BoxRec

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

We aren't the anti-calzaghe brigage, we're the reality or non-delusional brigade. Your reading of the history of the sport is being twisted to meet what you see as the facts. You say Lewis was dull, but then you yourself mention the fact he demolished Golota, Briggs and Grant in explosive performances - and let's not forget the Rahman rematch where he annihilated him with what is probably the hardest punch I've ever seen.

What about Ruddock and Morrison, again, explosive performances. The facts just don't match your warped reality I'm afraid. Joe had lots of dire performances, In fact I remember him being booed against who was it Jiminez. There were a few explosive performances from Calzaghe, the Brewer win was excellent for instance, but his career was often dull, partly because of the piss poor opposition in the other corner - the same cannot be said of Lewis whose level of opposition was stellar. Lewis fought Gary Mason, a top ranked heavyweight with a murderous punch and a fearsome career - a dangerous crossroads fight early in his career, and continued to take risks throughout. The same simply cannot be said for Joe.[/quote]


Why is putting Calzaghe down so important to you James? I'm not delusional, you're the guy saying Gary Mason had "a fearsome career". And again you can't resist being unpleasant , claiming I have a "warped reality". If you want to address my points, address them, you should be able to do that without trying to belittle people, others on here manage that.
And we could argue record till the cows come home - was Mario Veit better than Hasim Rahman for instance, him having already lost to Maskaev and Tua before being handpicked for an easy defence against Lewis? And whatever you think, being unbeaten as long as Calzaghe is an incredible thing. At some point, nearly all boxers do slip up - Williams v Quintana is a good recent example. Louis lost to Schmeling, Lennox - well, there we go. If I'm delusional, what of someone saying Tua was better than anyone of Calzaghe's record? The same Tua that lost to Chris Byrd, the same Chris Byrd that was begging for a fight with Calzaghe after the Hopkins fight.

But this is the reality: this is not an argument of facts, it is an argument of opinions, based on facts. Lewis and Calzaghe were at their peak in different periods in different divisions. We both know the same facts. I have my opinion, you have yours.
Max Kellerman on HBO said Calzaghe after his win over Jones was the best European fighter of all time, passing Lennox Lewis, Kellerman's colleague. That's his opinion, he's entitled to it. Lou DiBella and Greg Leon said Calzaghe was the best pound-for-pound fighter in the world. Again, their opinion.

Tell me James, as I take it you are the same that occasionally writes on there, why did britishboxing.net not do a tribute to Calzaghe, other than publishing Froch's comments slagging him off? On the site now, they have best fighter of the past as Naseem Hamed (while Rob norton has been changed to be boxer of the week), while they put up Peter Buckley as best boxer of the past the day after he retired.
I was of the rather strange opinion that Calzaghe putting boxing on the back pages was a good thing, Calzaghe becoming sports personality of the year was a good thing, more than 50,000 going to watch a night of boxing in Cardiff was a good thing. Maybe I'm wrong.

gobbles wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

We aren't the anti-calzaghe brigage, we're the reality or non-delusional brigade. Your reading of the history of the sport is being twisted to meet what you see as the facts. You say Lewis was dull, but then you yourself mention the fact he demolished Golota, Briggs and Grant in explosive performances - and let's not forget the Rahman rematch where he annihilated him with what is probably the hardest punch I've ever seen.

What about Ruddock and Morrison, again, explosive performances. The facts just don't match your warped reality I'm afraid. Joe had lots of dire performances, In fact I remember him being booed against who was it Jiminez. There were a few explosive performances from Calzaghe, the Brewer win was excellent for instance, but his career was often dull, partly because of the piss poor opposition in the other corner - the same cannot be said of Lewis whose level of opposition was stellar. Lewis fought Gary Mason, a top ranked heavyweight with a murderous punch and a fearsome career - a dangerous crossroads fight early in his career, and continued to take risks throughout. The same simply cannot be said for Joe.

Why is putting Calzaghe down so important to you James? I'm not delusional, you're the guy saying Gary Mason had "a fearsome career". And again you can't resist being unpleasant , claiming I have a "warped reality". If you want to address my points, address them, you should be able to do that without trying to belittle people, others on here manage that.
And we could argue record till the cows come home - was Mario Veit better than Hasim Rahman for instance, him having already lost to Maskaev and Tua before being handpicked for an easy defence against Lewis? And whatever you think, being unbeaten as long as Calzaghe is an incredible thing. At some point, nearly all boxers do slip up - Williams v Quintana is a good recent example. Louis lost to Schmeling, Lennox - well, there we go. If I'm delusional, what of someone saying Tua was better than anyone of Calzaghe's record? The same Tua that lost to Chris Byrd.

But this is the reality: this is not an argument of facts, it is an argument of opinions, based on facts. Lewis and Calzaghe were at their peak in different periods in different divisions. We both know the same facts. I have my opinion, you have yours.
Max Kellerman on HBO said Calzaghe after his win over Jones was the best European fighter of all time, passing Lennox Lewis, Kellerman's colleague. That's his opinion, he's entitled to it. Lou DiBella and Greg Leon said Calzaghe was the best pound-for-pound fighter in the world. Again, their opinion.

Tell me James, as I take it you are the same that occasionally writes on there, why did britishboxing.net not do a tribute to Calzaghe, other than publishing Froch's comments slagging him off? On the site now, they have best fighter of the past as Naseem Hamed (while Rob norton has been changed to be boxer of the week), while they put up Peter Buckley as best boxer of the past the day after he retired.
I was of the rather strange opinion that Calzaghe putting boxing on the back pages was a good thing, Calzaghe becoming sports personality of the year was a good thing, more than 50,000 going to watch a night of boxing in Cardiff was a good thing. Maybe I'm wrong.[/quote]

To paraphrase Alan Partridge.....Back of the NET!!!

It seems that some people on this forum simply cannot accept Joe Calzaghe in any way shape or form. I can accept that Joe had flaws, but it seems his biggest detractors refuse to accept any of his achievements other than as an aside.
It shows they have an agenda so their opinions are obviously biased.
For example, StuJones said one of the big names Ottke fought was Glen Johnson, but yet dismissed Omar Sheika as being shit even though he beat the very same Johnson in the fight before Calzaghe.
It seems people will go to any length to discredit anything Joe has done thats good. That shows a complete respect for the sport. Calzaghe may not be the best ever, but he doesn't deserve to be written off in the way the majority of bitter twats on here discredit him.

Back of the net my arse.

Firstly - I contribute occasionally to BB.net, I'm not the editor, nor do I have any influence over what other people write. Calzaghe only just retired, and as the writers aren't being paid salaries, they aren't going to be working to deadlines. We all contribute what we want, and I guess people aren't falling over themselves to write a tributary puff-piece on Calzaghe. There are reasons for this, the same reasons we are discussing here. I was thinking about writing an assessment of his career - and honest and fair appraisal of his achievements, that's what I'm interested in writing, not a glowing arse-kissing tribute. That's been covered already on the less critical back pages of the red-tops and elsewhere.

As for 50,000 going to watch Calzaghe in Cardiff, sure, that's great. However what wasn't so great were the easy defences over his career, against poor opposition, which resulted in - the reason he drew a big crowd for that fight, was the win he had over Lacy - that turned him into a genuine star. Before that fight, he was very much in Hatton's shadow - why? Well, Hatton fought someone called Kostya Tszyu to become a proper champion. Calzaghe wasn't filling any stadiums earlier in his career, and even the Welsh weren't that interested in him. You get the crowd you deserve, and when Joe finally stepped up the level of opposition, he got the respect and the crowds. Why should I fall down at his feet and adore him - he spent bloody years doing very little for boxing, and plenty for his own ego and bank balance - good for him.

So three people think Calzaghe is this that or the other, good for them, that doesn't mean we have to agree with them does it? What about all the other people who don't share their sentiments?

How am I putting Calzaghe down? Just because I don't want to kiss his arse and fete him as the greatest fighter of all time? Has Joe had a very good career? Yes he has. Is he one of the best we've had? Yes he is. However, with the plaudits come the brickbats as they say. There are gaping holes in his resume that cannot and should not be glossed over - I certainly have no intention of doing so, you do so if you wish.

Yes, being undefeated does requite focus, determination and mental stamina, but it shouldn't be given more weight and credence than it deserves. Quality of opposition is the most important thing when determining a fighters worth. It's far harder to stay unbeaten when you hold a belt where you have to face mandatories, and they are dangerous opponents. Ray Robinson could have retired unbeaten if he hadn't fought Jake LaMotta, or if he never moved up from Welterweight. The fact he lost doesn't diminish his career, because he fought everyone available won most, lost a few, and carried on taking on the best until very late in his career.

Rocky Marciano retired unbeaten, but not many regard him as the best of all time at heavyweight.

Anyone who thinks Tua is better than anyone on Calzaghe's record is clearly delusional, there I've said it, happy now? I pointed out to the person who said that, that I thought it was incorrect at the time.

If ppl are critical of Joe, it's his own fault. I still don't think we saw the best of him. He didn't step up to his supposedly natural weight til the last 2 fights, didn't look comfortable/prepared at the weight till the final fight. And above all, when he became The Man last year and everyone wanted to fight him STILL the good fights were not forthcoming. He did what he did but he didn't do what he didn't do.

Had Lacy - favored Yank - not come along none and demanded the fight, none of us would give an eff about Joe retiring.

gobbles wrote:Golota?! He had talent but would cave in or burst into tears the first time someone pulled a face at him. Akinwande wasn't even a real fight, that's like giving Lewis huge props for his second fight with McCall when the guy was high on drugs and having a mental breakdown.

Lewis fought Golota in '97. Golota had done nothing but kick ass up to that point, including the severe hurt he twice put on Riddick Bowe. Those two DQ losses were his only losses in 30 fights. Lewis didn't win the fight by virtue of Golota caving in--he just straight up knocked his ass out. It was later that Golota began breaking down and caving in (the Tyson fight didn't happen for another three years). That win legitimately belongs on Lewis's CV.

NorthEastBoxingFan wrote:Watch the Charles the hatchett Brewer(I think that one) fight, that was a HUGE knockdown in the first or second round, Joe's head looked like it was going to fly off. Could have pulled a Lennox Lewis, did he? No did he bollox, KO's the guy in the next round. Fantastic.

How the hell is getting knocked out "pulling a Lennox Lewis"? That's ridiculous. 44 fights, 2 KO losses, and the first a joke stoppage. Both avenged convincingly.

DaveyH wrote:Hypothetical question, if Lewis' career had happened, say, ten years later, who would he have on his record?
He'd still be competing now I expect, having beaten the likes of the Klitschkos, Ruiz, Sam Peter, Valuev, Igrabimov, erm... Skelton, Fraudley, Danny Williams, erm... Eddie Chambers? His next fight would probably be against David Haye and if he won, well he'd have beaten a blown up cruiser with a glass chin wouldn't he?

Lennox is a legend, and I admire the man greatly. But he fought at a time when there many credible opponents out there for him. he beat all of them, but imagine if the highlight of his career was beating all of the above? Would that have made him an over hyped fighter or just around at a time where there was no exciting competition?
Calzaghe was in a division where the talent was slim pickings at best. Ok maybe he should have fought the mighty Ottke and Beyer, but come on would cynics like jamesmcdonnell forgive Calzaghe his "sins" and give him a shred of praise had he beaten these two "pound for pound legends?" I doubt it.

But that makes no odds to me because I accept that both fighters achieved all they could with the competition in front of them. I admire both fighters feel they both did Britain proud on the world stage.

I mentione dabove that Super Middleweight didn't have the prestige needed for the big guys to stick around.
Why didn't Joe chase the guys around him at Middle and Light Heavy during his "10 year reign"

Toney, Hopkins, Jones Jnr and the like all had very little or no experience of Super Middleweight in their gareer and it certainly wasn't because they were afraid of the claimants to number 1 Ottke and Calzaghe!
Joe could have forced the issue a lot earlier and that is what gripes with most people.
He has always said he was big for the weight and walks around at 13-14 stone in between fights, yet he always bolied down to 12'7. I have always thought that was down to the fact the talent pool was so little in that Division. Joe and those around him have practically admitted that he likes to be a big fish in a small pond(always fighting at home and usually as a heavy betting favourite gives this indication too)whereas Lewis always tried to force the issue to become the biggest fish in the ocean. He nearly always fought away from home too and many times in his opponents backyard.
Joe had the talent to go to the USA much earlier and force the likes of Jones, Toney and Hopkins to fight him earlier in their careers. He didn't because he knew he would lose, that's what set's a very, very good fighter apart from a truly great one.

Let me tell you this, the very very casual fan rarely talks about Calzaghe,they can only remember the Eubank fight, and the Jones/Hopkins, but they know the latter were past it.

The very very casual fans I know remember most of Lewis's fights, and Naseems as well. Benns & Eubanks go without saying. For me, the fact the fans still recall fights and opponents from this group (maybe less Eubank) means to me they acheived far more and fought better opponenets.

And as for myself, I can't recall most of Joes defences, whereas Lennox, I recall far more. Lennox, hands down for me, fought far better opponents the Calzaghe did.

gobbles wrote:

yiddo14 wrote:Lewis had the better career.
Lewis also had more talent and was a better boxer(notice I say BOXER. Joe could thrown more punches, had faster hands and had better stamina, but Lewis had more talent and certainly threw better shots)

Calzaghe is given big kudos for beating Lacy(Ruddock, Bruno, Briggs, Grant, Tua Tucker...hell even Akinwande! were on his level)and Kessler(see Golota, the new Heavyweight star after the Bowe fights, Klitschko and Mercer. All of a similar standard, maybe higher standard)
He also get's props for Hopkins(see Holyfield)and Jones(Tyson was arguably a bigger danger given he had only been beat in recent years by the warrior that was Holyfield and Jones had spent some of his past few bouts out cold on the canvas)

In my eyes it's not even much of an argument.
Super Middleweight(as harsh as this may sound) for the most part of Joe's reign, was seen as no more than a stepping stone for great fighters who couldn't fight at Middle or a place where guys who didn't have the talent to make a mark at Middle or Light Heavye could earn a few bob and maybe win a strap.
Heavyweight by comparison was and still is, and always will be the marquee division of the sport we love. To the extent that light heavyweights and cruiserweights will pack on as much weight as they can just to try and compete with the big boys.

Both quality fighters, Lewis is a challenger for all time best Brit. Joe is top 10-12 all time Brit.

Golota?! He had talent but would cave in or burst into tears the first time someone pulled a face at him. Akinwande wasn't even a real fight, that's like giving Lewis huge props for his second fight with McCall when the guy was high on drugs and having a mental breakdown.

Let me tell you, at the time Lewis fought Golota, he was considered anything but the nervous wreck he would later become in certain fights. He had just dished out two beatdowns on Riddick Bowe and practically ended his career and was on the verge of becmoing the next heavyweight badboy.
He was a very talented fighter too.
You can explain his mental disposition in later fights...it was because of the pounding Lewis laid on him. Golota when he fought Lewis was easily at the level of Kessler and Lacy when they fought Joe, EASILY.

As for the "who was more exciting" debate, come on!!!
Calzaghe was reckless and threw a million punches. His stamina was superb, but give me controlled, crisp, thoughtful Boxing everyday of the week. Lewis was hardly the negative nancy some make out. Look at how many times he destroyed so called major threats.
Calzaghe very rarely faced any major threat.
Kessler was his best win, even though it was closer than the scores suggest...wonder what would have happened if the fight had been in Denmark on a Morgen Palle promotion?
Kessler is the level of Golota and Mercer at the time they fought Lewis and these guys are Lennox's B list vicotries.

yiddo14 wrote:
I mentione dabove that Super Middleweight didn't have the prestige needed for the big guys to stick around.
Why didn't Joe chase the guys around him at Middle and Light Heavy during his "10 year reign"

Toney, Hopkins, Jones Jnr and the like all had very little or no experience of Super Middleweight in their gareer and it certainly wasn't because they were afraid of the claimants to number 1 Ottke and Calzaghe!
Joe could have forced the issue a lot earlier and that is what gripes with most people.
He has always said he was big for the weight and walks around at 13-14 stone in between fights, yet he always bolied down to 12'7. I have always thought that was down to the fact the talent pool was so little in that Division. Joe and those around him have practically admitted that he likes to be a big fish in a small pond(always fighting at home and usually as a heavy betting favourite gives this indication too)whereas Lewis always tried to force the issue to become the biggest fish in the ocean. He nearly always fought away from home too and many times in his opponents backyard.
Joe had the talent to go to the USA much earlier and force the likes of Jones, Toney and Hopkins to fight him earlier in their careers. He didn't because he knew he would lose, that's what set's a very, very good fighter apart from a truly great one.

Your opinion of course. But please tell me why Hopkins was any better than Calzaghe in that time period? Hopkins won the vacant IBF Middle title in 1995 and defended the same title 13 times in just under 6 years before unifying against Keith Holmes (better than Lacy?) and the bloated up Felix Trindidad (his biggest win at the time. Blown up Trinidad a better win than Kessler?). But anyway, Hopkins became "the man" at the weight and proceeded to defend against such legends as Carl Daniels and Robert Allen for the third time before taking on the massively bloated up De La Hoya. So really he hid behind one title for years, unified against weak opposition and his two biggest wins to date were against opponents fighting 2 weights above their comfort zones. Then he lost twice to he first genuine contender for years at the weight in Jermain Taylor. Now when you think about it, in 1993 Hopkins lost to Jones for the same IBF title that Hopkins would later win. By the time Hopkins was 2 years into his IBF title reign Jones was already winning titles at light heavy after reigning as champ at Super Middle.
Hopkins began his career at Light Heavy but boiled down to Middleweight. He won his first title there in 92 and stayed at that weight for 14 years! He left the USA twice in total.
In that time, Hopkins turned down a fight with Calzaghe. He chose to stay well within his comfort zone, a natural light heavy fighting at middleweight with his best wins against natural welters. Looking at his record, it's easy to see why the thought of moving up to face an unbeaten Super Middle Champ would worry him.
So Hopkins finally goes up in weight 14 years after winning his first Middle title. He outclasses Tarver, he beats a natural junior middle in Winky Wright, hugs his way to a loss against Calzaghe then beats a career Middlewight in Pavlik at 170.

My point is, you can put over an alternative view of any fighters career. I've already established in another thread that all the big names around Middle/Super Middle padded their records out with some complete dross and avoided some HUGE names. Roy had already gone up in weight and was destined to fight at Heavy. Roy always made a big deal about being in sole charge of his career, if a fight with Joe was going to happen, Roy would have pushed the issue (this would also be why Jones never fought Collins or Dariusz Michalczewski). Hopkins was content fighting at Middle for over a decade. So I think it's unfair to lay the blame at solely at Joes door for these fights not happening earlier.
So really the only two names missing from Joes CV are Beyer and Ottke, and I'll ask the question again, had Joe beaten these two guys would your opinion on him suddenly change? Or would the conversation go "apart from Kessler, all Joe ever did was beat an old Hopkins and Jones, a feather fisted German in Ottke, a man who was KO'd by Glenn Catley in Beyer and Lacy, who was never any good."
I suspect the latter

DaveyH wrote:It seems that some people on this forum simply cannot accept Joe Calzaghe in any way shape or form. I can accept that Joe had flaws, but it seems his biggest detractors refuse to accept any of his achievements other than as an aside.
It shows they have an agenda so their opinions are obviously biased.
For example, StuJones said one of the big names Ottke fought was Glen Johnson, but yet dismissed Omar Sheika as being shit even though he beat the very same Johnson in the fight before Calzaghe.
It seems people will go to any length to discredit anything Joe has done thats good. That shows a complete respect for the sport. Calzaghe may not be the best ever, but he doesn't deserve to be written off in the way the majority of bitter twats on here discredit him.

You've brought your arguments well and to be fair I agree with lots of what you say. Your simply been saying the Calzaghe deserve a similar sort of credit as Chris Eubank, not much more, and nothing less - and I for one agree. I have Joe in my top 5 Greatest Britains.

However, I have heard people call him the greatest Britain ever (which is debatable) and even the greatest fighter of his generation - not just greatest Super Middle. That meaning when GOAT lists are compiled Joe would be positioned higher than the likes of RJJ, Lopez, Oscar etc - sorry, not even open to debate... However, you haven't said that - but being Welsh, I often have to "argue" against such rediculous claims... and so occasionally I do write some "anti" Calzaghe stuff and for that I appologise.

Regarding Johnson and Sheika - I'm sorry I do disagree, one went on to reach a P4P status, unifying the Light Heavyweight title and the other barely scraped a top ten ranking in a dire Super Middleweight devision. Sheika vs Johnson was VERY close, and Johnson claimed he did have the best preperation and I think that has to be taken into account. Your not suggesting that Sheika would be Johnson every time they fought? Or that he was the better fighter? Johnson was the 2004 ring fighter of the year.

I thought Robin Reid beat Joe, but I would never suggest that Reid was the better fighter or Joe wouldn't beat him convincingly in a rematch. Joe had all kinds of problems in the build up to that fight.... which in someways why I was a little angered he didn't give him a rematch - cause it would have been big money, and an easy win. I think a similar scenerio could be said of Johnson - Glen Johnson fully preperared would have wiped the floor with Sheika, and against Ottke he was fully prepared.

I know Sheika turned out to be rubbish, but the point I'm making is at the time he fought Calzaghe he was touted for big things.
At the time Johnson fought Ottke he was nowhere near anyones P4P list. Johnson lost a close unanimous decision and went on to lose to Sheika. Sheika then fought Calzaghe.
Johnson achieved his status a good 5 years after he lost to Ottke, Sheika went on to be crap.
But the point I'm making is you're making a lot of your comparisons with the benefit of hindsight. At the time of the Ottke fight Johnson was considered something of a road warrior who'd already been beaten 3 times (albeit one loss was against Hopkins). At the time Joe fought Sheika, he was being touted as a big thing. Sure he lost to Booth but he redeemed himself. Mads Larsen was outpointed by a trial horse earlier in his career but that didn't stop him being a credible opponent for Ottke years later.

To put it in perspective, remember the build up to Lacy-Calzaghe? Lacy was a big favourite, the future of the division etc etc. The biggest wins on his career at that point? Syd Vanderpool (who had one hell of a padded record) and the very same Omar Sheika!

So yeah he was over hyped but Calzaghe was the first to properly burst the Sheika bubble, the same with Lacy. But does the fact they turned out to be rubbish take away from the victory at the time when they were considered dangerous?

stujones wrote:And I just sad had Joe gone out to Germany and lost to Ottke (jobbed or not) I would have had more respect for him than his win over Lacy. Joe is the one who wanted to go down as a great, he should have done everything in his power to get the fight - fight him anytime, anywhere. There was no problem going to germany to fight Veit.

Joe might have hammered Ottke and Beyer on the same night, at the same time - might have... instead we saw him hammering Kid Fire McIntyre and Jimenez. I remember people saying similar things prior to the Hopkins fight. Bernard has no work rate, Joe is going to win easy... oops. Its not that quite that simple, its not all about throwing millions of punches - and thats why Starie and Mitchell said it was a tough fight to call, and they should know - they faced them both.

There's been some rediculous home town decisions here also.... and lets not forget alot of American posters somehow think Mitchell was robbed against Ottke purely because it was a close split decision on the cards - that fight should have been a wide Ottke UD.

The win over Lacy did far more than Ottke would have done for Joe. Respect isn't so important - he isn't doing it for us on the Internet forums, and he's not doing it for the crusty fight historians. The Lacy win - exciting American, exciting domination - made all the following money fights with Kessler, Hopkins and Jones possible. It was the perfect intorduction to Calzaghe to the paymasters of US TV, which makes most big fights possible these days. It was the perfect intro to Calzaghe for many Brits also, who never took notice before due to apathy inspired by non event mismatches. It was the fight that got him the big crowds, the ticket to the big money - the fight that sold. Without the Lacy fight I'm not sure what Joe would have gone on to do. Beating a Yank counts for a lot, hence Carl Froch chasing Jermain Taylor.

Losing to Ottke would not have done that, at all! Nor would winning vs Ottke. Though beating Ottke would have made ppl take Joe seriosuly a lot sooner, as he wouldn't have been seen as an outcast semi-champion in some quarters; he would have caught on sooner with a win over Ottke. Joe would certainly have had some better mandatories, would have got on the p4p lists quicker probably.

I think getting by Hopkins - another 20 whatever defence guy - like Calzaghe and like Ottke - and beating Lacy - more exciting than Ottke - and beating Kessler - more formidable (if less tricky) ...all means that Ottke should not be so much of an issue now.

gobbles wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Calzaghe isn't fit to carry Lewis's nutsack, or should that read has too brittle hands to carry Lennox's sack?

Joe was in a piss poor division and didn't fight the best fighters in said piss poor division and then feasted on shot past prime champions. Lennox fought top 5 fighter after top 5 fighter. Look at how many top 10 contenders each fought, look at how many champions each fought. Calzaghe went for a period of 5 years where he only faced two top10 opponents, both of which were coming off loses.

Plus Joe isn't undefeated he has 1-2 unofficial losses

Which five-year period was that?

I would assume that anyone would consider Eubank, Reid, Woodhall, Sheika, Veit, Brewer, Mitchell, Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins would be considered top 5 in anyone's book.

By unofficial losses, I assume you mean wins. Like Lewis's unoffical loss to Mercer and the second fight with Holyfield (plus the draw)

Rather odd and some might say homosexual imagery too (who talks about holding other men's sacks?)

From Dec-2000 until March 2006, Calzaghe only faced two top10 opponents, both of which were coming off loses. Mitchell lost a wide decision to Otke, Brewer was sparked in 2 by Echols, Joe was supposed to fight the Echols-Brewer winner but preferred to fight the KO victim. Veit wasn't in the Rings top10 Super Middles.

Whats all this talk of 'Not Joe's fault he was in a weak division', he didn't even have the balls to take on the best fighters in this weak division from 1998-2006

Are you actually discrediting yourself by claiming Lewis lost to Mercer and Holyfield? 30-40% of people here had Hopkins beating Calzaghe, I'd wager less than 5% had either Holy or Mercer beating Lewis, because on a round by round basis Lewis beat those 2 with comfort

PS homosexuality would be 1 up from sheepshagging

I wonder what Stu and Auto are going to do now Calzaghe has retired - I fear for their sanity when they finally have to stop moaning and groaning like two old women at a bus stop. D

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

gobbles wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Calzaghe isn't fit to carry Lewis's nutsack, or should that read has too brittle hands to carry Lennox's sack?

Joe was in a piss poor division and didn't fight the best fighters in said piss poor division and then feasted on shot past prime champions. Lennox fought top 5 fighter after top 5 fighter. Look at how many top 10 contenders each fought, look at how many champions each fought. Calzaghe went for a period of 5 years where he only faced two top10 opponents, both of which were coming off loses.

Plus Joe isn't undefeated he has 1-2 unofficial losses

Which five-year period was that?

I would assume that anyone would consider Eubank, Reid, Woodhall, Sheika, Veit, Brewer, Mitchell, Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins would be considered top 5 in anyone's book.

By unofficial losses, I assume you mean wins. Like Lewis's unoffical loss to Mercer and the second fight with Holyfield (plus the draw)

Rather odd and some might say homosexual imagery too (who talks about holding other men's sacks?)

From Dec-2000 until March 2006, Calzaghe only faced two top10 opponents, both of which were coming off loses. Mitchell lost a wide decision to Otke, Brewer was sparked in 2 by Echols, Joe was supposed to fight the Echols-Brewer winner but preferred to fight the KO victim. Veit wasn't in the Rings top10 Super Middles.

Whats all this talk of 'Not Joe's fault he was in a weak division', he didn't even have the balls to take on the best fighters in this weak division from 1998-2006

Are you actually discrediting yourself by claiming Lewis lost to Mercer and Holyfield? 30-40% of people here had Hopkins beating Calzaghe, I'd wager less than 5% had either Holy or Mercer beating Lewis, because on a round by round basis Lewis beat those 2 with comfort

PS homosexuality would be 1 up from sheepshagging

30-40% of people on here?
1. I think it's far less, 2. A lot of people on here approach Calzaghe's fights with an agenda. 3. Most people on here watched it with the surprisingly negative John Rawling commentary (which even claimed that Sylvester Stallone was angry at Calzaghe's bum-wiggling, when he was clearly angry at Hopkins taking a dive (and he thought Skelton-Chagaev was a coin toss)). A quick survey of people who watched the HBO coverage would tell a completely different story.

Only Lewis Holyfield, I thought Lewis clearly won the first but the second could have gone either way, although the controversy of the first meant he was never going to lose.

I would also point out that I don't need to go with the supposed majority on here. I am adult enough to make my own judgements, rather than go along with the traditional bullying mob rule.

On Stu's point. I do not think Calzaghe is among the greatest fighters of all time. I believe he should be top ten this century. I believe that he is in top 2 or 3 Brits of all time, very possibly top.

I also think it would be easier to judge his achievements in a couple of years. Should Kessler go on and clean up the division, beating Bute, Froch and maybe moving up to beat Dawson, Calzaghe's achievements will look pretty special. Likewise, should Jones or Hopkins box on with a degree of success, as they both plan to carry on, that will reflect well on him.

Ultimately, Calzaghe, Jones and Hopkins were all cagey operators and had lengthy title runs that were uneventful for long stretches. All at the same time, all at their own weight. The big fights, when they came, were all on their terms really. When they cashed in, they put on masterclasses (I don't need to list them) they didn't have to put in the kind of superhuman or startling efforts that we've seen Barrera, Morales, Pacquiao, JM Marquez, Rafael Marquez, Vazquez, Darchinyan. Those guys have to do it the hardest way, in the savage and intense fights and to keep making money often they have to go straight into another risky outing.

Anyway, Calzaghe/Lewis debate can go on forever. Calzaghe needed to fight more top guys, Lewis needed to put more work in during the big fights. They're both 2 of our major names, neither particularly loved at the time. I'll bet Lewis is liked a lot more on here than he was in 2003 (was Box Rec around in 2003).

With me, I will always feel a bit disappointed that there weren't a couple more Lacy and Kessler esque nights as those were awesome viewing. We never saw what Joe could really do at 175, his apparently natural weight. We've seen over 20 world title fights and we cannot say 100% we've seen everything that he's capable of.

Twinkle Toes
Post subject: Re: Better career - Lewis or Calzaghe?

I wonder what Stu and Auto are going to do now Calzaghe has retired - I fear for their sanity when they finally have to stop moaning and groaning like two old women at a bus stop.

Who knows, maybe Joe will want more money, make a comeback and I won't have to hang around bus stops. Hope he does it quick as it's cold at this time of the year.

Lewis definately had the better career.

Calzaghe was a better boxer though and didn't drop his disipline to lose to average guys like Lewis did with McCall and Rahman.

Autobarn wrote:

stujones wrote:And I just sad had Joe gone out to Germany and lost to Ottke (jobbed or not) I would have had more respect for him than his win over Lacy. Joe is the one who wanted to go down as a great, he should have done everything in his power to get the fight - fight him anytime, anywhere. There was no problem going to germany to fight Veit.

Joe might have hammered Ottke and Beyer on the same night, at the same time - might have... instead we saw him hammering Kid Fire McIntyre and Jimenez. I remember people saying similar things prior to the Hopkins fight. Bernard has no work rate, Joe is going to win easy... oops. Its not that quite that simple, its not all about throwing millions of punches - and thats why Starie and Mitchell said it was a tough fight to call, and they should know - they faced them both.

There's been some rediculous home town decisions here also.... and lets not forget alot of American posters somehow think Mitchell was robbed against Ottke purely because it was a close split decision on the cards - that fight should have been a wide Ottke UD.

The win over Lacy did far more than Ottke would have done for Joe. Respect isn't so important - he isn't doing it for us on the Internet forums, and he's not doing it for the crusty fight historians. The Lacy win - exciting American, exciting domination - made all the following money fights with Kessler, Hopkins and Jones possible. It was the perfect intorduction to Calzaghe to the paymasters of US TV, which makes most big fights possible these days. It was the perfect intro to Calzaghe for many Brits also, who never took notice before due to apathy inspired by non event mismatches. It was the fight that got him the big crowds, the ticket to the big money - the fight that sold. Without the Lacy fight I'm not sure what Joe would have gone on to do. Beating a Yank counts for a lot, hence Carl Froch chasing Jermain Taylor.

Losing to Ottke would not have done that, at all! Nor would winning vs Ottke. Though beating Ottke would have made ppl take Joe seriosuly a lot sooner, as he wouldn't have been seen as an outcast semi-champion in some quarters; he would have caught on sooner with a win over Ottke. Joe would certainly have had some better mandatories, would have got on the p4p lists quicker probably.

I think getting by Hopkins - another 20 whatever defence guy - like Calzaghe and like Ottke - and beating Lacy - more exciting than Ottke - and beating Kessler - more formidable (if less tricky) ...all means that Ottke should not be so much of an issue now.

From a money making perspective then yes, and from a US marketing point of view - but I would hope, from a historical perspective lots of people would say no. I think a fighter who could be argued was the #1 for much of Joe's reign should be deemed more important.

And this is something I said before Lacy vs Calzaghe - well straight after Ottke retired. So its not a Calzaghe bashing thing, I also was saying it about RJJ with regards to Dariusz Michaelsweski - but personally, I think Roy over compensated for that with the Heavyweight move (plus beating his "natural" rivals in 2 other weight devisions... Hopkins and Toney). Kessler could prove to be a most excellent win - and I do agree that could enhance Joe no end.

gobbles wrote: 30-40% of people on here?
1. I think it's far less, 2. A lot of people on here approach Calzaghe's fights with an agenda. 3. Most people on here watched it with the surprisingly negative John Rawling commentary (which even claimed that Sylvester Stallone was angry at Calzaghe's bum-wiggling, when he was clearly angry at Hopkins taking a dive (and he thought Skelton-Chagaev was a coin toss)). A quick survey of people who watched the HBO coverage would tell a completely different story.

Only Lewis Holyfield, I thought Lewis clearly won the first but the second could have gone either way, although the controversy of the first meant he was never going to lose.

I would also point out that I don't need to go with the supposed majority on here. I am adult enough to make my own judgements, rather than go along with the traditional bullying mob rule.

On Stu's point. I do not think Calzaghe is among the greatest fighters of all time. I believe he should be top ten this century. I believe that he is in top 2 or 3 Brits of all time, very possibly top.

I also think it would be easier to judge his achievements in a couple of years. Should Kessler go on and clean up the division, beating Bute, Froch and maybe moving up to beat Dawson, Calzaghe's achievements will look pretty special. Likewise, should Jones or Hopkins box on with a degree of success, as they both plan to carry on, that will reflect well on him.

No allot of people on here, myself included saw Hopkins land the cleaner shots that did the most damage, jolting , most of Calzaghes shot missed, hit shoulders or were simply scuffing slaps. Hopkins without a doubt landed the cleaner shots. And this isn't bias, check my old posts on here, I said before the fight Calzaghe would win on workrate but hopkins would bring down his connect percent and score telling counters.

Lennox landed the cleaner better, bigger shots against Holyfield and controlled the action/pace in both fights. I haven't heard anyone call it controversal but it takes all sorts and people score on different things.

Your right Calzaghe's resume is very reliant on what Kessler does, the Dane has already turned down fights with Chad Dawson and Miranda though. Hopefully he takes on Taylor or Froch. I don't think Bute's a huge scalp anymore

As for top British fighters, Lennox is number 1 and definite 1, Calzaghe is in a group below with Wilde, Buchanon, Hamed, Honeyghan, Lynch, Eubanks, Benn. Dice then anyway you fancy, each has their unique achievements.

Calzaghe is a great fighter but to pretend hes head and shoulders above those greats with all the ducking and diving, smokes and mirrors games hes pissed about with over the years is bullshit

Max Molyneux wrote:Lewis definately had the better career.

Calzaghe was a better boxer though and didn't drop his disipline to lose to average guys like Lewis did with McCall and Rahman.

Calzaghe may have been ko'd 4 times if he was a HW taking a punch from a 240lb brick shithouse instead of the old, smaller, weaker Hopkins/Jones/Mitchell/Salem. HW boxing is just more dangerous

And what do you mean better boxer? He was more open to right hands, his jab wasn't as good and his punching technique was well down on Lennox's

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

Max Molyneux wrote:Lewis definately had the better career.

Calzaghe was a better boxer though and didn't drop his disipline to lose to average guys like Lewis did with McCall and Rahman.

Calzaghe may have been ko'd 4 times if he was a HW taking a punch from a 240lb brick shithouse instead of the old, smaller, weaker Hopkins/Jones/Mitchell/Salem. HW boxing is just more dangerous

And what do you mean better boxer? He was more open to right hands, his jab wasn't as good and his punching technique was well down on Lennox's

That doesn't make any sense at all and is possibly the worst anti-Calzaghe argument so far. If he had been hit by a heavyweight, the punch would have been slower, so the chances are he might not have been hit at all. You can't just transfer the same punches landed at a lower weight to being heavyweight shots.

Heavyweights fight heavyweights, flyweights fight flyweights. Are there more knockouts and stoppages in heavyweight fights? Doubt it. The punches Calzaghe was caught by were very different to the ones Lewis was knocked out by. Heavyweights are also bigger, so withstand bigger punches logically. That's like saying Sugar Ray Leonard would have been knocked out by Larry Holmes if he had been a heavyweight.

By your argument, any boxer who has ever got off the floor to win was just rubbish, because if a heavyweight had hit them, they would have been knocked out.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

Max Molyneux wrote:Lewis definately had the better career.

Calzaghe was a better boxer though and didn't drop his disipline to lose to average guys like Lewis did with McCall and Rahman.

Calzaghe may have been ko'd 4 times if he was a HW taking a punch from a 240lb brick shithouse instead of the old, smaller, weaker Hopkins/Jones/Mitchell/Salem. HW boxing is just more dangerous

And what do you mean better boxer? He was more open to right hands, his jab wasn't as good and his punching technique was well down on Lennox's

I kind of agree with Max. Just looking at how Lewis outclassed Rahman in the rematch (one of my favourite ko's ever D ) shows he shouldn't have lost to Rahman. Sure, anyone can get caught by a big punch but Lewis would not have been caught if he was on his "A" game. Then again, Joe didn't face many murderous punchers so when he wasn't on his "A" game he didn't pay the price. I think I've just talked myself out of agreeing with Max!

Lewis had the better career because he consistently fought a higher calibre of opponent. Calzaghe is an amazing fighter, one as good as we won't see for many a year. But he has so many poor/average opponents on his record during his reign when better fighters were availible that you have to mark him down for that.

A lot of the fighters he "missed" weren't great. But they were solid contenders that were avoided so Joe could rack up defences against the likes of Pudwill, Salem, Ashira(a light middleweight!), Jiminez, McIntyre, Thornberry, Sobot, Ferreyra,Mkrtchian and Manfredo. That's ten defences of a world title against fighters that were arguably not world class super-middleweights. Exchange them for Tate, Echols(when he was still dangerous), Beyer, Ottke, Johnson, Rudy Markensen, Mads Larsen, Eric Lucas, Danny Green and Anthony Mundine and Calzaghe's career looks a whole lot better IMO. And I reckon he would have beaten all of those guys bar Mundine and Ottke pretty convincingly as well.

And lets not forget Calzaghe would have definitely been better than Lewis if he had beaten Eric Lucas, as Eric Lucas knocked out Lennox Lewis. D