His CV could’ve been better, but he still has better wins than pretty much any other British fighter and more solid wins than Froch over his career, who he keeps being compared to...that’s my point...sure he fought some dross as well but I base his record on he did fight and beat not who he didn’t or take away points for stay busy fights against dross... For his ability his CV could’ve been better. The Jones fight I give zero credit for but I don’t blame him for taking it, it was essentially a cash out and an exhibition really. He could’ve had one or two more big fights but he didn’t need the money and he was late 30s by then. Wasted a lot of his prime years but still a great fighter with some great wins.
I don't disagree with a lot of that, but I suppose my point is that his CV is possibly worse than anyone else who is considered at his level. That may sound harsh, but for me Joe will always be the guy you struggle to sell in a sense, because he wasted so much of his career.
Even with his atrocious record of bums and tomato cans and puddings, he's possibly the best British boxer of the last 30 years. He might be in the top 20 British boxers of all-time.
Pudding Chisora will be fighting Usyk soon on Sky Sports PPV - should we open the doors to the hall of fame for fat puddings?
For those of you who thought you'd never see a WORSE STOPPAGE than Joe Calzaghe's fight with Peter Manfredo Jr, check this one out : This content is protected
Are you trying to compare Froch in 2008 to Joe or Jones? Froch's last two fights were Robin Reid and Albert Rybacki. He was a nothing element. Hopkins and Jones were a level above at this point if only financially, but they were both the bigger players in the community by a fantastic margin.
Froch was a world champion a couple of weeks after Joe faced Jones so I don't really buy the idea that he was a 'nothing' fighter. He also wasn't completely shot; he'd have destroyed the Roy Jones that Joe faced. I have no issue in general with fighters taking cash out fights when they've had so many good fights. For a guy like Calzaghe who wasted so much of his career I think Jones added nothing, and in some ways arguably did some damage to Joe's legacy. As Joe's career was coming to an end you had an unbeaten supposed machine in Pavlik and a highly ranked domestic rival in Froch, (indeed, a domestic world champion at light heavy in Woods), all of which would have been better fights than that horrible affair against a shot Jones. My issue with Calzaghe can be summed up by what he did after Lacy. He spent years and years saying he didn't get the credit he deserved; he finally nails a big name to show everyone how good he is. And he has three fights from the five that would follow against the unknown Bika, the useless Manfredo and the shot Jones. Hatton was in a similar position after Tszyu but at least he went for the very best on a consistent basis.
Woods would have added nothing and neither would Froch at the time, and neither would’ve made him the money he got for Jones nor would they have been at MSG. Pavlik might’ve been a big money fight at the time but in hindsight he was exposed by a Calzaghe victim instead, so would’ve added nothing. Froch would’ve beaten the ghost of RJJ but Joe doesn’t get any credit for that fight from anyone who’s serious. I still standby the fact Froch would’ve lost to the version of Hopkins Joe fought. Bika was mandatory no? Bika went on to become a World Champion so is a half decent win in hindsight... Manfredo was the fight HBO wanted and the alternative was a mandatory against Stieglitz, which wasn’t going to set the world alight either... He also beat a better version of Kessler than the one Froch lost to. The case for Calzaghe as a British great is clear even if he fought some crap opponents over the years. He fought plenty of former World Champions and people who went on to be World Champions as well. I don’t think anyone is claiming he fought a murderers row of fighters throughout his career but he still achieved enough to be a British great and a hall of famer.
I'm not arguing that Froch was better - he wasn't. But I read posts like this and they seem full of excuses, which sadly sums up Calzaghe's career. It always seems to be so and so was a mandatory or so and so wouldn't have added much and anyway the alternatives weren't much cop and the TV companies wanted someone else. The end result is still that Joe largely fought a useless level of opposition far too often. There are loads of names in and around super middle which Joe could have fought but didn't during his career. More so than almost any other elite fighter I can think of. You say for example that Woods wouldn't have added anything. I can tell you he would have added a hell of a lot more than 90% of everyone Joe faced. In fact, if he'd fought and beaten him, he'd probably be a top five career win!
It would have made no difference to how he is viewed in the sport now he has retired is the point. He wouldn’t be any more highly thought of...the haters would still hate. But I do agree he could’ve fought better opposition more consistently pre-Lacy. I would say about 60% of those fights were barely world title worthy or worse...
Bull**** Mikkel Kessler, Bernard Hopkins, Chris Eubank, Robin Reid, Byron Mitchell, Charles Brewer were all very good wins. Richie Woodhall, Sakio Bika, Mario Veit , (and admittedly past it) Roy Jones Jr were decent wins I'd love you to name 19 better British fighters!!!
