If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
Given his split decision victories over Reid and Hopkins, how would it have impact Joe's legacy, if one of the other judges had agreed with the 116-111 score for Reid and the 114-113 score for Hopkins?
Fortunately for Joe he was never robbed of victory on the scorecards, but Hopkins and Reid could both argue that they were.
If Joe's record was 44-2 instead of 46-0 and even with majority of folk believing he should have got those decisions, would this have had a major impact on his legacy? Or would he have had to have avenged those losses?
If the decision had gone for Reid maybe Calzaghe would have had less cherry picked opponents. Maybe he would have had earlier fights with Jones and Hopkins.
Jones mentioned it on the Ringside programme that after he was DQ'd against Griffin, his legacy would no longer have been based on an undefeated record, and so it inspired him to seek the heavyweight challenge and then back to Light Heavy again.
It just seems to me that Joe always played it too safely, even down to the fact that he didn't have rematches in either of his bouts that had disputed decisions.
As for Froch, he was never built up the same way so the only way he could get exposure was to fight the best guys out there. I wonder if he would have been so keen to prove himself as a warrior if he had been able to pack out stadiums against the likes of Mack from an earlier time.
Fortunately for Joe he was never robbed of victory on the scorecards, but Hopkins and Reid could both argue that they were.
If Joe's record was 44-2 instead of 46-0 and even with majority of folk believing he should have got those decisions, would this have had a major impact on his legacy? Or would he have had to have avenged those losses?
If the decision had gone for Reid maybe Calzaghe would have had less cherry picked opponents. Maybe he would have had earlier fights with Jones and Hopkins.
Jones mentioned it on the Ringside programme that after he was DQ'd against Griffin, his legacy would no longer have been based on an undefeated record, and so it inspired him to seek the heavyweight challenge and then back to Light Heavy again.
It just seems to me that Joe always played it too safely, even down to the fact that he didn't have rematches in either of his bouts that had disputed decisions.
As for Froch, he was never built up the same way so the only way he could get exposure was to fight the best guys out there. I wonder if he would have been so keen to prove himself as a warrior if he had been able to pack out stadiums against the likes of Mack from an earlier time.
-
CiganoBoxer
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1302
- Joined: 11 Jun 2010, 14:57
Re: If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
Why would Calzaghe want to rematch Hopkins after the way Hopkins fought ?
2nd who would ever wanna pat to watch another man try and hold another for another 12 rounds the way Hopkins did first time ?
2nd who would ever wanna pat to watch another man try and hold another for another 12 rounds the way Hopkins did first time ?
Re: If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
Retiring undefeated to me means nothing unless you have faced the best, we all know, eubank and jones junior were past there best but it was out of joes control, losing is ok if you win the rematch, if he had lost to Hopkins I'm sure he would of got a rematch, but he wouldn't give Kessler a rematch so what does that tell you ?
-
loaded_gloves
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 1907
- Joined: 09 Mar 2011, 12:18
Re: If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
He didn't pursue the toughest fights in his long (WBO) run at super-middle, padded his record, finally travelled to take on a pair of big names aged 40. It's a record for young fans who judge fighters on numbers rather than number of quality opponents, and weirdos with a vested interest in fighters from their country being well regarded. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. 46-0, 44-2, whatever.
-
keithmoonhangover
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 17136
- Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42
Re: If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
I was ringside for the Reid fight and Joe definitely lost that fight. Robin at least deserved a rematch.
Re: If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
I was at that and thought Joe won easily. He was seven rounds up after seven rounds and while Reid came on, I think I had it 8-4 at the end.keithmoonhangover wrote:I was ringside for the Reid fight and Joe definitely lost that fight. Robin at least deserved a rematch.
It's one of those fights that became more controversial years after because Reid never got a rematch. I seem to remember Reid actually saying on TV after the fight that he thought he lost.
-
keithmoonhangover
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 17136
- Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42
Re: If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
You were in a very small minority at the fight off you thought Joe won.gobbles wrote:I was at that and thought Joe won easily. He was seven rounds up after seven rounds and while Reid came on, I think I had it 8-4 at the end.keithmoonhangover wrote:I was ringside for the Reid fight and Joe definitely lost that fight. Robin at least deserved a rematch.
It's one of those fights that became more controversial years after because Reid never got a rematch. I seem to remember Reid actually saying on TV after the fight that he thought he lost.
Re: If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
If he would have lost to Reid. I think Calzaghe could have gone down as an all time great fighter. Instead, nobody really knows how good he could have been. He valued his unbeaten record to much and I think that hurt his legacy. Calzaghe not fighting Glen Johnson was almost criminal.
I just hope Nathan Cleverly doesn't take the same route defending the WBO title while avoiding the best.
I just hope Nathan Cleverly doesn't take the same route defending the WBO title while avoiding the best.
-
keithmoonhangover
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 17136
- Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42
Re: If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
Worth that in mind, it really wins me up when people have a go at Haye, who's flight the#1 guy in both divisionsExoddus wrote:If he would have lost to Reid. I think Calzaghe could have gone down as an all time great fighter. Instead, nobody really knows how good he could have been. He valued his unbeaten record to much and I think that hurt his legacy. Calzaghe not fighting Glen Johnson was almost criminal.
I just hope Nathan Cleverly doesn't take the same route defending the WBO title while avoiding the best.
Re: If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
Hi Keith; I don't think many who paid the PPV would accept that Haye fought Wlad. he may have got in a boxing ring with him but he didn't box him, didn't fight him and did not earn the money he blagged with his pre fight bollocks. (sorrykeithmoonhangover wrote:Worth that in mind, it really wins me up when people have a go at Haye, who's flight the#1 guy in both divisionsExoddus wrote:If he would have lost to Reid. I think Calzaghe could have gone down as an all time great fighter. Instead, nobody really knows how good he could have been. He valued his unbeaten record to much and I think that hurt his legacy. Calzaghe not fighting Glen Johnson was almost criminal.
I just hope Nathan Cleverly doesn't take the same route defending the WBO title while avoiding the best.
Re: If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
Calzaghe won that. Reid landed the the bigger hurtful punches but Calzaghe out pointed him fairly clearly imo.keithmoonhangover wrote:I was ringside for the Reid fight and Joe definitely lost that fight. Robin at least deserved a rematch.
-
MarkMcBurney
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 1670
- Joined: 18 Nov 2012, 07:47
Re: If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
I paid it and I think you're talking bollockspalooka wrote:Hi Keith; I don't think many who paid the PPV would accept that Haye fought Wlad. he may have got in a boxing ring with him but he didn't box him, didn't fight him and did not earn the money he blagged with his pre fight bollocks. (sorrykeithmoonhangover wrote:Worth that in mind, it really wins me up when people have a go at Haye, who's flight the#1 guy in both divisionsExoddus wrote:If he would have lost to Reid. I think Calzaghe could have gone down as an all time great fighter. Instead, nobody really knows how good he could have been. He valued his unbeaten record to much and I think that hurt his legacy. Calzaghe not fighting Glen Johnson was almost criminal.
I just hope Nathan Cleverly doesn't take the same route defending the WBO title while avoiding the best.)
Re: If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
I paid it as well and was disappointed and felt let down by Haye; he did not box to his ability and looked fearful; if you enjoyed the bout and were happy with the PPV I tip my hat to you ![[icon_knockout.gif] :KO:](./images/smilies/icon_knockout.gif)
-
MarkMcBurney
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 1670
- Joined: 18 Nov 2012, 07:47
Re: If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
I wasn't happy with it because I didn't think Haye fought the ideal gameplan, but if you genuinely thought David Haye was going to stand in front of the robotic Klitschko and start windmilling then you're a fool.palooka wrote:I paid it as well and was disappointed and felt let down by Haye; he did not box to his ability and looked fearful; if you enjoyed the bout and were happy with the PPV I tip my hat to you
Haye had to fight from distance or he would either get KTFO or jabbed to death.
Re: If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
I am a fool as I imagined that Haye would at least attempt to box to a win and maybe try to do more than get through the bout; they ought to have an honesty policy in boxing; you pay for the PPV after the bout and if you're satisfied that the boxer has done their best to win you pay the whack; if they've messed about and took the piss you pay a quid.MarkMcBurney wrote:I wasn't happy with it because I didn't think Haye fought the ideal gameplan, but if you genuinely thought David Haye was going to stand in front of the robotic Klitschko and start windmilling then you're a fool.palooka wrote:I paid it as well and was disappointed and felt let down by Haye; he did not box to his ability and looked fearful; if you enjoyed the bout and were happy with the PPV I tip my hat to you
Haye had to fight from distance or he would either get KTFO or jabbed to death.
Re: If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
I like David Haye, but that fight was a let down and to be honest I wouldn't pay if I had a 2nd chance. He didn't do his best.palooka wrote:I am a fool as I imagined that Haye would at least attempt to box to a win and maybe try to do more than get through the bout; they ought to have an honesty policy in boxing; you pay for the PPV after the bout and if you're satisfied that the boxer has done their best to win you pay the whack; if they've messed about and took the piss you pay a quid.MarkMcBurney wrote:I wasn't happy with it because I didn't think Haye fought the ideal gameplan, but if you genuinely thought David Haye was going to stand in front of the robotic Klitschko and start windmilling then you're a fool.palooka wrote:I paid it as well and was disappointed and felt let down by Haye; he did not box to his ability and looked fearful; if you enjoyed the bout and were happy with the PPV I tip my hat to you
Haye had to fight from distance or he would either get KTFO or jabbed to death.
-
MarkMcBurney
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 1670
- Joined: 18 Nov 2012, 07:47
Re: If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
If Haye was genuinely coasting through the fight to lose on points, why wouldn't he just pull out with his injury in the run up to it?palooka wrote:I am a fool as I imagined that Haye would at least attempt to box to a win and maybe try to do more than get through the bout; they ought to have an honesty policy in boxing; you pay for the PPV after the bout and if you're satisfied that the boxer has done their best to win you pay the whack; if they've messed about and took the piss you pay a quid.MarkMcBurney wrote:I wasn't happy with it because I didn't think Haye fought the ideal gameplan, but if you genuinely thought David Haye was going to stand in front of the robotic Klitschko and start windmilling then you're a fool.palooka wrote:I paid it as well and was disappointed and felt let down by Haye; he did not box to his ability and looked fearful; if you enjoyed the bout and were happy with the PPV I tip my hat to you
Haye had to fight from distance or he would either get KTFO or jabbed to death.
Madness.
Re: If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
Is the answer not obviously money?MarkMcBurney wrote:
If Haye was genuinely coasting through the fight to lose on points, why wouldn't he just pull out with his injury in the run up to it?
Madness.
Re: If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
Because boxing through the fight with a poorly toe made him maybe 5 million quid? Madness isn't it?
-
Jeff Thomas
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 3016
- Joined: 30 Apr 2009, 06:32
Re: If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
Calzaghes career was either a masterpiece or a disappointment depending how u look at it...
A great fighter for me, but only on consistency... I think head to head he wasn't as good as a prime Benn, Eubank, Jones Jnr or Toney.
I don't think he improved at all during his whole career, he just was very consistent against mostly weak opposition. But when he did step up he was able to hold his own.
I think Lacy came into the fight over confident and unprepared for a real fight. I think Kessler was a bit green, I think Woodall, brewer, Mitchell, eubank, jones jnr were well past it. But he DID beat Hopkins and on that win alone he deserves huge credit.
A great fighter for me, but only on consistency... I think head to head he wasn't as good as a prime Benn, Eubank, Jones Jnr or Toney.
I don't think he improved at all during his whole career, he just was very consistent against mostly weak opposition. But when he did step up he was able to hold his own.
I think Lacy came into the fight over confident and unprepared for a real fight. I think Kessler was a bit green, I think Woodall, brewer, Mitchell, eubank, jones jnr were well past it. But he DID beat Hopkins and on that win alone he deserves huge credit.
-
keithmoonhangover
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 17136
- Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42
Re: If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
I think he had the right style to beat Toney at SuperMiddle.Jeff Thomas wrote:Calzaghes career was either a masterpiece or a disappointment depending how u look at it...
A great fighter for me, but only on consistency... I think head to head he wasn't as good as a prime Benn, Eubank, Jones Jnr or Toney.
I don't think he improved at all during his whole career, he just was very consistent against mostly weak opposition. But when he did step up he was able to hold his own.
I think Lacy came into the fight over confident and unprepared for a real fight. I think Kessler was a bit green, I think Woodall, brewer, Mitchell, eubank, jones jnr were well past it. But he DID beat Hopkins and on that win alone he deserves huge credit.
Re: If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
Reid was always pretty naiive and dumb. In tge ring he said calzaghecwon than he cried he was robbed for years.gobbles wrote:I was at that and thought Joe won easily. He was seven rounds up after seven rounds and while Reid came on, I think I had it 8-4 at the end.keithmoonhangover wrote:I was ringside for the Reid fight and Joe definitely lost that fight. Robin at least deserved a rematch.
It's one of those fights that became more controversial years after because Reid never got a rematch. I seem to remember Reid actually saying on TV after the fight that he thought he lost.
I had reid winning by a point but the fact there wasnt a rematch says a lot.the wins over a shot jones and hopkins mean little to me.i felt hopkins won
Re: If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
Yes it would have affected his legacy greatly. He either would have engaged in a rematch with Reid....and further obscurity from the US market that he needed to crack before. Or, it might have got him more desperate to fight Roy Jones earlie in Roy's career....and then we'd be talking about Joe in the same way as we do Ricky. A domestic all time great, but not quite in the true elite p4p.
Re: If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
I love Nigel Benn, he's one of my favourite fighters but prime for prime I don't see how he beats Calzaghe.Jeff Thomas wrote: A great fighter for me, but only on consistency... I think head to head he wasn't as good as a prime Benn, Eubank, Jones Jnr or Toney.
-
MarkMcBurney
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 1670
- Joined: 18 Nov 2012, 07:47
Re: If Calzaghe had gone 44-2, how would that impact his legacy?
You think multi-millionaire David Haye really needed the money at that point in his career?DMA1987 wrote:Is the answer not obviously money?MarkMcBurney wrote:
If Haye was genuinely coasting through the fight to lose on points, why wouldn't he just pull out with his injury in the run up to it?
Madness.
He'd make just as much money from an Audley/Chisora, if not more, than fighting a Klitschko in Germany.