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

Ok first off Calzaghe was the fighter to get me into the sport of boxing but lets be realistic

I scored the Calzaghe-Hopkins fight 115-113. despite Hopkins seemingly getting the better of Calzaghe in the early parts of the fight I thought Calzaghes pace proved too much for the then 43 year old executioner.

That being said Bernard Hopkins (as great as he is) isnt a top 5 ATG himself and not even top 25 . . . . all beit close but no cigar.

When your sharing the company of Sugar Ray (Robinson and Leonard) Hagler, Hearns, Tyson, Ali etc. you cant really give calzaghe a top 5 spot considering his career didnt pick up until the end.

Unfortunately Calzaghe wasnt able to make fights with Jones/Hopkins prior to 2008 as well as other lucrative fights both at 168 and 175 and although im sure he would have beaten hopkins at any time as well as Jones (the fight is too close to call at 168 although Jones would have been a clear favourite) the fact he couldnt unify the division due to Ottke holding the belts hostage in Germany prior to Kessler/Lacy hurts his legacy but even had he done all those he would still struggle to reach the top 15.

Calzaghe had a large gap in his career after winning the world title and I believe he fought the best opposition available :

Chris Eubank - Former Middleweight/SuperMiddleweight champion & Future 2x Cruiserweight title challenger
Robin Reid - Former WBC Supermiddleweight champion and robbed by ottke for the WBA/IBF titles
Charles Brewer - Former IBF Supermiddleweight champion (Robbed by ottke)
Byron Mitchell - Former WBA Supermiddleweight champion (Robbed by ottke)
Jeff Lacy - IBF Supermiddleweight champion
Mikkel Kessler - WBA/WBC Supermiddleweight champion multiple times
Sakio Bika - Future WBC Supermiddleweight champion
Bernard Hopkins - Former Undisputed Middleweight champion, Future WBC Light heavyweight champion and Current WBA/IBF Light heavyweight champion challenging for the WBO belt
Roy Jones - Former Middleweight, Supermiddleweight, Light Heavyweight and Heavyweight champion

Calzaghe faced some very tough under rated opposition but unfortunately given the time span was not able to further his record due to staying at 168 for so long but unified the division none the less and belongs to be mentioned as one of the great fighters of the Era . . . but not of all time

 

nope...gotta put in some work...not buying proxy greatness

 

I think it can be worthwhile to go into depth with Joe Calzaghes win over Chris Eubank, because it tends to get dismissed as a fighting Roy Jones Jr sort of thing. There were some circumstances working against Eubank, but it's unclear how much difference they made. In fact, the Eubank win should propably be ranked above the stinker Calzaghe had with a 43 year old Bernard Hopkins.

But I agree we seem pretty close in our opinions.

 

Hot damn. Out of all the dumb arguments that resurface constantly, this one gets the bitchiest the fastest. Good God, Alpha Male consultant? You know Calzaghe doesn't give a **** about you right?

 

Look you Slappites!! What Bernard Hopkins does has absolutely nothing to do with Slappy. You only have to look at them today
1... Bernard Hopkins is taking on one of the most dangerous punchers in boxing today at 50 yrs old. He is a bona fide top 5 ATG, No arguments
2... Joe Calzaghe hastily retired, He ran scared, rather that face a rematch with Bernard in front of his faithful home fans. Wouldn't that have been a great way of thanking those deluded fans for their support over the years?? Slappy could have put all the controversy to an end . Wonder why he didn't???? Because he knew he got a gift split dec he did not deserve plus he started calling himself A Legend Killer:rofl:rofl little rabbit killer more likeatsch
He knew when Nard offered to fight in Wales that he was coming to put the matter right. So Slappy ran like a *****
Today, according to reports he's into sniffing coke, abusing alcohol & chasing skanky ho's.

Which of these people would you rather be seen as???????

This content is protected

 

I will just start and end with he wasnt training for CW atsch
This is why I dont bother with giving you the time I used to. You are an irrelevant poster who constantly gets it wrong, whether on purpose or not

 

Jermaine Taylor becomes the GOAT on this threads basis ....ROFL muppett

 

You missed Woodhall and Veit who also held SMW titles and had some good wins. Even now Veit has a win over a current top 5 LHW who is a 2 time LHW champ.
There are other wins which could be noted ie. People note Froch for beating faded boiled down G Johnson at SMW, yet Calzaghe beat Sheika who beat prime G Johnson to get the title shot. there are other examples

 

Did Taylor go undefeated?
Did Taylor beat hydrated LHW Hopkins?
Did Taylor not look hurt late on with Hopkins winning the later rounds?

 

At Least Taylor faced top fighters in their prime in other weight classes.

I didnt see Calzaghe line up to face Dawson,Tarver,....he faced RJJ and got out the back door.

 

I didnt see Taylor face Dawson or Tarver either.
Still lets look at these top fighters and remind yourself that Calzaghe beat the fighter who thrashed Tarver.
With Dawson, lets remember how Dawson was at SMW and then jumped away from Calzaghes division to fight lesser comp and years after Calzaghe retires goes back to SMW. Dawson was recently losing to a fighter that one of Calzaghes old sparring partners beat clearly.
Calzaghe beat Sheika who beat Johnson who beat Tarver
Calzaghe beat Jones who beat Tarver
Calzaghe beat Hopkins who clearly beat Tarver
Yet you mention Tarver

 

bailey,

I'm not being silly.

Hopkins has always been disciplined. He's meticulous when it comes to training and his diet. The point is, there wasn't a big disparity in size when they fought. Hopkins is a few inches taller, but nothing significant, and Trinidad weighed in at a higher weight. So you can't really say that Hopkins had a size advantage. It's not like it played a part in the outcome of the fight.

One fight is enough for me. It's better to have one very good win, then many against lesser fighters. Joppy was a good fighter, and Trinidad was 28, and he handled him easy and looked good at the weight. So he didn't need a large number of fights at MW, to show that he was a good MW.

You keep asking the same questions.

The answer to your question above, is yes. Yes, along with EVERYTHING else that I've already noted.

So you're questioning my opinion on Tito, because he only had one MW fight, yet here you are telling me how good it was that Joe beat a known commodity at SMW

Yet that known commodity (Eubank) hadn't even fought at the weight for two years, and hadn't had a win at the weight for three years.

You can type words like 'whopping' all you want.

When they fought each other, they were practically the same size.

Tito was much younger, undefeated and it was for the undisputed MW championship.

Hopkins was much older, and beat him pretty easily.

You can dress it up however you like.

Hopkins beat a prime, younger fighter easily, whilst being much older.

Joe beat an older fighter in Eubank, who was at the end of a hard career, who hadn't had a win at the weight for three years, who had recently been fighting at CW, and who only had 11 days preparation. Apart from a lack of experience, the cards were pretty much stacked in Joe's favour.

He hadn't fought in the division for two years.

Did Joe have bad hands going into the Eubank fight?

I'm not bothered about the above examples, because we're not rating those wins.

Eubank had injections in his knees just prior to the fight.

But because he's fighting Joe, I guess it's all irrelevant?

You're always telling us how Kessler was faded, unwell, and suffering from double vision etc when he fought Ward, yet here you are completely dismissing Eubank's condition, his preparation, and where he was in his career at the time.

You've mentioned in your examples above, that Froch was faded against Ward.

So are you going to agree that Eubank was faded against Joe?

Yes or no?

Let's.

Correct, but again, the guy hadn't had a win at the weight for three years.

Agreed.

It was harder for Eubank, because he had to move down to a weight he hadn't fought at for two years. He had the experience over Joe, but Joe had initially been training to fight the guy who'd beaten Eubank twice, and he had youth on his side. Eubank's wife put him on a liquidised fruit and veg diet to make the weight.

Agreed.

But again, there's many other factors to consider.

On the night of the fight, Tito and Hopkins were almost the same size, and Tito weighed in at the higher weight.

Joe is around 6ft, and he wrote in his autobiography that his natural walking around weight is/was between 13st,10 - 14st.

Tito retired four fights later, with 2 wins and two draws.

Eubank retired two fight later, with two losses.

I didn't say that. I said that looking at Eubank's past glories at the weight, weren't relevant at the time that Joe fought him.

Because, for the hundredth time, Joe wasn't fighting the guy who'd beat Watson and Benn. He was fighting a guy who'd lost twice to Collins and who'd recently had two stay busy fights at CW, against Alarcon and Barrera.

There was no need to write all of the above.


1. Every fighter ages differently, depending on their circumstances.

2. I never said Eubank was some major old age fighter. I said that Joe beat an older fighter, who was faded.

3. Again, if you're going to tell me that Froch was faded against Ward, and that Kessler was also faded against Ward, then you can't tell me that Eubank wasn't faded against Joe.


Eubank was a great fighter, but he was faded against Joe.

Now if you think Joe beating him was great, that's up to you.

But I just don't see what's so great, about a younger guy beating an older faded guy, who was no longer relevant at the weight that they fought at.


I've just found this old article from 2002.

BBC SPORT | Boxing | Calzaghe prefers Hopkins bout
news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/boxing/2245116.stm
10 Sep 2002 - Joe Calzaghe says he would rather face middleweight champion Bernard Hopkins than light-heavyweight Roy Jones Jr.

I can't post the link, but in the article, Joe stated - 'Although I've been a champion for five years and I've beaten some good fighters, I've never beaten a great fighter.'


:good

 

You can't just give Joe a pass for not fighting Tarver, just because he scraped a decision against the guy who beat him.

atsch


By the way, how do you rate Bernard's win over Pavlik?

:good

 

bailey,

I can't go into specifics, because you've created a hypothetical scenario.

So there's nothing real to look at.

But the factors I consider would be:

The quality of both opponents, age, size, if there was a stylistic problem to overcome (southpaw) the manner of victory, their preparation, any other circumstances that came to light.

Your analogy is poor.

You've given me nothing to work with have you?

Past glories can be taken into consideration, but in Eubank's case, they weren't really relevant. Because once again, he'd done nothing at the weight for three years before he met Joe.

That's why I gave you the Roy Jones - Danny Green analogy.

Danny Green did not beat the guy who beat Toney.

Likewise, Joe didn't beat the guy who'd beaten Watson etc.

How can I compare Joe beating Eubank, to SOMEONE beating Dirrell now?

Ha!

Where would I even start?

Again, I've nothing to work with.

He wasn't a world class SMW when he fought Joe.

How is that relevant to your claim that Joe beating Eubank, was better than Hopkins beating Trinidad?

Correct.

But it doesn't change the fact that he hadn't fought at the weight for two years and he hadn't won at the weight in three years.

He had no SMW form going into his fight with Joe.

I haven't ignored anything.

I know exactly where Eubank was, in his career, in 1997.

It's you who needs to look.

Again, I know where Eubank was.

Why are you pushing me for an answer on Dirrell?

Find a better example.

I would if I genuinely thought it was a great win.

How can I give a definitive answer?

Ha!

You're crazy!

You're asking me to rate a win between Dirrell and 'some boxer' in a hypothetical scenario.

Who's his opponent?

What are his circumstances?

In what manner does he beat him?

What's it got to do with Joe fighting Eubank?

 

:good