We seem to get a thread like this pop up most weeks. I'm not sure that over or underating comes into it. Joe is clearly a talented fighter, I don't think anyone can really deny that. The main criticism that I feel is rightly levelled at Joe is his lack of ambition. He spent far too many years defending a poor belt at home when he had the pound for pound king residing in the division above him. So to answer your question, no. Hes not overated he does most things you want to see in a ring & entertains people, but his resume has a glaring ommision in Jones who I feel would have beaten him in his prime.
Counter points. Calzaghe is un-defeated, and won many of his best fights at an age where boxers of his style generally lose their best stuff. The Lacy win was the best paint job I have ever seen. Calzaghe will defeat Roy Jones jr, and probably retire undefeated with wins over the two best middle weights in the past ten years ( Hopkins and Jones ) and a win over the best supper middle weight besides himself in Kessler.
i dont actually think hes as skilled as people say hes actually very sloppy i just think hes able to exert his will on his opponents better than anyone ive seen we all know his resume is garbage even his biggest fans can't deny that
He was underrated enough to not be top 3 p4p after beating Kessler. For the most of his career he has been clearly underrated. Maybe due to his inconsistancy.
like scar said overrated career wise/resume wise/quality of opponents but is not overrated when it comes to skill wise.
:happy :happy :happy A perfect post. Genuinely could not agree more. The guy has been a champion since 1997, and has squeezed 3 quality wins in at the end of his career when he had all that time (and Hopkins should've got the decision anyway). A good fighter, but definitely not a great one. Think what guys like Miguel Cotto have achieved in only a fraction of the time? And Calzaghe's decision to avoid Pavlik and instead fight the ridiculously over-the-hill Jones will be his defining legacy- trying to get big rewards for easy options. Only great win was Kessler.
That first bit hinges on whether you recognise the WBO as a legitimate title. I personally dont, howver, I do think he has a respectable resume but certainly not a great one. He didn't duck anyone but certainly didn't go out of his way to chase anyone either. He was comfortable doing what he did & thats the legacy he leaves, over the hill Jones or not.
of course he is.....but numbers dont lie, he did defend his title sucessfully for a decade (although it was mostly against C - B class opponents)......and he did beat bernard hopkins one of the greatest fighters of all time (although he was old as ****).....so it all depends on what you consider a great fighter, i guess also.......i dont know how he's not overated skill wise, his technique is horrible....all he has is a high work rate
I said him not beating Ottke, Mundine, Beyer, and Johnson shows that he did not dominate his division for 10 years. Of course he would have beaten them (except maybe Johnson), but Jones destroyed everybody at 175lbs except Mchelweski, who was the other best at the weight for a long time, and like Ottke refused to fight the absolute best, and then there's Hopkins, who during his 10 year reign took on every noteworthy middleweight and beat them. Calzaghe didn't dominate his division for 10 years is all i'm saying, because he didn't fight several of the best at the weight. You can not say he was 168lbs. champ during Ottke's reign. Neither was at the time, Calzaghe didn't become THE champ until Lacy, the IBF beltholder and recognized top 3 in the division. He just beat Hopkins who beat Johnson, but Calz signed to fight Johnson a few years ago and pulled out for no reason. Making WBO mandatory defenses against mediocre at best opposition is not dominating a division, what he has done in the past 3 years is actually quite impressive, but everything before is mostly meaningless. The comparison to Jones and Hopkins in terms of legacy is where he is overrated, as well as some calling him one of the top 3 greatest British fighters ever. The BBC had him just behind Wilde and T. Lewis, when he's no where near Driscoll, Welsh, Fitzsimmons, and also L. Lewis. Those who say he is talentless and a fraud underrate him, but that's a small minority compared to those who overrate him. He's an excellent fighter worthy of hall-of-fame status, nothing more, nothing less.