Joe Calzaghe's accuracy.........

What I heard was that he punched funny due to having bad hands.

 

My understanding as well.

 

Joe was a technical mess, and I think that is part of the reason he always had so many detractors and haters. It is hard for a purist to watch a guy like Calzaghe keep winning when "technically" he should be getting his ass kicked.

Calzaghe's speed, stamina, work rate, general toughness, and goofy unorthodox brawling style made him one of the best super middleweights in history, and it is hard to knock success.

 

throw 30 punches and wit on 1 of them. the one that he sits on is the one that you have to worry about as you never know when it is coming and does damage.
Hell even the slaps muct be hurting as nobody ever walked him down

 

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

5,000 posts and you say that and we're supossed to think you know what you're talking about?

The OP is saying Calzaghe's style was something his opponents weren't used to. You say he can't punch yet if he couldn't punch and his style wasn't effective (as you say) they'd have have beaten him wouldn't they - I mean D'uh! speak about a major contradiction!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!! oh my word.

This **** is why I can't take ESB seriously. Just too many nuthuggers! ESB's nuthuggers are like star wars fans - complete fanatics who won't hear otherwise and say the craziest things lol.

 

Calzaghe was too accurate for 46 opponents.

 

99 percent of his career? Please. When he was climbing up the ranks, he was putting guys away. He started losing his drive when Frank wasn't able to get him the fights that he wanted after several defenses as a champion. It's hard to get up and train when your opponent's name is hard to pronounce and you don't know where the frick they picked him up from.

Did you see him fight Bika? Guy was showboating and didn't even fight like he normally did.

Calzaghe didn't respect a lot of his opponents and it showed.

 

there are 5 things that made calzaghe great.


1 - phenominal workrate. no fighter in his generation could come near to matching joes workrate

2 - joe had great footwork

3 - adaptation, joe could fight in different styles and adapt to his opponent to find a way to win

4 - calzaghe had a great chin. knocked down yes, but never ever on ***** street

5 - most importantly than any of the others, joe could fight in adversity - that is what seperates the great from the good. 4 times joe calzaghe got knocked down and every single time he did, he didn't hold and run, he came straight back and fought fire with fire, he took the fight straight back to the opposition and won the remainder of the round. thats very rare in a boxer and if his punching was as ineffective as you suggest then he would have never have been able to do this.

 

What a dip****. atsch

Because of Calzaghe's solid chin, superhuman workrate, exceptional handspeed and iron will to win, he was extremely successful in an utterly feeble era of supermiddleweights.

Does that mean he was a perfectly well-rounded, complete, flawless fighter in every way?? Obviously not.

His punching technique was awful, if you know anything about boxing. That's why for spells in their fight, the only HOF fighter he ever fought other than a shot-to-**** Jones, Bernard Hopkins, made Joe look sloppy, amateurish, and ineffective - and that's why we know prime versions of guys with world-class technique like Hopkins or Toney would have thoroughly outclassed an artisan like Joe C, their class and accuracy vs his wide-open sloppy style = only one result.

"Lol"

 

Nobody?

 

Or did he develop bad hands because he 'punched funny', Chris Eubank thought so, he was called a slapper before he won a title, but not as bad as he'd later become.

To be fair to Calzaghe most rate him on his past prime performances

 

You are very much correct! I really don't rate him much at all as a fighter, I think he coasted through a career of cherrypicks, then beat a couple of well past-prime names close to his retirement (though I scored the Hop-Cal fight for Hop). I've seen all of his world title fights, and I don't rate his ability very highly at all, I think he was horribly flawed yet the zero convinces people otherwise. JMHO.

 

Yea a better trainer would have got him moving his head more, his basics of jabs/combos and movement are very good despite all this. Enzo certaintly was more a hype man in the corner simply getting hysterical shouting about not much. Although Roger isn't any better and he certainly knows his boxing. I think Enzo must have done a decent job teaching the basics and is an excellent fitness trainer

1 thing I'd add is fans don't usually recognise stamina is 1 of the most important things in boxing. Joe's stamina was just great, 1 of the greatest ever for a man his size. Whether you think Joe won or lost, he completely drowned BHOPs with his stamina and had grandpa faking low blows to buy time. I think I actually gave BHOPs that round on punches landed but the pyschology of it probably saw the judges give it the other way