Calzaghe top 10 perfomances

Stamina was probably the main issue in that fight but not the only one..Joe's sense of distance, speed and his own defensive ability prevented Hopkins from convincingly beating him in enough rounds IMO.

Their attacks were almost canceled out by each other in that fight...Joe was different to Kelly in the way he could throw but not consistently get made to pay for missing.

 

You think Roy Jones could move up and win a cruiserweight title now though. Your opinion = manure.

 

you should have said calzaghe's unique talent for fighting aged greats 8 years after he should have fought them.

it's very naaive to buld up calzaghe over this.

there's a good reason why calzaghe didn'øt fight hopkins in his prime and i'm tired of hearing people trying to glorify an, admittedly, excellent fighter who minimised the risks he took in his career.

give it a rest.

 

But this was all allowed by the fact Hopkins was hampered by not being able to sustain his performance level. Calzaghe was only able to do this because Hopkins couldn't fight at a consistently high intensity like he could do around 2001.

Jermain Taylor and Joe Calzaghe won decisions over Hopkins in different ways but essentially via the same means, by outworking him.

I don't believe outworking a past-prime B-Hop while producing very little clean or significant punching attacks was as impressive as his all-round performance against Kessler.

 

That's my final word on the subject though, this is a thread for Calzaghe fans to choose their favourite performance, I'm sure the last thing anyone wants here is for me to clog it up with my all too familiar opinions.

PS: I reiterate, Joe's performance against Kessler was superb, that's my vote.

 

1st kessler (without a doubt(

2nd bernard (bernard is one of the trickest fighters in the game, awkward fight but got the result)

3rd lacy (destroyed the kid and the kid has never got over it in brutal fashion with the odds were against him, but he was a bit of a hype job)

 

if you based him on what he did then you wouldn't have to use a 43 year old man to refer to joe as 'brilliant'.

but you're right, it's a never ending circle for some people.

 

I suppose it does say something about Joe's resume that in a learned boxing man's opinion his greatest performance was an ugly and unconvincing SD over a man years from his peak. I'd still go Kessler, but fair enough mate, I think Hopkins would beat Kessler now so I can see your point I suppose.

 

if the age is irrelevant then calzaghe would have taken the path to glory witrh jones and or hopkins when it mattered.

it's very naaive of you to think that age isn't a major issue with fighters.

as soon as you said this you labelled yourself - because now i know you've never fought yourself.

believe me, it matters.

 

Lacy was a bum!

Kessler by a mile!