Calzaghe Debate part 1

how does what ali did in the beginning of his career have to do with joe's entire career? calzaghe was good, no question but his resume and ali's resume couldn't be more different. joe is a nothing compared to ali.

 

Calz, like Nature would find a way...
saw that in the Kessler fight.

 

:thumbsup


Seriously, he was a very good fighter, deserves to be ranked number one in his division but no he was not an ATG outside of it and doesn´t deserve a Top50 p4p ranking.

Problem is you can´t have a serious discussion about him because of guys like the TS or bailey. They are worse than PP with Jones, MAG with Hearns or duranimal with Duran. Thus is the best to just mention the facts above and leave the discussion.

 

Calzaghe is full of sh*t. The only reason he even fought Bhop and Roy Jones was because of money. He knew he had to make a few bucks before he retired.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I agree with this, his division was 168 and he was one of the best at this weight. When he dominated Lacy he was a big underdog in the USA and B-Hop was faking fouls to get rest from the pace...He could have stopped Jones but took his foot off the gas for respect

Joe fought a decent bunch of fighters but also dominated 168lbs for quite a spell

 

Calzaghe rated higher than Hill. Maybe much higher at SMW than Hill at LHW.

 

For sure but LHW is a much, much, much deeper division than SMW. The comparison is valid. Hill has better longevity, a deeper resume. Calzaghe has the better achievements and top wins. Quite close actually.

 

Ultimately have to agree with the sentiment here. Anyone who watched Calzaghe could see he had ability, and he found a way to persevere when in trouble. But he definitely had his flaws in technique, and, at least in the late part of his career, little to no power.

As has been pointed out, too much of his time has been spent fighting marginal fighters, and his biggest wins have either against overhyped C level guys, (Lacy) older fighters past their best, (Eubank, Jones, even Hopkins, whose performances have been wildly inconsistent in recent years) or guys who have seemed less good than thought afterwards, which takes away from the victory somewhat. (Kessler)

Very good, but his greatness is not proven. And if it's not proven, you can't just assume it was really there because there were hints of it.

 

couldn't agree more.

 

Elite skills without an elite resume.

Longevity. Some good wins. Never did lose.

Certainly one of the best 168 pounders to ever do it.

I'd call him a lower tier great, on the strength of his obvious talent. His lack of multiple great wins hurts his resume, though.

 

Exactly the same way I see it. I still consider him an underachiever, despite having pretty good accomplishments by the end of it. It's too bad the Hopkins fight didn't materialize in 2002-2003...that and a couple more really good wins would've done wonders for his resume.

Head to head, he's not nearly as easy to beat as people might think just by watching tape and looking at the openings. He had a rare combination of talent, ring IQ, and physical ability. I just wish we had the chance to see him push the limits of it more than we did.

 

I 100% agree. Watching him fight Lacy had me in awe. Poor Jeff was boxing a ghost. JC moved after every single exchange; Laterally, forward and backward, slipping, shucking, and jiving every which way.

That fight was a masterclass in footwork and psychological warfare. That teacher of that lesson gives any 160-168er to ever lace up problems at his best. He could probably hang with a fair few higher end light heavyweights, as well. He punched funny and got wild, but if people watch the other parts of his body box, not just his arms, his talent and ability is utterly obvious.

 

Lets talk about the bad now. He slapped his punches. He didnt fight any of the toughest challenges in their respective primes when he could have. Fighters like Lacy and Kessler were vastly overated and the wins caused people to jump too soon to elevate Calzahge because of those wins.

Joe was a good fighter, but he was probably one of the best managed and protected fighters in the history of boxing, and this is a perfect example of how a good fighter can be elevated to a place he really doesnt belong just by having a undefeated record.

 

The Byron Mitchell win was pretty good. No one ever points that out.