BoxRec

Tea break boys.

Bika, Manfredo, Ashira, Veit (bloody twice), Salem, Mkrtchyan, Pudwill, Jimenez, McIntyre, Thornberry, Ferreyra and Sobot were nobodies, but that didn't stop slappy Joe from giving them their chances. Froch is better than all of them.

Calzaghe could've fought Froch instead of Jones jr.

No, I am happy that Calzaghe fought Hopkins, but I am not happy about him fighting Jones jr. There was an opening for a Froch fight there, but Calzaghe chose the easier option. It's a joke, and he's a joke really. The Jones jr fight epitomized Joe's career.

BHOP was a good choice, Jones jr was not.

"What would I gain from being the 3rd man to knock Jones jr out?"

And you couldn't even do that you mug.

Dioufy wrote:No, I am happy that Calzaghe fought Hopkins, but I am not happy about him fighting Jones jr. There was an opening for a Froch fight there, but Calzaghe chose the easier option. It's a joke, and he's a joke really. The Jones jr fight epitomized Joe's career.

BHOP was a good choice, Jones jr was not.

"What would I gain from being the 3rd man to knock Jones jr out?"

And you couldn't even do that you mug.

Froch at that time had faced.....?

Calzaghe couldn't make the weight.

HBO rejected Froch after Froch had won the title by beating Pascal to fight Taylor. Do you really think they would have accepted him for a fight against Calzaghe, when there would not even have been an American involved? HBO wanted Jones or Winky Wright.

He's a joke? he's a mug? Calm down

All I am saying is that Froch would've been better than a shot Jones jr. It was never going to happen, I accept that, but it would've been better. It would've been more competitive and more interesting. I don't like seeing old men beat up. It's not really fair.

Going to bed, ciao.

x

This debate seems to become clouded with finances.

JC couldve fought RJJ, when and i quote in FW's words ' Calzaghe struggled with weight for 10yrs'. So why not step an fight the best fighter in the world? Draw your own conclussions.

Why not give Reid a rematch after a fight which many believed he lost? Ditto Hopkins? Oh yeah JC dont do rematches, not unless its against a bloke he has ko'd in 1 round, amirite?

2 madatories in 10 years, yeah great fighter and legacy.

JC couldve have fought Kessler in Denmark where he could have made more money, why didnt he? He was the man at SM, ok fine. He could have fought Lacy in US, both were champions, but again no it happened on his doorstep.

Ppl talk about making financial sense when that is all Bull****. Thats just a weak argument to explain away why JC could have achieved alot more but choose not to.
Yeah he is undeafeated, but dont make him out to be something he aint. He retired undefeated after a very careful, cautious career. No different to Ottke.

Nigel Benn deserves alot more credit for his level of opposition, his willingness to travel and his successes. F**k the fact he lost some fights. fighters willing to test themselves against the best and fight against adversity cant and often dont always win, thats what makes a fighter great.

I always thought Glencoffe Johnson would have beaten Calzaghe.

bengulnaci1 wrote:This debate seems to become clouded with finances.

JC couldve fought RJJ, when and i quote in FW's words ' Calzaghe struggled with weight for 10yrs'. So why not step an fight the best fighter in the world? Draw your own conclussions.

Why not give Reid a rematch after a fight which many believed he lost? Ditto Hopkins? Oh yeah JC dont do rematches, not unless its against a bloke he has ko'd in 1 round, amirite?

2 madatories in 10 years, yeah great fighter and legacy.

JC couldve have fought Kessler in Denmark where he could have made more money, why didnt he? He was the man at SM, ok fine. He could have fought Lacy in US, both were champions, but again no it happened on his doorstep.

Ppl talk about making financial sense when that is all Bull****. Thats just a weak argument to explain away why JC could have achieved alot more but choose not to.
Yeah he is undeafeated, but dont make him out to be something he aint. He retired undefeated after a very careful, cautious career. No different to Ottke.

Nigel Benn deserves alot more credit for his level of opposition, his willingness to travel and his successes. F**k the fact he lost some fights. fighters willing to test themselves against the best and fight against adversity cant and often dont always win, thats what makes a fighter great.

He actually fought three mandatories.

Why would he have made more money fighting Kessler in Denmark? Do you have any proof of that? Were HBO willing to go to Denmark? Could they have got 51,000 fans in Denmark?

When did Ottke make an offer to Calzaghe?

When did Jones make an offer to Calzaghe, apart from after the Hopkins fight?

Why did Reid refuse to give Calzaghe a fight when he was WBC champion?

The problem with all you opinions is they have no basis in fact. You can make the matches that are available at the time, Calzaghe had to live in the real world not in some fantasy boxing game. It's one thing struggling with the weight, it is another actually getting the opportunity. As much as Calzaghe was cautiously matched, so was Jones. And it was Jones who had the big TV deal, he had all the cards, how could Calzaghe have forced him into a match? Or Hopkins? Or Ottke?

We have seen with Klitschko-Haye that Calzaghe would have had to give up about 4 options to get a big fight. Do you really think Warren would have allowed that to happen?

The reality that everyone seems to ignore, is that no one dared go near Calzaghe until Gary Shaw brought over Lacy and that was because he thought Calzaghe was shot.

Dioufy wrote:But two mandatories in ten years and it was against a bum. It tells me a lot that Calzaghe gave the WBC belt up when Froch become mandatory. I think Calzaghe would beat him, but I guess Joe doesn't think it would be that easy.

the 2 mandatories thing does make joe's reign a bit laughable. there are plenty of up and comers he could have fought - danny green would have been a great fight, potentially hyped up into a "career definer" - but the WBO never really made him fight anyone etc etc.

but with froch, i think the timing was all wrong. froch turned pro late and came up slowly despite all the ground he is making up - and willing to make up - now.

gobbles wrote:

bengulnaci1 wrote:This debate seems to become clouded with finances.

JC couldve fought RJJ, when and i quote in FW's words ' Calzaghe struggled with weight for 10yrs'. So why not step an fight the best fighter in the world? Draw your own conclussions.

Why not give Reid a rematch after a fight which many believed he lost? Ditto Hopkins? Oh yeah JC dont do rematches, not unless its against a bloke he has ko'd in 1 round, amirite?

2 madatories in 10 years, yeah great fighter and legacy.

JC couldve have fought Kessler in Denmark where he could have made more money, why didnt he? He was the man at SM, ok fine. He could have fought Lacy in US, both were champions, but again no it happened on his doorstep.

Ppl talk about making financial sense when that is all Bull****. Thats just a weak argument to explain away why JC could have achieved alot more but choose not to.
Yeah he is undeafeated, but dont make him out to be something he aint. He retired undefeated after a very careful, cautious career. No different to Ottke.

Nigel Benn deserves alot more credit for his level of opposition, his willingness to travel and his successes. F**k the fact he lost some fights. fighters willing to test themselves against the best and fight against adversity cant and often dont always win, thats what makes a fighter great.

He actually fought three mandatories.

Why would he have made more money fighting Kessler in Denmark? Do you have any proof of that? Were HBO willing to go to Denmark? Could they have got 51,000 fans in Denmark?

When did Ottke make an offer to Calzaghe?

When did Jones make an offer to Calzaghe, apart from after the Hopkins fight?

Why did Reid refuse to give Calzaghe a fight when he was WBC champion?

The problem with all you opinions is they have no basis in fact. You can make the matches that are available at the time, Calzaghe had to live in the real world not in some fantasy boxing game. It's one thing struggling with the weight, it is another actually getting the opportunity. As much as Calzaghe was cautiously matched, so was Jones. And it was Jones who had the big TV deal, he had all the cards, how could Calzaghe have forced him into a match? Or Hopkins? Or Ottke?

We have seen with Klitschko-Haye that Calzaghe would have had to give up about 4 options to get a big fight. Do you really think Warren would have allowed that to happen?

The reality that everyone seems to ignore, is that no one dared go near Calzaghe until Gary Shaw brought over Lacy and that was because he thought Calzaghe was shot.

i don't quite agree. though a number of fighters certainly did choose not to fight Calzaghe. Unknown unbeaten Brit, away job - not exactly tempting for fighters if there are other options. Pemberton and Markussen declined title shots at Joe. Markussen ends up getting thrashed by Tatevosyan - comeuppance, etc. However, surely it was up to Joe and Warren to raise the profile earlier on and actively make something happen sooner. Sure he came good vs Kessler and Lacy, but that took a long time, and then the Hoppkins and RJJ fights were massive anticlimaxes.

Autobarn wrote:

gobbles wrote:

bengulnaci1 wrote:This debate seems to become clouded with finances.

JC couldve fought RJJ, when and i quote in FW's words ' Calzaghe struggled with weight for 10yrs'. So why not step an fight the best fighter in the world? Draw your own conclussions.

Why not give Reid a rematch after a fight which many believed he lost? Ditto Hopkins? Oh yeah JC dont do rematches, not unless its against a bloke he has ko'd in 1 round, amirite?

2 madatories in 10 years, yeah great fighter and legacy.

JC couldve have fought Kessler in Denmark where he could have made more money, why didnt he? He was the man at SM, ok fine. He could have fought Lacy in US, both were champions, but again no it happened on his doorstep.

Ppl talk about making financial sense when that is all Bull****. Thats just a weak argument to explain away why JC could have achieved alot more but choose not to.

Yeah he is undeafeated, but dont make him out to be something he aint. He retired undefeated after a very careful, cautious career. No different to Ottke.

Nigel Benn deserves alot more credit for his level of opposition, his willingness to travel and his successes. F**k the fact he lost some fights. fighters willing to test themselves against the best and fight against adversity cant and often dont always win, thats what makes a fighter great.

He actually fought three mandatories.

Why would he have made more money fighting Kessler in Denmark? Do you have any proof of that? Were HBO willing to go to Denmark? Could they have got 51,000 fans in Denmark?

When did Ottke make an offer to Calzaghe?

When did Jones make an offer to Calzaghe, apart from after the Hopkins fight?

Why did Reid refuse to give Calzaghe a fight when he was WBC champion?

The problem with all you opinions is they have no basis in fact. You can make the matches that are available at the time, Calzaghe had to live in the real world not in some fantasy boxing game. It's one thing struggling with the weight, it is another actually getting the opportunity. As much as Calzaghe was cautiously matched, so was Jones. And it was Jones who had the big TV deal, he had all the cards, how could Calzaghe have forced him into a match? Or Hopkins? Or Ottke?

We have seen with Klitschko-Haye that Calzaghe would have had to give up about 4 options to get a big fight. Do you really think Warren would have allowed that to happen?

The reality that everyone seems to ignore, is that no one dared go near Calzaghe until Gary Shaw brought over Lacy and that was because he thought Calzaghe was shot.

i don't quite agree. though a number of fighters certainly did choose not to fight Calzaghe. Unknown unbeaten Brit, away job - not exactly tempting for fighters if there are other options. Pemberton and Markussen declined title shots at Joe. Markussen ends up getting thrashed by Tatevosyan - comeuppance, etc. However, surely it was up to Joe and Warren to raise the profile earlier on and actively make something happen sooner. Sure he came good vs Kessler and Lacy, but that took a long time, and then the Hoppkins and RJJ fights were massive anticlimaxes.

I don't disagree that Calzaghe/Warren should have done more. But it is not as easy as just saying "should have fought a peak Jones". And the people who are now quoting Warren in his post fall-out criticism of Calzaghe just beggar belief.

In simple terms of ability Calzaghe is a better fighter, better boxer, better defensively, quicker.

However if he met 168lb versions of Mayweather and Pacquaio he would have lost, he could possibly lose in 2 rounds to a 168lb Pacquaio.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:In simple terms of ability Calzaghe is a better fighter, better boxer, better defensively, quicker.

However if he met 168lb versions of Mayweather and Pacquaio he would have lost, he could possibly lose in 2 rounds to a 168lb Pacquaio.

And the frustrating thing is... there was a 168/175 lbs version in RJJ - and for me they did peak at the same time - 2001/2002. Well maybe Roy was a little past his best even then, but still the man.

Gobbles. They could have done more for sure.... Showtime wanted a piece of Joe along time ago, but he needed to make the sacrifices (e.g. fight in the states). I am sure RJJ would have fought Joe if Joe would have taken the pay the likes of Pazienza etc (as a voluntary challenger) were taking.

Joe had the potential to be a mega superster, Italian Roots, Good speaking, Good looking, exciting. Just needed to make the sacrifice. Why should Hopkins/Jones go to the UK and fight a talented guy for their normal purse. It wouldn't have been a big fight in the states pre Lacy, but it certainly wouldn't have been nixed by the TV companies - if Joe was prepared to fight for a similar deal as Hopkins/Jones' opponents were getting then it would have been on. Those two would have fought King Kong if they had the right deal.

Joe didn't want that, and I don't blame him. He made millions anyway - got a 0 on his resume and is 37, looks intact and doesn't slur when he speaks... plus always has the "what if" in a positive way with the fans cause he beat the relics of Hopkins/Jones. Perfectly managed career. Hatton went for it, and is now paying the price.

gobbles wrote: He actually fought three mandatories.

Why would he have made more money fighting Kessler in Denmark? Do you have any proof of that? Were HBO willing to go to Denmark? Could they have got 51,000 fans in Denmark?

When did Ottke make an offer to Calzaghe?

When did Jones make an offer to Calzaghe, apart from after the Hopkins fight?

Why did Reid refuse to give Calzaghe a fight when he was WBC champion?

The problem with all you opinions is they have no basis in fact. You can make the matches that are available at the time, Calzaghe had to live in the real world not in some fantasy boxing game. It's one thing struggling with the weight, it is another actually getting the opportunity. As much as Calzaghe was cautiously matched, so was Jones. And it was Jones who had the big TV deal, he had all the cards, how could Calzaghe have forced him into a match? Or Hopkins? Or Ottke?

We have seen with Klitschko-Haye that Calzaghe would have had to give up about 4 options to get a big fight. Do you really think Warren would have allowed that to happen?

The reality that everyone seems to ignore, is that no one dared go near Calzaghe until Gary Shaw brought over Lacy and that was because he thought Calzaghe was shot.

First off, yeah ok he fought 2 madatories, you say 3 and this over 10 yrs.....awesome.

Kessler is just as big in Denmark ad JC is in Wales, ofc they would have come to see that fight but as it suits your arguement to question it, then fine.

Sven Ottke and JC would not have fought each other as both were petrified of leaving their homes to venture abroad - I do believe they made an offer to fight JC, on the condition that it was in Germany and FW made an offer but only if they fought in Wales....

RJJ, at that time didnt need to chase JC, the onus was on JC to chase RJJ and demand a fight. He struggled with weight for a longtime and to test himself why not fight the best fighter on planet, like Ricky H did TWICE - No the answer is far more simple, it would mean travelling to the US as Jones was the man (not the other way round) and just getting beaten up - JC and FW both realised this.

LOL when did Reid give JC a chance at the WBC belt??? Is this some kind of joke comment? They fought, many ppl think Reid won so the obvious thing is to re-match, both UK fighters, fight held in Wales (again) and would apeal to the UK fans due to the nature of the first fight- But again no, take the easy option.

The problem is my opinion is based on fact and that doesnt suit you to listen to it, it doesnt fit with your opinion on JC. Well thats fair enough. Every point you make is inaccurate and off the mark.

And as for you last comment, well thats just you buying into FW's PR Bull and reading to many of his columns in the Sun or whatever god awful paper he pens his wildy biased comments, Nice to see you can see past all of this.

As i said earlier Nigel Benn, for example deserves far more respect for what he did and tried to do.

PS Lets not turn this into a slanging match, its obvious you have your opinion and viewpoint, and mine happens to be the polar opposite. 'Nuff said, really.

stujones wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:In simple terms of ability Calzaghe is a better fighter, better boxer, better defensively, quicker.

However if he met 168lb versions of Mayweather and Pacquaio he would have lost, he could possibly lose in 2 rounds to a 168lb Pacquaio.

And the frustrating thing is... there was a 168/175 lbs version in RJJ - and for me they did peak at the same time - 2001/2002. Well maybe Roy was a little past his best even then, but still the man.

Gobbles. They could have done more for sure.... Showtime wanted a piece of Joe along time ago, but he needed to make the sacrifices (e.g. fight in the states). I am sure RJJ would have fought Joe if Joe would have taken the pay the likes of Pazienza etc (as a voluntary challenger) were taking.

Joe had the potential to be a mega superster, Italian Roots, Good speaking, Good looking, exciting. Just needed to make the sacrifice. Why should Hopkins/Jones go to the UK and fight a talented guy for their normal purse. It wouldn't have been a big fight in the states pre Lacy, but it certainly wouldn't have been nixed by the TV companies - if Joe was prepared to fight for a similar deal as Hopkins/Jones' opponents were getting then it would have been on. Those two would have fought King Kong if they had the right deal.

Joe didn't want that, and I don't blame him. He made millions anyway - got a 0 on his resume and is 37, looks intact and doesn't slur when he speaks... plus always has the "what if" in a positive way with the fans cause he beat the relics of Hopkins/Jones. Perfectly managed career. Hatton went for it, and is now paying the price.

Joe had all the talent, but I don't agree about the charisma, he always looked very awkward in front of Camera when outside the ring.

Ricky had only half Joe's pretty considerable talent, but lacked the hunger to go and prove himself. Ricky to his credit went stateside to defend his title and to take on the best - so what if he lost to Mayweather and Pacquaio. These guys were top of the pile P4P and in their primes, more than can be said for any of Joes opponents.

For me, Joe achieved more than Hatton, mainly because of length of reign, and the impressive manner with which he beat Lacy and Kessler.

Hopkins or Jones Jr in their primes, I would have given Joe little chance. Jones Jr would have probably knocked him spark out, and Hopkins would have given him a lesson, although in fairness to Joe, I think he was a little past his best himself when he fought Bernard, so maybe it would have been a bit closer.

For me, Hatton deserves respect, despite coming up short, for taking the risks, instead of staying defending a soft belt at home for the best part of a decade.

Being a little awkard infront of Camera fair enough, but plenty of boxers have earned shit loads and have either been a little dull infront of the camera (IMO De La Hoya, whilst relaxed and a good talker is always very PC when he talks), or get quite nervous and stammer alot (e.g. McGuigan in his career wasn't a good talker)... Miguel Cotto is another who offers nothing and is boring to listen in his monotone voice ("speak to the company"!) - but another superstar

Joe could have been hyped as a good looking Italian who is a family man and all around good egg. In a similar way to what Ryan Giggs is to the football world.

Just to get it right, I believe Calzaghe could've fought a handful of other fighters when he was due to face Jones jr that would've constituted a more "career defining" fight. Pavlik, Froch, Johnson, Hopkins rematch are just to name a few.

Gobbles, three mandatories? Please enlighten me with another stella name apart from Mario Veit.

Dioufy wrote:Gobbles, three mandatories? Please enlighten me with another stella name apart from Mario Veit.

Not a stellar name but that Mkrtian(spelling?) was a mandatory.

stujones wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:In simple terms of ability Calzaghe is a better fighter, better boxer, better defensively, quicker.

However if he met 168lb versions of Mayweather and Pacquaio he would have lost, he could possibly lose in 2 rounds to a 168lb Pacquaio.

And the frustrating thing is... there was a 168/175 lbs version in RJJ - and for me they did peak at the same time - 2001/2002. Well maybe Roy was a little past his best even then, but still the man.

Gobbles. They could have done more for sure.... Showtime wanted a piece of Joe along time ago, but he needed to make the sacrifices (e.g. fight in the states). I am sure RJJ would have fought Joe if Joe would have taken the pay the likes of Pazienza etc (as a voluntary challenger) were taking.

Joe had the potential to be a mega superster, Italian Roots, Good speaking, Good looking, exciting. Just needed to make the sacrifice. Why should Hopkins/Jones go to the UK and fight a talented guy for their normal purse. It wouldn't have been a big fight in the states pre Lacy, but it certainly wouldn't have been nixed by the TV companies - if Joe was prepared to fight for a similar deal as Hopkins/Jones' opponents were getting then it would have been on. Those two would have fought King Kong if they had the right deal.

Joe didn't want that, and I don't blame him. He made millions anyway - got a 0 on his resume and is 37, looks intact and doesn't slur when he speaks... plus always has the "what if" in a positive way with the fans cause he beat the relics of Hopkins/Jones. Perfectly managed career. Hatton went for it, and is now paying the price.

not sure about that. didn't showtime have a warren contract and get stuck showing calzaghe mismatches among others for a time anyway...in articles centred on showtime's "great fights, no rights" policy, the warren (and by implication joe) mismatches always get mentioned as to why showtime are more interested in buying fights than fighters.

also, jay larkin did say joe wasn't ready for big fights, on the "strength" of either the fight with starie or reid - i can't remember which

not sure that jones or hopkins would have fought king kong for the right deal - both have had pretty long cautious spells themselves. closest RJJ got to fighting someone of king kong's size he demanded $40m to fight lewis, and apparently faked a broken hand motorbike injury when he decided against going for corrie sanders' WBO strap...

banjo wrote:

Dioufy wrote:Gobbles, three mandatories? Please enlighten me with another stella name apart from Mario Veit.

Not a stellar name but that Mkrtian(spelling?) was a mandatory.

Quite stunning.

Dioufy wrote:

banjo wrote:

Dioufy wrote:Gobbles, three mandatories? Please enlighten me with another stella name apart from Mario Veit.

Not a stellar name but that Mkrtian(spelling?) was a mandatory.

Quite stunning.

Not really but he was the "third in a decade" mandatory he had to face.

Autobarn wrote:.not sure about that. didn't showtime have a warren contract and get stuck showing calzaghe mismatches among others for a time anyway...in articles centred on showtime's "great fights, no rights" policy, the warren (and by implication joe) mismatches always get mentioned as to why showtime are more interested in buying fights than fighters.

also, jay larkin did say joe wasn't ready for big fights, on the "strength" of either the fight with starie or reid - i can't remember which

not sure that jones or hopkins would have fought king kong for the right deal - both have had pretty long cautious spells themselves. closest RJJ got to fighting someone of king kong's size he demanded $40m to fight lewis, and apparently faked a broken hand motorbike injury when he decided against going for corrie sanders' WBO strap...

Larkin was alot more interested in Joe than he was say Junior Witter who he used to really bash. Even in the Starie fight, Larkin would stress he was a believer in his talent. I am sure he would have been accepted had he taken the fight on the terms other "opponent" style title challengers to Jones/Hopkins would have. Larkin saying I don't think Joe is ready, is different to Larkin saying TV are not interested. Off course it was more worthy than say Jones vs Grant.

Yes, I am not defending Jones and Hopkins, they also lost on big fights through greed - Michaelsweski is a huge blow for Jones.... although Roy countered that by doing another challenge and stepping up to heavyweight. They would have fought anyone for the right deal, and unfortunately - they called the shots... they were the champions.

Dioufy wrote:Gobbles, three mandatories? Please enlighten me with another stella name apart from Mario Veit.

Thornberry, Veit (twice), Mkrtchian - so it's really 4.

Joe had more talent and will be remembered as such. The record books will show 20 defences, Hopkins and Jones and unbeaten. Debate can rage until the sun blows up on its merits but thats what the books will say.

Ricky has tons more star appeal and in this era of PPV that is what helps to make fights happen. Joe was popular in Wales no where else. His PPV numbers for the B-Hop and Jones fight were poor. As good as he is talent wise he is just not a star.

If they were heavyweights Joe C would be Larry Holmes, terribly good but with no star appeal

Ricky Hatton would be Rocky Marciano - rugged and tough and the whole world loved him.