ah ok reeeled in to state facts over dreams? but no, sorry, i was in this thread pages ago, you failed. i'm proud joe won his first recognised title at 34, you seem to think otherwise.
Anthony Doshua has had only 1 Fight to date with Wlad that he went into with any doubts about the outcome - the rest against puddings. That is boxthing with mismatches every card on Sky these days. Joe had some very poor opponents yet beat Lacy, Hopkins, Kessler and even the golfer Miguel Angel Jiminez at Cardiff Castle. 46 fights undefeated = legend and hall of famer
Joshua won't be in a fight with anyone active where he's not a clear favourite. Joe may have been similar but I'd rather see Calzaghe as a 2/5 fav to beat Tarver/Froch/Johnson than as a 1/33 shot against Mkrtchyan/Salem/Pudwill.
And lost to them, not to mention fought fewer opponents overall... The Hopkins fight was dull and close but Joe won...Hopkins went on to fight and win at world Championship level for several years after and that version would’ve beaten Froch...Bika was a better win than it seemed with hindsight...a better win than a shot Abraham for example...
This thread was actually going so well at first, decent comments and opinions for and and against Joe Calzaghe being rated highly, now it's descended into silly arguments. Lennox Lewis, Prince Naseem, Ricky Hatton, Joe Calzaghe, Carl Froch, Frank Bruno, Nigel Benn, Chris Eubank, Herol Graham, Herbie Hide (I liked him) etc, we'll be here all day with the list, were all very good to exceptional boxers and, Graham apart, were all World Champions. For many of us Joe was in the top 1-5 of his era, at any weight, top 1-5 of British fighters and, certainly for me, top 1-5 of all time, for some he wasn't, and that's fine everyoe has an opinion and they're entitled to it, but can we keep this thread, and others, sensible? is it that hard?
u think? did you see what happened to hopkins when he faced monster puncher or even a solid punncher (kov and chad resp). Chad made him look bad, and kov was playing with him. Theres a reason he picked calzaghe, because he knew joe had no power. But joes tank was too much in the end, by a hairline, u r rght.
By and large I think it has been sensible in fairness. I still don't see anything which changes my opinion that Joe was an exceptional talent with a CV that is exceptionally weak for such a great boxer. The one thing I don't understand is how big fans of Calzaghe seem happy to dismiss so many good opponents which he never fought with a 'oh but he'd have won anyway' line. That must be so frustrating. I got into boxing wanting to see the fighters I liked fight and beat the best, not to watch them knock over nobodies and then tell everyone they could beat everyone so what's the point in fighting them anyway. Certainly when Joe was giving it the 'I couldn't fight Froch - they'd need to call the NSPCC' I didn't think any more of him, especially when he fought a totally shot Jones instead.
