Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > British Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-27-2009, 08:47 AM   #31
trotter
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,382
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Do you think Calzaghe's legacy will improve or decline over time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Utter1 View Post
Some points are bang on, its the same thing when i referred to Hatton and Witter....give Witter the very same fights, at exactly the same time that Hatton got them and he to would have enjoy the same success as Hatton.
Don't be absurd

Witter was handed his belt on a plate, and pulled off one good performance against Harris (who was no great shakes anyway). It's hard to honestly say Junior EVER beat a top five contender.

Hatton beat Tszyu to claim a title and then won multiple belts against top contenders, even one at a higher weight.



Joe will be looked on more kindly over time.

The detail that Jeff lays out now will, on the whole, be forgotten. The bullet points will read : unbeaten, beat two top unbeaten contenders who were supposed to dethrone him, and went to the states for mega fights to beat Hopkins and Jones. Particularly Hopkins who is still in p4p lists a year or so later...

Not saying such a simple synopsis tells the full story, but that's what people will learn about him in future years
trotter is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 10-27-2009, 08:49 AM   #32
toffeejack
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,535
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Do you think Calzaghe's legacy will improve or decline over time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff thomas View Post
Even if Kessler wins the Super six it means nothing. Kessler will have just improved in spite of his loss. Calzaghe fans are DESPERATE for him to be accepted by mainstream fans as one of the greats, its NEVER going to happen.

His unbeaten record wasn't the product of talent alone, it was an empty division. Calzaghe wouldn't have been a champion in the Benn/Eubank/Collins era. He's have been finished in the first by a prime Jones- no doubt about it.

Would he have beaten James Toney? No. Montell Griffin? No. Prime Jones? No. Prime Bernard? No. Benn? No. Wharton? Debatable. Eubank? No. Collins? No. Dean Francis? Debatable. Reid? Debatable (as proven). McLellon? Doubt it. Liles? Possibly.

The division emptied after Benn lost to Malinga and Liles lost to Mitchell. The titles changed hands between Malinga, Nardiello, Beyer, Catley, Woodhall, Reid, Danny Green and the only consistent fighter was Ottke -who sucked.

Kessler emerged having lost to Paul Smith in the amateurs. He was considered decent and dangerous but not a world beater. His record like Calzaghe's was largely inflated and despite been a tidier boxer then Calzaghe his lack of urgency led to him been outscored whilst trying to deal with Joe's southpaw style.

Lacy rose to prominence beating domestic US operators. The only decent performance was against Reid who came into the fight having trained in a swimming pool for two weeks. He looked electric in that fight but it was a complete freak performance against a moody past prime former champion who was in poor form from the start.

Hopkins beat a club fighter in Kelly Pavllik and a uninterested Antonio Tarver who clearly hadn't prepared correctly and obviously had lost to Carl Froch victim Jermain Taylor.

Jones was SHOT. So SHOT it is embarassing that he lasted the course.

Cart horses still make races. Joe was the fastest Cart horse of his generation. He wouldn't have lasted with the above fighters. No chance. If in doubt check out the knockdowns suffered against Salem, Mitchell, Hopkins and Jones. Or the mediocre performmances against Giminez, Starie, Bika, Reid, Woodhall etc etc...
Benn, Eubank and Collins would disagree with you Jeff. I know for a fact Benn admits Calzaghe would have been too good for him.

He would have beaten them all with Eubank being the toughest one but still coming through on points. Collins was made for him it would have been a landslide points victory that one.
toffeejack is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2009, 09:04 AM   #33
Utter1
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 489
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Do you think Calzaghe's legacy will improve or decline over time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff thomas View Post
I was actually been serious about a lot of my post Doug. Pavlik is a giant club fighter. He's awful. Just because he can pack a cruiserweight body into the middleweight division doesn't mean he;s a great IMO.


The main thing is a fighter who can consistently beat or perform at a high level or beat top level fighters.

In boxing the divisions are diluted to such an extent that for us hardcore fans/ analysts we have to consistently speculate or take away the rose tints glasses that promoters or fighters consistently give out to us. The divisions I boxing as it is should downsize in a major way to take away the hoopla/hype/bullshit as in essence we fight fans want to see who is a better fighter.

Of course I and most rational people understand that the upcoming boxer J. Gamboa has a huge disadvantage against the likes of an average fighter like McCline and so that matchup would not happen and is not of any interest. This though does not mean we want Gamboa hypothetically to stay in his division for the rest of his career. If he is good enough he should be able to fight all little men which means most guys that can make 147/154 or under.

This is why people think it is extreme when a poster like Jeff Thomas calls K. Pavlik a club fighter…because we are led to believe he is a great champion in one of boxing most valued divisions by his handlers or the TV company that are behind him.

When we all know he could easily fight any of the top men in 160, 168 or 175 as the so called size difference is nothing but just pure hype. The reason this does not happen is because we would get to see a fighter like K. Pavlik show his limitations as he would have to constanly do battle with the likes of Dawson, Kessler, Froch up and comers like Dirrell etc etc.

This is why Joe Calzaghe’s inflated record offers such extreme opinions. It looks good from a statistical analysis…46 fights with 46 wins. The names on that ledger include Kessler, Hopkins, Roy Jones Jnr and Lacy. This though does not tell the whole story, as research suggests that not only should we look from a quantitative aspect but a qualitative one.

If I were to box Joe Frazier, M. Ali, B. Foster, K. Norton, right now in 2009 then I would feel confident enough that I would have 4 victories that would look good on paper as I am in the prime of my life. This though does not tell the whole point as I would be fighting these men who were ONCE great fighters well into there 60s and one M. Ali (who many consider the best ever) is practically disabled. In fact my example is totally laughable which should show that Calzaghe fighting Hopkins (who is still game and crafty) and Jones well past there primes is laughable too.

If you want to be a great fighter then you should take risks…look at Pacman…people are actually arguing that he is the favourite for the Cotto bout yet 18 months ago people would have called you mad.. .Tyson fought for WBC heavyweight title after just 20 months as a pro and at just 20.

Froch a fighter who is an average world level operator is showing Calzaghe up right now as he will have taken on J. Pascal, J. Taylor, A. Dirrell, A. Abraham and M. Kessler within 7 years as a pro. Joe Calzaghe had taken on the likes of C. Eubank, O. Sheika and R. Reid or even look at how both men have gone about things by the number of fights or how they have gone about things in terms of opponents they have chosen when becoming champion.
Utter1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2009, 09:09 AM   #34
Utter1
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 489
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Do you think Calzaghe's legacy will improve or decline over time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by trotter View Post
Don't be absurd

Witter was handed his belt on a plate, and pulled off one good performance against Harris (who was no great shakes anyway). It's hard to honestly say Junior EVER beat a top five contender.

Hatton beat Tszyu to claim a title and then won multiple belts against top contenders, even one at a higher weight.



Joe will be looked on more kindly over time.

The detail that Jeff lays out now will, on the whole, be forgotten. The bullet points will read : unbeaten, beat two top unbeaten contenders who were supposed to dethrone him, and went to the states for mega fights to beat Hopkins and Jones. Particularly Hopkins who is still in p4p lists a year or so later...

Not saying such a simple synopsis tells the full story, but that's what people will learn about him in future years

Absurd generally means without rationale...Do you think Hatton would have beaten Zab Judah in his 17th professional fight?
Utter1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2009, 09:18 AM   #35
Mr. V.I.P.
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Come at me bro
Posts: 2,633
vCash: 75
Default Re: Do you think Calzaghe's legacy will improve or decline over time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Utter1 View Post
Absurd generally means without rationale...Do you think Hatton would have beaten Zab Judah in his 17th professional fight?
Zab back then was a monster and nobody would could have hung with him.
Mr. V.I.P. is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2009, 09:34 AM   #36
brown bomber
2010 Poster of the Year
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,477
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Do you think Calzaghe's legacy will improve or decline over time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by toffeejack View Post
Benn, Eubank and Collins would disagree with you Jeff. I know for a fact Benn admits Calzaghe would have been too good for him.

He would have beaten them all with Eubank being the toughest one but still coming through on points. Collins was made for him it would have been a landslide points victory that one.
Benns been humble, as a retired former fighter. He would have KO'd Calzaghe.
brown bomber is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2009, 09:39 AM   #37
Flea Man
มวยสากล
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: @ferociousflea
Posts: 39,861
vCash: 75
Default Re: Do you think Calzaghe's legacy will improve or decline over time?

Not sure if Benn would've beaten Calzaghe, who is very good at adapting and has shown a decent set of whiskers.

Prime Jones woul've starched him.
Flea Man is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2009, 09:43 AM   #38
brown bomber
2010 Poster of the Year
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,477
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Do you think Calzaghe's legacy will improve or decline over time?

Brian Nielson was 49-0 and had wins over Tim Witherspoon and Larry Holmes. His only losses were to Mike Tyson and Dicky Ryan in an upset.

No one gives a shit.
brown bomber is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2009, 09:44 AM   #39
brown bomber
2010 Poster of the Year
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,477
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Do you think Calzaghe's legacy will improve or decline over time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaman View Post
Not sure if Benn would've beaten Calzaghe, who is very good at adapting and has shown a decent set of whiskers.

Prime Jones woul've starched him.
Fleaman. You are a hero. But who did Calzaghe show decent whiskers against?
brown bomber is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2009, 09:58 AM   #40
Popkins
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 13,401
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Do you think Calzaghe's legacy will improve or decline over time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cepillo View Post
As above, I've heard a few people suggest that in ten years we'll all be saying how great he was. But I tend to think the opposite may well be true. Certainly if Kessler fails in the super six, its going to make Calzaghe's resume look worse than it already is. Hard to predict these things though, thoughts?
I feel as though (rightly or wrongly) Rocky Marciano's 49-0 is still rated because he beat men who have also secured legacies of their own - elite ATG Ezzard Charles, elite ATG Archie Moore, highly rated heavyweight champion Jersey Joe Walcott (I wouldn't mention Joe Louis for Rocky the same as I wouldn't mention Roy Jones for Joe, beating the fossilized remains of a once-great fighter is perhaps not held against the victor, but it is never remembered fondly or rated highly at all).

When the dust has settled and the particulars of a career dim and diminish in time, all that's left (or the most significant things that are left) are the names on the record. That's why Rocky Marciano's 49-0 is still remembered and rated far more highly than Ricardo Lopez's 52-fight unbeaten career, because Marciano fought great names and Lopez didn't.

Where will Joe come? I'd say somewhere in the middle. He doesn't have a Charles or a Moore, but he does have a narrow win over a past-prime Hopkins. Still, the history books will show a win there.

He doesn't have a Walcott, but the Kessler win may appreciate in value if he wins the Super Six.

After that though, there's really not much. The Lacy win has undoubtedly declined in value since the manner of it shocked many, as Lacy has been exposed as a hype job in all of his subsequent performances (and, crucially, in some of his pre-Calzaghe performances to the knowledgable fan, re: Lacy-Sheika compared to Calzaghe-Sheika). Eubank had already been beaten well twice by Collins and disappeared off the radar for a while, and there's nothing else will jump out at future generations.

I'd say if Kessler wins the Super Six, Calzaghe's resume does get a shot in the arm. It would prove to many who believed Kessler was basic and unproven when he fought Joe that he did have great ability.

If Kessler doesn't win, Calzaghe will always be remembered and rated because a 46-0 record is an uncommon achievement. But I tend to think he will be grouped more with Ricardo Lopez for a zero built on relatively weak opposition, than someone who genuinely took on all comers in his era and really proved to be a dominant elite fighter. And if the names don't mean anything as time goes on, the value of the record does inevitably decline (as, rightly or wrongly, Marciano's will not).

A lot hinges on Kessler.
Popkins is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2009, 10:00 AM   #41
Flea Man
มวยสากล
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: @ferociousflea
Posts: 39,861
vCash: 75
Default Re: Do you think Calzaghe's legacy will improve or decline over time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff thomas View Post
Fleaman. You are a hero. But who did Calzaghe show decent whiskers against?
Fair point. I'd never argue against any light-heavy puncher stopping him in the first as it's been shown he could be caught early there.......but in the sense that he was rarely hurt throughout his career and showed good recovery to get up from Jones (admittedly a scuffing punch) I'd say he was able-chinned (if that makes sense)

No Andrade-esque chin but he didn't need it.
Flea Man is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2009, 10:07 AM   #42
brown bomber
2010 Poster of the Year
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,477
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Do you think Calzaghe's legacy will improve or decline over time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Popkins View Post
I feel as though (rightly or wrongly) Rocky Marciano's 49-0 is still rated because he beat men who have also secured legacies of their own - elite ATG Ezzard Charles, elite ATG Archie Moore, highly rated heavyweight champion Jersey Joe Walcott (I wouldn't mention Joe Louis for Rocky the same as I wouldn't mention Roy Jones for Joe, beating the fossilized remains of a once-great fighter is perhaps not held against the victor, but it is never remembered fondly or rated highly at all).

When the dust has settled and the particulars of a career dim and diminish in time, all that's left (or the most significant things that are left) are the names on the record. That's why Rocky Marciano's 49-0 is still remembered and rated far more highly than Ricardo Lopez's 52-fight unbeaten career, because Marciano fought great names and Lopez didn't.

Where will Joe come? I'd say somewhere in the middle. He doesn't have a Charles or a Moore, but he does have a narrow win over a past-prime Hopkins. Still, the history books will show a win there.

He doesn't have a Walcott, but the Kessler win may appreciate in value if he wins the Super Six.

After that though, there's really not much. The Lacy win has undoubtedly declined in value since the manner of it shocked many, as Lacy has been exposed as a hype job in all of his subsequent performances (and, crucially, in some of his pre-Calzaghe performances to the knowledgable fan, re: Lacy-Sheika compared to Calzaghe-Sheika). Eubank had already been beaten well twice by Collins and disappeared off the radar for a while, and there's nothing else will jump out at future generations.

I'd say if Kessler wins the Super Six, Calzaghe's resume does get a shot in the arm. It would prove to many who believed Kessler was basic and unproven when he fought Joe that he did have great ability.

If Kessler doesn't win, Calzaghe will always be remembered and rated because a 46-0 record is an uncommon achievement. But I tend to think he will be grouped more with Ricardo Lopez for a zero built on relatively weak opposition, than someone who genuinely took on all comers in his era and really proved to be a dominant elite fighter. And if the names don't mean anything as time goes on, the value of the record does inevitably decline (as, rightly or wrongly, Marciano's will not).

A lot hinges on Kessler.
Lopez fought EVERYBODY in and around his division. He was far superior to Calzaghe in every possible way. Calzaghe's career is irrelevant compared to those two greats.
brown bomber is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2009, 10:15 AM   #43
Popkins
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 13,401
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Do you think Calzaghe's legacy will improve or decline over time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff thomas View Post
Lopez fought EVERYBODY in and around his division. He was far superior to Calzaghe in every possible way. Calzaghe's career is irrelevant compared to those two greats.
Michael Carbajal. Humberto Gonzalez.

Easily the two biggest names of Lopez's era in the division above him, and he never fought either of them.

Argument over. Calzaghe's resume is better.
Popkins is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2009, 10:16 AM   #44
Flea Man
มวยสากล
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: @ferociousflea
Posts: 39,861
vCash: 75
Default Re: Do you think Calzaghe's legacy will improve or decline over time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff thomas View Post
Lopez fought EVERYBODY in and around his division. He was far superior to Calzaghe in every possible way. Calzaghe's career is irrelevant compared to those two greats.
If we're talking about Ricardo Lopez, I must say not moving up to fight Carbajal and Chiquita is pretty glaring. Still, better career than Calzaghe and showed better skills IMO
Flea Man is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2009, 10:20 AM   #45
Utter1
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 489
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Do you think Calzaghe's legacy will improve or decline over time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. V.I.P. View Post
Zab back then was a monster and nobody would could have hung with him.

Unsure about a monster but a very good fighter...i believe most would say Hatton would have lost that fight.

Now what about Hatton fighting the likes of T. Bradley and D. Alexander when he is 34 or 35? Does anyone actually think that Hatton could beat this level of opponent at this age?

Or fight this level of oponenet in his 36th,37th or 38th bout and without doubt have a win on his record?

For me an objective comaparsion at this point-

Hatton - Witter (in theory)
k. tszyu WIN Lost
Muassa WIN WIN
Collazo win (LOST in truth) WIN
Urango WIN WIN
Castillo WIN WIN
Mayweather LOST LOST
Lazcano WIN WIN
Malingaggi WIN WIN
Pacaman LOST LOST

Does anyone seriously believe had Witter not fought these fighters at the same exact time that Hatton fought them and at the very point in his own carrer (witter) that hatton did.....that he would not have had similar results?

Im not a fan of either fighter or have a dislike as i respect both for having succesful carrers. Hatton had a more commerically succesful carrer along with more oportunities to showcase his abilty compared to Witter hence he was more succesful BUT Hatton is the same level as a witter.

The only fight that Hatton took that i believe Witter would not have done aswell in is the first title fight that Hatton had when he took on K. Tszyu...but then i believe that Witter would have outpointed Collazo a fight i believe Hatton lost to.
Utter1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > British Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013