Joe Calzaghe vs Mike McCallum Better Resume

Wasn’t it Eubank?

You’ll have to clarify with your friend who PM’s you.

Maybe he could help you refute my posts in the other thread?

 

@Loudon gives an honest picture of Calzaghe's resume. He is clearly not a hater; he's just sick of Calzaghe fanboys trying to rewrite history. The behavior of these fanboys reminds me of Tyson fans; just endless excuses.

 

This question is disrespectful to even ponder about.

 

Calzaghe is an ATG, and even has an argument for being the best 168 lb fighter ever.

Of all the fighters who could reasonably be considered THE GOAT of any division, he easily has the worst resume though….

Why is this topic still going on? Feel like this has been beat to death over the last 3 weeks or so.

 

I'll go with Calz. Someone mentioned this already, but he has a lot of filler (title defenses) in his resume. I also like his top wins over McCallum's top wins. People can say Lacy and Kessler weren't great, but the fact is they were undefeated world champions with multiple defenses under their belt before facing Calz. He then goes on and beats naturally larger fighters in his next 2 fights.

 

Ha!

Without applying context, it’s not close.

But with context?

They’re nowhere near.

 

Wherever Calzaghe is mentioned, Loudon will soon be there! Like a dog returns to his vomit, Loudon returns to discrediting and disparaging Calzaghe.

Loudon, please forgive Joe Calzaghe for beating the man you loved, Roy Jones.

Joe has been retired for nearly 18 years now! Time to move on.

Move on to a new man - fall in love with someone else, maybe Devin Haney?

 

You’ve already said this.

It’s bizarre how the irony escapes you.


Now why don’t you debate the actual topic?

 

I did at one time, but I soon learned there is no point debating with a man who was so deeply hurt when the man he loved took a terrible beating from Joe Calzaghe.

You cannot ever see Joe Calzaghe as the great boxer he really was, you are obsessed with discrediting him because of your passionate anger.

Unlike you, I am interested in many boxing topics and many other topics in the lounge. I post about many topics, you have one passionate obsession with the boxer who broke your heart when he humbled the man you love.

 

This is now the 3rd time you’ve said this, across 2 threads, where you can’t refute or debate the points.

You’ve already labelled someone else as hating on Joe, even though their only crime was saying something that you didn’t agree with you.

I haven’t hated on Joe.

Now either debate the topic, or move along.

 

Mike McCallum

 

The below doesn't provide context, but it ultimately is the most important detail.

McCallum Title Record
3 Weight Division Champion (Super Welterweight, Middleweight & Light Heavyweight)
Never Unified
13-3-1 (Title Record)

Calzaghe Title Record
2 Weight Division Champion (Super Middleweight & Light Heavyweight)
Undisputed at Super Middleweight / Ring Champion at Light Heavyweight
24-0 (Title Record)

 

No.

It is not in any way the most important detail.


Statistics without context, are as useful as a car without fuel.


Now more than half of Joe’s 21 WBO defences were against non world level opposition, and for the majority of his reign, his belt wasn’t regarded as being a main belt.

So it is completely irrelevant that he made more defences.


Now look at some of Joe’s wins:


Woodhall - A good fighter, but at the end of his career.

Eubank - He took the fight on just 11 days notice whilst at the end of his career, where he’d not had a win at SMW in 3 years. He’d not even fought at the weight in 2 years. He also had issues with his knees, which required injections.

Hopkins - Joe’s best win, but he was past his best at 43.

Roy - Labelled as being shot beforehand, where he’d not had a top level win in 5 years.

Reid - Joe barely beat him, sandwiched between losses to Malinga and Branco.


Now all of that is highly relevant.


Now there is simply no comparison to their resumes.


Mike faced the better fighters.

They were mostly either young or prime.

He fought much more skilled opponents.

The manner of his victories were more impressive.

He was old when he faced many of them.


Joe fought no slick guys like Kalule or Graham.

Joe fought no technicians like Toney and Kalambay.


Joe beating Lacy and Kessler was impressive.

Mike systematically breaking down a prime Michael Watson was more impressive. Especially at 35.


Mike beat a young Steve Collins when he was he was 36.

He drew with a prime James Toney, when he was 35, where many people had him winning.


If you are knowledgeable of all these guys, it’s really not close.

Kalule
Jackson
Curry
Watson
Graham
Toney
Collins
Kalambay


Those guys were a better group of fighters, and again, especially when you apply context and look at the specific versions who Joe fought.


Nobody has any argument to list Joe’s wins as being better.

 

Just to add, again, Joe gets credit for Lacy and Kessler.

However, neither of them had beaten any elite level guys beforehand. They were no more than very good opponents.


No, Joe did not then go on to beat naturally larger fighters.

What are you talking about?

Look at their height, reach and the divisions they fought in etc.


Joe is 6ft, and he was coming down from 200 pounds plus for each fight.

Joe couldn’t have made 160 like they did.

He had to kill himself to make 168.


They weren’t naturally bigger.


Also, again, where’s the context?


He scraped by a 43 year old Hopkins.

He beat an almost 40 year old Roy, who he’d labelled as being shot, and again, who’d not had a top level win in 5 years.


How does that not matter to you?


At similar ages, Mike had beaten Sumbu Kalambay, Steve Collins and Michael Watson, and he’d had a disputed draw with James Toney.

What Mike did was far more impressive.


Again, it’s not even close.


Mike should also be ranked much higher too.

 

Roy fought at HW and had several bouts at LHW before he faced Calzaghe who was having his 2nd fight at LHW.

Bernard had 2 fights at LHW before facing Joe who was coming up to fight him.

Of course I take their ages in to consideration, but I also take their weights as well.

You have to include his losses as well.