Observations on Joe Calzaghe's career.

I get it now, if you slag Joe Calzaghe off, say his punches were totally ineffective and his career was undistinguished you are a boxing expert.
If you respect his achievemnts, the fact he retired undefeated, made a mess of many a boxers face and befuddled many more you are a fanboy with a union jack hat and no right to comment in the classic forum.

I'm with you Dinimata. Any other advice would be appreciated you big schmuck.

 

- His punches were totally ineffective in the Hopkins fight. Re-watch.

- Who said his career was undistinguished? Not me.

Giving Jeff Lacy a bloody nose and winning many fights do not mean you are a good puncher. He was a very good boxer, but not a very good puncher.

Your petulance does you no credit.

 

Nor does your pig-headed arrogance.
Bloody nose? Is that what you call it? You know for a ****ing fact how special that performance was but can't admit it. Cos if you do your comment about ineffectual punching ( you didn't just mean the Hopkins fight so don't make out you did ) would be proved to be the bollocks it was.
I'll get out of Classic now, obviously i aint qualified to comment among the elite of er....you.

 

1 Judge had it to Hopkins and 2 to calzaghe, hardly decisive and what the judges say isn't always wha thappened, plenty of bad decisions in history. 40% of fans thought 'Nard won too, again hardly decisive. Allot of knowledgable unbiased posters on here and on the Brit section of Boxrec (good sub-forum that) had to BHOPs. I had it 9-3 on first viewing and then 8-4 second time. I find it hard to score for Calzaghe when he misses so much of his punches and he throws weak shots with the inside of his glove (ie slaps).Meanwhile BHOPs landed the right bang on the button really snapping Joes head back.

Lets be honest you have a bias towards Brit fighters on here, I'm British too and don't, I used to when I was younger though.

 

Is that a thinly veiled dig ? I'm 32 years old, make of that what you will.
As stated earlier i thought it was a close fight. I stayed up ,watched it and was concerned as the judges results were read out due to thinking a close fight in America would probably go to the yank. I did think Joe won the fight and it is **** all to do with bias. I will refute any attempt to label me as a biased fanboy.

 

Check my posts baby boy, you will find numerous references to Calzaghe-Lacy as an exceptional performance - which is yet more evidence to support the statement I have been making all through this thread: that Calzaghe is a very good boxer but not a very good puncher (he outboxed Lacy but didn't stop him). Sorry, but you have been wrong all along.

This whole argument did start from Russell making a remark about Calzaghe's punching in the Hopkins fight - and I agreed with Russell that his punching was ineffective in that fight and generally not great in his other fights. I stand by that and I think most neutrals would think so too.

I've always thought you were a really good poster, but your Union Jack bias is quite something at times. You take criticisms of British fighters so personally!

 

History will ultimately judge him kindly. His raw statistics alone are impresive:

Beltholder for over 10 years.

First fighter to unify the supermiddleweight division.

Ring magazine champion at supermidleweight and lightheavyweight.

Only the second lineal champion to remain unbeaten and untied (asuming he stays retired)

Like with all retired champions it will take a few years for the merit of some of his best wins to flesh out because those fighters are still active and can still improve their resumes. For example three of Lennox Lewis's victims went on to win titles after he retired.

 

calm down dear....

 

There's some real ****ing nonsense being posted here. I'll sum up my position:

1. Calzaghe was a good puncher in his earlier career. You don't floor Eubank if you can't punch.
2. Calzaghe's resume is, by the highest standards, weak. His best period is obviously the Lacey fight onwards.
3. Calzaghe has a pretty good chin IMO, though certain fighters have caught and hurt him.
4. The Lacey and Kessler wins are impressive, especially the latter.
5. Calzaghe retired undefeated. To do that despite the patchy level of opposition is still highly impressive.
6. Calzaghe unified the title at one weight, something many great fighters above him in the P4P lists didn't achieve.

The guy is obviously great, given the above raw statistics. It's the intangibles that place him further down the list than say Marciano. Joe's Top 100 for sure but I have no idea where I would place him as yet.

 

These are all great points, and basically the same reasons why I feel that he will be remembered in a good light.

 

To me, he is a great fighter. Without significant physical advantages over him, it is hard to walk away with a win. When I focussed on what he did wrong, I came away with a bunch. When I focussed on what kind of mountain he was to overcome for an opponent, I started seeing him in a different light.

It's not just sheer activity and volume. Some fighters, even world-class ones, become introverted in a fight. Leonard became gunshy against Duran. Pavlik couldn't get off versus Hopkins*. Jermain Taylor keeps backing up to the ropes under pressure.

Calzaghe has the mental make-up that allows him to open up a boxing match and continually take risks every single round. World-class matches are usually fought at a lower pace, more in explosive spurts, and also in a more careful, defensive fashion.

I honestly believe fighting Calzaghe is an uncomfortable affaire for even the highest of opponents at 168 and below. I concur, however, that he cannot hang with the best all-time at 175.

 

In a way he is the ultimate nightmare oponent.

He is almost impossible to outpoint, and durable enough that you better not count on knocking him out.

He can fight in a number of styles, do all of them well, and morph between them at will. He just switches through the gears untill he finds one that works. Thats why many people do well against him on the early rounds but he always sweeps the later rounds.

So despite not being a big puncher he presents a horible puzzle for any perspective oponent.

 

Bingo janny!!!!
Most of joes criticism is hating on his style,technique and his being british.
He is the number one all time at 168 on resume,and H2H its him and jones at 168...

 

Good post