BoxRec

has there ever been a champion who has faced so little opposition????...in his 20 title defences the only real fighter he has fough has been lacy.

reid , woodhall and mitchell were all past their best.....eubank was weight drained and shot

he now wants to fight in the america but i think calzaghe should go to denmark to fight the wba/wbc champion

if he fights hopkins...its a boxing lesson

calzaghe has been spoon fed and i think he has been protected most of is career.

Sven Ottke for one. Larry Holmes is another.

perrycarter wrote:Sven Ottke for one. Larry Holmes is another.

You are wrong on Holmes - he fought some tough SOBs and made them look ordinary..

Where as Joe has often fought ordinary fighters and made them look tough SOBs.

boxerbob wrote:has there ever been a champion who has faced so little opposition????...in his 20 title defences the only real fighter he has fough has been lacy.

reid , woodhall and mitchell were all past their best.....eubank was weight drained and shot

he now wants to fight in the america but i think calzaghe should go to denmark to fight the wba/wbc champion

if he fights hopkins...its a boxing lesson

calzaghe has been spoon fed and i think he has been protected most of is career.

I think you're going a bit far myself. Warren puts on an atrocious show = Calzaghe loses to a slow old Hopkins. Don't quite get that myself.

Taylor already beat Hopkins and Taylor has been pretty poor.

Calzaghe's poor management does not equate to a lack of fighting ability. If it was, Bernard Hopkins would only be able to beat small elite fighters, no?

Reid, Sheika, Woodhall, Brewer, Mitchell, Lacy were all good wins. Eubank can't have been shot because he nearly KO'd Carl Thompson. Sheika had just beaten Glencafe. And some maintain that Glencafe, Brewer and Mitchell were "robbed blind" v Ottke, though I don't agree there.

Warren has made offers to Kessler & Taylor, but these are offers to come to the UK to cash in on what he thinks is Joe's new big profile. Kessler has a lot to lose and thus turned down the offer, because he felt he should have parity for risking his belts abroad. July superfight dead...

Taylor is going to be offered £3 mil. This actually COULD happen. Taylor wants to cash out of the sport by 2008. Imagine, Taylor can fit in Cory Spinks, milk his title, jump up for a payday and avoid his own tough mandatory (Pav or Miranda).

Otherwise, it seems Calzaghe would make a US debut vs A Hanshaw, if Hanshaw beats Jones on a show that RJJ will be promoting.


We're all upset about last night, but how does making outrageous claims help anything?

TerribleTerry wrote:

perrycarter wrote:Sven Ottke for one. Larry Holmes is another.

You are wrong on Holmes - he fought some tough SOBs and made them look ordinary..

Where as Joe has often fought ordinary fighters and made them look tough SOBs.

No point romanticising Holmes. The guy fought a load of raw but tough fighters like Mike Weaver and Bone Smith. Not much difference between them and Brewer and Mitchell, if we're being honest. The best man he fought Ken Norton (=Eubank?) was past his prime, and the biggest profile challenger he had was a powerful limited left hooker Cooney (=Lacy?).

Holmes didn't even make 20 defenses...Marvis frazier wasn't sanctioned by ANYONE. He ditched his WBC title for an IBF, because the latter would let him fight some shit-level opponents for easy money...He would have done the same thing that Calzaghe did in taking on a manufactured celeb fighter for big money...and he would've laughed his all the way to the bank like Calzaghe is doing.

Final Fight wrote:

TerribleTerry wrote:

perrycarter wrote:Sven Ottke for one. Larry Holmes is another.

You are wrong on Holmes - he fought some tough SOBs and made them look ordinary..

Where as Joe has often fought ordinary fighters and made them look tough SOBs.

No point romanticising Holmes. The guy fought a load of raw but tough fighters like Mike Weaver and Bone Smith. Not much difference between them and Brewer and Mitchell, if we're being honest. The best man he fought Ken Norton (=Eubank?) was past his prime, and the biggest profile challenger he had was a powerful limited left hooker Cooney (=Lacy?).

Holmes didn't even make 20 defenses...Marvis frazier wasn't sanctioned by ANYONE. He ditched his WBC title for an IBF, because the latter would let him fight some shit-level opponents for easy money...He would have done the same thing that Calzaghe did in taking on a manufactured celeb fighter for big money...and he would've laughed his all the way to the bank like Calzaghe is doing.

The difference is there are no 'what ifs?' with Holmes where as there are in abundance with Calzaghe.

I maintain that a young Spoon, a still hard hitting Shavers, Snipes and Williams stack up well as title defences - who of his era should he have fought and ducked/missed out??

Also, coming back after years off and usig the best jab in the history of the big men to beat a young Mercer, give both Holyfield and McCall good arguements for the title and beat a dangerous Mo Harris are the credentials of a HoF'er..

No romanticisation there mate.

TerribleTerry wrote:

Final Fight wrote:

TerribleTerry wrote: You are wrong on Holmes - he fought some tough SOBs and made them look ordinary..

Where as Joe has often fought ordinary fighters and made them look tough SOBs.

No point romanticising Holmes. The guy fought a load of raw but tough fighters like Mike Weaver and Bone Smith. Not much difference between them and Brewer and Mitchell, if we're being honest. The best man he fought Ken Norton (=Eubank?) was past his prime, and the biggest profile challenger he had was a powerful limited left hooker Cooney (=Lacy?).

Holmes didn't even make 20 defenses...Marvis frazier wasn't sanctioned by ANYONE. He ditched his WBC title for an IBF, because the latter would let him fight some shit-level opponents for easy money...He would have done the same thing that Calzaghe did in taking on a manufactured celeb fighter for big money...and he would've laughed his all the way to the bank like Calzaghe is doing.

The difference is there are no 'what ifs?' with Holmes where as there are in abundance with Calzaghe.

I maintain that a young Spoon, a still hard hitting Shavers, Snipes and Williams stack up well as title defences - who of his era should he have fought and ducked/missed out??

Also, coming back after years off and usig the best jab in the history of the big men to beat a young Mercer, give both Holyfield and McCall good arguements for the title and beat a dangerous Mo Harris are the credentials of a HoF'er..

No romanticisation there mate.

Holmes was pretty clearly beaten by Witherspoon and Williams. Shavers was one of the hardest hitters ever but very old. I'm not really bothered about his post Spinks career. Holmes faced some dreck as well.

Holmes missed out on # lot of talented younger fighters, Pinklon Thomas, Michael Dokes etc, & never unified.

If Calzaghe fights Taylor, I suppose it can be compared somewhat to Holmes-Spinks.

boxerbob wrote:but i think calzaghe should go to denmark to fight the wba/wbc champion

wouldn't it be great if warren took him over there.

calzaghe says he likes fighting away from home.

that would be a huge test for calzaghe and everyone would respect him bigtime if he won.

Final Fight wrote:[No romanticisation there mate.

Holmes was pretty clearly beaten by Witherspoon and Williams. Shavers was one of the hardest hitters ever but very old. I'm not really bothered about his post Spinks career. Holmes faced some dreck as well.

Holmes missed out on # lot of talented younger fighters, Pinklon Thomas, Michael Dokes etc, & never unified.

If Calzaghe fights Taylor, I suppose it can be compared somewhat to Holmes-Spinks.[/quote]

i disagree.

i had it 8-4 to holmes when i scored it.

Final Fight wrote:

TerribleTerry wrote:

Final Fight wrote:No point romanticising Holmes. The guy fought a load of raw but tough fighters like Mike Weaver and Bone Smith. Not much difference between them and Brewer and Mitchell, if we're being honest. The best man he fought Ken Norton (=Eubank?) was past his prime, and the biggest profile challenger he had was a powerful limited left hooker Cooney (=Lacy?).

Holmes didn't even make 20 defenses...Marvis frazier wasn't sanctioned by ANYONE. He ditched his WBC title for an IBF, because the latter would let him fight some shit-level opponents for easy money...He would have done the same thing that Calzaghe did in taking on a manufactured celeb fighter for big money...and he would've laughed his all the way to the bank like Calzaghe is doing.

The difference is there are no 'what ifs?' with Holmes where as there are in abundance with Calzaghe.

I maintain that a young Spoon, a still hard hitting Shavers, Snipes and Williams stack up well as title defences - who of his era should he have fought and ducked/missed out??

Also, coming back after years off and usig the best jab in the history of the big men to beat a young Mercer, give both Holyfield and McCall good arguements for the title and beat a dangerous Mo Harris are the credentials of a HoF'er..

No romanticisation there mate.

Holmes was pretty clearly beaten by Witherspoon and Williams. Shavers was one of the hardest hitters ever but very old. I'm not really bothered about his post Spinks career. Holmes faced some dreck as well.

Holmes missed out on # lot of talented younger fighters, Pinklon Thomas, Michael Dokes etc, & never unified.

If Calzaghe fights Taylor, I suppose it can be compared somewhat to Holmes-Spinks.

whether you are bothered about his post Spinks career or not, he proved his skill level by hanging with some young guns and up setting one or two along the way - you cant just dismiss the acheivements!!

I had him beating Spoon but I grant the Wiliams fight was very close.

Remind me again of the calzaghe opponents on a footing with Holmes' opposition??

Dokes is one of the biggest coke users of the 80s - he had quick hands but was overweight and didnt have the desire. As for Pinklon, another drug user who got severly beaten by Tyson. I dont count those pair as any threat to a fighter of Holmes' class.

I can't make a case for Holmes beating Spoon. 8-4 Holmes sounds far off the mark unless you give Holmes the benfit of the doubt for being Holmes. He couldn't keep the kid off him and his jab was negated. Williams was a pretty clear defeat...Holmes took a lot of risks when he didn't have a title to keep, which is the norm as goes long reigning champions ala Hopkins.

The term bum of the month applies to the opposition of Calzaghe, Holmes, Ricardo Lopez, Ivan Calderon, Hopkins, RJJ, you name it.

Thing with Calzaghe is, he has loads of exciting potential fights...he's not in a barren division. All Holmes' threats fvcked themselves up on drugs. But Warren needs to know that they have to make a big effort to get the names Kessler, Taylor and so on.

Any unfashionable title holder has a title to protect. When they lose their title they're up for anyone, especially for the $. Holmes did it, Virgil Hill was the same (RJJ, Tiozzo rematch, Mormeck twice, etc).

Joe is in a really talented weight bracket, which makes things infuriating.


I know you're all upset. I was when Joe-manfredo was ANOUNCED. But let's stay rational. All of a sudden Larry Holmes faced way better opp, all of a sudden Joe would lose to Hopkins via shutout, it all sounds daft as a brush.

to the guy who said that if calzaghe goes to denmark to fight should gain him respect

i agree with u.........but i think calzaghe should have done this much earlier in his career.

if he goes to denmark and wins or if he goes and beats taylor and hopkins then and only then can he be classed a british great

boxerbob wrote:to the guy who said that if calzaghe goes to denmark to fight should gain him respect

i agree with u.........but i think calzaghe should have done this much earlier in his career.

if he goes to denmark and wins or if he goes and beats taylor and hopkins then and only then can he be classed a british great

That's where the headaches start. Warren believes that after last night Calzaghe is such a huge draw that Kessler and Taylor should come to him. Kessler didn't like the offer, so let's hope Taylor snaps up this alleged £3mil offer.

I just think Joe needs to fight Kessler at best, Taylor at worst, and one of his exciting top 3 WBO challengers.

people thought eubank had some easy defences

but calzaghe

my god i think i could beat half of them

tucker pudwell lol

boxerbob wrote:has there ever been a champion who has faced so little opposition????...in his 20 title defences the only real fighter he has fough has been lacy.

reid , woodhall and mitchell were all past their best.....eubank was weight drained and shot

he now wants to fight in the america but i think calzaghe should go to denmark to fight the wba/wbc champion

if he fights hopkins...its a boxing lesson

calzaghe has been spoon fed and i think he has been protected most of is career.

Although I agree pretty much with what youre saying. Robin Reid was certainly not past his best when he fought Calzaghe.

In my opinion Reid was robbed of the decision. Reid definitely beat Calzaghe that night and to this day remains the single decision that pisses me off the most.

It is a travesty that there was never a rematch. However Reid has always been that inconsistent that had he fought Calzaghe again he probably would have been on the receiving end of shut-out points loss.

boxerbob wrote:has there ever been a champion who has faced so little opposition????...in his 20 title defences the only real fighter he has fough has been lacy.

reid , woodhall and mitchell were all past their best.....eubank was weight drained and shot

he now wants to fight in the america but i think calzaghe should go to denmark to fight the wba/wbc champion

if he fights hopkins...its a boxing lesson

calzaghe has been spoon fed and i think he has been protected most of is career.

Although I agree pretty much with what youre saying. Robin Reid was certainly not past his best when he fought Calzaghe.

In my opinion Reid was robbed of the decision. Reid definitely beat Calzaghe that night and to this day remains the single decision that pisses me off the most.

It is a travesty that there was never a rematch. However Reid has always been that inconsistent that had he fought Calzaghe again he probably would have been on the receiving end of a shut-out points loss.

Final Fight wrote: Reid, Sheika, Woodhall, Brewer, Mitchell, Lacy were all good wins.

Are you serious?? On paper maybe. But if youve actually seen Calzaghe's fight with Reid, there is no way that you can say that it was a good win for Calzaghe.

I think he has underated opposition:

Lacy - top4

Eubank - great but drained

Reid - ex champ top5

Woodhall - ex champ top 6

Mitchell - top5 past best but still good, Calazage did a number on him when he'd just gone close with Otke

Bika - top 6 looked like he might have taken Beyer

Hes missing Otke, Beyer, Kessler, Hopkins, Tarver, Johnson, Mundine. Not the easiest fights to make though.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:I think he has underated opposition:

Lacy - top4

Eubank - great but drained

Reid - ex champ top5

Woodhall - ex champ top 6

Mitchell - top5 past best but still good, Calazage did a number on him when he'd just gone close with Otke

Bika - top 6 looked like he might have taken Beyer

Hes missing Otke, Beyer, Kessler, Hopkins, Tarver, Johnson, Mundine. Not the easiest fights to make though.

I pretty much agree with that. Though Johnson is easy to make. Starie and Mkrtchian deserve a mention for being former British and future Euro champions & Sheika was actually coming off a win over Johnson, close fight decided by Sheika dropping ol' Glenncafe.

Bika was probably just outside top 10 as he'd not had a win at 168.


I used to say Calzaghe v Reid was a robbery but looking again, Joe knows when to p the tempo. I had it surprisingly wide upon re-viewing it, due to Reid's slow start and points taken off for fouling...Like the BN preview said, Joe has his faults but has perfected the art of winning.

Final Fight wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:I think he has underated opposition:

Lacy - top4

Eubank - great but drained

Reid - ex champ top5

Woodhall - ex champ top 6

Mitchell - top5 past best but still good, Calazage did a number on him when he'd just gone close with Otke

Bika - top 6 looked like he might have taken Beyer

Hes missing Otke, Beyer, Kessler, Hopkins, Tarver, Johnson, Mundine. Not the easiest fights to make though.

I pretty much agree with that. Though Johnson is easy to make. Starie and Mkrtchian deserve a mention for being former British and future Euro champions & Sheika was actually coming off a win over Johnson, close fight decided by Sheika dropping ol' Glenncafe.

Bika was probably just outside top 10 as he'd not had a win at 168.


I used to say Calzaghe v Reid was a robbery but looking again, Joe knows when to p the tempo. I had it surprisingly wide upon re-viewing it, due to Reid's slow start and points taken off for fouling...Like the BN preview said, Joe has his faults but has perfected the art of winning.

No doubt Calazage should have taken on Johnson but I think with his divorce and personal life problems you have to entitle him with a time out.

1 thing you've goto give Calzage is his longevity, at the top for 10years now, thats some achievement, matchmaking has played its part but hes still maintained his abilities.

With Joe a proven draw at the MS, they will definitely have to make it tempting for guys like Taylor and Kessler.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:I think he has underated opposition:

Lacy - top4

Eubank - great but drained

Reid - ex champ top5

Woodhall - ex champ top 6

Mitchell - top5 past best but still good, Calazage did a number on him when he'd just gone close with Otke

Bika - top 6 looked like he might have taken Beyer

Hes missing Otke, Beyer, Kessler, Hopkins, Tarver, Johnson, Mundine. Not the easiest fights to make though.

Not one top 3 opponent in 10 years as a beltholder.
This says it all.

Thing is, though some of us feel different, Lacy was #2 at best, #3 at very least, going by most publications. NOW, we know Kessler and Mundine are better, so Lacy gets a revisionist #4 ranking. Some dick Yanks actually had Lacy #1. But that was silly.

perrycarter wrote:Sven Ottke for one.

Sven Ottke faced much better opposition than Joe Calzaghe. Glencoffe Johnson. Anthony Mundine. A prime Charles Brewer. Mads Larsen. Thomas Tate twice. Byron Mitchell when he still had a belt.

Joe does need a credible opponent this time if he fights in July, otherwise he will lose a lot of respect - He needs maybe later in the year a big name like Hopkins, Mundine or best of all Kessler - A win over Kessler would do him no end of good and nobody would argue about him being the No 1 in the division except perhaps Mr Froch and the Nottingham faithfull.

pundit wrote:

perrycarter wrote:Sven Ottke for one.

Sven Ottke faced much better opposition than Joe Calzaghe. Glencoffe Johnson. Anthony Mundine. A prime Charles Brewer. Mads Larsen. Thomas Tate twice. Byron Mitchell when he still had a belt.

But also, as much as I like Ottke, he wasn't an emphatic winner at the highest level. He did extraordinarily well for himself, but he wasn't beating Brewer (2nd) and Mitchell by much. He would edge guys ever so slightly in important rounds.

Not like Ottke softened up Mitchell for Calzaghe, LOL.

Though I don't buy into the robbery myths that surround Ottke, he was meant to be lucky in the 1st Brewer, 1st Tate (when cut), and no way did he beat Reid or Larsen.