Another nail in Sloppy Joe's "legacy".

Calzaghe would be smart to come out of retirement to fight the winner of the Super Six

 

"The Greatest Cherrypicker of All Time" Joe "Undefeated" Calzaghe.

 

You can say that they're JC haters, but, what part of it isn't true?

 

Eubank lost two fights to Collins prior to Calzaghe and two fights post Cazaghe, he then subsequently retired. He also took the fight on two weeks notice. He was washed up, pure and simple. Hopkins was 42 and had clear stamina issues. Even taking this in to account he beat Joe that night, even the bbc had him winning the fight.

I am curious about your definition of prime...


"On the other hand Lacey was gaining a Tyson like persona when Calzaghe ruined him". :rofl

 

If you want to mock somebody, don't misspell 'opportunist'.

 

of course they would. no matter who calzaghes has or would have beaten, it matters not to these little peckers. atsch

 

Steve Collins was a great fighter who went long and unbeaten after the Eubank fights. Collins, like Roy Jones did refuse to fight Calzaghe though.

On the other hand, Eubank was only 28 years old when he had the very close split decisions against Collins and fought Calzghe just one year later.

 

Joe Calzaghe is UNDEFEATED. Why doesn't Joe Calzaghe get his love, he's undefeated, he's got more wins then Floyd. He should clearly be the number 1 fighter of the decade.

He's beat 2 ATG's in Hopkins and Jones. Hopkins dominated Pavlik imagine what Calz would do to him.

 

Collins was not a great fighter, he was a tough brawler who made his name beating faded fighters, his resume and ability were not even approaching elite.

Eubanks age is irrelative, he retired a mere two fights after the Calzaghe loss and was clearly washed up prior to the calzaghe fight.

 

Sven Ottke or Joe Calzaghe for fighter of the century? We should start a poll.

 

:-(

 

Well to me, even before Jones and Kessler lost this month, the one fact (and not opinion) about Joe's career that always sticks out is as such:

Calzaghe, in his long undefeated career, only fought ONE fighter in the Ring Magazine P4P Top 10.

Whether B-Hop was past his prime or not is up for debate (I'd say he was since he was pushing 43 years old and beat a heavy Pavlik moving up in weight for the first time, but that's not the point.). He was Ring P4P Top 10 and 175 world champ. It was a top win.

But again, 46-0, a world champion at 168 and then 175 for ELEVEN YEARS, and only ONE challenge against Top 10 P4P in the world competition? And it was a split decision on top of that.

That's a damning statement when you compare him to anyone else in the Top 100 ATG. They fought a hell of a lot more than one P4P fighter in their careers.

I think he deserves all the credit in the world for beating Kessler. But many other fighters have unified other divisions. For example, O'Neil Bell unified by beating Mormeck at cruiser. Mormeck, like Kessler, was nowhere near the Top 10 P4P however. Therefore, put the Kessler win in perspective. It was a good win, but a great one?

So to answer your question, I would say regardless whether or not the Kessler or Jones losses hurt his legacy, I think when his career is long over, the historians will center on the superfights he had, which in my opinion, was only one.

 

Did Sven Ottke ever beat 2 ATGs? No one in this decade has beaten anyone in the likes of Hopkins and Jones.

 

Taylor, Tarver, Green, Johnson...

 

Alright, genius - please, tell me how many P4P fighters in the last 15 years have there been who have been fighting at 168-175?

Toney, Hopkins, Jones Jr and Calzaghe.

Toney was too fat by the time Calzaghe was a name at 168.
Hopkins said no, no, no, no, until Calzaghe had enough of a name to get him money.
Jones Jr wasn't fighting anyone European at that stage.

So, how is a guy who is 168-175 meant to fight a lot of P4P top 10? They simply don't exist at that weight until they've had a decade of fights.