Is Joe Calzaghe Overrated?

Extremely important yet ignored point.....a prime example of how credibility relies heavily on quality of opposition:deal

 

i don't think Calzaghe had better natural gifts. I think the prime Hopkins hit harder and had equal if not superior hand and foot speed when executing the punches. I know Calzaghe mixes in power shots with the "slaps" but you can't say his slapping speed compared to Hopkins' punching speed. When both truly puched, there wasn't really a difference in speed.

 

The point was not made to diss Calzaghe at all - I am a big fan, but please, all this ATG stuff is daft. I would rank Hatton on a par, because he showed the willingness to get in with the best opponents and take on guys that he was made for, as opposed to the other way round.

Joe barely lost a round in his title reign apart from the Reid fight, up until the unification against Kessler. OK Hatton was defending the WBU but the quality of opponents was certainly equal, if not better.

 

Part of the reason i think he is overrated is because people call him the greatest Welsh fighter ever. I just wanted to know who on here did. You can have your own opinion, that's fine, i just don't see how his accomplishments stack up to Jimmy Wilde, Freddie Welsh, or Jim Driscoll.

 

I'll ask one more question.

How does Calzaghe compare to Ken Buchanan?
In case you don't know, his highlights were two wins over fellow hall-of-famer Ismael Laguna, a one-sided 8th round stoppage of all-time great Carlos Ortiz (who was past his prime), and a win over Jim Watt just before Watt won the title and Buchanan retired. Also, he didn't really do badly against Duran in Duran's title-winning performance.

 

5

 

Toughie - Buchanan went on too long for me, and although losses to bums at the *** end of a career are often ignored, I think the sign of a great sportsman is to go out at the top, and on their own terms.

Hence Calzaghe having perhaps one more fight before calling it quits.

 

Buchanan, despite the relative brevity of his title reign, and his career in general, was a superior fighter to Calzaghe, and this is coming from a Calzaghe fan, by the way. Ken Buchanan was a gifted boxer, who could adapt his style to cope with guys who were faster, like Laguna (the speed difference was not that great) and he could box rings around guys, outclassing them like he did Donato Paduano in a nontiltle bout on the undercard of Ali-Bonavena. He was competitive, against Duran more so than anyone else, including DeJesus in his two title matches vs. Duran. Buchanan had a chin that was world class. That 1st round kd against Duran was a fluke...a brush to the shoulder as Ken was already off balance. He came closer to actually decking Duran a round or so later, and took the abuse from Duran far better than anyone else would. Buchanan lost the desire, IMO, after the foul ending of the Duran fight, and the fact that he was never given a rematch. He was embittered by the loss, and lost his desire for the sport.

 

1

 

I'd also have to put Buchanan above Calzaghe. He has better wins, and was a more skilled, more versatile fighter. It's close, but the edge goes to Buchanan.

 

Here is another example of how ignorant today's fan is ..Joe's level of comp gets quetsioned but in the same breathe Kelly Pavlik gets all time great status with a win over 1 top opponent ..Why should I ever care who people call overatted ? When its usually the same people who over hype the smallest accomplishment ?

 

At 43 hopkins would beat a 43 year old Jones. Does that mean Hopkins is better than Jones?

Hopkins came to the game late unlike Jones and Joe, his ring age is far younger than his years.

 

43 is old for a boxer dude, were not just talking about a guy in his 30s here.

To be honest an elite fighter, in his near prime shouldn't be fighting 43yr old grandpa's. If the opponents that good he should have definitely faced him sooner.

 

43 is old for most boxers but Hopkins is a freak of nature ..Better yet how many fighters can fight into their 40's and even come close to being as successful as Hopkins can ? Its hard to find !

 

Yes Hopkins is exceptional for an old man (in boxing terms), there's no doubt about that. But how exceptional can a 43 yr old be?