Just how good was Joe Calzaghe?

None of the options really described what I think of him, so I chose the 'Overrated/Fraud' option purely because I do believe he is generally overrated because of a protected zero.

An option such as this would have described my opinion of him better:

'Very good fighter, top 15-20 of his generation'.

IMO, his resume is weak. Not good, not ok, but weak. And I wouldn't say his talent far outstripped it either. For me, Joe really only looked like a great fighter for one half of one fight in his entire career - the second half of the Kessler fight. Lacy was never a top class boxer, as proven by the Sheika fight before he fought Joe, and I thought Hopkins sneaked the decision v Joe. Joe was a very good fighter who used his physical attributes well, good handspeed, good chin and good stamina. However, he never had very polished skills. His defence was sloppy and would have been punished severely had he ever fought a prime great such as Jones or Hopkins in their respective heydays.

A good fighter who was a great career strategist.

 

people conveniently forget the Bika, Brewer, Veit and Mitchel fights and say that his 0 was protected. Calzaghe has had some fights against lesser opponents, but he beat some very good champions.

 

That's not an argument against the statement. If ones standard for resolving a vacancy in the lineage is unification of all the main titles, then DM did not at any point do this.

Slightly bizzare to be arguing that your opinion is more valid on the basis that, in this example, it would create a linear champion earlier.

 

:roll:

 

He was a slappsy southpaw........who could not break an egg. Had he ever fought anyone who was any good in their prime or still in their prime......he gets his ass handed to him.:good Over rated.........under talented, but..well managed.

 

An all time great.

 

People pay far too much heed to resumes these days, rather than analysing the actual performances. Sure bigger names and bigger fights are what exposes frauds, and Calzaghe could have and should have fought more big names.

Let's just base it on his skill though. Calzaghe is an excellent boxer, he uses the basic principles in the game to frustrate and dominate opponents. Undoubtedly one of the must frustrating boxers to fight.

He could have done a lot more to solidify a legacy, but based on his actual skills then I vote modern great.

"
He was a slappsy southpaw........who could not break an egg. Had he ever fought anyone who was any good in their prime or still in their prime......he gets his ass handed to him.:good Over rated.........under talented, but..well managed. "

Only someone who has seen nothing more than his last fights would say such a thing. Could break more than an egg back in the day.

 

And when was that? You know, "the day".......:huh

 

* The shell of RJJ.

 

He's a modern great. Could have been an ATG had he added a couple more wins against prime elite fighters in his resume.

 

he's a modern great not an ATG at all

 

all of the fights before Chris Eubank, then DURING that fight and a good few after (see Sheika and Mitchell)

had only went the distance once before Eubank fight.

 

good call right there

 

dumb poll. calzaghe is an atg just not ranked top 10 - 20 of all time. why the big gap?

 

great fighter...didnt pick any of the options because none of them suited him