Comparing Resumes: Hopkins & Calzaghe

My biggest problem was that Lacy and Kessler had to bring their belts to Joe's doorstep before he'd unify in a division he claimed as his.

 

But you'll miss him when he's gone.

 

Two of Joe's biggest wins - Lacy, turned out to be America's most spectacular flop in years, and Kessler who is a decent solid fighter but still hasn't proven how great he is yet, time will tell on that one.

 

I don't think Kessler is that good. He may get badly exposed in this tourney..... darn it.

 

Only problem is, Calzaghe didn't lose to Hopkins, so you are right - he has nothing to be ashamed of. As far as I can see it says 'W' on his record.

 

He needs a better trainer.

 

Calzaghe will never get credit for that win because the fight proved nothing... he looked inferior and was on the deck. I actually scored for Calzaghe second time round, I didn't feel Hopkins did enough but his lack of workrate was as much to do with his age as it was Calzaghes awkwardness. Watching that fight it seems that all Hopkins had to do was string a couple of decent minutes together and he was a different class. Same as even OAP jones jnr.... Every time he opened up he looked a different class.

No matter how hard I try I just cannot accept Calzaghe is an ATG. Effective yes, decent yes but not an ATG or anywhere near. Just very, very fortunate and consistant. I don't see anything great about him. His chin was ok, his stamina was excellent. He didn't punch properly, he wasn't a world class puncher. He had a very good jab.

He's either a horrible fraud, or a very **** looking ATG (like Carlos Monzon)... I can't work out which one.

 

How you work out Monzon looks very ****? He looks incredibly precise, a master dictator of range. You are too obsessed with a certain style of looking good, it means nothing.

 

One of the criteria I think for being an ATG is taking fights where you are a big underdog and coming through with a win. Joe never went into a fight as an underdog. Lacy was about as close as it gets, and even then it was pretty evens going in (and Lacy turned out to be America's most spectacular flop in years, but that's besides the point).

 

Perhaps mate, I'm not trying to argue about it but thats the theory i've got at the moment. I didn't rate Monzon that highly but begrudgingly accept him as an ATG and i'll probably do the same with Calzaghe if Kessler proves himself as top banana.

Your right though I am a stickler for looking good doing something. I don't think Khan looks good but he is effective so maybe thats my problem.

 

With nearly every other fighter in history that was the case but was the state of the division joes fault? :think

 

spectacular flop because of who....

 

Ever watched Harry Greb? He windmills his arms everywhere, its the exact same thing, yet his resume stands up. Looking good on the eye is subjective, and predetermined ideas about which styles are worthy of being called great is a bit silly, because ultimately its often the unorthodox guys that break from the mould that befuddle their opponent. Their are many ways to skin a cat as they say, effectiveness is the priority.

You can judge what Calzaghe achieved for yourself and you have your own idea if he's great worthy. People differ in opinion on that and I can see both sides of the coin these days.

We should probably all on this forum take a moment to remember the guy is retired and will stay that way. He should be put in the cupboard with Eubank, Benn, Lewis and other modern British greats. He still seems to be a constant running theme everywhere on the forum, its quite bizarre.

 

Gary Shaw?
Jeff Lacy?

Probably not Calzaghe. I was a Lacy fan, I preached his potential greatness but that wasn't Lacy in the ring it was someone who was unable to cope getting some of his medicine. Just a headcase.

 

Is this thread for real?

it's like comparing Real Madrid to Birmingham City.

Except when they clashed, Real Madrid fielded their 'legends' team, each player being over 40.