Is Joe Calzaghe a H.O.F fighter...and is Cal a legend, an ATG, or great fighter?

Which wins on his resume do you believe will be highly regarded by worldwide boxing fans in 30-50 years time?

 

Fair enough, but I genuinely disagree. I think his stock will slump.

I don't believe Ricardo Lopez's stock has rocketed since he quit, because his resume doesn't contain the names of fighters who have legacies of their own and are remembered in their own right. Sorjatorung and Alvarez were very very good wins but they do not resonate the way that Carbajal and Gonzalez would have. Perhaps if Lopez had fought them (he would have beaten both IMO), his stock would be rising with time, but I do not believe it has in the past decade, he is still remembered how he was when he retired - a superbly talented fighter with a good resume and some great accomplishments.

Now the value of Calzaghe's resume relies heavily on 3 wins: Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins.

It is too difficult to judge the Kessler win at the moment. If Kessler never achieves anything else, he will be remembered as a very good, talented short-term alphabelt champion, and Cal's win over him will be remembered as an excellent unification win. If Kessler goes on to clean up 168 and win some big fights (which he very well may do), that win could rise in value. It's in the balance.

The Hopkins win also may rise in value. The quality of that win will never be what it would have been had Calzaghe beaten him around 2001-3 as Hopkins at 43 is still formidable but not peak, but if Hopkins continues to produce wins and performances a la Pavlik, that win could increase in value and be of real significance in the future (though I believe that if nw fans get hold of the dvd and watch the fight in 30 years time, they will not be overly impressed with Calzaghe's performance, and may very well believe Hopkins won, as I know you don't but many people do).


But the crux of the reasons why I believe Calzaghe's stock will slump is that he value of his win over Jeff Lacy will continue to depreciate. In 30 years time, the unjustified hype that surrounded Lacy in 2006 will have been largely forgotten, and because of his dire form post-Calzaghe and his caning by Jermain Taylor, that win will no longer be viewed as the monumental achievement it was by some in '06, and will have depreciated to the same value as a win over someone like Byron Mitchell or Charles Brewer - a good win which slots in nicely alongside others in a nine-year period bereft of big names and big fights.


IMO, the only men whose stock can rise with time is men with strong resumes, as it is the big names and the big fights which stand the test of time, wins over guys with legacies of their own who are remembered in their own right. Rightly or wrongly, Marciano's stock has risen partly due to the fact that people remember wins over Charles, Walcott and Moore (his win over Louis is thought of similarly to how Calzaghe's win over Jones will be I think, the slaying of a thoroughly shot legend).


I see your point re the zero, but I don't think that in itself is enough. With the way boxing is going these days, I see plenty more fighters retiring with zeroes in future decades.

Do you see my point at all or do you think I'm talking utter bollocks??

 

Calzaghe beats Hearns h2h definitely... because Hearns is a 147-160lbs fighter and Calzaghe is a 168-175lbs fighter.

Hearns was a far far superior boxer in terms of all-time greatness though.

 

No offence mate, but I'm not convinced. Lopez never got the p4p recognition that he should have at the time because he fought in a barren, unglamorous and unpopular division - but he was widely regarded as a superb fighter. Perhaps his stock has risen, but I do not believe it has rocketed. (Btw, I think Lopez was a superior boxer to Calzaghe, do you mate?)

All true. The value of a win is diluted by the quality of the performance and because Hopkins is past-prime, but it will retain its value because Hopkins is still a formidable force and Calzaghe did get the decision on the night.

I'm sure we can find many lists which have all manner of unjustified placings. I don't rate Jefferies anywhere near the upper echelons of my hw list, I doubt you do, I doubt most do. Zeroes mean a lot to some, not so much to others. So it will be with Joe. His stock may rocket in some quarters, but not in general terms IMO.

But is this more because of the zero, or more because of the names Charles, Walcott and Moore? I believe it is because of the names. Had Marciano went 49-0 but avoided ever fighting these three even though they were around, he would not be rated anywhere near as highly these days. Had he ended up 49-1 by dropping a rematch to Walcott near the end of his career but then KO'd Walcott in a third fight to win a trilogy 2-1, I think his stock would have still risen as it has done due to the names.

It will indeed amigo. :good

I wasn't referring to specific active fighters, I was just meaning that more and more fighters with time are being shielded by their promoters and not pursuing the toughest challenges in the divisions around them, and the success of someone like Joe Calzaghe (I'm sorry, but in my opinion he did spend 9 years battering tomato cans and protecting a zero) will only make this approach more tempting to fighters & promoters in the coming decades.

Though if I had to say which active fighters could end on a zero, I would propose maybe Chad Dawson (far from the perfect fighter (same as Joe IMO), but there's really not a lot of intimidating comp for him at 175), Arthur Abraham (likewise at 160, plus I think AA will be very hard to beat for even a top quality mw), and Ivan Calderon and Chris John (two very good bets for it).

 

I agree Richie was a decent fighter, but he was stopped by Keith Holmes at mw. He was no better than decent.

 

Hof

 

So - Nal - Now that Clazaghe has retired - who is P4P #1 on your list?