Nathan Cleverly, Modern day Joe Calzaghe?

Calzaghe stepped up when he fought Eubank. The difference is Calzaghe was a better talent than Cleverly.

 

MaliBua My friend, I think you are correct. If Joe would have stepped it up he would have met the same feat as Nathan. However, I would say was a notch above clev . . . but Prime RJJ, Bhop, and Toney were miles ahead of Kov (who still has room and the ability for improvement . . . I like his future). Joe was lucky that he came at the tail end of some great fighters like Eubanks and hid out in england and at SMW avoiding the best around his weight.

 

Jeff was nowhere near Olympian (SELFCORRECTION - he was in the Olympic team but he won nothing).

He hit hard, that's all.

Calzaghe did step up, but he did once (Kessler) and at the finish of his career rather than doing it near the start. Clev should have took a leaf from his book, then he would be the next Joe Calzaghe by beating Kov when Kov was too old.


And to the OP, no Eubank was not step up for Cal, he was a failure at the point and a stand-in for a vacant worthless title with no interest in winning. It would be like fighting Amir Khan fighting Ricky Hatton for a vacant WBU title now.

 

I see bailey faily is trying to rewrite the history of his posts and distance himself from Clev now hes tried and failed to step up.

awesome.

 

I thought most Brits give Clevs **** and didn't rate him that much.

 

It's better than that guy on Thaboxingvoice, who said that Ward would beat Calzaghe because he beat Froch, and Froch fights really similar to Calzaghe

 

:huh Where?

 

good that you corrected yourself before I did it for you, Lacy was an olympian with a great amateur record, he was also a world champion and was ranked in most official p4p lists (should he have been? no, but thats beside the point, he WAS)

and you say Calzaghe didn't step up, do me a favour, google "Calzaghe vs Lacy predictions"

 

do me a favour, Lacy was predicted to win BECAUSE calzaghe had done virtually nothing up to that point, not because of what jeff HAD done.

Lacy was a step up, but Joe could hardly step any lower could he?

 

you used to hark on about Clev being the next beast.


not so loud now, in fact you stopped completely. best bit is, you cant cut and paste your failed arguments, Clev was destroyed when he stepped up no matter how many times you do that.

Actually on 2nd thought, KO-va-Clev reality might not be enough to stop you doing it.

 

guy crept into the Olympics and did nothing in it, and was gifted his title.

lacy was nothing but a rugged thumper with heart whom eubank and benn would consider a moderate defence not a top one. but nevertheless yes one of joes top three wins.

 

There are similarities in style between Clev and Joe. But Joe was at least a level above (although there is some justification in the criticism that 'Zaggy didn't face everyone he coulda - all that means is that we'll never know).

If I may, Joe had 2 massively significant traits or abilities that Clev hasn't shown (yet):

1 The skill (or talent) to adjust mid fight. (Clev has shown one style that he appeared unable to change when necessary).

2 A refusal to lose. (course, this ties into no. 1, but Clev was completely at sea first time he was ever in real danger - the only other time I ever saw him buzzed was vs Kuziemski after which he was gifted a stoppage - I've never seen him face real adversity in the ring and come through).

I believe that if Nathan can accept and acknowledge his loss he still could have a decent future within the sport.

 

most boxers fight in matches with the aim of winning, not sure why joe is different.
I think what you mean is that he was able to raise his game above national level when he fought someone occainsally above national level.

 

Word is Joe C mayntrain Cleverly ...Source : front pg at the scene ..

 

Kinda that^. Which is why I said it was dependent on ability also.

But yeah, Joes ability to raise his game. What I was getting at I think was that some guys come to win, but there are some fighters who also refuse to lose.

In the face of adversity, some people fold, sometimes through lack of capability, but more often through a lack of faith or certainty. A mental attribute that can sustain you beyond what others (or even yourself) think possible.


Hmm..how to explain? Check out Provodnikov explaining how he sees fights being won and lost in the Ruslan - Alvarado face-off. I was brought up by a Greek father who saw the world in a similar way. It ain't valid in all situations, but in a head to head contest like boxing it can play a big, indeed vital role. We all saw Provodnikov stun and come close to beating a considerably more skilled boxer in Bradley, and I've little doubt that had the fight continued, it woulda been Ruslans determination that woulda won out over Bradleys undoubtedly greater skill and (probably) superior conditioning.

On a similar, but lighter note: RJJ - Can't be touched--'...you will not win 'cos I will not lose..' Tho course that was before he did lose.