If Calzaghe was American

if calzaghe was an american ,fought eubank as he did in 1997 and stayed at supermiddleweight as he did to 2007 and then retired he would have been undefeated in that time period .

quite simply calzaghe was a lot better fighter than tate/echols/lucas/vanderpool who were basically the only top 168 north american fighters he never fought during his reign.

its all well and good saying calzaghe would have lost quite a few times but to who ?

fact is calzaghe was a career 168 fighter, so you have to judge who he would have lost to on fighters who fought at supermiddle from 1997 to 2007.

 

Well, everyone knows 168 has always been a European-dominated division. The lack of good American fighters at that weight doesn't mean Joe still coasts through undefeated. Maybe Joe gets sick of the lack of good American competition/big paydays and jumps to 175 sooner?

It would've been extremely difficult for him to have avoided fights with RJJ, Hopkins, and/or Toney all those years. Everyone from 168 to heavyweight wanted to fight RJJ. It would've been damn near impossible to avoid Hopkins. The best middleweight and the best supermiddleweight, both Americans, both reigned for years, and they wouldn't have fought? I doubt that. Hopkins would've schooled him btw. :good

 

This is correct. However, I don't see why this thread was started in this first place, we have had literally thousands of them over the past few weeks. Calzaghe is not greater than Jones or Hopkins at the mo. No knock on him but those two are bona fide ATG (and I am very selective with the use of that term). He MAY have beaten Hopkins in their primes (not Jones) but is not a greater fighter as things stand.

 

A couple of things.

When would he fight Toney?

He had signed to fight Hopkins in about 2002 but Hopkins pulled out.So he hadn't avoided hopkins anyway.

Hopkin and Toney didn't find it extremely difficult to avoided each other did they.

:good

 

He wouldn't have been allowed to build a long record of success without being pushed out of his comfort zone and into fights with the best talent around his weight. Just as Pavlik looked at BHOP last year, RJJ moved up from SMW to LHW, and McClellan moved up from MW to challenge directly for the SMW title, etc., etc. Success would have brought tests and opportunities to substantiate or unmask its validity. RJJ might have come back for a one-off at 168 (he didn't move up because he couldn't make SMW, he went up because that is where the greater challenges were in the light of his overwhelming athletic advantages - if Joe wouldn't have risked moving up for a one-off at 175). BHOP would have jumped at an easy payday versus Joe in '97-'99.

You're quick to state things many in America would doubt ("quite simply calzaghe was a lot better fighter than tate/echols/lucas/vanderpool"). Joe's fanboys sure give him a lot of credit for being a sure victor over fighters he never faced. That is being overly generous. It is also used to justify him not fighting tough guys like Glencoffe Johnson. BHOP beats Pavlik so Joe gets a mark in his win column over Pavlik too. Absurd. BHOP has some competitive rounds and tough moments in two fights with a physical prime Echols and Joe fights the softer Brewer (to a less than amazing 12 round win). Echols had stopped him in three eleven months earlier. Now, you're so certain that Joe is a sure thing over Echols. Echols knocks Salem down and defeats him in 2002 (that's his 3rd fight at SMW). Joe fights Salem in 2004 (in Joe's 38th fight at SMW), gets dropped, and looks less than amazing (don't you think?). What if he had fought Echols (e.g.) instead of McIntrye, Veit , Brewer, Jimenez, or Pudwill (2001-2002)? In America, Joe wouldn't have been allowed to pick the weaker challengers or opponents as it suited him. Joe wouldn't have gotten to 2006 (from the Eubank fight in 1997) without meeting a physically stronger fighter than himself. The point is that there would have been fighters that would have looked at Joe and doubted his abilities. They would have demanded an opportunity to prove themselves and knock him off any pedestal. Joe would have had to prove it. You just want to give it to him and ignore his calculated career.

Pavlik is put into a fight with Miranda in which many believed he would wilt against EM's firepower. He then gets put in against Taylor (with the same expectation). He fought BHOP at a higher weight last year. He will likely face Abraham in the not-too-distant future. Pavlik will not be allowed to parade as the MIDDLEWEIGHT champ and go backwards and face near cans for the next eight years or so. Joe fought a non-prime Eubank in '97. I doubt any fighter Joe faced subsequently until post 2006 would have beat even that version of Eubank.

There were some other US fighters (defeated by BHOP, RJJ, etc.) that were around during Joe's career that would have posed a better challenge than a number of the most outrageous no talents that ended up across the ring from Joe.

Dawson has a win over an old Glen Johnson and an old Antonio Tarver. He will likely have another win over Tarver shortly. He has a win over Adamek (cruiser) and Harding. He is 26. Some nice names on his CV (hmm .. just like Joe). He won't be allowed to only fight the oldest fighters or the bottom of the divison's top twenty and avoid the other younger more talented guys until they are either defeated by someone else showing him the way, damaged, or exposed in some fashion. He won't be worshipped as a superstar by fighting guys like Gonzalez, Woods, Brahmer, or Branco. He will either beat the guys considered by the fight world as legitimate contenders (perhaps Diaconu, Cloud, Garay, Mack, Henry, George, Erdei, Kessler, etc., etc.) or he will lose and go out on his shield. He won't remain champion and get to 35 years of age without adding another name to his resume that much is certain.

Eric Lucas is Canadian.

 

I think the comments about Calzaghe being a lot better fighter than guys like Echols/Tate/Lucas/Vanderpool etc... are a response to some ignorant Americans who bang on about how he never faced this fighter, that fighter the other fighter (I kid you not I even heard someone accuse him of avoiding Joey DeGrandis the other week!!!) Of course there were fighters who were champs or contenders at some point during his reign he never faced, there are with any fighter. However, whilst he can't be awarded "surefire" wins over those fighters, it's also unfair to try and tear him down for not fighting them, as their resumes and accomplishments simply don't warrant it.

For example, the mention of Echols stopping Brewer in 3 rounds is rather selective bearing in mind that he was on his arse three times in the 2nd and it could have just as easily been him stopped. Echols also got clowned by Mundine (a Kessler victim) and Tate went life and death with Sheika who Calzaghe demolished. Vanderpool got stopped by Lacy who Calzaghe brutalised. I am aware that the triangle theory doesn't always work in boxing. However, why Glen Johnson is mentioned here is beyond me, he went 4-6 at 168 and lost to the likes of Sheika, Vanderpool, Branco etc... He is really a career fringe contender who will only be remembered for his KO of a past-it Jones. Sometimes, you just have to watch the fights that did happen and make you own mind up rather than trying to "do the math". Points it there were no US-based super middles until Lacy who had established themselves as a "must see" challenger. Some decent ones, yes, but no "must sees" so whether he fought over there made no difference in that regard.

As for no American champs fighting cans, Boom Boom Johnson and Virgil Hill didn't do a bad job of it for quite a while to name just two. Pavlik has fought two in his first two defences, though I respect his going for Hopkins so I will let him off as both were mandatory.

Some good points but just food for thought

"TKO"

 

[quote="TKO";3438432] However, whilst he can't be awarded "surefire" wins over those fighters, it's also unfair to try and tear him down for not fighting them, as their resumes and accomplishments simply don't warrant it.

For example, the mention of Echols stopping Brewer in 3 rounds is rather selective bearing in mind that he was on his arse three times in the 2nd and it could have just as easily been him stopped.[/quote]

Yeah, I know that. But, he didn't. The result is that Brewer got stopped. Joe didn't dominate Brewer the way Echols did the year before. [Though, the stoppage was arguable to some.]

[quote="TKO";3438432] Echols also got clowned by Mundine (a Kessler victim) and Tate went life and death with Sheika who Calzaghe demolished. Vanderpool got stopped by Lacy who Calzaghe brutalised. I am aware that the triangle theory doesn't always work in boxing. [/quote]

Agreed. The A-B-C is fraught with exceptions isn't it? We can go 'round and 'round. Mundine wasn't terrible. Beat Green. I didn't think Kessler won by as much as his fans suggest and I think he was winning the fight versus Ottke (in only his eleventh fight) before getting completely caught. He got the TKO versus Thorneberry (his last fight I know) whereas Ottke and Joe got taken the distance <g>.

Tate was only beat by decent fighters and he was old by Sheika (who was young). Technically, Tate got a TKO over OS in 4. Joe needed 5 to get the ref stoppage on cuts <g>. Tate had already gone through wars with really good fighters so this doesn't suggest much of anything.

Vanderpool did get stopped by JL in a decent scrap. But JL (IMO) had fallen in love with staring in the mirror and making muscles by the Calzaghe fight and had gone overboard. He also did apparently think too little of Joe and had to be feeling the intensity of the moment at M.E.N. (and he only had 22 fights - c'mon) which he underestimated (pretty hostile crowd y'know?). Jeff really got carried away with using brute power and he messed himself up.

[quote="TKO";3438432] However, why Glen Johnson is mentioned here is beyond me, he went 4-6 at 168 and lost to the likes of Sheika, Vanderpool, Branco etc... He is really a career fringe contender who will only be remembered for his KO of a past-it Jones. Sometimes, you just have to watch the fights that did happen and make you own mind up rather than trying to "do the math".[/quote]

Yeah, I don't agree with this. I think GJ won nearly every disputed decision (albeit several were very, very close) where he traveled to the opponent's home (actually, where he was the opponent on the promoter's card). Also, how do you take into account that an athlete doesn't have to be a static evaluation at one point in time but rather a progression (in some cases) depending upon the tough fights you had in your youth or prime or those that didn't have such tests and had greater longevity by being able to mature without getting pushed into the fire in one's youth (JC). Glen has several losses at SMW ('99 - '00) so it looks like he was ineffective or not substantive. But, we can also see that Glenn became even better and committed to his boxing career and is a great LHW today. Right before moving up, Joe could have made that fight and I am not at all convinced with any measure of assuredness that he would have won. I certainly don't think Joe would win at LHW today. I do believe that GJ either then or now would be an ample test and one that Joe doesn't fancy. Glenn was terrific against Chad Dawson, Antonio Tarver, and RJJ. He is a legitimate point to question regarding Joe as he is of the same generation. Chad Dawson is too young for Joe and would win clearly (IMHO).


[quote="TKO";3438432]
Points it there were no US-based super middles until Lacy who had established themselves as a "must see" challenger. Some decent ones, yes, but no "must sees" so whether he fought over there made no difference in that regard.[/quote]

The argument to this, is that a champion in the US setting records for consecutive defenses (especially a white one (really)) wouldn't have been able to load up on poor defenses for so many, many years. Joe would have had to face some really strong punchers (maybe a Bryant Brannon type as an example off the top of my head) and who's to say that the accumulation of meeting (several) stronger men trying to take his head off (stronger than Joe faced for over eight years) wouldn't have changed his evolution as a fighter. He gets credited as having a great chin. I don't think that is so clear. He didn't face many Eubank types did he?


[quote="TKO";3438432]
As for no American champs fighting cans, Boom Boom Johnson and Virgil Hill didn't do a bad job of it for quite a while to name just two. Pavlik has fought two in his first two defences, though I respect his going for Hopkins so I will let him off as both were mandatory.
[/quote]

Sure it can happen. But at the same time, there were other champions in other divisons pulling the limelight in their years. I don't think a white champion would be allowed to hide out in anonymity. The US is still nearly 2/3 white. It would love to have a white champion. Joe would have been forced by the attention to take hard fights. He wouldn't have been allowed to slip under the radar breaking records fighting nobodies. This is really why so few Americans believe Joe would have accomplished the same things over here. We had great fighters like RJJ, BHOP, McClellan, McCallum, Nunn, Toney, etc., etc. in the more recent generation (and so many right before that, SRL, TH, MH, etc., etc.). We know them when we see them. We watched Joe versus Eubank. We saw him against BHOP and RJJ most recently. Nothing we saw has changed anyone's mind. Joe is a pretty good to near great fighter but far from an amazing athlete. He just isn't quite what they are. That should be enough. If Calzaghe was American some might think he would have been a star. But, there are FAR, FAR more doubters than believers. I don't think he would have been. That doesn't mean he couldn't have been known as a decent to good fighter. Hard to see him being more than that.

[quote="TKO";3438432]
Some good points but just food for thought

"TKO"[/quote]

But, good points indeed. No disrespect intended.

Cheers.

 

[quote="TKO";3438432]
Some good points but just food for thought

"TKO"[/quote]
Good post. Many a good point.

 

[quote="TKO";3438432]However, why Glen Johnson is mentioned here is beyond me[/quote]

Calzaghe pulled out of several fights with him.

 

Two actually that I am aware of. But that was due to hand injuries and (if you believe the gossip) personal problems. I am talking about why Johnson is mentioned as being a credible opponent at 168 in any case. His record was 4-6 there. I like the guy's attitude but he is not an elite fighter. His longevity is impressive, but even if you think some of the 12 losses were wins, an elite fighter would be demolishing the likes of Sheika, Branco, Gonzalez, Judah etc... The whole reason why some (predominantly Americans) are snowed into thinking he is was his win over Jones. But for that, his career would not rate a mention besides that of a decent, longtime contender.

Achilles - some fair points, was going to respond but quite frankly can't be arsed and don't think I'll get the last word with you on a Calzaghe thread, nice debating with you anyway.

 

[quote="TKO";3438848]Two actually that I am aware of. But that was due to hand injuries and (if you believe the gossip) personal problems. [/quote]

Big deal, he was going to pull out of the Lacy fight as well if you 'believe the gossip'.

 

There's no conspiracy against British fighters. Honest guys, there really isn't.

 

Actually - that win apparently made him a top 5 p4p fighter according to most lists. Look back if you don't believe me - you check the lists before lockett, and after lockett up to the bhop fight - pavlik was elevated to top 5 p4p.

 

At the end of the day America's jealousy of a great fighter from off their shores is quite amusing. Anyone who says he hasn't fought great fights is full of ****.

After BHop beat Pavlik it showed he's definitely not passed it.

He destroyed Lacy who everyone thought would beat him, and is now only thought to be average because his career was destroyed by Calzaghe, remember when he annihilated Robin Reid? That was hardly average.

He beat Mikkel Kessler! Kessler is now generally seen as the best at SMW, amongst Pavlik, Froch, Taylor... decent fighters. Kessler is extremely gifted. And Calzaghe fought a tough but also relatively comfortable win.

He beat RJJ without leaving third gear, yes it wasn't the same guy but still... it was an impressive performance.

These alone make wins over Byron Mitchell and Chris Eubank irrelevant. But anyone who says his resume/CV isnt strong enough is either blind or full of ****.