Joe Calzaghe- All time great?

[Shaker]

Where does he feature? The guy beat everyone in his era but do we actually know just how good he was?

What could he have done differently to improve his legacy?

[MIG]

He's the best British boxer of all time without a doubt. He'd be in my top 10 pound for pound list of all time too. You could argue that when he beat Eubank, Hopkins and Jones they were all past it - but Calzaghe was no spring chicken when he beat the last two. He fought the best of his era and beat them - you can't ask for more.

[matador]

What could he have done differently? He could've taken more risks earlier in his career. His quality of opposition was weak up until the Lacy fight, which was late in his career. Hopkins and RJJ, who are the two biggest names on his resume, were past their primes when he fought them. Joe only fought one borderline elite fighter in his prime and that was Kessler.

Calzaghe is a first ballot HOFer in my opinion, but not an all-time great. To his credit, he has a lot of title defenses and went undefeated, but the quality of his opposition was lacking.

[glittermonkey]

He's the best British boxer of all time without a doubt. He'd be in my top 10 pound for pound list of all time too. You could argue that when he beat Eubank, Hopkins and Jones they were all past it - but Calzaghe was no spring chicken when he beat the last two. He fought the best of his era and beat them - you can't ask for more.

Sweet zombie Jesus......

A great at his weight, in his era, but beyond that? Not for me, and not even close to ATG status. The resume just isn't there. Even if he had managed to fight the likes of Ottke and Beyer, and younger versions of Hopkins and Jones, it's still a very patchy slate. Some good names, yes, but also too many soft options.

[Shaker]

Hopkins and Jones were of the same era as Calzaghe though, the age differences weren’t all that different. Although many of the names on his record weren’t all that great, the manner in which he beat them was. The way he stepped up in his bigger fights was impressive too.

[yiddo14]

He's the best British boxer of all time without a doubt. He'd be in my top 10 pound for pound list of all time too. You could argue that when he beat Eubank, Hopkins and Jones they were all past it - but Calzaghe was no spring chicken when he beat the last two. He fought the best of his era and beat them - you can't ask for more.

Joe Calzaghe was a fine fighter of that there is no doubt but he isn't even the greatest fighter to have come from south Wales!
The top 10 all time p4p claim is just a tad outrageous too!

[earl of queensbury]

I think the "will you be watching in 10 years?" rule applies here: Clazaghe had a great career, a good chin and a good record ... but I will not be re-watching any of his fights except maybe the Lacy match. In contrast, I often re-watch Benn, Eubank, Roy Jones fights.

I think the Benn-Watson-Eubank fights were legendary (and Benn-McClellan, despite the tragic ending was amazing), but Calzaghe never had any defining fights like that.

[Diamond WEAPON]

Prince Naseem is more accomplished than Calzaghe, that pretty much sums things up.

[Hounddawg]

I followed Calzaghe and felt robbed towards the end of his career, best fighter from the UK? what about Lennox,Fitzsimmons and the rest.

Lacy was overhyped and hadn't beaten anyone of note before entering the ring with Calzaghe, since then Lacy has been beaten quite a bit and a little known fighter Griffen even beat him and got robbed......so why do people keep going on like this is an achievment of the highest magnitude. Age difference between a 35 and 42 year old is huge and really not in the same ball park, as I've stated in the past 40 somethings might get a few wins but are in no way the same fighter they once were. RJJ, well if Calzaghe can claim his 12 round decision, Danny Green can claim his 122 second first round KO of RJJ, but irregardless it's not the real RJJ that fought either of the 2.

Kessler is his best victory, and although the other name that stands out on his resume is Sakio Bika(Calzaghe claimed this his hardest fight) he was very Raw. The other Britts had wars and were old before fighting a youthful Calzaghe, outside of that the rest were all bum of the month candidates.

So in saying so he wouldn't make most peoples list as an alltime great, and if he did, whats that say for the boxers over the last 130 years who fought the best time and time again and for some it ended there life prematurely, and for others thru there wars ended lateral thinking(brain damage) who were all hoping to get remembered.

[Blodhemn]

Calzaghe should've fought Dawson. He would've schooled him.

[Lackeos]

Does ATG mean top 100 all-time to you? If so, I think he might be dancing just outside the cutoff. I give him credit for his wins over Kessler and Hopkins. No matter the age, Hopkins was top 4 p4p at the time of the fight, and was clearly Calzaghe's biggest achievement of his career. The win over RJJ means absolutely nothing; it means dog sh*t, even compared to a win over someone like Manfredo.

I think he's borderline. Some top 100 dudes' resumes don't really hold-up all that strongly. Calzaghe reached #1 in some active p4p lists, although that reign only lasted a few months before he retired. He barely cracked the active p4p top 10 right near the end of his career when he beat Lacy. I think he did enough to barely qualify for the top 100 all-time, but I think there's not gonna be a lot of boxing fans who really think fondly of him as an ATG like they would DLH, Trinidad, RJJ, Toney, Mosley, Pacquiao, Hopkins, Mayweather, Tszyu, JMM, etc.. They might think of him more fondly than say... Winky Wright, who at one point rose to #2 p4p, and was not especially popular.

[thunderfromdownunder]

Hopkins
Kessler
Jones
Lacy
Eubank
Bika
all good victories, and theres a few more decent fighters you could add to that.
i'd say a HOF'er and possibly in the top 10-20 best british fighters of all time. but falls short in overall ATG standings. i'd put him somewere between 70-100 maybe

[hurricanemitch14]

Calzaghe is HoF but it will hurt him that his 2 big wins were against 40 yr olds......Kessler was later dominated by Ward so that doens't help either.

[tanibanana]

Solid HOF'er, ATG i don't know.

[oliverfennell]

I think the "will you be watching in 10 years?" rule applies here: Clazaghe had a great career, a good chin and a good record ... but I will not be re-watching any of his fights except maybe the Lacy match. In contrast, I often re-watch Benn, Eubank, Roy Jones fights.

I think the Benn-Watson-Eubank fights were legendary (and Benn-McClellan, despite the tragic ending was amazing), but Calzaghe never had any defining fights like that.

Whether or not you rewatch someone's fights is hardly a criteria in ranking their ATG status, otherwise Gatti would rank higher than Pernell Whitaker....

[JDC]

Calzaghe is HoF but it will hurt him that his 2 big wins were against 40 yr olds......Kessler was later dominated by Ward so that doens't help either.

Don't overstate what Ward did against Kessler. They're aren't many in the history of boxing who could have survived against that officiating. It was a disgrace what he got away with from round 1.

[Ezzard]

Calzaghe is a great of this era but I can't help thinking that in other eras some of his defining fights would have been another top match-up of many between accomplished contenders.

When you look at the likes of forgotten and overlooked names from in and around Middleweight do Calzaghe, Toney and Jones really stack up against the likes of Gibbons and O'Dowd? Jeff Smith?

Not saying Calzaghe and the rest aren't great fighters but they don't compare that well...

[King Carlos]

He's the best British boxer of all time without a doubt. He'd be in my top 10 pound for pound list of all time too. You could argue that when he beat Eubank, Hopkins and Jones they were all past it - but Calzaghe was no spring chicken when he beat the last two. He fought the best of his era and beat them - you can't ask for more.

Jesus tap-dancing Christ....

[giacomino]

Calzaghe was a nice fighter, a HOFer no doubt, but in no way is he an ATG. And please stop citing the Jones win as something special. Jones had been shot for five years when they fought. While their ages weren't all that different, (Jones 39, Joe C 36) Calzaghe was still in the general vicinity of the top of his game. Jones hadn't won a meaningful fight since beating Tarver in 2003 and had lost three of his previous six fights. The Jones fight provided Calzaghe a nice payday against a badly faded legend, but that was about it.
While the Hopkins win was nice in that Calzaghe was able to solve a difficult, albeit very old, puzzle, Calzaghe's best win IMO was Kessler, an undefeated champion at the top of his game who has continued to be one of the best in the division in the three years since the fight

[Controversial]

Lacy was overhyped and hadn't beaten anyone of note before entering the ring with Calzaghe, since then Lacy has been beaten quite a bit and a little known fighter Griffen even beat him and got robbed......so why do people keep going on like this is an achievment of the highest magnitude.

Slightly unfair. What your forgetting is Lacy was being touted as the next big thing in boxing. Few gave JC a chance. I personally think JC ruined Lacy as a fighter, he completely dominated, outboxed, outfought and schooled him. Lacy was obviously a confidence fighter and that was beat out of him. It must go down as one of the most one sided world title fights in history.

i also think JC's win over Hopkins is often belittled because Hopkins was old however one thing Hopkins has always done is keep himself in perfect condition. Throughout his career he rarely went a couple of pounds over his fighting weight. He ate right, never drunk, done drugs or partied. He was also a top class fighter who rarely took clean punches so he wasn't punch drunk or ruined. Yes he was old but probably in better shape than most fighters on the planet. People also forget after losing to JC Hopkins went on the beat Pavlik very convincingly.

i always thought the Hopkins and Jones fights were lose-lose situations for JC. If he lost people would slag him off for loosing to old fighters and when he won thats the same argument used for him winning. The guy couldn't win either way.

[Goodnight, Irene]

He's the best British boxer of all time without a doubt. He'd be in my top 10 pound for pound list of all time too. You could argue that when he beat Eubank, Hopkins and Jones they were all past it - but Calzaghe was no spring chicken when he beat the last two. He fought the best of his era and beat them - you can't ask for more.

We need a puking emoticon. Stat!

[HomicideHenry]

Until someone can surpass him, at the moment he is the greatest super middleweight to have ever lived....this far anyways

[Carbo]

Lacy was overhyped and hadn't beaten anyone of note before entering the ring with Calzaghe, since then Lacy has been beaten quite a bit and a little known fighter Griffen even beat him and got robbed......so why do people keep going on like this is an achievment of the highest magnitude.

Slightly unfair. What your forgetting is Lacy was being touted as the next big thing in boxing. Few gave JC a chance. I personally think JC ruined Lacy as a fighter, he completely dominated, outboxed, outfought and schooled him. Lacy was obviously a confidence fighter and that was beat out of him. It must go down as one of the most one sided world title fights in history.

i also think JC's win over Hopkins is often belittled because Hopkins was old however one thing Hopkins has always done is keep himself in perfect condition. Throughout his career he rarely went a couple of pounds over his fighting weight. He ate right, never drunk, done drugs or partied. He was also a top class fighter who rarely took clean punches so he wasn't punch drunk or ruined. Yes he was old but probably in better shape than most fighters on the planet. People also forget after losing to JC Hopkins went on the beat Pavlik very convincingly.

i always thought the Hopkins and Jones fights were lose-lose situations for JC. If he lost people would slag him off for loosing to old fighters and when he won thats the same argument used for him winning. The guy couldn't win either way.

This is exactly right. Lacy had looked awesome before Calzaghe, and was heavy betting favourite going in. The Americans thought Joe didn't have much of a chance. A fact conveniently forgotten, these days.

Here's what Dan Rafael said about the match in his Scorecard report:

There are barely words to describe Calzaghe's absolute and thorough domination of Lacy. It was that awesome.

Calzaghe fought a sublime masterpiece in a bout that beforehand he called the defining fight of his career. He sure picked a great time for the best performance of his life, one that surely will see him crash the pound-for-pound rankings he has so desperately wanted to be a part of.

This was as impressive as Bernard Hopkins over Felix Trinidad, Floyd Mayweather over Diego Corrales and then some. Simply put, Calzaghe fought the perfect fight in making his 18th title defense and adding Lacy's world title to his own.

It was one of the most anticipated fights of the year and the biggest super middleweight fight since Roy Jones defeated James Toney in 1994, but Calzaghe turned it into a wipeout from the outset. He never gave Lacy a chance to breathe, swarming him with an assortment of hard punches with both hands.

[...]

While Lacy threw wide shots one at a time, Calzaghe... was putting together ridiculous 12- and 14-punch combinations with breathtaking accuracy... the fight... could have been stopped several different times due to Calzaghe's incessant punches. Lacy showed tremendous heart and a great chin, but finally was knocked down for the first time in his career in the 12th.

That was just the cherry on top of Calzaghe's greatest night.

As for Lacy, he needs a long rest after taking such brutal punishment. He might never be the same.

And indeed Lacy wasn't. I know that Calzaghe's performance has been diminished by Lacy's troubles since, but I think it's impossible to overestimate the mental and physical impact of that brutal beating he took.

Further, Calzaghe's win over Hopkins was surely accentuated by the latter's masterclass against Pavlik.

Also, it's often forgotten that Calzaghe did fight an array of quality B level fighters, such as former world champions Robin Reid, Richie Woodhall, Charles Brewer, Chris Eubank, Omar Sheika and Byron Mitchell. So while his record wasn't Pacquiao or Dela Hoya esq in its role call of all time greats and pound for pound elite fighters, it certainly isn't the horror show people make out.

Calzaghe's problem was he was born ten years too late, so he missed on an amazing crop of British and American 168 lb superstars, with whom he could have made an array of mouthwatering fights: Calzaghe against a peak Tony, Jones Jr, Nunn, or Barkely would have all been tremendous, as would fights against Benn, Watson, Collins or a peak Eubank.

Perhaps, though, that's indicative of how we can view his legacy and all time standing: difficult to place as an all time great, but definitely a top five super middleweight -- because it is in historic terms the second weakest division.

[earl of queensbury]

I think the "will you be watching in 10 years?" rule applies here: Clazaghe had a great career, a good chin and a good record ... but I will not be re-watching any of his fights except maybe the Lacy match. In contrast, I often re-watch Benn, Eubank, Roy Jones fights.

I think the Benn-Watson-Eubank fights were legendary (and Benn-McClellan, despite the tragic ending was amazing), but Calzaghe never had any defining fights like that.

Whether or not you rewatch someone's fights is hardly a criteria in ranking their ATG status, otherwise Gatti would rank higher than Pernell Whitaker....

I think it's a perfectly good criteria for judging a fighter's greatness. I am not really the kind of person who is interested in all that P4P and ATG nonsense, because the criteria applied are not always in line with the act of watching and enjoying a fight. By reversing your argument, one would have to say that Sven Ottke was a 'greater' boxer than Chris Eubank based on his record and ranking - but give me 1 Eubank fight for 10 Ottke fights any day.

And in his own way, Gatti was a great fighter - sure he lost a few, but he was in some legendary wars and therefore deserves the tag 'warrior greatness'. Gatti had his defining fights with Ward - but Calzaghe never had anything approaching them for pure excitement.

[Knucklez]

You cannot call a fighter immensely talented without their having fought decent opposition. Man Utd could spend a season in the Blue Square league and win every game but it would not mark them out as a great team until they did the same in the Prem, or at least the Championship.

JC fought a line up including:

Branko Sobot
Juan Ferreyra
Rick Thornberry
Omar Sheika
Will Mcintyre
Pocker Tudwill
Mger Mkrtchyan
Kabery Salem
Evans Ashira
Sakio Bika
Peter Manfredo
......is simply the worst line up of any long term "champion" in the history of the sport. Even his so called bigger name defenses were bog standard at best - Viet, Woodhall, Brewer , Reid,Mitchell all average fighters who reached world class by their fingertips and in the case of Brewer and Mitchell were over the hill. Plus many people thought Reid beat JC and Brewer had him badly hurt. RJJ and BHop were past prime. Granted BHop put n a good performance against Pavlik in his next fight but Pavlik has turned out to be dogshit plus you're not going to persude me that a 43 year old version of Hopkins is a peak version.


You also said that he fought all that was available - you forget Sven Ottke, Eric Lucas, Anthony Mundine, Manny Siaca and Marcus Beyer who were all better than the mob that KC fought none was exactly SRR, JC avoided them like the plague.

Overrated bum, at best.