Will Joe Calzaghe ever fight again?

I've watched all his fights.

 

It would say probably not.

The only fight really on the table is Dawson, but the numbers on a fight with Chad aren't good enough yet to tempt Joe back.

Froch isn't big enough; if he beats Taylor he becomes a more viable option, but again the numbers wouldn't be right.

It could take years for someone around SMW and LHW to become a dominating marque force, and by that time it would be ill advisable for Calzaghe to return.

 

Bonjour TFFP. You have watched all of Hameds fights but you think that Calzaghe was more versatile. Tell me one fight where Calzaghe didn't come out with his hands high then walk forward slapping the **** out of anything that came into radar distance? He'd slowly become more dominant as the bout progressed and the hands would come down. It was the blueprint for nearly every Calzaghe fight. Hamed could jab, body punch, fight off the back foot. Score one punch knockouts. You might get me to one day admit that Calzaghes legacy deserves more credit then I give him but no way is he a better fighter then Hamed.

 

Calzaghe has scored (a few) one punch knockdowns, although clearly power is not a speciality of his. Power is not versatility as a fighter.

Calzaghe can bodypunch. He hurt Kessler with a bodyshot for instance.

Calzaghe can counterpunch, he did so against Lacy on occasion. He didn't often, because he didn't need to because he was always faster and stronger than his opponent, but he proved to me he could.

Calzaghe was one of the best jabbers of his era for my money, far better than Hamed's occasional foray with the jab. Calzaghe was also one of the best at taking away his opponents jab, nobody has ever been hugely successful at jabbing Calzaghe, certainly nobody won the jabbing battle outright.

 

But the ability to land a well picked, perfectly timed KO punch illustrates versatility no?

46 fights.... Not one knockdown from a body punch.

Lacy telegraphed everything he threw. It was probably the worst performance by a visiting World Champion in the last 10 years.

Calzaghe is a southpaw. Southpaws are difficult to establish a jab against due to the way they shape up. Woodhall nailed Calzaghe with the jab and right cross repeatedly. He had struggled to do the same with Marcus Beyer. Its just an indiation that Calzaghe never really fought anyone other then a past-it Woodhall who had a decent jab.

TFFP i'm going to make a bold statement. I think you support Calzaghe because if you made realistic critisms of him it would discredit the chap in your avatar.

 

I like Naz as well but the bottom line was that he failed his biggest audition for boxing hall of fame (Barrera). Like or loath him Joe Calzaghe always delivered when he was required to step up to the plate.

Naz had the more flashy, arguably more exciting, style but Calzaghe was the more skilled fighter in my opinion. Naz had the greater power but Calzaghe had the better defence, speed and chin (obviously all the above are in relation to their respective weight classes).

He could counterpunch (doubters check out the Byron Mitchell fight, round two after he has just been put on the floor with a monstrous left hook. If that's not world class counter punching what is?) if required but that wasn't his style and in all fairness he hardly ever needed to defer from his preferred approach.

 

I'll sit this Naz vs. Calzaghe debate out I think.

But I suspect Joe will return to complete his epic trilogy with Mario Veit - the world awaits Part III.

 

I believe you can fail to have KO power and still have complete versatility as a boxer. Versatility by my definition is the number of ways in which a fighter can fight, how he adapts, how many gameplans he can put into practice if you like. KO power is a single attribute.

He might not have scored KO's from bodypunches but it is a variation he has. I've seen him hurt people with bodypunches, it is definitely up his sleeve, as is infighting. Calzaghe is a very good infighter, unlike Hamed.

So what if he's a southpaw. Are we supposed to say that because he's a southpaw he gets no credit for having an extremely successful jab? Or that he's good at taking away a fighters jab? Kessler prior to facing Calzaghe lost 5 rounds in his entire career using a jab and Calzaghe dealt with it. Never did he lose a single round on every judges scorecard. And he did that primarily using a 1-2, Kessler as much as I like him is a classic example of a fighter that lacks versatility. Which in turn is why he lost to Calzaghe.

It has little to do with Kessler. I'm smart enough to realise that how Kessler is perceived depends entirely on what he does in his own career and not "doing okay" in a losing effort against Calzaghe. And infact, I've often spoken about Mikkel's weaknesses. I don't just hang off the balls of fighters, I can make honest assesments as much as it is possible to do with an absolute favourite. This sort of comment is not any more credible than me saying the only reason you rag on Calzaghe is because you hate him.

 

i m loving the debate between geoff and tffp some very good points being traded here, firstly i cant see joe coming back he went on about his legacy for so long it would be crazy to risk it however what he achieved in the toughest sport of all should be applauded by us all and i think has been.
naz and joes styles arealmost impossible to compare which means it is also pretty much impossible to say who is best its like comparing
best to charlton
mcnero to bjork
ballyregan bob to scurlogue champ( you tube scurlogue and you will be amazed he crafted his own style like naz)

basically of the above were top of there sports at a similair time but achieved the same result in very different fashions

 

Naz KO1.

 

TFFP is a quality poster thats why I like arguing my points with him. Truth is we'll never agree on Calzaghe but its good debating it with someone who I respect as a knowlegable fan. I really, really don't hate Calzaghe. I like him as a person but I despise the veil of bull**** that surrounds his career.

Naz was a phenom, a one in a million. He fell flat on his face against Barrera hving spent years chipping away all his good habbits. If Naz had of wated till Barrera was 35 and then fought him he'd have knocked him out. If Naz had of beaten Kelley, Johnson, Medina, Vasquez, Soto, Ingle, Bungu, Robinson, McCullough and co after they'd suffered shoddy losses then I would say the same about him. Look at Calzaghes opposition. Nearly all his decent opponents came into the fight off a loss or two in their last 5 fights. Credit the fact he was competitive with Hopkins (but I think he lost), beat Kessler whose decent but not in the league of Medina and co.

Naz could have got to 50-0 most by KO by now if he had adopted the same matchmaking as Calzaghe. Naz was a great fighter who underachieved but still accomplished so much.

 

Kessler not in the league of Medina? Come of Jeff you have to be taking the **** there? I was a big fan on Hamed whilst he was active, but Medina was a good top ten win-some-lose-some type fighter at best. I know he won belts five times, but then he lost them all fairly promptly. Kessler had dominated everyone he ever met prior to Calzaghe, including five top ten fighters (Mundine, Andrade, Siaca, Lucas, Beyer) three of who were or are top five.

 

I have to admit that it would pretty difficult to compare McEnroe to Bjork, what with one being a tennis player and the other a singer.

 

I wouldn't defend Björk against Stalin.