Joe Calzaghe retired 46-0 (32) in 2008. Get over it. Fans & haters; quit trolling!

Ok I'll stop :good

 

He debates like Bailey does.

They have a lot of similarities.

He debates by using statistics, and refuses to allow for any circumstances.

 

Facts don't lie. The difference in my style and Bailey's is that I don't really try to use statistics to make things look better or worse than they are. I just show you the statistics. :good

Here:

Their resumes look pretty similar to me...and that's only if you ignore the fact that most of the 'champions' Jones fought were guys who held paper belts that were stripped from/vacated by other guys...

Jones:
Hopkins
Malinga
Chirino
Garcia
Tate
Toney*****(P4P-Ranked Champ)
Byrd
Pazienza*(Former Champ at 135/154)
Thornton
Sosa
Lucas
Brannon
McCallum**(Former Champ at 154/160/175)
Griffin
Griffin***(Champion)
Hill**(Former Champ at 175)
DelValle***(Champion)
Grant*(Former Champ at 160)
Frazier
Johnson***(Champion)
Telesco
Hall
Harmon
Harding
Gonzalez
Kelly
Woods
Ruiz***(Champion)
Tarver****(Unified Champion)

Calzaghe:
Eubank**(Former Champ at 160/168 )
Sobot
Ferreyra
Reid**(Former Champ at 168 )
Thornberry
Starie
Sheika
Woodhall**(Former Champ at 168 )
Veit
McIntyre
Brewer**(Former Champ at 168 )
Jimenez
Pudwill
Mitchell**(Former Champ at 168 )
Mkrtchyan
Salem
Veit
Ashira
Lacy***(Champion)
Bika
Manfredo
Kessler****(Unified Champion)
Hopkins*****(P4P-Ranked Champion)
Jones**(Former Champ at 160/168/175/HWT)

TOTALS:
P4P-Ranked Champions (*****)
1 Calzaghe
1 Jones
Unified Champions(****)
1 Calzaghe
1 Jones
Champions(***)
1 Calzaghe
4 Jones
Former Champions at the weight (**)
6 Calzaghe
2 Jones
Former Champions at lower weights (*)
0 Calzaghe
2 Jones

 

He said Joe had a better resume his credibility just went to Failey level ..

 

In other words, they aren't subjective.

That isn't possible. The BEST you could argue is that they earned their shot.

I've highlighted your subjectivity.

Who was he offered a shot at in 2003 when he chose to fight Mitchell instead?

How does this matter? Are you trying to build a case that Calzaghe was avoiding moving up in weight? Because that's...pretty low on the list of damning indictments that can be made against a fighter, even if true.

It took Hopkins 6 to start and 9 to finish. What's your point?

More subjectivity. You don't know what he was thinking. Of course, the facts show that he was pushing for unifications from the time he won his first title...

Here I've highlighted in green the place where you make an objective point. Calzaghe was indeed the man at SMW. In stark contrast we have your second point, highlighted as per the usual method I will now use to highlight your subjectivity, in red. Roy was indeed considered the man across all divisions...by SOME people. And 'considered' isn't a very strong word. He never even proved he was the best in his own division, let alone all of them.

 

I'm not interested in your statistics.

Go and look at Sven Ottke's statistics.


There's many factors to take into consideration when you an*lyse a guys resume and his all time ranking.

Such as:

Looking at his overall abilities as a fighter.

Looking at who he fought.

Looking at when he fought them.

Looking at the abilities of those opponents.

Looking at what they'd done prior to the fight.

Looking at what they went on to do afterwards.

Looking at the manner of victory.

Looking at any losses.

Longevity.

Looking at who they didn't fight, and why.

Looking at any circumstances, including: stylistic issues, age, weight issues, (weight loss, weight gain, being outweighed) number of fights had, injuries, fatigue, etc.

Looking at their overall accomplishments.


Joe had great longevity, and he retired unbeaten. He deserves a lot of respect.

But he wasn't a better fighter than Roy.

He didn't beat better fighters as a whole.

He didn't take on bigger challenges as a whole.

He didn't accomplish as much.

He wasn't as dominant in his prime.


How can anyone argue otherwise?


You want to talk about the legitimacy of the belts?

Joe won the lightly regarded WBO belt that was vacant, after beating a faded Eubank who hadn't fought at the weight for two years, and who hadn't won at the weight for three years. He then defended that belt against mainly B class opposition:

Sobot
Ferreryra
Thornberry
Starie
Sheika
Veit x 2
McIntyre
Jiminez
Pudwill
Mkrtchyan
Salem
Ashira
Manfredo

He obtained the IBF by beating Jeff Lacy.

He then unified against a very good fighter in Kessler, who'd obtained his belts against Manny Siaca and Markus Beyer.


Now if we put Joe's resume under the same microscope as Roy's, then trace back where his SMW belts came from, and ask yourself these questions:

How good was Manny Sciaca?

How good was Markus Beyer?

How good was Jeff Lacy?


All things considered, Roy was a better fighter, who accomplished more.

He'll always be ranked higher on anyone's ATG list.


:good

 

He's way out of his depth.

 

Indeed.

It feels like I got saddled with a caseload of 60 Intellectually Disabled kids who think they're brilliant.

It's a hell of a challenge but I do my best.

 

all hail the mighty Calzaghe:good

 

I agree, a ring box off between Jones Jr and DM would have been amazing.. But it didn't work out that way..

Does that mean it wasn't legit? absolutely not.. Like I said, back at that time when Roy was prime, there was very little doubt he was the best fighter.. And I am not only speaking of fans, but boxing experts and other fighters as well..

By the way, I don't support Jones-DM not happening at all.. It was a black eye to boxing.

I am not impressed either, but He is also at the lower weights, where weight classes are closer together, the jump from MW To HW is more impressive IMO, and he also has not come close to to beating a fighter like Hopkins or Toney, and simply isn't near the fighter Roy was, anyone can see that.

I can agree with this... Like I said, this was felt by most about when Roy had the Ring and DM had the lineal title.

Jones actually held the ring belt and the WBA HW belt at the same time, when he dropped to fight Tarver who was ranked #1 after DM's loss, I consider that a legit defense of that belt..

I considered Calzaghe the best because I like to be as consistent as possible with my reasoning and logic.

I never had any doubts Roy was the best LHW, Calzaghe beat the man who beat the man that dethroned Roy who was the pound for pound king..

What I don't like is posters being critical to Roy's claim of the LHW championship but then want to praise Calzaghe fully, when all he did was beat Hopkins who beat Tarver who beat Roy for a "trinket" belt. It makes absolutely no sense.

It is the double standards that I mostly argue against on here.

 

KillSomething,

There's nothing wrong with listing statistics, as long as you consider all other factors.

Go and read Bailey's posts. Then you'll see why I call him the King of Spin.

Joe bragged to Carl Froch last year of his number of WBO title defences. He was obviously happy to fight all of the guys that he did.

Now go and compare the divisions from 1996-2005.

Then take into consideration:

Joe ran into a roadblock in 2003.

He's 6ft, with a natural walking around weight of 192-196 pounds.

He mentioned on numerous occasions about wanting to move up to LHW.

He would have been made the mandatory challenger to the WBO, LHW champ.

Because of the number of SMW title defences he'd made, if he'd have decided to have moved up to LHW, the WBO would have granted him a mandatory shot at whoever held the belt at the time.

How does it not matter?

We're putting his resume under the microscope. This is a guy who claimed to have chased Roy Jones for six years.

He couldn't unify the division against Sven Ottke. He said in 2004, that he wanted recognition and bigger money fights etc.

If you took Ottke out of the equation in 2003, who was left at SMW?

He'd have been better of in the LHW mix, rather than fighting Veit, Salem, and Ashira etc.

Joe had the abilities to have beaten Tarver, DM, and Gonzalez etc.

He could even have beaten Roy earlier.

All those fights would have been possibilities.

The point is, many other guys used the SMW division as a stepping stone. Whereas, Joe stayed there for the majority of his career, even though that in the late 90's/early 00's, it was one of the weakest divisions in boxing.

I know that when the door was slammed shut in his face, he remained at SMW to fight more B and C class opposition, when he could have moved up to LHW, unless an injury etc had prevented him from doing so.

Again, I know that he was happy to fight those SMW mando's, from various comments that he's made over the years.

Roy was the consensus pound for pound number 1 for a long time.

That outweighs being classed as 'The Man' of a division.

Especially as that division wasn't seen as a great division.


It doesn't matter what the statistics say.

Joe's biggest wins were: Eubank, Reid, Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins.

All things considered, they weren't better than Roy's best wins.

 

:good

 

You really want me to?

Well then go ahead and explain all that to us. I'm particularly interested in how Jones losing to Griffin, Tarver, and Johnson is better than Calzaghe never losing.

You think so I just listed all of them and they're pretty damn similar if you ask me...

Was moving up in weight to fight nobodies a bigger challenge than staying at one weight and cleaning it out? Maybe, maybe not. All I know is nobody ever questioned if Calzaghe could beat the other champs in his division until Lacy came along, and he pretty much cleared that one up. It was always questioned whether Jones would lose to McClellan, Liles, Jackson, Benn, Collins, Nunn, Rocchigiani, Michalczewski, Lewis, Sanders, Byrd, and Wlad.

I guess you're right, if you consider winning paper titles more of an accomplishment than actually beating the guys who won them in the ring.

Eubank was the previous champ and had a legit claim to a shot at the title once Collins retired. Who do you think should have fought for it instead?

How is this different than:

Malinga
Chirino
Garcia
Tate
Byrd
Thornton
Sosa
Lucas
Brannon
Griffin
Frazier
Telesco
Hall
Harmon
Harding
Gonzalez
Kelly
Woods

Answer: Calzaghe's list has 5 fewer names

Siaca: Good enough to beat Mundine (to fill the spot after Ottke retired), who was good enough to beat Echols for the WBA regular championship while Ottke was Super Champion. Not quite as good as Mitchell though.

Beyer: Good enough to beat Lucas, who was good enough to beat Catley for the title which was vacated when Hilton won it from Thobela and retired. Thobela had won the title from Catley, who won it from Beyer, who won it from Woodhall, who won it from Malinga, who won it from Reid, who won it from Nardiello, who won it from Malinga, who won it from Benn, who won it from Galvano, who won the vacant title from Matteoni after inaugural champ SRL retired.

Lacy: Good enough to come out on top of a 4-man tournament for the belt that was vacated on Ottke's retirement by beating Vanderpool who won an eliminator with Mendoza.

Lacy and Kessler won their belts in the ring, and Calzaghe won them from Lacy and Kessler. The belts were not some paper titles floating around that had been stripped from a rightful champ, they were legitimate titles, two of which were vacated when the man who ducked Calzaghe for years finally retired.

Contrast to Jones winning his paper titles off Johnson and Del Valle who had no claim to them whatsoever.

Better yet, contrast them to Jones being HANDED the WBC and RING titles without so much as fighting for them

 

It always matters what the statistics say, unless you want to ignore facts.

Agreed.

Leave Hopkins off as that was at LHW. The first four are probably his best wins at 168.

They certainly were better than Roy's wins at 168.
As was Joe's SMW career superior to anyone else's at that weight.


Calzaghe has, by any reasonable measure, the best SMW career in pro boxing, thus far.


That said, anybody who tried to argue that Joe's overall career was superior to Roy's, or that prime Joe was better head-to-head than prime Roy, would have to be categorized as delusional.