naa mate a guy who struggled to make just 1 defence of one the big three titles isn't a great. Hes way down the order. dozens made more than one defence. what migitates for joe is that he at least nocked up a lot of minor title defences.
Dominated the division and beat a prime Kessler and beat a still very good Hopkins at a higher weight. He also impressed me by making better adjustments in the second half of their fight against a Ring master in Hopkins. 46-0 there's no blueprint.:deal
Yes, young Calzaghe especially. He's got the kind of natural awkwardness and ability you can't teach.
He looked great in some fights and scr*ppy in others. His unique style caused problems to everyone he faced. I used to look forward to his fights when I was younger, as you never knew what type of fight you were going to get.
I think he meant that he was defensively sound, as in his unique offense overwhelmed most of his opponents which meant that he never found himself in too much trouble. That's how I interpreted it, but you're right, he never had what you'd call a great defence.
As far as I'm aware, his notable wins at 168 are Kessler (a good fighter but that's all), and I guess Jeff lacy. He did this while only having the WBO which was not highly reputed at the time (nor still). How is this dominating a division? Where is the greatness? Is it actually just people repeating the 46-0, destroyed American legends, mantra over and over?
By the way I'd like to congratulate everyone in this thread in participating in The Most Objective Calzaghe Debate Thread of All Time. Well done.
calzaghe could be an ugly fighter to watch but his biggest attributes were his intagibles. he liked to fight liked a tear up his will to win was always 100% he had the most stamina of any 168 in history/ he had fast hands/he had quick feet when he needed them / he could fight in the pocket and at range / he was very adaptable v every single style. he could brawl with brawlers like bika he could box and take away the jab of classical stand up boxers like kessler he could outhustle and take away the hopkins experience and know how. he could stay right in the pocket v punchers like lacy he could fight southpaws fight strongmen fight awkward who needs them fighters his style in many fights was not eye pleasing but it allowed him to always win / he was definatley not a fighter for the purist / but v other boxers in the ring he did and would have posed problems for every single 168 fighter because you could never get sparring for anything like him.