BoxRec

Was only his birthday yesterday.. I've seen debated on Facebook about him, but I want to know how you guys on BoxRec view him..

Underrated? Overrated?

Why did he wait so long to have a unification fight? It took him 17 defenses of his WBO title. IMO, he could've have been bigger.

At least Prince Naz had unification fights, although he opted to keep his WBO belt.

Evans Ashira, Mario Veit, Kabary Salem, Mger Mkrtchyan,
Byron Mitchell, Tocker Pudwill, Miguel Angel Jimenez, Charles Brewer,
Will McIntyre, Mario Veit, Richie Woodhall, Omar Sheika, David Starie,
Rick Thornberry, Robin Reid, Juan Carlos Gimenez, Branko Sobot

Those where his 17 WBO title defences. Now I wasn't the biggest boxing fan until 2005, I watched it sporadically before that, but not Calzaghe so much.

I was having a look at the other orgs world titleholders between this time..

WBC: Markus Beyer (2003-2006) (1999-2000), Cristian Sanavia (2004), Eric Lucas (2001-2003), Dave Hilton (2000), Dingaan Thobela (2000), Richie Woodhall (1998-1999), Thulani Malinga (1997), Robin Reid (1996-1997)

WBA: Manny Siaca (2004), Anthony Mundine (2003-2004), Byron Mitchell (2001-2002), Bruno Girard (2000), Frankie Liles (1994-1999)

WBA 'Super': Sven Ottke (2003-2004)

IBF: Sven Ottke (1998-2004)

IBO: Brian Magee (2001-2004)

Was there any specific reason?

He did beat a few of they guys after they'd held world titles to be fair. There's not a name in any of they lists that Joe wouldn't have beaten. Reid did run him close though in a good fight but Calzaghe underperformed that night.

I still see the Kessler fight as his best win. Lacy was a joy to watch but I saw Kessler as a more dangerous opponent. The way he just took over from about the 7th/8th round just underlines his class.

It's difficult to say.

Calzaghe had a reputation as "stay at home Joe" from the Americans because he didn't travel to the states for any of his defenses. As such, he did struggle to attract top talent over to the UK. So for many years, even though he was a World Champion - he was something of a quiet man when it came to boxing circles.

Calzaghe's legacy (if we are being honest) only started getting considered as strong when he systematically outboxed Jeff Lacy. It was then massively strengthened when he chose to risk his WBO title and unify against Mikkel Kessler - the most dangerous man in the division. Calzaghe did well to win that fight, a prime Kessler would have been bad news for anyone.

And it's often pointed out that Joe actually defeated Hopkins and RJJ (the 2 biggest names in boxing during Joe's time in the sport) but whilst those 2 victories to count for something, no-one in their right mind could say that Joe fought a better caliber of opponent that the 2 world-class fighters who BHop and RJJ were.

One last thing I would say is that Carl Froch has proven a big problem for Calzaghe's legacy.

Whilst Joe had fought B class fighters for a long time, Carl Froch - when he rose to prominence often fought the best fighters in the world consistently, fight after fight - it was either a highly ranked contender or a fellow Champion or a former Champion.

It was never really the other champs that were the issue for Joe. It was a terribly weak period at the weight, and Joe was accused of creaming his title for ten years.

However, Joe stated he was scared of flying which is why he couldn't travel to face Hopkins and Jones. That seemed to clear up roughly the time they started to slide (Hop) or became shot (Jones). That always smacked of bull. Add that to the all the Glen Johnson pull outs, he came across as a flat track bully.

By the time he fought them, his hands were gone and he was starting to slide also. I actually don't think we ever found out about how good he was. He may have lost or he may have won, but he never gave himself a chance of career defining fights.

Kessler seems the biggest night, and also showed he could change tactics halfway through a fight. He was never as good as he was that night, even if I had it closer than many.

It's a fair question, but let's be honest - which of those other belt holders would really have been much of an improvement on Calzaghe's resume? It's a piss poor list, much worse than I remember, and I'd say Calzaghe already fought the pick of the bunch in Reid / Woodhall / Mitchell. Ottke would have been the only major scalp out of that list, and Calzaghe would have beaten him easily but didn't want to get robbed in Germany (which he definitely would have been) and Ottke wouldn't travel outside.

Boxerbeetle wrote:It's a fair question, but let's be honest - which of those other belt holders would really have been much of an improvement on Calzaghe's resume? It's a piss poor list, much worse than I remember, and I'd say Calzaghe already fought the pick of the bunch in Reid / Woodhall / Mitchell. Ottke would have been the only major scalp out of that list, and Calzaghe would have beaten him easily but didn't want to get robbed in Germany (which he definitely would have been) and Ottke wouldn't travel outside.

The 'Ottke always get robberies' myth was created by people on the internet. I think i can remember two or three which were questionable, and only one which was horrific.

I would argue that Britain was hardly the Mecca of boxing with hope, faith, and charity doing the judging. I can see why Sven wouldn't travel here.

Very good but overrated imo. Not Britain's best ever and he seems to be getting better in retirement with each passing year.

I always rated Calzaghe. Who really gave him a close fight? Only Reid and B-Hop. The Kessler performance was excellent. It's true that he could have taken on the likes of RJJ and B-Hop earlier, but how much bargaining power would he have had. He only really became a name towards the end of his career.

I always thought of him as a murderous puncher, right from the amateurs. But he hardly stopped anyone as the champ, he didn't stop Jeff in spite of bossing it. I can only imagine his hands had something to do with it

I became totally disillusioned with Calzaghe in the period between Eubank and Lacy. Many many years with lots of talk of Hopkins/Johnson and let's have it said; he pretty much fought non-entities and European level opponents fight after fight. Even after the Lacy fight he was happy to fight the likes of Manfredo and Bika.

I think he was great but he wasted his career. People say he would have beaten Johnson/Froch/Pavlik/Taylor/Tarver/Ottke/younger Hopkins/younger Jones, and maybe he would, but you know what's better than saying he'd have beaten them? Actually beating them. People don't have what ifs about Ward v Kovalev/Froch/Kessler, boring bloke he may be.

Crease wrote:One last thing I would say is that Carl Froch has proven a big problem for Calzaghe's legacy.

I agree with this, and also with samwbr who says that he was good but over-rated.

The Super 6 was the best thing to happen to Froch as the big fights got made (but he still had to be willing to take those fights, overseas and not to his personal timetable- I cant see Calzaghe ever doing that).

Calzaghe simply valued his "0" too much and was happy defending his title against bums for years. He bottled it against Johnson a couple of times. He got some great wins but totally wasted his talent because he was a bottler.

It also didn't help his legacy that he took on two over the hill fighters and got dropped in the first round against them both. He'll go down as a great fighter who wasted his career. He must look back and wished he'd taken more chances as he was good enough to beat anyone around his time. If he didn't have the Kessler win on his record no one would be talking about him anymore.

One of our fastest, most fluid and adaptable ever fighters. Also had tremendous physical strength and stamina. Very assertive, imposed himself in every fight.

Poor punching technique perhaps made him look a little faster than he truly was. And was content to face mediocre opposition in the frustrating middle section of his career. Pulled out of too many fights making him a liability especially if you like going to fights. Wouldn't rematch guys he beat narrowly. Didn't have ANY great fights. Did what he wanted, but a bleeding good fighter!

But then he picked up with the Jeff Lacy and Mikel Kessler unification masterclasses over unbeaten foes. Went into the Hopkins bout with a terrible game plan (to knock out Hopkins with single shots) and looking fleshy, got dropped early and basically seemed to ad lib everything to outhustle his man in a very ugly fight and take a close decision away from home. Then content to step down a level for his swan song and face an aged RJJ.

Very frustrating career but he got the results. We may not see another as good as him ever but our fighters are more ambitious with their careers these days.

Boxerbeetle wrote:It's a fair question, but let's be honest - which of those other belt holders would really have been much of an improvement on Calzaghe's resume? It's a piss poor list, much worse than I remember, and I'd say Calzaghe already fought the pick of the bunch in Reid / Woodhall / Mitchell. Ottke would have been the only major scalp out of that list

I agree with you partially. Looking at the World Champs lists above, I was struck by the poor standard of fighter on them.

However, I do think that just focusing on the WBC, WBA & IBF lists can be misleading...

For me, there's no doubt that Joe could have defended against a better class of opposition had he truly committed to doing, from when he was WBO Champ of the Super Middleweight division the years of 1997-2007.

In the late 90s, I look at the likes of Hopkins & Jones Jr (as I said earlier) but also what about the likes of James Toney? Michael Nunn?

And what about the 2000s, Jermain Taylor? Kelly Pavlik? Surely they could be enticed to move up a single division for a big-money payday.

No, let's have it right, Joe was a very talented boxer who ended up with a great professional record but he didn't break his back to seek out more challenging fights.

Autobarn wrote:Very frustrating career but he got the results. We may not see another as good as him ever but our fighters are more ambitious with their careers these days.

Agreed. I'm heartened by the choices that Anthony Crolla and Ricky Burns are making. Both guys are taking HARD fights these days and have done before.

bripez wrote:The Super 6 was the best thing to happen to Froch as the big fights got made (but he still had to be willing to take those fights, overseas and not to his personal timetable- I cant see Calzaghe ever doing that).

The Super 6 came along at the perfect time for Carl - but he kept facing difficult opposition even after the Super Six final.

And before the Super 6, the classics vs Pascal and Taylor.

Crease wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:It's a fair question, but let's be honest - which of those other belt holders would really have been much of an improvement on Calzaghe's resume? It's a piss poor list, much worse than I remember, and I'd say Calzaghe already fought the pick of the bunch in Reid / Woodhall / Mitchell. Ottke would have been the only major scalp out of that list

I agree with you partially. Looking at the World Champs lists above, I was struck by the poor standard of fighter on them.

However, I do think that just focusing on the WBC, WBA & IBF lists can be misleading...

For me, there's no doubt that Joe could have defended against a better class of opposition had he truly committed to doing, from when he was WBO Champ of the Super Middleweight division the years of 1997-2007.

In the late 90s, I look at the likes of Hopkins & Jones Jr (as I said earlier) but also what about the likes of James Toney? Michael Nunn?

And what about the 2000s, Jermain Taylor? Kelly Pavlik? Surely they could be enticed to move up a single division for a big-money payday.

Calzaghe would have retired Kelly Pavlik.

You know what's better than 'would have retired Kelly Pavlik?'

Retiring Kelly Pavlik.

dirk2686 wrote:You know what's better than 'would have retired Kelly Pavlik?'

Retiring Kelly Pavlik.

Did Pavlik even ever fight at supermiddle?

Crease wrote:One last thing I would say is that Carl Froch has proven a big problem for Calzaghe's legacy.

Whilst Joe had fought B class fighters for a long time, Carl Froch - when he rose to prominence often fought the best fighters in the world consistently, fight after fight - it was either a highly ranked contender or a fellow Champion or a former Champion.

Yeah agree. Froch used to annoy me constantly going on about Calzaghe when at the time Calzaghe was leagues above him. Froch proved himself though and fought anyone who's anyone during his career. I still think Calzaghe would've boxed rings round Froch and made him look daft. Maybe it's a blessing in disguise for Froch that fight never happened when he was shouting for it because he might not have went on and had the great career he did. I'm a fan of both but Joe was all wrong for Carl.

Boxerbeetle wrote:

dirk2686 wrote:You know what's better than 'would have retired Kelly Pavlik?'

Retiring Kelly Pavlik.

Did Pavlik even ever fight at supermiddle?

Calzaghe could have fought Pavlik instead of a shot Jones jnr but bottled it.

Being from the states I think he's a bit underrated here. As for fighting Pavlik, Dawson was willing to travel for short money after the Jones fight. Fair play for Joe retiring, but that would have been a huge win if he got it.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Being from the states I think he's a bit underrated here. As for fighting Pavlik, Dawson was willing to travel for short money after the Jones fight. Fair play for Joe retiring, but that would have been a huge win if he got it.

He knew his race was won. Good luck to him as you say.