Should Calzaghe ever be forgiven or excused for 2001-2006?

You don't seem very clued up on this. The Calzaghe fight was to be part of a three fight deal with Showtime starting with a fight against Morrade Hakkar. Hopkins turned down the deal and then fought Hakkar anyway for half as much money as he would have got for it with the Showtime deal. Doesn't sound like he was generating vast ammounts of cash in the US.

And your claim that Calzaghe v Hopkins in 2003 would have been PPV in the UK (or would have generated a large revenue if it had been) is frankly laughable.

 

No, why would I be? The results speak for themselves. At super middle, Johnson was just a journeyman, losing to the likes of Sheika (who Calzaghe never gets any credit for beating), Vanderpool (who "never any good anyway" Lacy demolished), Kiwanuka and Merqui Sosa who were decent but never top drawer. Basically, anyone who's anyone. Okay, I can wear that some of those were close arguable decisions, but an "elite" fighter should not be being taken to 50/50 decisions against those types of guys in any case.

His record at light heavy is patchy, but at least there were some world rated fighters who were still weak enough for him to beat (Woods, Hall, Harding), unlike at 168. Nonetheless, whilst I like Johnson, the fact that some in the States think he is some kind of elite fighter is based solely off of his KO of a past-it Jones coming off a two-round annihiliation. Whilst his longevity is impressive, Johnson has lost more than he's won against world class opposition.

The fact that the 175lb division has been dominated by American fighters over the past few years (whilst there have been few of note at 168) does not automatically mean it is a good division. With the exceptions of B-Hop and (recently) Dawson, 175 has been a wasteland since Jones and D-Mich were at their peaks.

/Lesson.

 

When exactly was Glen Johnson one of the 'best SMWs'?

Was it when he lost his first two fights at the weight?

Or was it when he went on a four fight winning run against a guy with a 3-20 record, a guy with a 24-16 record, a guy with a 9-23 record and a guy with a winning record assembled entirely in the Netherlands Antilles but who in his last fight (and first outside the Netherlands Antilles) had been knocked out in one round?

Or was it when he then lost his next four fights at the weight (including against Omar Sheika who Calzaghe then demolished)?

Or was it when he beat the might Toks Owoh for the IBF intercontinental title?

Portraying Johnson as one of the best supermiddleweights at that time is sheer delusional revisionism.

 

Agree with this. This constant attempt to portray Glen Johnson, at best a decent contender, at worst a journeyman, as some kind of feared elite who Calzaghe was afraid of is totally ridiculous. If a world ranked fighter at super middle doesn't want to face a world ranked light heavy then it's very easy. He simply says "thanks for the offer but I'm staying at 168 for the time being". He would not sign for the fight and then, having cancelled due to an injury, actually sign to reschedule it.

Johnson is a reasonable fighter, but as I stated was really a journeyman at 168 and only somehow started to have success at 175 where he did pick up some decent wins over highly rated fighters. Nonetheless, he's still lost as many as he's won. However, a lot of the fans in the States are clueless casuals (as opposed to hardcore boxing fans) who think that because he knocked out a shot Jones, that somehow makes him an elite fighter. In other words, beating the name of Jones counts for more than all his other achievements against good opponents without the name. Which answers the question about why Calzaghe was so keen to fight Jones despite labelling him "shot".

Calzaghe is open to some valid criticism, sure. His career from 2003-06 seemed to stagnate due to hand injuries, fighting to the level of his opponents in the ring and out-of-ring problems. He didn't go out of his way to make unifications until the end of his career. But not fighting Glen Johnson is not even close to being one of those valid criticisms!

 

Forgiven? Well, he certainly seems to have been forgotten...the way some media in the UK tell it, it was a glittering non-stop roll of A-Class opponents for Joe.

Me, I see that the last couple years of his career really boosted Joe and he is deservedly one of the UK's best boxers IMO. But when claims of him being the best ever come up, it's the years in the wilderness defending a (let's face it, at the time) mickey mouse belt at home that hurt him.

And stuff like the B-Hop victory being held up to show his greatness just suggest to me - imagine what a prime Hopkins would've been capable of against Joe.

 

Quite obviously not in terms of the roll of A-Class opponents. However, this myth about fighting "at home" is exactly that, a myth. Calzaghe fought the majority of his title bouts in another country (most in England, plus visits to Denmark, Germany and the U.S). Compare that to the likes of Ottke and most of the American champions who never bothered to leave home and I don't see why Calzaghe should be singled out as the one to get stick for this.

As for the B-Hop victory, that was one of his worst performance in ages I thought (albeit maybe due to the quality of the opponent combined with his spoiling tactics), the styles just did not mesh well at all. However, saying imagine what a prime Hopkins would have been capable of against Joe is a bit short-sighted IMO. Firstly, Hopkins was good enough to tank three fringe or actual pound for pounders either side of the Calzaghe fight (Tarver, Winky and Pavlik).

Secondly, Calzaghe was not in his prime either. His hands are so brittle these days that he can't punch properly, his chin aint as granite as it was and a bit of the speed had gone. Add this to Hopkins having home advantage and JC having to move up to fight at his weight for the first time and I think this fight is fairly meaningless in terms of concluding what would have happened a few years ago.

 

His legacy is hurt by the fight picking imo. To the contrary to most Americans, I favoured Calzaghe to beat Lacy (not as comprehensive though) as I though Lacy was overrated for being American. Calzaghe has long been underrated.

And though it is true that I would favour Calzaghe over most people in that era, we don't know. He did not fight mandatories, freeman weighted for years and lost before he got his chance (does not say much but it says something).

That is why I rate Ottke higher during this period. At least he had mandatory defenses for a "genuine" world title (as the WBO has the worst policy regarding mandatories and the worst ones generally at that too). I still do not rate the WBO as equal to the other three.

The Hopkins victory was good, but I had Hops narrowly winning / draw - so that was far from clear cut too. The Jones victory really means nothing to me. The two victories that showed us some of what Calzaghe was capable of doing are the Lacy (OK), Kessler (very good victory) and Hopkins (very good victory).

So yes, his legacy is tainted and not near as good as it could be. Hatton also picks fights, but less so, and his general opposition has been of a higher level than Calzaghe for a longer period of time. Calzaghe with better opposition and one or two lossess would have a much better legacy imo.

 

Those years really take away from his legacy. He fought 9 fights and only 2 can be seen as wins over good fighters.

 

dude knows he would have lost if he stepped up to the big leagues then.

 

nope, but lets be real....who ever said he had a Pacman like resume anyways?

 

Why do so many people point out Glen Johnson as being such a great scalp at 168?

Between '97 and '00 Glen Johnson's resume at 168lbs looks like this:

Merqui Sosa L UD10
Joseph Kiwanuka L SD10
Armando Campas W KO6
Troy Watson W UD12
Augustine Renteria W TKO4
Marcelo Zimmerman W TKO1
Sven Ottke L UD12
Syd Vanderpool L UD10
Silvio Branco L UD12
Omar Sheika L MD10
Toks Owoh W TKO6

He won 5 out of 11 fights, none of them against a decent fighter.

The thing is, because Johnson was 'known' in the US then had Calzaghe fought him then Johnson would have been mentioned today as one of Joe's best wins. Better than his wins over people like Reid, Brewer and Mitchell....all 3 of those guys were better 168lbers than Johnson.

I would liken Johnson at 168 to Edison Miranda today. Because Miranda is 'known' to US fight fans he is considered to be a big scalp for a fighter.

Is he really any better than say, Markus beyer, who Kessler beat?