Happy birthday to one of the most overrated boxers of all time, who NEVER legitimately beat a top level opponent EVER. Hopkins was 43 years old and still beat up Calzaghe with effective counterpunching whereas Calzaghe through volume punches with no real effect other than to trick the judges. Joe Calzaghe is overrated and has a padded record. All boxing fans with an ounce of knowledge know that Calzaghe is a mediocre fighter with a padded record. Being undefeated is not impressive when you fight in your backyard vs bums for 95% of your career. He wasn't trash, but he wasn't exactly good either. Let's look at his "noteworthy" career. 1) Chris Eubank - this is not a notable win. Eubank was in the end of his career and a shell of his former self. And on top of that, a prime Eubank didn't beat anyone other than Benn - a decent but not great boxer. And he ducked James Toney cuz he knew Toney would crush him. 2) Jeff Lacy - A washed up version of Roy Jones finished this guy. That shows how unimpressive this win is. 3) Sakio Bika - a belt holder with no notable wins. 4) Manfredo Jr - another easy win. Not impressive 5) Kessler - he beat Froch. Whoop de doo who has Froch beaten outside of a washed up Glen Johnson, and padded record Abraham and Bute? (who have never beaten anyone notable) Froch also got a gift from the ref vs Groves and the judges vs Dirrell. Froch's win over Pascal is not impressive because Pascal was green and is nowhere near the same fighter anymore. And Jermain Taylor was a blind squirrel who stumbled across an acorn vs Bernard Hopkins, and did nothing since then. After his 15 minutes of fame Taylor disappeared quickly. So now that we established that Froch is overrated like his countryman Calzaghe, there are no notable wins on Kessler's resume either. Even if someone does consider Kessler top level, having this as your best and only win is not mind-blowing by any stretch of the imagination. 6) Roy Jones - of course when Calzaghe fights Roy Jones, Jones is a shell of his former self. Roy already got viciously KOd twice before this, and he was not anything close to resembling a world class fighter. And he still knocked down the overrated pillow-punching/slapping bum Calzaghe. 7) Bernard Hopkins - Calzaghe did not win that fight. He got gifted a decision. His father was screaming at him in the corner before the last round - telling him he needed a knockout. From the look on Calzaghe's face before the judges' announcement he knew he didn't deserve to win the fight. Then Calzaghe was extremely surprised and excited when he found out he got gifted the win he didn't earn. Calzaghe got whipped and knocked down by a 43 year old man. So much for Calzaghe being an all time great fighter. Is it coincidence that when a man with a padded record finally faced real competition that he had such a difficult time? No. It proves Calzaghe's incompetence as a wannabe top-level boxer. I know certain sheep that are following the herd have prepared pitiful arguments to defend the mediocrity that is Calzaghe's career, and I will dismantle them here. 1) Calzaghe beat Hopkins legitimately - NO he didn't. Just like Oscar DLH in his fights vs Pernell and Floyd (in which Oscar clearly lost both times despite what the judges said), Calzaghe was the ineffective aggressor while his opponent was the more effective counterpuncher. Calzaghe threw pitter-patter slaps on Bernard's arms and shoulders, and complained about Hopkins faking a low blow (which he probably did) - while forgetting all the times he hit Bernard in the back of the head without being penalized. On no planet did Calzaghe win more than 6 rounds, and because of the knockdown from Bernard there is no way he legitimately won the fight. 2) Well on compubox Calzaghe outstruck Bernard - Compubox stats almost always are innacurate - even glancing blows or blows that completely miss can be counted on the punch stats as an effective shot, so if the compubox stats are your reasoning for Calzaghe's legitimacy then you are a fool. On top of that, matches are scored round by round - not based on who landed more overall shots. If fighter a breathes on fighter b that counts as 10 landed shots. 3) Calzaghe is undefeated - Calzaghe fought 44 nobodies (including Eubank). The other 2 were a washed up past-prime RJJ and a 43 year old man that he lost to, but received a gift. It's not about the number of fights you win. It's about who you win against and how you win. Brian Nielsen was 49-0 at one point. Would you take Brian Nielsen over Muhammad Ali (56-5), Evander (44-10-2), etc? I would hope not. Undefeated doesn't necessarily mean good. What has been written is IRREFUTABLE, UNDENIABLE, UNCONTESTABLE, INDISPUTABLE, UNQUESTIONABLE, flawless FACT. Not opinion or conjecture. Not even the fact that Bernard Hopkins legitimately won (but got robbed by the judges) is an opinion. Nor is it an opinion that Calzaghe is nothing close to an all time great fighter by any stretch of the imagination. I challenge any human being to try and disprove the mastery of wisdom that has been displayed. Unfortunately for delusional Calzaghe fans, no one can refute the irrefutable.
I agree Calzaghe is very overrated. Kessler was very ordinary. Eubank beat Watson and Graciano Rocchigiani, and Thornton and Lindell Holmes. All had top, world-class wins (Don Lee, Benn, Nunn, Hamsho, Sosa, Frank Tate) and put in top, world-class performances (McCallum, Maske, Michalczewski, Toney, Park).
What a said little bum ''i know everything is'' i bet hes never even boxed his little sister, yet he is trying to make out a two weight undefeated world champion and one our best boxers has the ability of a wetherspoons bouncer. Listen you melt go see the doctor and get prescribed som prozac, because your a ****ing crank. Calzaghe could of stopped Hopkins if he didnt start wasting time pretending to be low blowed, Lacy was very good but was just never the same when after he got slapped about for 12 rounds. Kessler ''ordinairy'' that is a good one, Eubank, Bika,Veit,Sheika,Bryon Mitchell are all very good wins your a ***** end of.
Bika, Veit, Sheika and Mitchell weren't very good. So they certainly weren't very good wins. Woodhall and Brewer on the other hand were very good and good, good wins.
Slight exaggeration. Barrera was Khan's Eubank, Maidana was his Reid, Kotelnik was his Kessler, Gomez was his Delaney, McCloskey was his Starie, Malignaggi was his Sheika/Manfredo, Garcia was his Mitchell, Prescott was his Salem, Peterson was his Brewer/Lacy, and Judah was his Hopkins/Jones. More like 35-40%. Khan has speed on a par with or above the Joemeister and is more explosive. I admit that in terms of instinctual positioning, gifted timing and blessed reflexes/chin, the Joemeister is better than him, and the Joemeister has slightly quicker and more inventive flurries with more punches from more angles to more areas. Khan is just abnormally tall and rangey for his weight, with an abnormal ammount of fast-twitch muscle fibres for a non-black sportsman.
Why not the same sentance? Both British World Champions with all-time lb4lb-rated hand speed. Both great amateurs, both lost fights (Reid, mid-40s Hopkins, Peterson, Garcia), both hit the mat heavily (Mitchell, Salem, mid-40s Hopkins, 40yr-old Jones Jr, Prescott, Garcia), both won fights against big names (10-15% of Eubank, 40-yr-old Jones Jr, Barrera, Judah), both went on to be HBO stars, etc.
Joe Calzaghe is the best super middleweight of all time and one of the all time greats while Khan has a glass chin and is a few levels below super Joe, it's ridiculous comparing the two, they are several levels apart.