Calzaghe WBO reign, "a decade of dross"

Perhaps on this forum, but the bookies had the fight just about even. Lacy was a 4/6 shot (mentioned here in John Rawling's report: [url]https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2006/mar/06/boxing.joecalzaghe[/url])

Brilliant performance from Joe of course, but not the unheralded upset some seem to think.

 

But sometimes beating a guy who has never fought above European level looks better in the long term than beating some sad old faded wreck. George Groves hadn't fought above that sort of level when he fought Froch for example.

Nobody would rank Kelly Pavlik over Roy Jones in an all time list. But beating Kelly Pavlik would have done far more for Calzaghe's legacy than battering some sad old punchbag.

 

He did niching to warrant the hype at the time.

 

I think everyone agrees the Roy Jones Jr. win does nothing for Calzaghe's ranking.
But it was a nice payday.
$10 million he made for that, and then retired.

 

L. Lewis pound for pound and historically is better than j. calazghe, he has top class wins over holyfield, v. klitschkon then a massive string of second class wins which perhaps his most impressive part...g.mason, d. ruddock, tucker, tua, golota, morrison, f. bruno, s.briggs, r. mercer then huge list of 3rd class wins t.biggs, m.tyson, f. botha, m. grant, akinwande, mccall 2nd, rahman 2nd, m. weaver.

Now of tyrell biggs was more in his day it wold be 2nd class win, m. tyson if he fought him pre 97 a first class win, but he was unlucky, still his resume is huge a top boxer in the heavyweight catergory from dec 1992 to june 2003.

 

it was an upset because of the manner in which joe calazghe did it not actually winning.

 

Agreed.

 

same

 

Boxing is one of the greatest sports in the world, the ultimate but the organisation of the sport is a complete mess and now we have concepts of absolute because boxers are allowed to cherry pick etc etc giving the illusion of undefeated or never could lose but we know with prime examples of canelo and floyd mayweather but certain to be in HOF, both given biased decisions or allowed to cherry pick opponents because of their pulling power.

Facts both are great boxers
facts only 1 loss with both boxers
facts if boxing was organised as in figh the number 1 every-time or no biased decisions both men would have far more losses combined.

 

Haha, what a thread!!!

Joe's reign was definitely frustrating and I always think he could have achieved more but I still love the story, the triumphs in the face of adversity, the father and son thing, the shed, the mountain, Enzos back story, the forced change in style, Joe Calzaghe was just incredible to watch from a technical perspective, he had it all.

 

He had some decent wins before going into the Calzaghe fight, Vanderpool, Reid, Sheika, he was a dangerous fighter before Joe took his soul. He was never the same after that, he was beaten in every department on the night.

 

I understand what you’re saying, but it did have a lesser status.

It wasn’t respected.

It was ridiculed by journalists, it wasn’t rated for a long time by the Ring and it wasn’t needed in order to become an undisputed champion of a division.

Things got worse before they got better.

In 2003, their system moved a guy up their rankings after he’d died.

 

You’ve made some good points. But the difference is, Joe was really struggling to make weight in order to fight those SMW opponents. He was coming down from around 196 pounds, where he literally had to starve himself of food. The LHW division would have suited him much better. And for most of his reign, it consisted of better fighters with more recognisable names.

 

Tito was as shot as what Roy was.