Calzaghe WBO reign, "a decade of dross"

Calzaghe's win over Kessler is, in my opinion, as good or better than any win Ward has at 168.

Dawson had to come down to 168 to fight Ward, after 6 years as a light-heavy. Dawson was never a contender at 168. His rep was built at 175.
Ward's win over Dawson, despite the hype, was meaningless. If he has moved up to beat Dawson it would have meant something. As part of his super-middleweight reign it's meaningless.

Calzaghe beating Lacy, nevermind Kessler, is far better.

Lacy was overrated, certainly. Calzaghe proved that.
But I can't watch that fight and imagine that it didn't break him. Very few unbeaten fighters (esp. 'knock out artist' fighters) ever come back mentally from that type of beating.

 

Clazaghe best wins included:

- undefeated Kessler
- Undefeated Lacey
- Eubank for a vacant WC title
- Hopkins, who was in decline but still went onto to become WC and beat the likes Pavlik, Jones and Pascal.
- Jones in decline but was still coming off a win against Trinidad.
- Reid who after the defeat should of become WC champion as he was robbed against Ottke.
- Mitchell coming off the fight were he was robbed a win a aginst Ottke and should of been WC.
-Brewer who prior was robbed a win against Ottke and should of been WC.
- Veit, calzaghe beat him twice, girst when he was undefeated and secind time when he was coming off a win against Brewer.

It's a better resume than Ward's:

Kessler - Ward beat him 2 years after Calzaghe did in a Great win.
Abraham - lost 2 of his previous 3 fights going into the fight.
Froch - Great win
Barrera - undefeated at the time.
Dawson - Dawson was coming off a win against Hopkins 4 years after Calzaghe beat Hopkins.
Kovalev 1 - should of lost the fight
Kovalev 2 - great win

 

Super-middle being a weak division is a fair point.

Not fighting the other top guy for several years is a fair point, although may or may not have been within Calzaghe's control.

Not venturing outside of his division is only a point if we're comparing him to ATGs. For most fighters, fighting in the division you are best suited for and beating everyone you fight is pretty respectable. Not everyone has to be a Mayweather or Pacquaio hopping across several division.

Ducking fighters who weren't even in the same division (like the OP suggested), is of course complete jibberish.

Likewise, any suggestion that Calzaghe's belt was less prestigious than the one wrapped around the ever expanding waist of an ancient ex-lightweight who lost to Karl Taylor, is again complete jibberish.


Calzaghe's career was indeed frustrating and could have been more, but over the course of his career he achieved plenty. People focus far too much on the fact he fought Tocker Pudwill, than who he did actually beat.

 

True - and there's probably some worth for both sides of the argument, but when a guy who's not really beaten anyone of serious significance loses that badly, I think it suggests more that he was never that good to begin with.

 

A lot of those Calzaghe plus points rely on rating fighters probably a bit more highly than we should, (I'm really not sure Brewer and Veit were really ever that great), or ignoring where those fighters were in their career. Yes of course Kessler was in his prime, but Hopkins was past his best and so was Eubank, and the less said about Roy Jones the better. There is no point having that discussion when Joe himself admitted well before the fight even happened that Jones was shot.

 

Fair points, but if you're in a weak division and want to make big fights, go and make them. You don't have to be flying up the divisions like Pacquaio. When Joe was spending 2004 wasting everyone's time fighting Mger Mkrtchyan and Kabery Salem light heavy had Roy Jones, Glen Johnson and Antonio Tarver all ranked highly. Even a domestic title fight with Clinton Woods would have been better than some dreadful nobody like Ashira.

I think the posts on here go back that far and there was so much frustration at the time with Calzaghe's opponents.

 

Man lands on moon - has this ever been discussed before ..................

 

I have no doubt that he’s content with all that he achieved in his career. However it appears that he is still struggling greatly with the loss of his dad.

 

Woods lost to David Starie. Then Calzaghe beat Starie with ease.

 

He lost his mum a few weeks ago. Then Froch started spouting off again.

 

Both Hopkins and Jones were past their prime but to dimiss them entirely and not class them as good wins is wrong. Jones had just beaten Felix and Hopkins went ontonto beat Pavlik, Jones and Pascal.
Eubank was only 31 years old when Joe beat him.

 

Worst thing was him pulling out of so many fights at the last min with a bad hand. I actually forgot he was still around many times, including before the Ashira fight (assumed he just stopped fighting or something).

 

The Pride of Wales is one of the UK's greatest ever elite boxers - fook me just watch the Lacy and Kessler fights and enjoy a master at work FFS.

His father was also one of the greatest trainers ever with both deserving of a place in the boxing hall of fame.

Three world champions produced in a glorified shed in a small place in Wales - just incredible.

I attended 4 Calzaghe fights versus Lacy, Kessler, Ashira and Woodhall - I left each time knowing that I had watched one of our greats.

 

Jones in decline? He was completely shot.

 

Agree. Joe was a terrific fighter. He ended up with pretty much the perfect career that no one can take from him. Its not a knock on what they achieved....but joe is overrated imo. Great fighter. But being extra careful paid off for him big time. I still say everyone was interested in hatton far more than calzaghe. Hatton just challenged himself and ended up paying for it post career when its time to rate them.

Joes fights we,re very carefully picked by joe and frank like a lot of fighters tbf. Eubank, jones and hopkins....some of joes best wins....we,re picked due to them ageing. Think joe might have been as old as jones and hopkins but one of joes main strengths his stamina....was a nightmare for any ageing fighter. Would have been different if they fought when they we,re all at their peaks. Joe was always going to age better than them with his unbelievable stamina.

Lacy was overrated.

Kessler also slightly overrated. Dont get me wrong Kessler was a good fighter not many will agree hes overrated...probably because hes a hard man. Think frank bigged him up so much then people seen how tough he was and no one has ever queried how good he actually was. Kessler was good...just not quite as good as hes made out imo.

Dont get me wrong joe was great...just dont think he was as good as hes now rated. My unpopular boxing opinion is he was on around the same level as hatton. Hatton just ran into 2 lb for lb twice in a generation talents and joe either didnt have them available in their peaks or would have avoided them. But he,d have went the same way as hatton did if he rsn into a prime roy jones for example.

At the end of the day tho...the critisms to be taking with a pinch of salt....calzaghe beat everyone he went in the ring with....that in itself is incredible bearing in mind he had about 46 fights. And some good names in there. Its not a knock on joe. They achieved unbelievable things him and his dad.