BoxRec

As the title says if this happens then Calzaghe will have beaten:

Three fighters in their prime who people beforehand thought were genuine threats in:

Lacy, Kessler and Pavlik

An all time great in:

Hopkins

The best that his own country could have offered in:
Reid and Woodhall

Other solid fighters like:

Brewer, Mitchell, Sheika and Veit (x2)

Surely at this point people will give Joe the respect he deserves????

I know there are names like Pudwill, Ashira and Salem on the record but has any champ ever gone through a career without some duff fights.

For me if Joe beats Pavlik he cements himself as one the best 160-175 fighters of all time. If he then beats a good genuine 175 pounder then he is top 3

Regards

Wrists

No, I will never respect him. He wasted his best years because he was too scared to lose and now he is desperately trying to secure some sort of legacy. It's too late!

How is it too late??

Pavlik is in his prime!!!

Hopkins was pfp top 5

Lacy and Kessler both were thought to be the favourite against Joe.

Too many Pudwills I agree but to say you will never have any respect is wrong and shows you up as someone who maybe does not look at facts rather just decides he doesn't like someone and refuses to give credit no matter what

Wrists

Well, personally I think Glenn Catley beat Richie Woodhall (as did Richie and practically everyone else) so think he was the best Britain had to offer at the time.

Catley also beat a guy who beat Woodhall and was Joe second most natural rival in Beyer.

Personally I think Bute is more of a threat than Pavlik, a natural Super Middleweight with better skills..... not "dissing" Pavlik but I honestly think Bute would be better for his legacy. Because if/when he beats Pavlik there is always that 1 Super Middleweight of this generation that he hasn't faced - fights and beats Bute... then there is none (aside from maybe Froch).

The Ottke ommision is huge and I think one that Joe will never componsinate as far as his standing amongst the elite.

But of course I respect Joe - have given him respect since 1997.

Joe's Bum of the month club gets alot of criticism, but I do think it is just - its OVER half his defences. I wouldn't call Sheika solid, and I am very bregruding about Veit status as being solid.

Joe should get recognition as one of the UK's finest ever fighters, no doubting that - but other things that get his way (such as most title defences)... well that does grate a little.

i will DEFO praise JOE!!!!!!!!
Defeat Pavlic convincingly!

Wrists wrote:How is it too late??

Pavlik is in his prime!!!

Hopkins was pfp top 5

Lacy and Kessler both were thought to be the favourite against Joe.

Too many Pudwills I agree but to say you will never have any respect is wrong and shows you up as someone who maybe does not look at facts rather just decides he doesn't like someone and refuses to give credit no matter what

Wrists

Kessler wasn't the favourite.

I think it was very kind to but BHOP in the P4P top 5 also.... he wasn't very active.

stujones wrote:Well, personally I think Glenn Catley beat Richie Woodhall (as did Richie and practically everyone else) so think he was the best Britain had to offer at the time.

Catley also beat a guy who beat Woodhall and was Joe second most natural rival in Beyer.

I know its not the same as pro wins but Joe Calzaghe deserves credit for stopping both Dean Francis and Glenn Catley (I think in 92) on the way to his 3 consecutive ABAs in ascending weight classes.

No small feat.

TerribleTerry wrote:

stujones wrote:Well, personally I think Glenn Catley beat Richie Woodhall (as did Richie and practically everyone else) so think he was the best Britain had to offer at the time.

Catley also beat a guy who beat Woodhall and was Joe second most natural rival in Beyer.

I know its not the same as pro wins but Joe Calzaghe deserves credit for stopping both Dean Francis and Glenn Catley (I think in 92) on the way to his 3 consecutive ABAs in ascending weight classes.

No small feat.

No its not the same... especially concerning Francis who was 2 years younger (not sure of Glenn's age) - A 20 year old vs a 22 year old (I think they were younger though) is always a tough ask for the younger fighter due to physical maturity.

And he done Chris Byrd, stopped him as well I think

Peter Hick wrote:No, I will never respect him. He wasted his best years because he was too scared to lose and now he is desperately trying to secure some sort of legacy. It's too late!

I definately share a similar view point to Peter, but without such strong sentiment.

Calzaghe should have stepped up the comp when he was in his prime, i.e years ago!

I give him full respect for beating Lacy the way he did, but no matter what we thought of Lacy beforehand, he has been well and truly exposed since. That win cannot hold the same weight it once did, surely? Hopkins was 43, and although i thought Calzaghe just did enough to win, he was made to look ameturish IMO. If he fights and beats Pavlik, it wont prove much to me. He's a naturally smaller man, end off.

I give him full props for the Kessler win even if he did not overly impress me. Other than that, he should have done much more with his career!!!

I think the Lacy and Kessler wins were brilliant but then the win over Hopkins was horrid.

I'll give Joe laods of credit for beating Pavlik.

But the Hopkins fight...it made me think. This is Joe's biggest name opponent and both guys were pretty ancient when they faced off the other week.

I;m sorry but this isn't good enough for big fights. Big fights should be like the best of the Pac/Marquez/Barrera/Morales fights. Epic battles, reputations consistently on the line. Joe won't ever be in anything like that, will he?

Never gave reid a rematch never fought ottke fought a lot of bad fighters his record for me doesn't stand up to Lewis for example.

Mmmmmmm ......... interesting that Omar Sheika gets a mention as a top opponent ...... the Sheika beaten by Tony Booth !!
Sorry to be so pathetic, but I couldn't resist.

Corr, you lot are a hard bunch to please sometimes...
i've been hugely disspointed with both some of the match-making and the performances during the Calzaghe reign but were he to beat Pavlik I dont think there can be any doubt that Calzaghe deserves his place as a British boxing great, a proven winner at all levels of the sport...

chief wrote:Corr, you lot are a hard bunch to please sometimes...
i've been hugely disspointed with both some of the match-making and the performances during the Calzaghe reign but were he to beat Pavlik I dont think there can be any doubt that Calzaghe deserves his place as a British boxing great, a proven winner at all levels of the sport...

Sure he does just not in front of Lennox Lewis!

josh fg wrote:

chief wrote:Corr, you lot are a hard bunch to please sometimes...
i've been hugely disspointed with both some of the match-making and the performances during the Calzaghe reign but were he to beat Pavlik I dont think there can be any doubt that Calzaghe deserves his place as a British boxing great, a proven winner at all levels of the sport...

Sure he does just not in front of Lennox Lewis!

Without going into what would no doubt be a huge debate about resumes, legacys etc, a case could be made that Calzaghe deserves to sit ahead or at least alongside LL.... Don't forget, Lewis performances and resume can be picked apart too - think of struggles vs Bruno, Mercer, uninspired performances vs Tua, Maurovic (sp??), getting knocked sparko by McCall, Rahman, a controversial rematch vs Holy, beating a shell of Mike Tyson in a so called "legacy" fight etc... You get the idea... Yes, Lewis spent his time fighting stateside, flying the flag in the most prestigious boxing division... But he's not immune to similar levels of criticism to Calzaghe when you break it down...

Peter Hick wrote:No, I will never respect him. He wasted his best years because he was too scared to lose and now he is desperately trying to secure some sort of legacy. It's too late!

LOL very funny. Yep, Joe's been frightened. Nothing to do with the politics or management. People said he was scared to fight Kessler, that went on for months. As soon as Kessler raised his profile sufficiently to generate the pounds, Joe wanted the fight.

Joe could not be accused of being frightened. He's a champion boxer, who has unified the SMW division. He's got immense talent and heart. For me, his defining fight was Kessler, a two belt champion who was strong, hungry and dangerous. Kessler put up a great fight and forced Joe to adapt. But Joe came through it to unify and retain the zero. And as for Pav, well no question, a win would secure a legacy, though he already has one in many peoples eyes.

Autobarn wrote:I think the Lacy and Kessler wins were brilliant but then the win over Hopkins was horrid.

I'll give Joe laods of credit for beating Pavlik.

But the Hopkins fight...it made me think. This is Joe's biggest name opponent and both guys were pretty ancient when they faced off the other week.

I;m sorry but this isn't good enough for big fights. Big fights should be like the best of the Pac/Marquez/Barrera/Morales fights. Epic battles, reputations consistently on the line. Joe won't ever be in anything like that, will he?

The examples you give illustrate the dilemma - names like that were not available to him. Hopkins pulled out years ago and as for Otke, well he is not even worth mentioning, with his terrible points decisions. The names you give as examples have all lost plenty of times and lost too each other. Their legendary status is exaggerated, none of them could dominate over the rest. where as Joe defeated everyone who went in front of him and unified the SMW division. If you beat everyone then the rest arent going to get close to pound for pound status. Barrera and Morles etc, great fighters but what a load of bollocks the way they frequently fought and lost to each other. Its mythical stuff.

Terry D wrote:

chief wrote:

josh fg wrote: Sure he does just not in front of Lennox Lewis!

Without going into what would no doubt be a huge debate about resumes, legacys etc, a case could be made that Calzaghe deserves to sit ahead or at least alongside LL.... Don't forget, Lewis performances and resume can be picked apart too - think of struggles vs Bruno, Mercer, uninspired performances vs Tua, Maurovic (sp??), getting knocked sparko by McCall, Rahman, a controversial rematch vs Holy, beating a shell of Mike Tyson in a so called "legacy" fight etc... You get the idea... Yes, Lewis spent his time fighting stateside, flying the flag in the most prestigious boxing division... But he's not immune to similar levels of criticism to Calzaghe when you break it down...

The Tua performance was brilliant. He completely defused a dangerous guy and the final act saw Lewis send Tua head first into the turnbuckle just by using movement. It is Lewis' finest fight in my opinion.

Every act of discredit, Holyfield being old, you put on Lewis can be put onto Joe, Hopkins was ancient and arguably won that fight. Joe has noly just started to do what Lewis did for year in and year out.

Agreed. Lewis was facing dangerous fighters in the early years of his career, and continued to do so until the very end when he faced Vitali, a couple of years past his prime; the Tua performance was also a complete masterclass.

fist wrote:

Autobarn wrote:I think the Lacy and Kessler wins were brilliant but then the win over Hopkins was horrid.

I'll give Joe laods of credit for beating Pavlik.

But the Hopkins fight...it made me think. This is Joe's biggest name opponent and both guys were pretty ancient when they faced off the other week.

I;m sorry but this isn't good enough for big fights. Big fights should be like the best of the Pac/Marquez/Barrera/Morales fights. Epic battles, reputations consistently on the line. Joe won't ever be in anything like that, will he?

The examples you give illustrate the dilemma - names like that were not available to him. Hopkins pulled out years ago and as for Otke, well he is not even worth mentioning, with his terrible points decisions. The names you give as examples have all lost plenty of times and lost too each other. Their legendary status is exaggerated, none of them could dominate over the rest. where as Joe defeated everyone who went in front of him and unified the SMW division. If you beat everyone then the rest arent going to get close to pound for pound status. Barrera and Morles etc, great fighters but what a load of bollocks the way they frequently fought and lost to each other. Its mythical stuff.

oh come on, the reason none dominated was because they were so well matched in epic fights from when they were in their primes to when they were past their primes!

of course they fought and lost to one another because they were willing to risk flashy records, because they fought ppl with equal skill/power/desire to themselves.

I think you're letting that unbeaten record go too far (mythical stuff?). I mean, Joe's unbeaten OK but 2 decisions could (not should) easily have gone against him.

twenty six wrote:Mmmmmmm ......... interesting that Omar Sheika gets a mention as a top opponent ...... the Sheika beaten by Tony Booth !!
Sorry to be so pathetic, but I couldn't resist.

No not pathetic, then loses to Scott Pemberton - who get his arse handed to him by Manfredo.

If Joe beats Pavlik then it will be better than Jones and Traver put together, and plus Kelly's got that "0" to boast Joe's record. I hope he goes for Pavlik at 168lbs instead of Jones (who doesn't even hold a world-title).

stujones wrote:

twenty six wrote:Mmmmmmm ......... interesting that Omar Sheika gets a mention as a top opponent ...... the Sheika beaten by Tony Booth !!
Sorry to be so pathetic, but I couldn't resist.

No not pathetic, then loses to Scott Pemberton - who get his arse handed to him by Manfredo.

Sheika did beat Glen Johnson - fairly IMO - but it looked like a distracted, late notice Johnson who was doing well before gassing. Glen wasn't very good at 168 - aside from the Ulrich fight - and it's a myth that he did well vs Ottke the way I see it.

Sheika was OK and his aggression did inspire one of Joe's sharpest titles defences. He was probably in the top 10 of independent ratings systems at the time so probably a decent title defence.

Autobarn wrote:

fist wrote:

Autobarn wrote:I think the Lacy and Kessler wins were brilliant but then the win over Hopkins was horrid.

I'll give Joe laods of credit for beating Pavlik.

But the Hopkins fight...it made me think. This is Joe's biggest name opponent and both guys were pretty ancient when they faced off the other week.

I;m sorry but this isn't good enough for big fights. Big fights should be like the best of the Pac/Marquez/Barrera/Morales fights. Epic battles, reputations consistently on the line. Joe won't ever be in anything like that, will he?

The examples you give illustrate the dilemma - names like that were not available to him. Hopkins pulled out years ago and as for Otke, well he is not even worth mentioning, with his terrible points decisions. The names you give as examples have all lost plenty of times and lost too each other. Their legendary status is exaggerated, none of them could dominate over the rest. where as Joe defeated everyone who went in front of him and unified the SMW division. If you beat everyone then the rest arent going to get close to pound for pound status. Barrera and Morles etc, great fighters but what a load of bollocks the way they frequently fought and lost to each other. Its mythical stuff.

oh come on, the reason none dominated was because they were so well matched in epic fights from when they were in their primes to when they were past their primes!

of course they fought and lost to one another because they were willing to risk flashy records, because they fought ppl with equal skill/power/desire to themselves.

I think you're letting that unbeaten record go too far (mythical stuff?). I mean, Joe's unbeaten OK but 2 decisions could (not should) easily have gone against him.

My reference to "mythical stuf" was directed at the legendary status surrounding Morales, Pacman, Barrera etc. I DO think they are / were great fighters, of course they are, and although I agree that they lost frequently because they are evenly matched, it does not negate the fact that they were unable to completely dominate the others. They are / were all beatable, but their status is swelled somewhat. Joe on the other hand has the evasive zero, he has unified his division, a rarety. Like I said, be unifying and staying undefeated he nullifies any potential legendary competition. Where as the guys you mention were all around the same weight (not Joe's weight of course) and all keep losing to each other and raking in the dollars. Load of bollox :-)

The thing is, those fights are so well matched that many times they had to show true greatness during a fight - they had to pull out something special because they engaged in so many meaningful fights. I think all the fights from 122-130 - or at least the best ones, show what a damn shame the middle, super middle and light heavyweight divisions were.

Calzaghe came good, but only after a lengthy WBO reign that many in thie UK didn't even acknowledge as legit.

Chris Byrd should have been a super middle/light heavy but he fattened up and became one of the least memorable heavyweight title holders ever.

Roy Jones had a sensational win over Toney, but HBO carried him for 9 years giving him $5m per fight vs ANYONE in the top 10 of a sanctioning body. Ends up getting brutally KO'd twice and now fights on the fringes of world class, sadly.

Hopkins, an excellent middle, could have moved up for the big fights at any time. Despite lacking recognition, he appeared to waste many yrs, until DLH moved up etc.

These guys could all have been the same weight and all have fought memorable fights together, the equivalent to what MAB, JMM, Pac and Morales did. But they didn't.