BoxRec

DavidPayne wrote:Calzaghe has been a terrific fighter. He could have been more.

Beyer, Ottke, Lucas, Reid II, Mundine, Jones Jnr., Johnson, Woods, Froch, Green, Catley, Echols, Eastman

were all more interesting, worthy, lucrative or exciting than

Pudwill, Jimenez, Veit II, Thornbury, Salem, Manfredo, Mjkchertyn (Sp)

in fact that list is worse and less edifying than

Haussler, Vanderpool, Sanavia,

and I haven't mentioned...

Tarver, Dawson, Pavlik, Abraham,

Calzaghe has done much but he hasn't played in the premier league or champions league often enough.

True, while he hasn't played ball a bit to fight better fighters, It Is Insane that you mention the likes of Eastman, Echols and Catley on that list. Mundine prefers to fighter cab drivers In Oz for a few million a fight but schooled Danny Green.

As for Woods he lost to Tarver!

banjo wrote:

Evander wrote:Where are the British Pacquiao critics ?

Manny Pacquiao has a record that is begging to be destroyed.
It's a god damn turkey shoot for christ sakes ... look at it and compare it to Joe Calzaghe's.

What?

This is a man who has been in with Marquez, Barrera, Morales, Larios, is about to face a much larger man in De La Hoya and has said he'd like a fight with Ricky Hatton.

Been in with and beaten are two different things.

Oscar De La Hoya has been in with many good fighters.

Beaten is a different thing altogether.

observer1 wrote:

Evander wrote:Hopkins beat an undefeated 34-0 Pavlik.



Calzaghe beat Hopkins

?

Calzaghe did not beat Hopkins. Many had Hopkins winning. It should be a considered a draw. Because an SD like that, there are no winners.

Calzaghe would never fight Pavlik in a million years unless he was 38+ or just a hyped prospect.

As someone said, I would never criticise Calzaghe on his abilities - he's one of the very few ones who have everything. But fact is fact, he hasn't made the most of his talents. I believe him taking a little more risk could've recognised him as one of the best of all-time. He's took risks where he's had all the advantages, whether it be at home or against a fighter who is past his best

Exactly.

That is not slating Calzaghe, it's stating the truth.

Calzaghe beat Hopkins.
I think the vast majority of people will agree with that.

I'll agree Calzaghe didn't take as many risks as others.
But in Manny Pacquiao's case he never got his ass handed to him either by way of ko or any other kind of loss.


You don't go 45-0 in 15 years by luck.

Pacquiao never had a winning streak of more than 3 years did he.

There has never been a pound for pound number 1 that EVER had more defeats or losses than Pacquiao at this stage in his career ...fact.

Sometimes it's your time.

I have called Mexican fighters the backbone of boxing.

That is Mexican boxers.

But British boxing is bigger that.
It's a dynasty.

It's a network,an industry more than a fighter or three.
People working behind the scenes that make this sport work.

If it wasn't for the British boxing establishment Mexican fighters wouldn't even be there at times.

Everyone deserves their tribute.

This is British Boxings.

From Minter,to Bruno,Benn,Cowdell,Sibson,Christie,Kaylor,Eubank,Jones,Lewis,Banjo,Andries and Froch ...and on and on.
From yesteryear to John Shep.
That's the backbone of boxing,the people that make it work.


Enter Joe Calzaghe a modest guy who works out of a shack in Wales to become the top gun in this sport rather than a sold product to hype up the next De La Hoya fight.


That's the pound for pound best fighter in the world today.
Joe Calzaghe

Evander wrote:
You don't go 45-0 in 15 years by luck.

that's right, you do it through shrewd matchmaking

frankwarrenfan wrote:

Evander wrote:
You don't go 45-0 in 15 years by luck.

that's right, you do it through shrewd matchmaking

and conning the public

Won 47 Lost 3 Drawn 2

That's Manny Pacquiao not counting the disputed losses.



45-0 Unbeaten in 15 Years

Joe Calzaghe

Hopkins,Kessler and Lacy without a doubt wins

You do the math brother

Pound for pound BRITISH stamped and branded.

Argue that.

Manny got his ass whipped by Juan Manuel Marquez.

Calzaghe is 45-0

That is a fact

James Mcdonell had his ass handed to him last month.

You can't compare it ,early record or late you are on a loser.

Joe Calzaghe is good to go here.

Joe Calzaghe Is The Pound For Pound Best Fighter In The World.

Evander wrote:Won 47 Lost 3 Drawn 2

That's Manny Pacquiao not counting the disputed losses.



45-0 Unbeaten in 15 Years

Joe Calzaghe

Hopkins,Kessler and Lacy without a doubt wins

You do the math brother

Oh do give over, look at who Pacman has faced! The little fecker is even prepared to fight Oscar De La Hoya!

Barrera twice, Morales 3 times, Larios, Marquez twice, then Diaz not to mention titles at 6 weight divisions.

It's not simple mathematics, if it was then the likes of JD Chapman would be elite level fighters, and Henry Maske would be one of the greatest light heavyweights ever.

I am sure that if Calzaghe had consistently faced the best around - he would have had one or two losses on his career by now, just as Hopkins and Roy Jones et al have. Keep fighting at top level long enough, and you're gonna lose, simple as, there's always someone who has a guy's number. Marciano is the exception that proves the rule, and it was only his quality of opposition which allowed him to keep that pristine record.

Are you telling me Calzaghe is a greater fighter than Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Robinson? They both lost fights.

Why handed me my ass? I've no idea what you're on about.

Max Molyneux wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:Calzaghe has been a terrific fighter. He could have been more.

Beyer, Ottke, Lucas, Reid II, Mundine, Jones Jnr., Johnson, Woods, Froch, Green, Catley, Echols, Eastman

were all more interesting, worthy, lucrative or exciting than

Pudwill, Jimenez, Veit II, Thornbury, Salem, Manfredo, Mjkchertyn (Sp)

in fact that list is worse and less edifying than

Haussler, Vanderpool, Sanavia,

and I haven't mentioned...

Tarver, Dawson, Pavlik, Abraham,

Calzaghe has done much but he hasn't played in the premier league or champions league often enough.

True, while he hasn't played ball a bit to fight better fighters, It Is Insane that you mention the likes of Eastman, Echols and Catley on that list. Mundine prefers to fighter cab drivers In Oz for a few million a fight but schooled Danny Green.

As for Woods he lost to Tarver!

Yes, but woods actually FOUGHT Tarver - unlike Calzaghe who failed to fight Johnson.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Evander wrote:Won 47 Lost 3 Drawn 2

That's Manny Pacquiao not counting the disputed losses.



45-0 Unbeaten in 15 Years

Joe Calzaghe

Hopkins,Kessler and Lacy without a doubt wins

You do the math brother

Oh do give over, look at who Pacman has faced! The little fecker is even prepared to fight Oscar De La Hoya!

Barrera twice, Morales 3 times, Larios, Marquez twice, then Diaz not to mention titles at 6 weight divisions.

It's not simple mathematics, if it was then the likes of JD Chapman would be elite level fighters, and Henry Maske would be one of the greatest light heavyweights ever.

I am sure that if Calzaghe had consistently faced the best around - he would have had one or two losses on his career by now, just as Hopkins and Roy Jones et al have. Keep fighting at top level long enough, and you're gonna lose, simple as, there's always someone who has a guy's number. Marciano is the exception that proves the rule, and it was only his quality of opposition which allowed him to keep that pristine record.

Are you telling me Calzaghe is a greater fighter than Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Robinson? They both lost fights.

Why handed me my ass? I've no idea what you're on about.

Edit

Max Molyneux wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:Calzaghe has been a terrific fighter. He could have been more.

Beyer, Ottke, Lucas, Reid II, Mundine, Jones Jnr., Johnson, Woods, Froch, Green, Catley, Echols, Eastman

were all more interesting, worthy, lucrative or exciting than

Pudwill, Jimenez, Veit II, Thornbury, Salem, Manfredo, Mjkchertyn (Sp)

in fact that list is worse and less edifying than

Haussler, Vanderpool, Sanavia,

and I haven't mentioned...

Tarver, Dawson, Pavlik, Abraham,

Calzaghe has done much but he hasn't played in the premier league or champions league often enough.

True, while he hasn't played ball a bit to fight better fighters, It Is Insane that you mention the likes of Eastman, Echols and Catley on that list. Mundine prefers to fighter cab drivers In Oz for a few million a fight but schooled Danny Green.

As for Woods he lost to Tarver! :lol: :lol:

Why is it insane to put Glen Catley on that list....he was WBC champion having knocked out Marcus Beyer and was from Bristol? That would have been a meaningful, easy to make unification bout wouldn't it.

MAY 2000 CATLEY becomes WBC Champion knocking out Beyer away from home
AUG 2000 CALZAGHE flattens over-rated Sheika
SEPT 2000 CATLEY loses to Theobola
DEC 2000 Calzaghe beats Woodhall
JULY 2001 CATLEY challenges for WBC title again
OCT 2001 Calzaghe beats WILL MCINTYRE.

I think a Catley fight would have been entertaining, Catley was no mug, could punch and was aggressive. And a legit world operator during that two year period. He'd lost by a nats bollack to an embarrased Woodhall in 98, beaten Eric Lucas in an eliminator in December 1999 and then sparked Beyer. Catley was a legit fight which should have been possible.

Eastman was an outstanding middleweight desperate for a shot at a title, he was a known name through BBC and could carry an extra 8 pounds with ease, it would have been infinitely more interesting than Pudwill or WBO mandatories. [Instead we heard about a shot to shit Joppy or a weight drained Telesco] I know promoters were at work here etc but Eastman went four years between Joppy and Hopkins without getting otu of second gear - still would have been more interesting than many Calzaghe fought from 2001-2005.

Echols was a banger, who i memory serves, flattened Brewer in 3 a thriller two fights before Calzaghe fought Brewer. Why didn't Calzaghe fight the victor? He also beat Salem in 2002 before Calzaghe was being dropped and messed around by him. Echols would have been thrilling comp if not elite class in a clash with Calzaghe around 2001-2002 when Joe was facing Jimenez and Pudwill. And Echols is the weakest on the list?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

stujones wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
To be fair, Hopkins fought what middleweight contenders were available, in a dire period for middleweights, hard to blame him for that - can the same be said of WBOgus title holder Calzaghe who waited until the end of his career before facing off against real threats to his position.

Yep, that I agree with. Only really Harry Simon is missing from the Hopkins record at Middleweight and Simon's middleweight career was brief.

Tyson had his knockers over his opponents, but essentially Tim Witherspoon aside he cleared up. Hopkins cleared up, Joe didn't. I'll say again Ottke/Beyer were the main fights for Joe.

Only fights Tyson really missed were a prime Lewis and Bowe.

Yes, but Tyson was past his prime by then. Argued this to death with Terry. His fighting guts had gone in 1989. Despite being younger than both of them - he is really a generation before them. Too much, too soon a classic case of.

Why is it insane Echols, and Catley in that list? Ummm at one stage Echols was considered the #1 non belt holder in the devision, finished Brewer at world level and was MANY Us experts tip to beat Joe -

Catley? Well one of the guys who is considered one of Joe's better wins Richie Woodhall - lost to Beyer who Catley beat, also Woodhall admitted he lost to Catley - so hardly insane if Richie is considered worthy. Catley was the better Super Middleweight.

You could add the likes of Malinga, Liles, Larsen, Toney, Simon, Winky, and several others to James' list.

Also how come Hopkins cannot be considered controvesial - the man himself (Joe) has admitted that he can see why the fight can be scored for Bernard. If he says that, then sorry, there must be some self doubts as to whether he beat him.

observer1 wrote:
Calzaghe did not beat Hopkins. Many had Hopkins winning. It should be a considered a draw. Because an SD like that, there are no winners.

lol just lol

Why is that? He's a LEGEND and he has POWER. It should be a joy to watch his career all the way through.

I think this Evander guy is joking as much as I am. Probably even more. Pac deserved to lose both to Marquez, but he dropped JMM 4 times and had two great fights with him. There aren't any Marquezes up at 168-175, otherwise Calzaghe and Hopkins would have been spanked into retirement by now.

Terry D wrote:How many people will sit down and do a Calzaghe career overview when he retires? It will be interesting to measure just how dull and frustrating it all was prior to Lacy, measurements must be in snoozes.

I have had five just thinking about watching his career over again.

I honestly think because of his flaws and him looking so beatable in at least 3 of his fights - that retirement will not be as kind to Joe historically as say Lewis.

Its his struggles with Kessler, Hopkins and Reid (there were others who had moments - Salem, Brewer, Woodhall, Eubank, Mitchell, Bika) which is why when he puts on a masterclass its considered an over hyped opponent as to indicative of his skill. Harsh, maybe, maybe not - we just don't know cause Joe missed so many top names and really Lacy has done nothing to disprove it since.

Can you score the fight aswell Terry when you watch it and let me know. These Calzaghe fans I have mentioned thought that this fight was closer than the Hopkins one.

I scored it a draw, I know lots who only gave it to Joe by 1 or 2 points.

Of course I was joking about Joe beaing better than Pac, marquez, etc.

I'm enjoying Kessler's comeback. Hope he does well and wins some big fights. He may be able to catch Taylor, Pavlik, Abraham, all at the right time as none were built to stay at 160. If he does get some big wins, people will keep on saying, "This makes Joe look better and better." I have ambivalent feelings about that. Joe was great v Kessler. Howver, it is but one fight & Calzaghe shouldn't get credit for things that Kessler goes on to do.

Some extreme cases are saying Hopkins beating Pavlik shows just how great Joe is. Because Calzaghe scraped by Hopkins. Meaning Calzaghe would beat Pavlik slightly better than Hopkins did, I guess. But Joe wasn't even willing to fight Pavlik.

How can you call Hopkins beating Pavlik an extreme case.
It's totally relevent.
Most people were calling Calzaghe out to fight Pavlik prior to the Hopkins v Pavlik bout.
Hopkins fights Calzaghe and loses.
Shortly after Pavlik fights Hopkins and get's his behind kicked for 12 rounds.

There is a direct comparison are you kidding me.

You are trying to sell Joe Calzaghe short.

Hey maybe Joe Calzaghe didn't fulfill our expectations,neither did Manny Pacquiao judging by his KO losses and defeats early in his career.
At least Joe Calzaghe remained undefeated and has a way better current form record than the Pacman.
That there is no doubt about.

What the hard sell angle on Manny Pacquiao is I have no idea.

What are you selling here fella's ?
If it's the old Pacman mobile that beat Barrera,hey I'll buy one for $100 bucks.
But I'll settle for a Calzaghe limo with 45 clicks in 15 years,they last a lot longer.