Calzaghe went 10 years (97-06) without a big fight...WHY??

First of all i think that JC is a brilliant boxer...when he defeated Chris Eubank in 1997 he went 10 years from 1997 to 2006 without any big fights.
My question is WHY...??

He could have unified or at least make himself a bigger draw by putting himself into mandatory posiitions in order to secure big fights...He didnt (Dont blame it on FW, If Ricky could get Tzyu and Khan MAB and Kotelnik then surely JC could have demanded some real tests in that time period).

Now we all know about Amir Khan, he has been knocked out in 1 round by Presscott....then all in all 3 fights later he faces a washed up legend in MAB (though a big name) and is now a world champion.

My question is this...SHOULD CALZAGHE HAVE DONE MORE IN THEM 10 YEARS IN ORDER TO GET THE RESPECT THAT HE DESERVES NOW...I MEAN 46 - 0 IS A BRILLIANT RECORD...BUT IT ALL COMES DOWN TO THE LEVEL OF OPPOSITION..AND LETS FACE IT HIS WAS NOT EXACTLY ATG MATERIAL OPPOSITION BESIDE JONES N HOPKINS WHO WERE BOTH OLD AND OUT OF THEIR PRIMES....!!???

 

I feel yes he should of had some more career defining fights in them 10 years. I do feel he was with the wrong man for making them type fights. He will always have a ? over him as a atg but he did what he had to do in the ring and 46-0 is a great record but end of day even some of the true greats still have there haters so i doubt he cares.

He ended with a big bang three big fights that he can point to but even them fights people will have there own thoughts on them.

For me beating that Jones doesn't prove anything to me. I didn't enjoy the fight really.

It's really as if Joe's whole career is tinged with if's and buts from fights to his whole career to his management.

 

Yes, he could have been much more if he stepped up the plate when he defeated chris eubank, but he was also a brilliant boxer from the Wales and is a modern day legend

 

Reid/Mitchell were decent fights. He was going through a divorce in 2004 so pulled out of the Glen Johnson fights

 

I just bought and watched the DVD which had all of his world title fights up to Hopkins and I have also read his autobiography. And although there were plenty of problems that did hold him back (we all know what they are) the main problem to me seems to be that throughout his career he dithered and was waiting for a fight that was perfect for him and he refused to go into a danger fight untill he and everything about the fight was perfect he shouldn't have done that and funnily enough when he finally did actually take a chance with Lacy (well kinda he was gunna pull out) it was his best decision of his career. He also lacked confidence and I think that win gave that to him it's a shame he had to end with that RJ fight if he had faced Tarver instead or even better given BHop a rematch it would have given him so much more cred.

He should have ditched the WBO belt before the second Veit fight when he couldn't get the fight onto British TV and apparently was told to ditch it by Frank Warren.
He either should have moved up to Light Heavy like they talked about or he should have gone to America and fought on an undercard in one of his crappy defense fights to boost his name unfortuneately he did neither.

 

Having read his Autobiography, it seems that Joe was much less Money driven than other fighters and for that reason he only went into fights to win meaning he would pull out if he wasn't 100 percent where as other fighters would go into fights injured solely to pick up a pay check.

 

I wanted to vote for both the options


Calzaghe. Legend, but could have proven so much more

 

This is such an original thread :tired

 

That's 9 years.

 

Not if he means from the start of 1997 to 2006: 1997 + 1998 + 1999 + 2000 + 2001 + 2002 + 2003 + 2004 + 2005 + 2006 = 10 years.

However, he probably doesn't mean that, since I seem to remember the Eubank fight taking place mid-1997.

 

Glen Johnson went something like 3-4 at SMW so he wasn't exactly crying out for a fight at the time. In hindsight it would look good.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0URs7rYHIA

 

Because he didn't want to risk a loss.

 

Shane he didnt get the big fights earlier, but Lacy was the first rival title holder with a name, schooling American Lacy the way he did would have probably got him more props than grinding out a decision of Beyer or Ottke.. I would have liked to have seen the Michelcewski fight though, that wouldve made great sense.

 

Because he wasn't as good as people think he was and wated for the right time to chance his arm.