Is this really the problem with Calzaghe and Mayweather?

Did both retire without taking up the toughest challenges because they just would not be able to deal with losing? Both always seemed obsessed with their "0". They both seem to believe they are great but is this just the illusion in their minds created around being able to say they are undefeated?

Now I realize some people would say this is the case no matter who they fought just because they were undefeated. This is not the issue with me. I just find it odd a fighter would really want to be great then retire just when they were on the verge of doing so.

Calzaghe could have fought Pavlik instead of a twice-knocked-out and severely faded RJJ. Look at what B-hop's win over Pavlik did for his allready great legacy. He will not fight Hopkins again although true champions usually fight rematches after a very close fight. He said he does not do rematches yet he has already done so. Sometimes I wonder if Enzo had to push him into the ring for the Lacy and Kessler fights. At least he did fight them and they were both percieved as very dangerous at the time he fought them.

If Floyd would have fought just one elite WW I think many would have a more favorable opinion of him. I believe Floyd would break-down mentally, more than Calzaghe if he were to lose. We read his unrealistic claims of how much money he made in one year as soon as reports come out that he owes (what would be to him) a measily 7 million or so to the IRS. It seems he is always over-compensating for something. Is this his fragile ego speaking in the back of his mind?

Am I just being selfish because I want them to fight again or is this a realistic claim that they think their legacy's are greater than they really are? I really believe only just maybe two more fights or even just one great challenge and they would perhaps be elevated to the status they already think they have. Do you think it all goes back to the obsession of their "0" or would it not matter who they fought if they went undefeated?

 

i posted a thread on this a while ago i completley agree with you. thats why in some cases it maybe better for fighters to loose there 0 early on in their career. as the loonger its kept it soon begines to define a fighter.

As for Flloyd not fighting the best welterweights im not too mad at him for that there are some physical beasts in that division..imagine pbf going up against williams?

 

Pavlik lost to B-Hop (who Joe had just beaten) and was dominated in embarrassing fashion. Pavlik's handlers said he had "no business above 160" after the fight. Joe was fighting at light-heavyweight and surely any Pavlik fight would have been made at 168. This would probably have been very bad for Joe, to get down to this weight after moving up at age 36.

I don't think that Pavlik was an option.

B-Hop rematch would be boring, as Hopkins only hope against Joe is to spoil and disrupt Joe to steal rounds.

The only realistic fight would have been Dawson. I think that Calzaghe would beat Chad, but probably would have showed his age. This would only be a 'money' fight if it was held in Wales.

I don't think Calzaghe has the hunger anymore, to get into training and punishing his body and frail hands anymore.

 

Well I will give Floyd some slack for that because he is more suited for 140 than 147.

 

Bernard fought Pavlik at 170 and he's older than Joe.
I understand the B-hop rematch being boring but you have to admit Joe could have looked a lot better regardless of the way Bernard fought.
Maybe his desire is gone but I thought he was in phenomenal shape for the Jones fight so he at least had the desire to train very hard in his last fight.
I believe he would beat Dawson but if he actually did it, that's a whole other thing than us thinking he would do it. I think it would be easier than the Kessler fight but would probably give him more credit, at least to us American fans. Joe wanted acceptance in America. He said so himself.

 

Yes, i have a problem with both of them in that they are obssessed with their "0" and they brag about it. It's just that they didn't take on all comers, especially PBF at WW. The thing is, PBF along with Calzaghe had the talent to beat most, if not all of the "tough" challenges they didn't take.

 

There is a big difference between the two fighters.

Calzaghe only got to pick and choose who he fought, when he was aged 36, at the end of his career, and he choose to retire. Other than that, he faced all the top guys at 168, its just that 168 was a shallow division.

Floyd was young, could fight almost anyone, and he cherrypicked his way through the weights.

 

I would certainly value Calzaghe more if he'd given Hopkins a rematch. But at the same time I understand his tendency to value his record and his legacy, and not to want to tarnish that. Fundamentally, if a fighter hasn't got the will, there's no point in him fighting; moreover, he's unlikely to perform at his best.

As for Floyd, I don't think anyone can complain about him retiring when he did. He'd come off the back of victories against Hatton and DLH. Let's face it: the scheduled rematch wasn't about boxing; it was about money. I don't think (especially given his dismal performance against Forbes and then slaughtering by Pacman) that anyone could say Oscar had a shot at PBF in a rematch - he was thoroughly on the downward slide.

I do think there's a case for PBF coming out of retirement now, though. He's still young enough to be near his prime and there are plenty of opponents out there - the winner of Cotto and Mosley would be a real monster-fight, and that would really cement his legacy as perhaps even a top-20 ATG fighter. I think him fighting Pacman or JMM might be a bit grotesque, though - that would be a money match rather than for records.

At the same time, we fans are always going to be thirsty for more; we can always push fighters for one more performance without considering their legacy and drive. Certainly in Calslappy's case, there's little else for him to seriously acheive that would cap what he's already done, apart from that rematch (which isn't even all that sexy).

 

And that's one thing that bugs me that they may very well have never lost anyway because of their superior talent.

 

Imagine PBF's legacy if he had fought and most likely beaten Margarito, Mosley, Williams and Cotto. We are talking high ATG standings are we not?

 

This content is protected

 

PBF actually has a good resume, wins over Hernandez, Corrales, Castillo, Hatton and DLH at 154 shouldn't be dismissed, Slappy on the other hand hid behind Warren and the unregonised WBOGUS title for 10 yrs, no comparison IMO.

 

Maybe we always do want more of great fighters but it seems there was actually precedent to want more in the case of both fighters.

 

:rofl PBF's Top 5 wins **** all over Slappy's Top 5.

 

I agree.