Michael Watson v Joe Calzaghe

True about the footwork. And I remember actually marvelling at Hopkins' cageyness and precise stepping ... for a few seconds in the midst of my despair.

 

1) Why are people treating old Hopkins like Calzaghe's best win? Have we forgotten prime unbeaten Kessler? :huh

2) Why does Watson automatically become the top win? I can see one making an argument for him being a more effective h2h super middle than Kessler had he actually done a prolonged campaign there...but we're mythicizing just a bit to say he's head-and-shoulders above anything that actually stands on Joe's resume.

 

Kessler was Joe's best win, I agree.

Not necessarily head-and-shoulders.
Just better, imo.

 

We shall see

 

Very little between them now, yes. (or any time since 2008...)

Kessler of the few years leading up to facing Calzaghe stood well out in front of any Froch to date, IMO.

 

Easy, watch Watson, then watch Kessler, he's just a better boxer

Kessler was undefeated, but against who, Mundine and Beyer? Watson beat Eubank first time and was robbed, he was on his way to beating Eubank a second time before being knocked out in Castillo-Corrales style

Which makes it look good on paper for Joe, in the ring Joe looked foolish constantly punching air, in the first 4 rounds he was shut out pretty much. Personally I had Hopkins winning, I even had him winning the 10th or whatever round Joe humped him in because he landed the cleaner punches, although morally Calzaghe obviously won that around and obviously got the ring generalship marks for his man humping. In a way it's a Whitaker-Delahoya scenario

It should be noted Joe was past his physical best in this fight at 37, although maybe more canny as a boxer though

 

I think Watson was the better boxer and stronger fighter, he was a class act and fate was very cruel to him, he was a defo candidate for Britain's best MW cum S-MW.

anyhow JC for me falls into the category of very good/great fighter who is just not the best that we have produced, I used to believe in him and called for him and Bhop some 6 years before it actually happened, quite simply because I knew JC could shut that mug up. Bhop too was a very good/great fighter and the differences that people try to point out are marginal, not at all wide.

but JC let me down, let us all down as far as I'm concerned, Britain does it's self no favours hanging onto to WBO titles and getting in the way of fighters actually meeting one another when it matters. But overall I think Watson was just a bit better, an absolutely lovely boxer, stylist and puncher, the whole package.

just this one boxing fans opinion.

 

I agree with the Watson sentiment up to a point. He's going to nail Calzaghe with some flush shots. But then what?

That's the problem with Joe Calzaghe. You execute your plan, and after it succeeds, he's still there letting his hands go in a clever way. His engine, will and chin wins him rounds, even against superior technicians.

I think Nigel Benn would be a more difficult match-up for Calzaghe than Watson. You just have to seperate the man from his senses. Joe is eager to fire back even when it isn't in his best interests, and his oft-injured hands makes him wary of throwing continuous hard shots.

He's still good that way, though.

 

Would Calzaghe not "spoil Watson's boxing" much as he did to Kessler, if we're accepting that Watson does mainly the same things as Kessler only better? :think He would still be swarming in and laying his gloves all over, in a manner that prioritized touches over torque far more than Benn did. (which foiled Benn to an extent)

Also, are we pitting them peak for peak? Are we rolling with the Watson of '91 (but without Eubank II having occurred)?

Then are we talking the Lacy version of Calzaghe? Or one with hands intact?

 

In answer to the first point, maybe he would, Kessler I think scored around 4 rounds on a fair card though, maybe only 3. Calzaghe could quite possibly do the same to Watson, although like I mentioned I consider Watson to be defensively better, quicker and more fluid than Kessler. Watson was also quite abidectrous, his jab almost being a straight left at times, yet he also has the excellent straight right. I don't have a problem with anyone picking Calzaghe, but Watson is a very stern test at least that of a Kessler level. However in terms of 'spoiling boxing' I could see Watson's straight counter punching spoiling Joe's rythm and combinations

Peak for peak I'd think so, it's quite hard to pick Calzaghe's peak. Physically his peak was probably '97-'02, although I think he became a little smarter after that. The problem with pinpointing his prime was he was so infrequently tested and he was considered something of a joke before the Lacy fight after pulling out of so many fights. Around '99 (without looking it up) he had a pretty close controversial fight with Reid (he won but only just), who wasn't really that good but couldn't miss him. His fights from 99-06 against Lacy were largely a waste of time, Mitchell was best win in this time but it was a terrible early stoppage, Mitchell was still punching when it was stopped

He was supposed to face Glen Johnson around '04 but pulled out 2-3 times, citing a back injury but in reality his divorce he was going through was probably the reason he wasn't quite up for it. He actually wanted to pull out against Lacy but his father wouldn't let him. Maybe it was the fear of losing that first fight I'm not sure

I think Calzaghe was at his best when he was a bit scared, his best performances are Eubank, Kessler and Lacy for me. Against Bika he was pretty poor

BTW it's a myth Calzaghe was a puncher and none slapper pre-hand injurys, he was called a slapper before his first title shot