Is Joe Calzaghe underrated? Yes or No?

He could beat a Prime Bhop - Joe too was at the end when he met RJJ & Bhop... lest we forget!

I think their ALL overated but still great fighters.

 

I say yes. He doesn’t seem to get any credit for any win he’s ever gotten. His style is routinely criticized and he can’t seem to shake the label of “ cherry picker. “ from where I stand, Joe Calzaghe wasn’t a super star. But he was damn solid fighter and champion who won all of his professional fights.

 

Calzaghe vs Ward H2H is debatable. 50/50 imo.

Joe has the deeper resume at SMW though. Their respective best 10 wins (Wards always listed 1st):

1. Kessler vs Kessler - I think undefeated Kessler was better than a faded Kessler Ward beat, but let's call this even
2. Froch vs past prime Eubank - AW
3. Weight drained Dawson vs Lacy - could be argued either way, I'll go AW
4. Abraham vs Reid - at SMW? JC
5. Green vs Mitchell - JC
6. Bika vs Brewer - JC
7. Miranda vs Veit - JC
8. Pudwell vs Veit - JC
9. Buchanan vs Bika - JC
10. Ravello vs Woodhall - JC

That's 7-2 to Joe. I could have easily scored 1) and 3) differently and gone 9-1 Calzaghe.

If we extended this, Calzaghe would come out on top on each win 11 onwards.

 

Ward beat Bika when he was more recognized, remember Calzaghe was heavily criticized for choosing Bika at the time. The win only becomes better with hindsight after Bika won The Contender, but at the time it was not a highly thought of victory.

The issue i have with some Calzaghe's best wins is most of them were coming off losses or bad performances for example.

Robin Reid = Coming off losing in a abysmal performance to an old Thulani Malinga.

Richie Woodhall = Floored 3 times against the light hitting Markus Beyer.

Chris Eubank = You already explained.

Charles Brewer = Coming off losing to Antwun Echols.

My question is why didn't Calzaghe fight the winner of these fights instead of the losers ? i'm not trying to discredit Calzaghe it's just a genuine question on my part.

Also a few more points Chris Eubank is obviously more highly rated than Carl Froch, but Chris Eubank never won another professional fight after Calzaghe loss. Where as Carl Froch went on to have some of his best performances after the loss to Ward, shouldn't we take that into consideration ? aswell as you already explained that Eubank had 11 days preparation, where he was scheduled to fight at Light Heavyweight and had to drop down in weight vs Calzaghe, that also takes some shine away from the victory.

Abraham vs Reid ? i would say that's a highly debatable one, and certainly not a clear win in favour of Calzaghe. I would say there's very little to choose between Abraham and Reid, didn't Abraham have more title defences than Reid ? and arguably better single wins ?

Other than that i don't really disagree with any other part of your list.

 

I think that maybe either you've misunderstood my post or I've misunderstood your reply - I said Ward had the better of their 2nd best respective wins, I.e. Froch vs Eubank, for the reasons you've given (I listed either AW or JC after each win to denote whose I thought was better). I agree with you on this point.

Reid vs Abraham is arguable, I agree. Abraham was clearly a more accomplished MW than Reid was SMW. But, at SMW, I give it Reid. I appreciate you may see it differently and imo, it can be reasonably argued either way. I scored their 3rd best wins, a weight drained Dawson vs Lacy to Ward, but Dawson was so drained it could be argued for Lacy.

Their top 4 wins at SMW are close. Do you agree that once you compare their respective 5th best wins and below, Calzaghe starts to have the edge, and from their 8th best wins and below, Calzaghe has a massive advantage? Bear in mind that neither Sheika nor Starie (holds a win over Clinton Woods) made my JC top 10 wins and both are massively better than Wards 8th best SMW win.

Ward could be credibly argued as the greater SMW, btw, though I'd give Joe the edge. The purpose of my comparing their respective best 10 wins was to demonstrate that Calzaghe's resume has the greater depth.

 

No

His two biggest wins look good on paper but both prime Roy Jones and Bernard Hopkins would beat him

Very well matched figher was Calzaghe

 

Hopkins was seven years older than Joe and had been fighting pro since 1988. Jones was an empty shell

 

Calzaghe was never really a rival to Jones or Hopkins in the SMW weight class. Jones left the division before Calzaghe won a title there. Hopkins was never a champion there.

The problem for American fans have about Joe is that Calzaghe only registered with them from the Lacy fight onward.

it’s like nothing before mattered.

But the guy was legit at SMW for a long time previous to this when he outlasted all other title claimants of his division, albeit with his D list belt.

But D list belt or not, the resume was stronger than American fans realise. As strong as you can get in one weight class.

There wasn’t anyone of any value that Calzaghe missed out. He eclipsed Ottke once everyone realised the farcical nature of the decisions ottke was receiving in Germany and from drawing comparing results between common opponents with Calzaghe. The other champions were Woodhall, Mitchel, Kessler who he beat anyway.

Like him or not Calzaghe was the long-standing champion in that weight class for a decade.

 

Not sure I agree there. Froch is a first ballot inductee into the Hall Of Fame. Afaik Eubanks hasn't been inducted.

Euabk has a great win over Watson and Benn but I like Carls collected top quality wins against Bute , Kessler , Groves , Dirrell , Taylor , Pascal , Glencoff Johnson and Arthur Abraham who got a totally unexpected pasting by Froch

 

22 defenses is impressive but I'm not completely sold on him

what good is beating Jones when he's got 5 losses already and knocked stiff by club fighters

not sold on him beating Hopkins either who was well over 40

 

The division was relatively new. Toney , Jones and Hopkins skipped it to take better fights at marquee division light heavy. Joe was happy to stay there racking up defenses against guys who were barely Beefy Smith level.

 

Peter Manfredy was Liam Smith level. Mikkel Kessler was most certainly at a higher level.

 

Never said anything about Kessler. 20 defenses , a fair few were Beefy level.

 

Fair enough.

Kessler, Lacy, Reid, Mitchell, Brewer, Veit x 2, Bika, Woodhall, Starie, Sheika. Off the top of my head there's 11 that were better than Liam Smith.

I accept there was more than one of his defenses who wasn't. On the whole, the quality of defenses weren't bad, though. Certainly not ATG, but taken as a weighted balance, his title defences were probably a little better than average during the 4+ belt era.

 

Bronco Sobot , Juan Ferrerya , Rick Thornberry , Will "cease fire" Mclyntre , David Staire , Tucker Pudwill , Miguel Jiminez , Mger Mkrtcyhan , Mario Viet , Kabery Salem ,Evans Ashria
These guys were Beefy level. Woodhall too in fact. All European level like Beefy. Some even Spike O Sullivan level

Billy Joe Saunders beats most , probably all on that list