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

:good

 

I dont think Calzaghe's win over Eubank can be classed as a great win because Eubank's best days were two-to-three years behind him, but I do class it as a very-good win because Eubank proved he was still a game a dangerous fighter both before, during and after the Calzaghe fight and Calzaghe himself was making his first step up above domestic level and had never had a fight in the pros go the distance before.

 

bailey,

Handle what?

Ha! We've been having this argument for nearly three years.

If he'd have been significant to Roy, Roy would have pushed for the fight.

At the time, Joe brought nothing to the table.

But in 2008, Roy gladly fought him.

Roy fought him at almost 40, after three losses and two bad knockouts.

He fought him, because by 2008, Joe had actually achieved something and had got recognition for beating Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins.

Now that tells me that had he achieved something in 2000-2002, Roy would have been more inclined to have fought him.

You can list Joe's number of defences, and the good/great fighters that you think he fought, but in 2002, he didn't interest Roy and HBO enough to make a fight.

With regards to Benn, DM, Collins and Hopkins, only Benn and Collins wanted to fight him.

Rubbish.

In 2002, Roy was at LHW, Bernard was at MW, and Joe was at SMW, and he hadn't done much in his career at that point.

None of the fighters fought in the same division.

Yet when Joe had got his due recognition in 2008, both guys were more than happy to fight him.

Just look at it logically.

In 2002, Hopkins was 37, and he'd recently beaten Tito to become the undisputed champ at MW.

Again, at the time, Joe hadn't done a deal.

So do you think that Hop at 36, feared Joe who'd done nothing, yet was happy to fight him at 43, when he had done something, 6 years later?

It's the same with Roy.

If Roy feared losing to Joe at 33, when he'd done nothing of note, why the hell would he have fought him at almost 40, when Joe had done something and was recognised as one of the best fighters in the World?

It makes zero sense.

It seems absolutely obvious to me, that if Joe had've made waves earlier, he'd have stood a far better chance of fighting them both earlier.

Back in 2002, what was Joe's best win at that point?

Probably Eubank.

But it wasn't enough to grab anyone's attention stateside.

Fighters discuss different options all of the time. Bernard contemplated it, then went with something else.

This is how simple it was.

If Joe truly wanted to fight a big name American, but there wasn't one in his division, then he had to MOVE divisions.

Plenty of other fighters did it.

Before you come back at me with the usual 'why should he have ditched his title when there was no guarantee?' the same applies to every other fighter out there.

Nothing in life is guaranteed. But if you truly want something bad enough, then you have to take the risks.

I'm sure many other fighters found themselves in that same predicament.

You always say the same thing.

But he didn't know in 2002, that he'd eventually fight Bernard and Roy in 2008.

Yes, because he didn't back it up with anything, and he had no pull to get them interested at the time.

He called them out after he'd fought Will McIntyre, and then preceded to fight Brewer, Jiminez and Pudwill. (a replacement for Thomas Tate)

So what was the point?

Ward's career is stagnating, and he has to get back in the ring ASAP, as well as moving up, or he'll ruin what's left of his career.

Again, Joe called out Roy in 2001.

Also, as previously mentioned, Joe had the opportunity as well as a title shot, to move up to LHW in 2003.

But he wasn't interested, even though his natural walking around weight was between 13st, 10 - 14st, and he'd accomplished everything he could at SMW, because he couldn't unify with Ottke.

He could have moved up and taken DM's old title, and then been in the mix with Tarver and Roy etc.

Those were the big name fights that he said he wanted, before Lacy and Kessler had done anything.

He certainly had the skill, but he didn't have the will.

I think Joe definitely had a good shot against Tarver, and he certainly would have beaten the version of Roy that Johnson beat.

But what was a European, SMW champ, to the undisputed MW champ?

What was a European, SMW champ, to the worlds best fighter, who was the unified LHW champ?

Roy briefly considered dropping back to SMW and fighting in the U.K. but realistically, it was never going to happen.

I'll rephrase my comment.

What I should have said was - it's no coincidence, that when he'd showed his worth against a big name/well known opponent (Lacy) he finally got the big name fights that he wanted in Roy and Hopkins.

His demolition of Lacy shocked the U.S. fans and media, and finally put him on the map as the great fighter that he was.

That fight gained him an enormous amount of respect and recognition, and it got people talking.

So, if he'd have had a 'Lacy' type performance earlier in his career in front of the same audience, I suspect that he'd have got better opportunities than what he got.

The guy that beat Lacy in 2006, was the same guy who beat McIntyre in 2001.

But when he called out Roy in 2001, the U.S. fans and media didn't know that.

He couldn't have gone straight to LHW to fight Roy. Because there wouldn't have been any interest. He would have needed a 'Lacy' type performance to have got people interested.

He always expected fighters to move to him. He and Frank wanted Hopkins to move up to SMW, and Roy to move back down.

After he'd called out Roy, he should have showcased himself to the U.S. public, to try and gain some interest for a potential fight.

We've discussed this numerous times.

Joe never wanted to do any groundwork.

A big money opportunity to fight Roy, was never going to present itself while he was fighting the likes of Jiminez and Brewer etc.

I don't need an exact figure. It's safe to assume that he was talking about an awful lot of money when he made that comment.

Also, the comment was made in 2003.

With regards to the tournament, how realistic was that?

The undisputed MW champ, and the unified LHW champ, fighting Joe and Harry Simon at SMW?

Only one of those fighters (Joe) actually fought at SMW.

It was bizarre!

 

Great post!

I agree entirely.

Once again, you're the fairest poster on here regarding Joe's career.

:good

 

His best days were so far removed that after Calzaghe, he put weights in his pocket to appear heavier and fought a CW world champ, knocking him down and losing a close debateable decision.
This CW when very faded went on to be the only CW ever to beat future unifed CW champ and then later HW Haye

 

So what are you saying?

That he wasn't faded?

Was he still at his best?

 

The Eubank that fought Benn and Watson he was not, but that does not mean that he wasn't a good and dangerous fighter anymore. The fact of the matter that no matter how dangerous Eubank still was he was years removed from his prime, and though it was a great win for Calzaghe for a variety of reason it was not a prime-Eubank he fought.

 

Ambitious post. What's your take on the magnitude of Calzaghes win over Eubank?

 

But didn't Joe himself use Roy's points win over a retired Tito at a 170lbs catcweight as reason to believe that Roy was back?:rofl


Surely Calzaghe fans must rate Hopkins' stoppage win over active undefeated Tito at MW .:deal

 

Serge,


Excellent posts mate.

They were a pleasure to read.

Those two Carl Thompson fights were awesome.

What a warrior Eubank was.


Back on topic, I know you think I'm biased against Joe because I don't like him. But again, my only argument here, is that IMHO, Eubank was past his best, and his preparation could have been better.

Therefore, I can't class it as a great win. But it was certainly a great fight, and it was certainly a great win for Joe personally.

I've recently been reading some excerpts from Enzo Calzaghe's autobiography online. Have you got that? He speaks of how nervous he was before the Eubank fight, and spoke of Eubank's intimidation tactics, but says how Joe took it in his stride. He also says that he'd have preferred the Collins fight for Joe, and he saw Eubank as the bigger threat. I enjoyed reading the bits that were available.

I've also managed to find a few bits and pieces of Eubank talking about his fight with Joe.



Below is an excerpt from his autobiography that I still haven't ordered. I've got Benn's book and I absolutely loved it, but for some reason I've never got around to ordering Eubank's

Now for some reason, I can't post links at the moment.

But if you're interested, you can type into google - Book review: Chris Eubank autobiography - Welsh boxers.

He said that getting the opportunity to fight Joe was like winning the lottery, but he entered the ring with less preparation than would have been ideal for such a contest.

He also said that he'd been using sparring partners to replicate the style of Mark Prince before he got the call to fight Joe, and that he was concerned about his knee playing up on the night, as he had to have an injection just prior to the fight.



The other information that I found, was an interview that was published on this site, but on the main page and not on this forum.

It was from 2011, and to see it, you need to type - Exclusive interview with 'Simply The Best' Chris Eubank! - Boxing. (Scroll half way down the page)

Now it has the exact quote that you've posted, where he talks of Collins, Logan and the weight not being an issue. But in the next paragraph he elaborates a little more.

He says the problems that he had, was that he had no southpaw sparring, and he couldn't do any roadwork due to a knee problem. Then he goes on to say that because of the emphasis his style played on multi directional foot movement, and the fact that Joe was much better than he initially thought, he had his work cut out to say the least.



Finally, I've found an interview from 2007, where a fan recorded a question and answer session that Eubank did, at Pea****'s Gym, near Canning Town.

It's got lots of interesting things in it, that I'd not heard before.

Again, you'll have to use a search engine to find it, because I can't post the link.

Type - interesting Eubank interview Muscletalk Bodybuilding Forum.

It seems genuine enough to me, but there's a few things that contradict what he's said in the past. So you'll have to see what you think.


Regarding Joe, he said he had no real aura about him, and he underestimated him.

Regarding the weight, he said he thought losing it would be easy, but he got it wrong. In the week he was sparring for Calzaghe, he had no strength and no snap. He also said that he couldn't use multi directional movement because his knee had gone, and he thinks that he'd have got him out of there, if he'd have had longer to prepare.

Finally, he said that he carried the belt, whereas the belt carried Joe.


So I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on what he's said.

Did he mean it, or was it just pride talking, ten years after the event?

Have a read and get back to me.



Again, I respect how you defend Joe, and how you always back things up with links and videos.

Now IMHO, Joe would have beaten Eubank at his peak, fighting to his full capabilities. I genuinely believe that. As much as I don't like him, he was a great fighter.

But again, my only argument on this thread, is that I don't think it was a truly great win, for anyone other than Joe and his family and friends.

But I respect the fact that it was still a big challenge for Joe, and Eubank's tank certainly wasn't empty.


Great debate! :good