BoxRec

saw a DVD today about Joe Calzaghe with this on the front. Had to do a double-take. It didn't say "one of", it said greatest. It wasn't No Ordinary Joe either, his official DVD. I don't have the historic detail to challenge this. I was a big fan of Calzaghe the fighter - however, I thought it was a strange thing to say. I forget who it was by...Media somebody or other maybe..

If you discount Lennox I think calzaghe on paper is the greatest British champion but im not sure.

Has anyone done better than him in terms of titles?

Sure it didn't say greatest Welsh champion, his that for sure.
Lennox is the best British champion, in terms of competition.

ttornado wrote:Sure it didn't say greatest Welsh champion, his that for sure.
Lennox is the best British champion, in terms of competition.

I'd rate Calzaghe above Lewis - I don't recall Joe getting sparked by fighters of the calibre of McCall and Rahman.

Deserter wrote:

ttornado wrote:Sure it didn't say greatest Welsh champion, his that for sure.
Lennox is the best British champion, in terms of competition.

I'd rate Calzaghe above Lewis - I don't recall Joe getting sparked by fighters of the calibre of McCall and Rahman.

Lewis avenged both of those loses, so that negates part of those loses.
The willingness to fight in the USA earlier in his career.
And most importantly the quality of opposition (at or near their peak) he fought puts Lennox above Calzaghe

The two devastating knockout losses to two top ten fighters will always fe a black mark against Lennox for me.

ttornado wrote:

Deserter wrote:

ttornado wrote:Sure it didn't say greatest Welsh champion, his that for sure.
Lennox is the best British champion, in terms of competition.

I'd rate Calzaghe above Lewis - I don't recall Joe getting sparked by fighters of the calibre of McCall and Rahman.

Lewis avenged both of those loses, so that negates part of those loses.
The willingness to fight in the USA earlier in his career.
And most importantly the quality of opposition (at or near their peak) he fought puts Lennox above Calzaghe

What it doesn't change is the fact he lost to them both in the first place. Calzaghe would never have lost in that fashion to that level of opponent.

Deserter wrote: What it doesn't change is the fact he lost to them both in the first place. Calzaghe would never have lost in that fashion to that level of opponent.

Calzaghe wouldn't of lost like that as he would of pulled out if he wasn't 100%.
Lewis fought when he wasn't 100% and lost, but avenged those loses when he was 100%.
I like fighters that fight.

ttornado wrote:Sure it didn't say greatest Welsh champion, his that for sure.
Lennox is the best British champion, in terms of competition.

Regarding the greatest Welsh champ...Jimmy Wilde says hello

ttornado wrote:

Deserter wrote: What it doesn't change is the fact he lost to them both in the first place. Calzaghe would never have lost in that fashion to that level of opponent.

Calzaghe wouldn't of lost like that as he would of pulled out if he wasn't 100%.
Lewis fought when he wasn't 100% and lost, but avenged those loses when he was 100%.
I like fighters that fight.

Pleeeease... you do realise how lame that sounds? The record books tell the story... and are you really going to try and tell us that McCall was 100% in the rematch?
If you're going to try and use that argument remember it goes both ways...

lillywhite14 wrote:

ttornado wrote:Sure it didn't say greatest Welsh champion, his that for sure.
Lennox is the best British champion, in terms of competition.

Regarding the greatest Welsh champ...Jimmy Wilde says hello

Jim Driscoll could make an argument as well

Its all about opinion....

Some people seem to give more credit to people who avenge losses than they do to those who don't experience them!
Just like some people give more credit to people who 'have been to the trenches' instead of the people who are too good to be taken there!

Emmseegee wrote:Its all about opinion....

Some people seem to give more credit to people who avenge losses than they do to those who don't experience them!
Just like some people give more credit to people who 'have been to the trenches' instead of the people who are too good to be taken there!

And to give more credit to those who faced the best whenever possible as opposed to those who almost wasted their talent staying at home taking the easy route...

Says a lot for Calzaghe's talent that some of us still have questions over how good he might have been. I don't think we ever saw it. The Kessler win is his stand out victory by a mile and even then Kessler has since admitted he was injured that night.

The Jones fight was pointless ( apart from making a few quid ) and Hopkins was a massive struggle with most here thinking he lost at the time ( I didn't order the fight and followed the updates here, I remember at least 70% of those watching and updating on the British board had Calzaghe losing )

If Joe had gone to the States early and fought the best, he would have probably ended up with a couple of losses too.

I prefer Lewis, took on anyone and sought out the best fighters, although they avoided him for as long as they could. Calzaghe had the talent to mix it with the elite around him back in the day but maybe not the confidence?

calzaghe was not even mentioned in the boxing news top 100 fighters of all time.

personally i think joe sat on a title for years fighting sub standard opposition. His best wins are lacy, kessler and Hopkins. For a guy who was a belt holder for 10 years, its a poor list off opponents.

eubank and benn beat WOULD all joes opponents with the exception of hopkins, i had hopkins winning 114-113 vs joe, only recently watched the fight again and scored the same way


sobat, thornberry, shieka, veit x2, mcintyre, pudwell. jimmenez, mktrchyan, salem, ashira, manfredo jnr were all not world class opponents......thats 12 out of the 22 title defences that were against sub class fighters

eubank, jimmenez ferreya, brewer - were old and past it, thats another 4



that leaves , reid, woodhall, mitchell, lacy, bika and kessler as valid top 10 fighters at the time......thats 6 guys in 10 years that gave joe a genuine challenger at world level.



hopkins and jones.......hopkins yes, a win for joe but jones was shot badly


Joe Calzaghe was a good fighter, how good???? we will never know as he never really tested himself against the best fighters especially in the states.


as i said , eubank and benn would have beaten everyone of Joes opponents probably except hopkins, the opponents of his title reign dont lie.

joe calzaghe - a very good fighter but nowhere near the greatest in the UK.

fightscorecollector wrote:calzaghe was not even mentioned in the boxing news top 100 fighters of all time.

personally i think joe sat on a title for years fighting sub standard opposition. His best wins are lacy, kessler and Hopkins. For a guy who was a belt holder for 10 years, its a poor list off opponents.

eubank and benn beat WOULD all joes opponents with the exception of hopkins, i had hopkins winning 114-113 vs joe, only recently watched the fight again and scored the same way


sobat, thornberry, shieka, veit x2, mcintyre, pudwell. jimmenez, mktrchyan, salem, ashira, manfredo jnr were all not world class opponents......thats 12 out of the 22 title defences that were against sub class fighters

eubank, jimmenez ferreya, brewer - were old and past it, thats another 4



that leaves , reid, woodhall, mitchell, lacy, bika and kessler as valid top 10 fighters at the time......thats 6 guys in 10 years that gave joe a genuine challenger at world level.



hopkins and jones.......hopkins yes, a win for joe but jones was shot badly


Joe Calzaghe was a good fighter, how good???? we will never know as he never really tested himself against the best fighters especially in the states.


as i said , eubank and benn would have beaten everyone of Joes opponents probably except hopkins, the opponents of his title reign dont lie.

joe calzaghe - a very good fighter but nowhere near the greatest in the UK.

It's such a shame, because I think Calzaghe had talent in spades. He really didn't want to travel and test himself - if only he'd had Froch's mentality, what a career it could have been.

Had he taken on the very best consistently, during their primes, he would probably have lost a couple - but we will never know. His own dad had to talk him into fighting Lacy, Calzaghe wanted to pull out - such was his pathological fear of losing. The Kessler win was impressive, but with hindsight, Kessler didn't go on to have a great career, a good one yes, but not great.

Arguably his best win was over Hopkins, but it was a dreadful fight, and Calzaghe hardly landed a clean shot the whole 12 rounds, I scored it a draw personally, but it was an ugly mess and couldn't argue too much with the decision.

Lacy, perhaps ruined by Calzaghe, perhaps just not as good as everyone thought, rather like Bute, who looks terribly gunshy since getting a whipping from Froch.

I find it hard though to think of another fighter who has a better reign than Calzaghe. Lloyd Honeyghan's prime was impressive, but too brief. Lennox Lewis is the only one I can think of, without having to go back rather a long time, to talk about fighters I've not really ever seen. Sure, Lewis lost a couple, one through a technical flaw, another through blatant complacency.

However, Lewis faced pretty much everyone there was to face, except for Bowe, and you cannot hold him solely accountable for that one. Fights with a prime Tyson and Holyfield never happened, but again, that wasn't Lennox's fault. In terms of consistent top level opponents, you can't argue with his career - especially as a slightly demotivated Lewis took on Vitali at short notice - now that, was a danger fight he didn't have to take at all - could anyone have seen Calzaghe doing that, given the initial opponent was fatboy Kirk Johnson?

fightscorecollector wrote:calzaghe was not even mentioned in the boxing news top 100 fighters of all time.

personally i think joe sat on a title for years fighting sub standard opposition. His best wins are lacy, kessler and Hopkins. For a guy who was a belt holder for 10 years, its a poor list off opponents.

eubank and benn beat WOULD all joes opponents with the exception of hopkins, i had hopkins winning 114-113 vs joe, only recently watched the fight again and scored the same way


sobat, thornberry, shieka, veit x2, mcintyre, pudwell. jimmenez, mktrchyan, salem, ashira, manfredo jnr were all not world class opponents......thats 12 out of the 22 title defences that were against sub class fighters

eubank, jimmenez ferreya, brewer - were old and past it, thats another 4



that leaves , reid, woodhall, mitchell, lacy, bika and kessler as valid top 10 fighters at the time......thats 6 guys in 10 years that gave joe a genuine challenger at world level.



hopkins and jones.......hopkins yes, a win for joe but jones was shot badly


Joe Calzaghe was a good fighter, how good???? we will never know as he never really tested himself against the best fighters especially in the states.


as i said , eubank and benn would have beaten everyone of Joes opponents probably except hopkins, the opponents of his title reign dont lie.

joe calzaghe - a very good fighter but nowhere near the greatest in the UK.

calzaghes legacy has grown in the main through the acheivements of some of his opponents ie Hopkins whos gone on to beat multiple world class fighters, Kessler who beat froch, bika whos still fighting or holding forms of the world title. i always think he should have come out of retirement to fight bute before he was found out and still touted as smw number 1.

ttornado wrote:

Deserter wrote:

ttornado wrote:Sure it didn't say greatest Welsh champion, his that for sure.
Lennox is the best British champion, in terms of competition.

I'd rate Calzaghe above Lewis - I don't recall Joe getting sparked by fighters of the calibre of McCall and Rahman.

Lewis avenged both of those loses, so that negates part of those loses.

I'm all for avenging losses, it doesn't exactly erase them however. Another thing: I don't like the expression "4 time world champion".....or "former undfeated"..........isn't it another way of saying you lost a few?
On talent and sheer dangerousness, I'd say Hamed was a close rival. Although I never liked Hamed particularly. He had so many advantages over most of his opponents but he still always conducted himself like a bully. One of the most satisfying boxing outcomes in my lifetime was when Barrera bullied/ schooled him back.
Barrera's reception in the UK when he came over to face Khan was very warm, rightly so.

fightscorecollector wrote:eubank and benn beat WOULD all joes opponents with the exception of hopkins.

I would favour the Kessler that Calzaghe faced over both Eubank and Benn at Super-Middle.

Deserter wrote:

ttornado wrote:Sure it didn't say greatest Welsh champion, his that for sure.
Lennox is the best British champion, in terms of competition.

I'd rate Calzaghe above Lewis - I don't recall Joe getting sparked by fighters of the calibre of McCall and Rahman.

I'm not saying Lewis is the greatest, however heavyweight boxing is almost a different sport in my opinion, you can't say he wasn't the best because he got ko'd a couple times. We'll I guess you can but I thinks that's very unfair.

Resurgent Welsh nationalism aside, I don't see how Calzaghe beating a couple of fortysomethings, Kessler & Lacey makes him the best Brit ever.

I mean, not unless Terry Downes beating the fortysomething SRR & winning the undisputed title against Paul Pender also ranks up there for you. If it does, cool, but it makes me think you're neurologically atypical.

Calzaghe was literally a handpicked stay-at-homer of a champ for years, fought against some Herbie Hide-level opposition, didn't fight his obvious rivals when it mattered & came out of his shell late on & proved he had the potential that his fanbase had always credited him with.

But he never had the fights when it mattered. You're kidding yourself if you think he had a properly "great" career, in the sense of the kind of career people will look back on & go "Oooh" & "AAaaah" at.

Ken Buchanan beat better fighters, nearer their primes, for more significant titles. He didn't hide in his home country & avoid fighting the best available for most of a decade.

Joe might've been a very very good fighter, but only nostalgic hindsight as anointed him as this ATG type figure, imo, & if it's bolstered by the "Oh he never got beaten..." bollocks, that's only relevant 'cos he never tested himself until it was almost too late & he thought he had nothing to lose.

Hatton had a more impressive championship run, FFS -- beat a better fighter for the title, won proper lineage, did as much cleaning up of the division to keep his position intact, & moved out of his comfort zone away from home to fight truly all-time great fighters in their primes.

I await with bated breath some schmuck going "Nyyaaah, but HAtton lost!" I don't even have to rebut that, because I know the same fellas saying it will, under almost any other circumstances, point out just how shallow & deceiving having a "0" in the L column can be.

Whatever & irrespective of their talent levels, some guys challenged themselves & went balls to the wall. Some--for whatever convoluted Byzantine reasons--seemed either quite happy not to or seemed to expend a lot of time & energy trying not to. This for me marks certain dudes out as "great champions" far more than their bloody W-L record indicates.

Oh yeah, & "Oh but XYZ slipped up along the way" is such a cretinous schoolyard argument I can barely be bothered to come back with "Joe Motherfucking Louis, pal". But I will.

"Joe Motherfucking Louis, Pal".

See?

I think Calzaghe is the Best British fighter of all time. People who say the majority on here thought he lost to Hopkins need their eyes tested. He won that fight and it wasn't even that close. No one on the night thought Hopkins had won including himself. Joe was the best SMW and best LHW during his spell. As for Lennox Lewis he is up there as well but he did have a few defeats and was losing to Vitali before the cut which was a clash of heads. I have Calzaghe as my number 1 of my generation

I think Carl Froch belongs in the top bracket (of British World Champs), even though Calzaghe would have beaten him without too much fuss imo. They both excel, in their own ways.

daviddee wrote:I think Calzaghe is the Best British fighter of all time. People who say the majority on here thought he lost to Hopkins need their eyes tested. He won that fight and it wasn't even that close. No one on the night thought Hopkins had won including himself. Joe was the best SMW and best LHW during his spell. As for Lennox Lewis he is up there as well but he did have a few defeats and was losing to Vitali before the cut which was a clash of heads. I have Calzaghe as my number 1 of my generation

Bernard Hopkins was a dreadful cheat in that fight, which disappointed me. He's made up for it since then. You could make the argument that Hopkins wasn't exactly past it - although I'm not sure if the fight was at a higher weight category than the one he dominated.
Roy Jones vs. Calzaghe would have been a huge fight, but tbh, I wouldn't rule out Joe finding a way to come out on top. Joe's a seriously tough man imo and pretty clever in the ring, he could have given Jones plenty of problems of his own.

Ken Buchanan fought more live, elite-level fighters than Joe Calzaghe's long, drawn out WBO nothing run at super middle.

The system of rating men highly because they held one of innumerable belts that didn't exist in the old days is flawed in the extreme. If Randy Turpin or John Conteh or Ken B could win a WBO belt, stay at home and pick whoever they choose to fight they would have likely never lost.

associated press, yahoo and ESPN to name 3 had hopkins winning 114-113. That was my score.