady? No. But with some evidence that it is, and NO evidence that it isn't. I have to lean towards suspicion.

Its great that Joe fought Kessler and Lacy don't get me wrong - having a "deal" with Hopkins doesn't mean nothing as far as I am concerned - all rumours and hearsay I'm afraid - and I'm not BLAMING Joe for this. I'm not calling hm a wimp or anything, it affects Joe's legacy and it affects BHOPS legacy. However, BHOP has done more than Joe - like truly clean out a devision and therefore doesn't affect his ATG status.

Would Joe have travelled to face Lacy / Kessler though? Not saying thats a pre-requisted to greatness it is not. But fighting the 8 year same generation world champion in the same weight was. No, both are to blame no doubting that and if affects the legacy of both. I am sure Sven would have accomodated him in Germany - which for the reason you are pointing out mean it could have been the ultimate test. Yes, it could be argued but why didn't Sven accept a challenge to come to Wales.... but then Sven isn't being hyped as an ATG is he.

Yes, Ottke's style made it open to interpretation - but I am glad that the judges were competent enough (aside from 1 fight IMO) to give back foot fighting the edge, as opposed to inaffective agression. I agreed with the judges in all except for one fight, so personally I think the judges scored it right. I personally think there is a difference between close and controvesial. Ottke got given the decision in 1 fight controvesially (IMO) and a few times in close fights. Calzaghe hasn't had any controvesial fights (points wise) but got given the decision in 1 close fight. I don't think they should "even themselves" out - I would hope the judges wouldn't think - "well Ottke won his fight this way last time, better not give him the round this time".

Colin Dunne vs Jacobs, John Simpson vs Dazzo Williams, David Barnes vs Jimmy Vincent - these are controvesial decision which you could label suspicious. Beyer vs Lucas fits into this bracket too IMO and does Ottke vs Larsen - but no other Ottke fight.

I very much agree with Pundits last post -

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 07 Nov 2007, 17:30

pundit wrote:
jjfc wrote:But my whole point with the Ortega example is that it is different when I have SEEN refs make controversial decisions against Calzaghe . Do you really believe that in Germany a ref would have pulled Ottke off of a hurt opponent in the biggest fight of his career?
Hard to say as Ottke rarely hurt opponents (the few times he did though it was lights out). But, no, I wouldn't have considered this impossible.

Overall, Ottke held a more respected belt over wide stretches of hs career which came with fewer degrees of freedom for his management to manipulate -- the occasionaly incompetent ref notwithstanding. For example, Ottke had to fight tough mandatories with some regularity, while for Calzaghe this concept hardly existed. It was basically up to Warren against who Calzaghe would "defend".

I was just watching some older Calzaghe fights. We know Mkrtchian and Veit - Euro level guys - were WBO #1s. Also, Woodhall was a WBO#2, Sheika (coming off a win over G Johnson who'd given Ottke hell) was WBO#3, etc, so technically Joe was fighting some world class guys; though of course there were the MASSIVE step down fights as well. Overall, I think Joe's career has evened out nicely thanks to the Lacy & Kessler wins, taking both men's titles and unbeaten records. Would love to see him vs Froch, a big, hard hitting, confident guy in his prime.

When Kessler's tactis weren't working overt he 2nd half vs Joe, he had to put stock in that right cross. Not really his natural way, though he did produce a tremendous round 12 rally. But Froch is all about throwing rights from weird angles, gambling, letting it rip a part of his in ring persona. IMO he could be a dangerous foe, and if Joe waits for Pavlik or Taylor, he'll have to take on a top contender: Froch is rated WBO#5 and WBC#2.

Top contender like Froch is all that is missing on Joe's body of work. IMO froch would fancy it more than the technically superior Inkin, or Bute, who wants to grow into his IBF belt...

fist · Post by **fist** » 07 Nov 2007, 17:55

pundit wrote:Btw, am I the only one who found Calzaghe's performance in the fight's second half quite "Ottke"-esque? Boxing from the distance, jumping in and out with blistering speed, sidestepping and working the angles, and spoiling his opponent's offensive attempts. Never out to hurt his opponent, but carving out a safe points victory.

In my book there is nothing negative with this, btw. Quite in contrast: it shows the versatility and fighting intelligence of a boxer if he can adapt his style and strategy during a fight and taylor it to his opponent. Calzaghe tried to draw Kessler into a brawl early in the fight, this didn't work, hence he switched to hitting and running.

Hmm I know what your saying, however, at times in the second half Joe certainly threw combinations meant to hurt. IN the 8th he clearly hurt Kessler and Kessler admitted it - he was winded from a body shot and Calzaghe went for the kill only to be stopped by the ref and then the bell. Just amazing boxing in the second half, offensive, defensive, in and out as you say, lightening combos, great movement. Kessler's smile when being interviewed at the end said it all :) Joe was just too good.

For the record, EUbank, although not at his peak, was still a career defining fight, IMO and of course, Joe's, sho states that it was still his most difficult.

jjfc · Post by **jjfc** » 07 Nov 2007, 18:15

I don't think they should "even themselves" out - I would hope the judges wouldn't think - "well Ottke won his fight this way last time, better not give him the round this time".

I think you misinterpret what I mean by "even themselves" out. I don't mean judges actively misinterpreting rounds, but rather on average it's strange when someone ALWAYS is on the "right" side of things are open to such interpretations.

For instance, a lot of people accuse DLH of winning in close fights. But how can I be more sure that there's no diciness involved? He lost a close fight to Trinidad. Do I think judges were purposely scoring rounds for Trindad because DLH had won so many close decisions? No. It's just that if you live on the knife's edge you're bound to get cut.

Also, it's fine to pick at Ottke's career fight by fight, but eventually you have to look back at the entire work. Doesn't the scoring in Larsen and Brewer fights affect how you view the scoring in other Ottke fights? Doesn't the behavior of the ref in the Reid fight alarm you about the behavior of the ref in the Tate fight? I mean, when does it stop becoming coincidence? Shouldn't we process old information in light of new information and vice versa?

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 07 Nov 2007, 18:22

fist wrote: For the record, EUbank, although not at his peak, was still a career defining fight, IMO and of course, Joe's, sho states that it was still his most difficult.

Yep but he said it was so difficult because it was the first time he had to go 12 rounds. Thus, inexperience plays a big part in the relative "difficulty". There is no doubt in my mind that Kessler was the best and most dangerous opponent Calzaghe has ever faced.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 07 Nov 2007, 18:44

Let's credit Joe for this. He peaked kind of late. While most fighters are past it at mid 30s, Joe has got a lot better and risen with two major challenges. He seems a happier, more mature person these days and his career has reached the level it should have reached.

Like Ottke, Eubank had a # of controversies btw.

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 07 Nov 2007, 20:15

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I don't know about that being Hopkins prime Stu, Hopkins learnt to box in jail, and then as a pro, he started late and had no amateur career.

Hmm - I see Hopkins listed as having had a 95-4 amateur record, and have a hard time believing he had nearly 100 amateur fights while in the joint. But sure, Jones had more amateur experience. I just keep running into this "Hopkins never fought as an amateur" myth, though.

For the record, I think it's great that Joe finally tested himself against a non-one-dimensional opponent, but honestly, if he retires tomorrow, I see his career accomplishments as being not dissimilar from the apparently-much-despised Ottke's. Interesting to hear the same folks lauding Joe's "impressive volume punching" turn around and deride "Ottke's slapping." I do think there's more than a small amount of nationalist bias work here - not at all surprising, but please, let's not pretend otherwise.

Calzaghe vs Hopkins [or even Jones] would be a nice big=profile fight for Joe to end his career with, though, given the actual and ring ages of those 2, it would depend very much on how much either would have left in that fight. Jones still has the handspeed but the legs are gone ... Hopkins is the ageless wonder but can't fight anywhere close to 3 minutes per per round anymore. I hear Hopkins is keen on making the fight, so let's do it!

Taki... · Post by **Taki...** » 07 Nov 2007, 20:23

pundit wrote:
fist wrote: For the record, EUbank, although not at his peak, was still a career defining fight, IMO and of course, Joe's, sho states that it was still his most difficult.
Yep but he said it was so difficult because it was the first time he had to go 12 rounds. Thus, inexperience plays a big part in the relative "difficulty". There is no doubt in my mind that Kessler was the best and most dangerous opponent Calzaghe has ever faced.

Reid ran him closer and Mitchell almost KO'd him... best? Possibly. Most dangerous? No, because Reid had a style more suited to cause Calzaghe problems and Mitchell had the power to knock him senseless.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 08 Nov 2007, 06:37

The ONLY reason why Reid was so competitive vs Joe was cause of Joe's lack of preperation. Had Woodhall, Brewer, Kessler, Lacy fought that version of Joe - then Joe would have lost definately.

Kessler gave the most prepaed version of Calzaghe his closest fight.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 08 Nov 2007, 07:11

What impresses me, and what makes me think history will be kinder to Joe than his critics - who have been given plenty to complain about - is that Joe has adapted to the styles of 2 men who came with unbeaten records & world titles.

Before that he's faced a true mixed bag: worthy fighters, average fighters, fringe guys, and total unworthies. It balances out OK now, I think, and he's earned a Hall of Fame spot when he retires in 5 years.

You have along reign, you fight your share of bad fighters (Holmes, Jones Jr, R Lopez etc), but if you have some icing on your cake it's good.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 08 Nov 2007, 09:56

Autobarn wrote:What impresses me, and what makes me think history will be kinder to Joe than his critics - who have been given plenty to complain about - is that Joe has adapted to the styles of 2 men who came with unbeaten records & world titles.

Don't tell me you buy into this "Kessler AND Lacy" did it for you. Kessler did he for Joe, he was Joe's best opponent ever. Lacy wasn't among his top 5 opponents though, and -- I know I repeat myself -- taylor-made for any quick, skilled boxer. I give Joe more credit for the old Eubank fight than for Lacy.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 08 Nov 2007, 10:08

who cares?

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 08 Nov 2007, 10:11

Autobarn wrote:who cares?

I do. You change your view too often for my taste.

Arbachakov · Post by **Arbachakov** » 08 Nov 2007, 10:41

Lacy is a heavybag.

I loved watching Joe beat the crap out him and end the unfounded hype.Thats as far as it goes.

The Kessler fight was Joe's moment against a top level fighter.Smashing a ponderous unskilled labourer like Lacy should be expected of any very good fighter.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 08 Nov 2007, 10:51

Arbachakov wrote:Lacy is a heavybag.

I loved watching Joe beat the crap out him and end the unfounded hype.Thats as far as it goes.

The Kessler fight was Joe's moment against a top level fighter.Smashing a ponderous unskilled labourer like Lacy should be expected of any very good fighter.

Spot on.

Wrists · Post by **Wrists** » 08 Nov 2007, 12:01

Stu whats your problem??

Joe has cleaned out the division (Mundine aside). Listen, all the crap on here about Joe this Joe that means bog all.

Bottom line for months and months before both Lacy and Kessler people were saying that these guys would 'smash Joe' yada yada yada.

Bottom line in varying ways Calzaghe has beaten both without much fuss - what more do people want, why fight a Bute or a Froch what does that prove - sweet FA

Joe deserves paydays and to be fair BHop is not only that but also a great fight. Have I missed something when hasn't BHop fought and beaten good fighters like Tarver, Winky, etc etc.

Calzaghe v Hopkins is a good fight despite what Joe haters want to say, to me it sounds like people are getting their jibes in early doors just in case Joe spanks Hopkins.

Get over it boys!! - who would you have Joe fight Vitali Klitschko - oh wait he's too robotic aint he!!

Give me strength

Regards

Wrists

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 08 Nov 2007, 12:05

Wrists wrote:Stu whats your problem??

Joe has cleaned out the division (Mundine aside). Listen, all the crap on here about Joe this Joe that means bog all.

Bottom line for months and months before both Lacy and Kessler people were saying that these guys would 'smash Joe' yada yada yada.

Bottom line in varying ways Calzaghe has beaten both without much fuss - what more do people want, why fight a Bute or a Froch what does that prove - sweet FA

Joe deserves paydays and to be fair BHop is not only that but also a great fight. Have I missed something when hasn't BHop fought and beaten good fighters like Tarver, Winky, etc etc.

Calzaghe v Hopkins is a good fight despite what Joe haters want to say, to me it sounds like people are getting their jibes in early doors just in case Joe spanks Hopkins.

Get over it boys!! - who would you have Joe fight Vitali Klitschko - oh wait he's too robotic aint he!!

Give me strength

Regards

Wrists

I agree with yu that Froch and Bute don't add muhc to Joe's sm record. I also agree with you that after beating Kessler Joe has earned the right to take a money fight against Hopkins. I disagree with you that Calzaghe vs. Hopkins is a good fight. It's about as good as Lennox vs. Tyson when it happened. Peaking fighter vs. shell of former self.

Wrists · Post by **Wrists** » 08 Nov 2007, 12:10

Yes but its not like Hopkins is shot like Tyson. Nard has beaten some very good younger fighters recently.Who has Tyson beaten before LL??

See what your saying but disagree with the comparison?

Pundit - how would you like to see the Calzaghe fight end (2 more fights)????

Wrists

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 08 Nov 2007, 12:12

Wrists wrote:Yes but its not like Hopkins is shot like Tyson. Nard has beaten some very good younger fighters recently.Who has Tyson beaten before LL??

See what your saying but disagree with the comparison?

Pundit - how would you like to see the Calzaghe fight end (2 more fights)????

Wrists

Hopkins for christ's and the money's sake (otherwise some idiots will always say Calzaghe never fought Hopkins, so beat up the 42-year old then). But thereafter a young, hungry light-heavyweight for a belt that makes Joe a two-weight champion. Currently Dawson would be my preferred choice, Woods would be OK as well.

Taki... · Post by **Taki...** » 08 Nov 2007, 12:17

stujones wrote:The ONLY reason why Reid was so competitive vs Joe was cause of Joe's lack of preperation. Had Woodhall, Brewer, Kessler, Lacy fought that version of Joe - then Joe would have lost definately.

Kessler gave the most prepaed version of Calzaghe his closest fight.

That is beside the point. Calzaghe has looked like losing twice in his career and neither time was against Kessler. It's specualtion, pure and simple, to say this fighter or that fighter would have been Calzaghe that night. The fact remains that Reid pushed him harder than Kessler did and Mitchell hurt him more than Kessler did. As I said, Kessler might be the best opponent he ever fought, but on their nights Reid and Mitchell were more dangerous.