BoxRec

Any idea? His best performances on paper have happened in the last couple of years but surely we can't be saying his peak years are at age 33+?

So when was it? Because he never had those big challenges in what you would expect to be a Super Middleweight boxers peak years (25 to 30?) it's hard to say...

How good would he have been up against Hopkins and Jones 7/8 years ago? Everybody says it's a given that those guys would have easily beaten him but we don't really know how much better Joe was compared to now because back then he was fighting Woodhall and Veit and Starie and Jiminez etc etc

It's almost like he's had two careers....

He is a better fighter in every department now, most notably confidence, than he was then except one crucial area - his loss of power.

Yes he has picked up a lot along the way hasn't he? I think those hand problems have made Calzaghe one of the most resoruceful boxers in history.

When you say "of history" you should be careful mentioning Calzaghe.

The Mitchell fight I'd say, that's when he was hitting full power, and had the rest of it to fall back on as well: heart, chin, speed and plan b or c if need be.

probably the manfredo fight

awesome!

Mitchell always had a bad chin Julio Cesar Green fight proved that. The punched that Joe throw to floor him was a desperation punch i think.

I agree thou Joe peaked was 2002-2003

REAL_DEAL wrote:Mitchell always had a bad chin Julio Cesar Green fight proved that. The punched that Joe throw to floor him was a desperation punch i think.

I agree thou Joe peaked was 2002-2003

i thought joe evolved into the complete package about a year ago and i would say he still has a year or 2 left of his peak....(forgetting his hand problems of course)

Hard pushed to think of a better Calzaghe than the one who tore up Lacy's script, personally.

I think it's a similar sort of situation to Bernard Hopkins, 2 curves, mental and physical attributes, one ascending while the other fades, his best was probably where they crossed.

It's a difficult one though. Who knows just how good he was at points in his career when his opposition stank.

Well Joe's beat performance was against Lacy... But Joe's "peak" is hard to define to the consistent nature of his record...

Today, Joe is a better boxer, with better footwork and ring awareness that say, 8 years ago.

Back then, Joe Calzaghe was nothing short of a brawler, (albeit a gifted one)

But I would say his best years would be 2002/03

charlieb wrote:
I think it's a similar sort of situation to Bernard Hopkins, 2 curves, mental and physical attributes, one ascending while the other fades, his best was probably where they crossed.

Lennox too.

I'd guess his physical peak was probably around 2000 but i doubt he would have been capable of producing his virtuoso perfomance over Lacy back then.

Shirow wrote:

charlieb wrote:
I think it's a similar sort of situation to Bernard Hopkins, 2 curves, mental and physical attributes, one ascending while the other fades, his best was probably where they crossed.

Lennox too.

I'd guess his physical peak was probably around 2000 but i doubt he would have been capable of producing his virtuoso perfomance over Lacy back then.

I think it also got to a stage where Calzaghe was actually forced to 'wise up' his style not because of a defeat as with many fighters but because of his hands.

If those hands hadn't given him such problems what kind of fighter would he have been now?

frankwarrenfan wrote:probably the manfredo fight

awesome!

do you work for boxingchat?

I can't figure out from your posts if this whole FWfan thing is a joke as that one above is actually very good