Is Joe Calzaghe Overrated?

this is such a dumb arguement.

fighters age differently. who wins between a 39 year old archie moore who just challenged marciano for the world title or a 39 year old mike tyson.

now who's the overall better heavyweight?

 

To say that Joe Calzaghe is overrated is perfect 20/20 hindsight, or wishfull thinking. When a guy wins all his fights and has been winning for so long, and is undefeated against guys everyone picks to beat him it becomes somewhat illogical as well as unsportsmanlike to consider him "overrated".

 

Does anyone know the score for this thread? How many said yes and how many said no?

 

who is this guy that "everyone" picks to beat him? i did choose JC to beat Bhop and my reason is that Bhop is too old to fight a very good fighter.

 

Refer to all the boxing periodicals prior to the Lacy fight and count the number of so-called "experts" who were picking Lacy to destroy Calzaghe. Very few, if any were picking JC in this one. Most of these same "experts" were picking Kessler to win as well.

 

It's not about who ages better, it's about who has more skill and more craft, because that's all your left with once youth is gone. Tyson was done by his late 20's becaused he didn't have a good amount of either, where as Moore did. Also, Tyson was the overall better heavyweight. Moore failed against the vast majority of top heavyweights he fought. I'm saying that once his gifts of youth left him, Hopkins was able to still be a world class fighter into his 40's, something only a handfull of boxers can say. I don't see the same thing in Calzaghe.

 

There was a thread on here last week that had a POLL, which mainly asked was Joe "great"?, "average"?, or a "bum"?


about 45% said he was great
about 45% said he was average
with about 12 or 13 people saying he was a bum

 

yes it is. tons of crafty, witty, intelligent fighters like bernard have retired or been unable to compete at a world class level like he has at his age. most of them infact.

fighters like hopkins and moore are exceptions. people age physically and mentally differently.

stick sweet pea in the ring at 43 and lets see how he does. you can have all the tricks up your sleeve but if you haven't got the will to do it anymore at that age or your body isn't what it once was then it don't mean ****.

 

Also, your comparing a 39 year old Moore to a 39 year old Tyson. Who do you think wins between 43 year old Hopkins and 43 year old Calzaghe? what about 36 years old? Calzaghe will not be journeyman level when he's 43, yet he should get praises for beating a 43 year old Hopkins.

 

hopkins obviously, because joe will have packed it in by then.

fighters career lengths differ, fighters primes come at different ages. joe relied much heavier on his physical gifts (handspeed, footspeed) than hopkins ever did. so he is going to struggle more in later life should he go on too long. yes hopkins is the more technically schooled by joe is the more physically gifted, things like this even themselves out.

but yes he should get credit for the hopkins win...

he was fighting outside europe for the first time.
he was fighting at LHW for the first time in his career.
he was fighting the man who beat the man etc.
hopkins has an awful style for him.
although favourite many still believed hopkins would be too crafty for him.
....and despite hitting the canvas in the first round still beat hopkins to retain his undefeated record.

 

good counter argument using "sweet Pea." I do believe he relied more on his natural athelticism more than Hopkins, and him being against considerably bigger fighters plus his coke problem caused his career to be shorter than it might have been. Plus, larger fighters last longer in the sport. Their throwing less punches in each fight, expending less energy, and taking less, that's why Hopkins, Moore, Foreman, and Fitzsimmons are the only really successfull 40+ fighters. The thing that impresses me the most though, is that Fitz, Moore, and Foreman are 3 of the greatest punchers ever, and your punch doesn't go away with age. Hopkins is not a puncher, yet is still world class. I respect your argument. my point basically is just Calzaghe beating Hopkins now doesn't make him greater than B-Hop.

 

Does anyone consider Calzaghe the greatest Welsh fighter ever?

 

yes he is

 

nope jimmy wilde is better

 

He probably is the best Welsh fighter ever, yes.

The nuthuggers on the BBC boxing panel are currently debating whether or not Joe is indeed the greatest British boxer.

I would say no - you would certainly rank Lennox Lewis ahead of him. Joe could have been, but too much WBO and homecooking for me. If you look at the names he didn't fight (for whatever reason) against say, half of his title defences - the guys off his resume are generally better.

Ottke, Beyer and Johnson > Eshira, Starie, Manfredo