Legacy wise, Joe Calzaghe did everything wrong!

The thing is from 2000-2006 Calzaghe was a running joke because of his opposition, around the time he pulled out of the Johnson fights in 2005, it was assumed his ship had sailed and he'd wasted his talent completely

The only notable win in those 6years is Mitchell, who lost to Otke in his fight before and the stoppage was premature, how many times is someone stopped as they are actually punching Any of those I listed would have added to his resume during that period.

The Otke fight could have been pretty big, Calzaghe/Warren actually made an offer for it but only once Otke looked well past it against Reid, they should have been gunning for it years earlier. Calzaghe likely wins regardless but its typical synacism of going after past it challenges. They could have got around the German judging issues in negotiations.

There were so many fights he could have made but both he and Warren were happy milking the WBO nonesense against no marks. But even Warren got sick of him around the time he was pulling out of the fights against Johnson

And yes if Calzaghe beats Johnson or even Erdei, it could set up a shot at Jones Jr or Tarver. If he wins he likely gets a Hopkins fight in 06. The reason Erdei didn't get big fights is because he wasn't very good, he got 2 gift decisions against Garray, who wasn't that amazing himself. After that they kept him away from anyone decent

 

Calzaghe's supposed "coming out fight" to make him a star in America was against Starie, mainly because Tyson was headliningg the card.

well Starie ran all night and Calzaghe's style doesn't mix well with people who won't engage him, the fight was complete shite.

 

True, mistake on my part. But was he really an acclaimed, hyped star name? I can't remember really.

I wouldn't call Calz a waste of talent but as PP states there are some things he could have done better. But then again, the same thing applies for Hopkins, Mayweather and Jones (I know these fighters are greater, especially the latter two).

Ottke - underrated as he is - and Erdei would have made good additions. Add to that prime Hopkins, undefeated Pavlik and a fresh, skillful Dawson and his legacy ould hace improved sigificantly. But just like Hopkins middleweight division, the talent pool was weak historically speaking.

 

Every fighter is guilty of not pushing hard enough to make certain fights happen that is the nature of the businees, Calzaghe is no different.

But to say he did everything wrong is absurd.

 

Calzaghe fought many none rated top10 opponents, Mayweather and Jones never did this, Hopkins did about once/twice but generally top10 guys (Hops had a weak division though)

 

Considering he's been inactive for over two years and yet has a thread on a daily basis debating him, I think he's done enough to ensure legacy. I.E Being remembered and debated as a fighter.

 

Do you just write a bunch of baseless bull**** and hope someone won't call you on it? What a ****ing dickhead.

Quality opposition? He took on Ring Top 10 challengers throughout his career, the only time he didn't was when the fight was changed at short notice, like Tocker Pudwill.

Anyone who called him out (Veit, Reid, Woodhall, Kessler, Lacy, Hopkins) got a fight, so long as they didn't play dickheads in negotiations (Pavlik)

He proved at the end of his career how excellent he was a boxer, by dispatching former, current and future world champions with relative ease.

 

he tried to make fights with ottke and hopkins but they both ran away like pussys.

johnson is a c level clown. people only talk about him in america because he destroyed american hypejobs like jones and dawson. the truth is johnson lost to fighters like bika, ottke, and clinton woods, 13 losses in total. if joe hadn't suffered injuries he would have 'lacy'ied' johnson and he would just have been considered another bum on calzaghe's resume.

 

Yes, you're right but that wasn't my main point. I may have expressed myself unclearly, what I really meant was that ALL fighters gets criticized one way ore another for taking the wrong fight. ALL fighers could have done more, that's my point. Floyd, just like Joe, are especially criticized for this - some of it is because their unbeaten status I guess (nobody likes "invincible" guys), some of it is because... well, because it's founded. Mayweather claims to be the greatest, still he - for whatever reason I don't care, just like with Joe - face Tzsyu, lww Hatton, Casa, prime Cotto just to name a few. It's a shame because in my view, Mayweather would have beaten them all except - perhaps - Tzsyu.

Sadly, a lot of this criticism is given in retrospect. Mayweather-Hatton, Calzaghe-Lacy, Hopkins-Tito etc. There's always a new challlenger out there waiting for a shot and the duckung accusations, spurred by fans and promoters, doesn't come waiting.

Regarding the ratings stuff I'm sure I've seen a list of all the ring rated contenders Calzaghe faced. It was quite a few if I'm not mistaken. And Hopkins priced himself out of a rematch with Jones Jr amongst others. He, too, could have made the move up, don't you think? And Johnson is a cult warrior who have improved with time, but he was beaten by a lot of C level guys when he was supposed to face Joe so while Joe should have faced him later on he's not the best mention. That good - he is not.

At least there'e some reasonable debate here and not "Joe's a fraud! He should have gone to America to the big fights!!". It IS true to some extent that both Floyd and Joe haven't lived up to their potential and that thay are one of the more extrem cases (even if Mayweather still has HUGE chances if he beats Pac and Martinez, which I think he will). They're still great fighters, but could have been greater. But nevertheless, it applies to everybody.

 

Thread starter .. just go to the British Forum and search. You will find an abundance of threads with several brighter chaps ripping Joe a new ******* for being overrated. Look for J. Thomas' posts among several others. Consider the opinions of those that have watched every single round of his career as it happened and know where he stands athletically vis-a-vis the greats.

When you post on the GF about Joe you only get the few Brit and other morons that are considered jokes over there. Joe was a decent fighter who had a semi-stellar career on PAPER. He wasn't quite in the league of the real ATGs and any athlete can see it. Posting here about Joe gets you the SAME EXACT fan boys who couldn't distinguish good from great because they're gimps. Always consider your audience over here. There they get laughed at for their demographic exuberance and they quickly quiet down.


The reason no one over there - who knows what they are talking about - bothers to come over here and correct the Joe C. pink cigar smoking crowd is they don't believe a balanced conversation is generally possible on the GF. There is some truth to that. ESB is loaded with non-athletic chimps everywhere - mostly kids and disgruntled young adults with little to boast about. In the real world, you'd merely watch them perform athletically at the gym and then dismiss their opinions as being irrelevant. Most of the time you'd simply look at them and know not to care what they think about anything - especially sports.

Just get all of Joe's fights. The truth is right there - for all to see. Good fighter in a horrible division. Took nearly zero chances. Struggled in most of his title fights with the exception of the real incredible gimps that shouldn't have ever been in the ring. Struggled with average guys. Struggled with the only great fighters he faced - and that was when they were shot or far past prime. Couldn't KO anyone. Always had friendly refs willing to jump in for bogus quick stoppages. Joe wasn't extremely agile, didn't move his head well, couldn't throw smoothly, slapped like a spastic too often.

Joe had great endurance, decent SMW size, decent speed (but more accurately "comparative" speed vis-a-vis his poor comp), was a good thinking fighter, and managed - by careful matchmaking - to mature in the ring because he never had to be thrown in with fighters that were talented before he was ready or unless they were old and worn.

He looked okay fighting a prime (limited) Kessler. He looked terrible fighting a 43-year old great. He was slightly better than the average & pedestrian athletes he always faced - he wasn't even close to being extraordinary. He was pristine in his mid-30s by not having faced fighters that would have cracked his chin. If he (and Frank) would have had the balls, the ill fortune, or been in a different division so that he would have had to face more guys merely at the level of that '97 version of CE he would have inevitably had his chin checked and rechecked until broken. He wasn't the elite kind of athlete that could have done anything to avoid getting hit.

He is beloved by his young ESB fan boys needing a hero. But no one will ever confuse Calz with the greats. This is ESB - not a board of athletes so you can't ever expect a serious discussion.

Good luck


As for your thread title question - Joe did everything right. If he had done it differently he would have had a much shorter career. Frank and Joe's decisions were about creating a going concern to generate revenue over time. They did exactly that. His bogus undefeated record was a result of these decisions. It really worked out well.

Joe was never gonna be Leonard, Hearns, Duran, Hagler, Chavez, etc., etc. He isn't Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, BHOP, RJJ, De La Hoya, Trinidad, Barrera, Morales, Pac, Marquez, Mosley, etc., etc. Taking chances and moving up divisions and proving one's mettle repeatedly against live bodies was the antithesis of Joe's career. We all know that.

We've watched every single round of his career .. and haven't been especially impressed with his choices as a fighter - but his business choices have been quite sensible.


Just watch every fight in order from the four rounders through to RJJ. There is ample reason why he is a complete nobody in the States. No one recalls the merely good - only the special or the brave.

 

Sorry did I just knock Calzaghe's dick out your mouth? Thats obviously your job, you should admit it to your girl

His comp from 2000-2006 was a joke, you don't know **** about boxing if you think Calzaghe took on all comers, he avoided all comers. LMAO at talking about Reid - he avoided the rematch for years after arguably losing

LMAO at you talking about a bum like Veit as a credible opponent, what a cocksucker you are and its pretty obvious you haven't followed Calzaghe or the sport long

Why don't you tell us all why he didn't fight Pavlik?

I forgot he ducked Froch too (would have won but he ducked him)

 

**** me, bailey will pick every single one of your hate fuelled sentences to pieces

 

dehhhhhrrhrhhhuhhhh= this thread

Great Post, Brit Nanny. That pretty much describes Calzaghe's career to a T- not bad, but certainly calculated, HoF worthy but by no means an ATG.

...uhhh

 

i hate calzaghe but some?? ****, i can barely read, never mind become a millionaire!

 

from this side of the pond, pavlik was judged as yet another american hypejob alongside taylor and lacy. we were proved right :deal

froch was judged as a limited fighter who would get 'lacy'ied' - we were proved right when a shot kessler beat him :deal