Is Joe Calzaghe Overrated?

He just held the lineal Lt heavy weight title not bad for a 43 yr old when peole half his age are in early retirement ..

 

I'd like to see you get in a ring with a 43 year old Hopkins, Foreman or Moore and then say they were past it.

Some freaks just go on longer than others, others are finished in their 20's. Hopkins is one of those rare freaks.

 

As Larry Merchant said "a geriatric wonder".

 

Err..... are you compairing me to Elite boxer Joe Calzaghe?

Old Foreman lost to the likes of Morrison and others, no way deserved a title shot. He got the shot on reputation alone.

He was getting murdered till he landed a killer punch. Watch the fight!

 

No, you make Calzaghe look ultra witty, intelligent and a highly engaging character

Calzaghe is underrated mostly. A few good posters are forced to side with him due to this, but are mostly fighting the tide.

 

Yes, you really underrate him.

 

I most likely do, he's better than I think

Not as much as an ignorant Hatton such as yourself mind. The dart board is waiting atsch

 

It is you who is ignorant my friend and unfortunately has been for all these years.

Joe is not looking good in these times, and continues to look worse; through his own doing as well.

He's a boxer with exceptional stamina, exceptional "punch rate" ...can also be very evasive (if not skilled enough to tag). He's no superhuman boxer like you've been fooled into believing. Far from it...

The British public (the ones you put down) are intelligent enough to see though his smokescreens as well. That's why he isn't half as popular a boxer, as a boxer of his "stature" should be. They see through it.

Unfortunately he sold you down the Swannie...unlucky...the smell of coffee gets stronger...enjoy the decrepit Jones fight.

 

I know full well Calzaghe is slipping. It's the main reason the fight with Hopkins was relatively (but not really) close. I've seen every fight since Eubank, I know him, and I know he's been slipping physically slowly for a long time now. You don't need to tell me that, especially when your speciality is sucking the nuts off Hatton

And he isn't popular because he hasn't particularly chosen to seek the limelight, unlike your boyfriend. He's also pretty dull to the average person that isn't interested in him. Nothing to do with his career, they don't know **** about his career because boxing isn't mainstream

 

No ****ing chance. Taylor is an HBO hypejob of joke proportions, always has been. Calzaghe is a different class.

 

This is a tricky one. I think Joe Cal is overrated in that he doesn't have the resume to back up being #2 p4p, or an ATG as his supporters claim he is, but I don't think his ability is necessarily overrated as he clearly is a talented fighter. IMO he just never proved it v enough quality opposition throughout his long championship career, so no-one can claim to know if he was a true great, only guess.

 

No, he has beaten people that have beaten all those 4. Dont be fooled by Ottke's "unbeaten" record.

 

World Supermiddleweight champion, 3 defenses.

World Lightheavyweight champion.


Kessler (UD12), Hopkins (SD12), Lacy (UD12), Eubank (UD12). None of his other wins are against really elite fighters, and 10 years from now (if not already) the Lacy win will mean **** based on who Lacy was, although it will still have some significance since that was the fight where he universally became regarded as THE champion of the division, and we still don't know how impressive Kessler may or may not be.

That's his career summary. If you want to throw in the other stuff, then it's probably HOF worthy. But 'Great' might be a bit too much, although you could argue he deserves to be mentioned with fighters like Flash Elorde, Luis Rodriguez, Ken Buchanan. I personally rate all of them above Calzaghe, but he's close to them.

 

In my opinion there is a significant difference between a Hall of Fame level fighter and an all time great. Here's an example. Ray Mancinni and Danny "Little Red" Lopez are hall of fame level fighters. Alexis Arguello and Tommy Hearns are all time greats. Big difference in skill, resume, and accomlplishement. Joe is probably a shoe in for the Hall of Fame, but he hasn't done nearly enough to warrant atg status.

The thing I find most amazing about Joe is that a fighter who is so obviously flawed in so many ways has stayed on top for so long. At least a part of the reason he has been so succesful is because, much of the time, they chose the right opponents at the right time, and avoided fighters who were truly dangerous.

I put the Lacy win on the same level with Pavlik's win over Miranda. Lacy and Miranda were considered monsters until they both took the ass whoopin' of a life time. Afterward both seem to have fallen apart. Moreover, sometimes it's not just who you beat, but how you beat them.

I've changed my position on Kessler. After that fight I questioned Kessler's heart big time. The man looked like the proverbial rabbit in the head lights for much of that fight. However, after learning all the facts about the severity of Kessler's hand injury, I'm now willing to give him a pass. The quality of that win is still an open question. It depends on what Mikkel does with the rest of his career.

In the Hopkins fight Calzaghe looked bloody awful. This will start a **** storm, but Jermain Taylor beat a younger, fresher BHop, so that puts the quality of Joe's win in perspective. I was truly amazed when Joe went up the p4p scale afterward. Even though he won, his performance was so abysmall, I felt that he should have gone down the list.

Calzaghe has had a good run. His career has been brilliantly managed. He's an international boxing star. Is he over rated? Yep.

 

A perfect statement IMO. Salute.