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

bailey,

Seriously, who cares if people thought that Manfredo won the return? Joe was a 35 year old elite fighter. Manfredo was C class. It was a joke of a fight, and a joke of a stoppage. The whole thing was a joke.

The point is, Joe was an elite fighter, and he was wasting his time fighting for the WBO who ranked dead fighters and made people fight rematches with guys they'd recently beaten in a single round. All in all, a joke outfit.

Answer what? George has done nothing yet. We're talking about Joe, not George. For the majority of Joe's WBO reign, LHW was significantly stronger, and Joe could have fought there.

Why do you have such a hard time with circumstances?

No, Carl didn't have to go up. Look at his resume. He's had big fights, and has never needed to move up. He's now 37.

Joe was 31 when he couldn't unify with Ottke. There was no Super Six, his circumstances were completely different to Carl's. He was an elite fighter, he was 6ft, and he had a natural walking around weight of 192-196 pounds. He struggled to make SMW, when there were potential bigger fight opportunities for him at LHW.

Again, different circumstances.

It was pointless. He'd become known? He was in his late 30's and was going nowhere. He was at the end of his career, and almost all of his wins were against lowly opposition. He retired after his second loss to Ottke.

Yet it was a relevant fight for Joe, who was 31 years of age?

What on earth would a win over Tate have done for him?

Nothing.

It was yet another meaningless WBO defence.

It would have made no difference if he'd have fought him or not.

People jump on Joe for fighting Pudwell, and you jump to his defence, by insisting it was a late replacement for Tate, as though Tate would have been some big, meaningful fight.

Fighting Tate at 31, is just another indication that Joe was more than happy to fight whoever the WBO put in front of him.

And this is the guy who chased Roy for 6 years?

Please!

 

According to Frank, he and Sky didn't want it, but Joe was happy to take the fight.

 

Lol. Calzaghe wouldn't have won a single round against prime Roy.

 

bailey,

If Joe had fought me instead, it would have created interest.

He had a big following in Wales.

But in the grand scheme of things, it was a joke.

You can't defend a 35 year old elite fighter, fighting a C class former JMW, who finished as a runner up on a TV show.

You can't say that because all of the organisations put forward a new belt in a new division, that they were all on an equal footing.

It doesn't work like that.


The WBC was formed in the early 60's.

The WBA was also formed in the early 60's, and had links that went back to the 20's.

The IBF was formed in the early 80's.

The WBO was formed in the late 80's.


The other belts were naturally more prestigious, due to their history.


If there was a new weight class made today, with a brand new organisation on the scene, and every organisation issued a belt, they wouldn't all be on an equal footing to the fighters competing.

From the late 90's to the early 00's, LHW was significantly stronger.

It isn't debatable. It's quite clear.

You obviously haven't even read my previous post properly.

You can't do like for like comparisons with two different fighters, from two different eras.

Again, everyone's circumstances are different.

Carl is not a big guy.

He's never needed to fight at LHW.

He was involved in The Super Six tournament which was a success, and since then he's had a great rematch with Kessler, and he's had two big domestic fights as well as scoring a great win over Bute. He's only got a few fights left in him, and Degale's there if he wants it.

Joe's circumstances were completely different to Carl's.

When Joe came on the scene, the Collins/Watson/Benn/Eubank era was over.

All those great fighters had moved on/retired, and there was no Super Six like tournament.

The division had lost it's luster, and it had become weaker.

Joe had some good wins against Woodhall, Reid and Eubank etc, but he wasn't able to unify the division, because he couldn't get a Sven Ottke unification fight.

At that point, he was still relatively young, at 31. He was also 6ft, and had a natural walking around weight of around 192 pounds. It was hard for him to make SMW. As we all know, Joe was an elite fighter. Not only that, the LHW division was stronger, with potential big fights there. As mentioned previously, if he'd have chosen to move up, the WBO would have made him a mandatory challenger.

So he had the opportunity to move up, to try and secure bigger fights for himself.

Again, Carl's circumstances were completely different.

Now why is this hard for you to understand?

Carl has never needed to move up to LHW.

But Joe should have moved up when the Ottke fight didn't materialise.

Obviously, we know things turned out great for him in the end.

But in 2003, he couldn't have known what was going to happen 3-4 years later.

There is no double standards.

I think if Carl had've been in Joe's position in 2003, he would definitely have moved up.

It was another meaningless WBO mando, that Joe was obviously happy to take.

It meant nothing, and wouldn't have done anything for his career.

Rubbish! It wasn't relevant at all. What was relevant about beating a 36/37 year old former MW, who was coming towards the end of his career?

Ha!

You'll tell us anything.

The fact that Joe was fighting guys like that, at that stage of his career, speaks volumes.

Joe should never have been fighting guys of that calibre at that stage of his career. He was an elite fighter. He should have been a star at 31 years of age. He'd got all of the attributes.

Again, what was relevant about a 31 year old elite fighter, fighting an old former MW, coming towards the end of his career?

Everyone who was knowledgeable about boxing, knew that Joe was better than Ottke.

So beating Tate more impressively than Ottke, wouldn't have proved anything IMO.

Do you know what, in all honesty, I don't think it would have made any difference. They were both terrible fights. I'm paying Joe a huge compliment here.

At 31, he had no business fighting those types of guys.

He was too good for that.

It was an insult to his ability.

The reason he was in the Ring's top ten at SMW, was because it was a weak division.

In a better division, he'd have been nowhere near the top ten.

Surely you can see that?

Roy was never going to be interested.

But it's really funny how you view things.

Because if Joe had've beaten Roy in his prime, it would have transformed his life.

He would have been a superstar and considered the best fighter on the planet.

If that had've happened, who'd have cared about SMW?

Unifying the SMW division after beating Lacy and Kessler, would have been nothing compared to beating Roy at his peak.

If he'd have done that, he'd have no doubt ruled LHW, and would have had a better career than what he had.


:good

 

what a moron

 

While I dont agree with quite a bit of what you wrote, I do think Ottke is badly underated, but alot changed since 03/04 and Calzaghe went ahead in my opinion.
You know that I have the top 3 SMWs as Calzaghe, Eubank and Ottke. I would possibly have Collins after that for his 2 wins over Eubank and 2 over Benn and think the Seillier win was a decent win and the Cummings win wasnt bad. I felt Carr gave him a good fight.
Even then I could make arguements for others to go at 4 instead of Collins.
Curiously, what is your top 5 SMWs of all time in your opinion?

 

ah bailey

your little factoid that ONE card in a disputed SPLIT DECSION win over bhop was the largest margin by a judge ever over bhop has been thrown in the trash can by Kov

in fact the easy manner in which he dealt with hopkins tarnishes the italian dragons record

 

and infact dawson won an undisputed decision

and in fact Taylor won also an undisputed decision over primer but still faded Hopkins.

 

I know but this idiot figured that the card for joe was the best margin ever , technically it was but FFS the judges didnt even all have him winningatsch


this is the logic you are dealing with

 

I did change that to at that time, which at that time it was. It changed when Dawson has a card a point higher and changed again with Kovalev, but at that time, yes it was the highest scorecard against.
i dont think it tarnishes Calzaghes record, as Calzaghe was at the end of his career and coming up in weight and beat Hopkins sandwiched between arguably Hopkins best wins, whilst Kovalev is nearly 20 years younger and been a LHW for a while