Should Joe C be happy with his legacy?

It does come into the equation, mine at least

45 wins, even regardless of competetion (which is a solid resume anyway) spanning a career of 15 years if nothing else shows remarkable consistency and dedication to the sport. Even some of the greats have early losses/draws against unheralded opposition

From a motivation and consistency point of view, it enters the equation. It's one of these things people routinely ignore, along with losses on a fighters record. People will say somebody beat A B and C, but never who they lost to!

 

edit

 

Ricky Hatton has 43 wins in just over 10 years, just two wins off that, is it really such an achievement?

 

It doesn't bring us back to Sven Ottke at all, because half a dozen of those wins are badly tainted, as every boxing fan knows. There is no real comparison, Calzaghe's is a genuine unbeaten record with only a couple of close fights

And JonOli - I'm not exactly sure what your point is? :?

That was a great achievement for Ricky. I'm not suggesting we solely base our judgement of legacies on unbeaten records, but to write it off completely is absurd, of course it is a factor if you have never lost a fight. By the way - he isn't undefeated anymore.

 

He does? Well ****, that changes everything.
Everyone, We have to stop talking about other British fighters because Ricky Hatton has 43 wins in just over 10 years. Serious, no one else matters. We should even go into threads that aren't about Hatton to make this point.
Do it, do it.

 

My point wasn't to say how good Ricky Hattons achievements were, but to put into perspective Joes 45 wins. You obviously don't get it...

 

I got it perfectly. What you don't get is the consistency and concentration required to achieve a record like that, against anybody. It only takes one mistake, as somebody that actually boxes would appreciate...

I'm not saying it is anywhere near the main factor in judging a legacy, but it is at the least a sidenote

And again - Ricky Hatton is not undefeated anymore. So we won't need to worry about that when considering his legacy

 

Only one mistake, or bad luck(or a lack of 'the fix') to lose a fight.
Calzaghe could have a loss on his record if decisions had gone the other way. It means NOTHING that he is unbeaten.

A close LOSS can be more meaniningful than an unbeaten record filled with people you are expected to beat.

For example- take Hopkins' fight with RJJ. He gets a LOT of credit for being competitive.

Heck, if Calzaghe HAD fought RJJ and lost competively, he'd probably have a rivalry on the scale of Hopkins with RJJ and be considered more highly now as an ATG.

 

If Calzaghe retired now, then I think he'd be happy. Just not as happy or fullfilled as he should be. I think the big 0 is getting to be a bit of a nuisance for him at this stage and he really wants to retire with an unblemished record. But lets face it, there are some good fights he's missed out on. Ottke I think is the worst omission from JC's resume. That would of made him undisputed years back. Then you have Larsen, Braehmer, Beyer, Catley, Green, Johnson. All would of been better wins than Pudwill, Manfredo, etc.

The other fight that I never even though of until Beatboxer mentioned it, is a move to LH to fight his WBO counterpart DM. A win over him would of gained him huge respect and a chance to fight Jones. All in all though, Calzaghe has proven to be a top fighter. Look at Witters recent loss to Bradley. How many times has Calzaghe had to fight less than stellar competition like that, yet still retain enough drive and focus to win?

 

No, he couldn't. Not unless it was a bad decision, which is the whole point I was making with Ottke. That is the difference in the two unbeaten records, one is tainted whilst the other is clean...

The rest of your post is just missing the point I was making completely. I wasn't saying being unbeaten is worth more than anything inparticular, I'm saying it is an achievement to show the kind of consistency required to win 45 fights for no loss or draw

 

I think Joe has been expertly managed and 'sold' to the masses lately.

However, another 168lb fighter in Ottke reigned with his own world title for years and years at the same time as Joe and fought Tocker, Starie etc. Plus Glen Johnson and Rob 'the repairman' Reid (and he sneaked a decision too LOL )

Roy Jones bamboozles the Welshman in a prime for prime contest, so i certainly wouldn't say he's the best at 168 and Jones would have maybe knocked Joe at 175lb when Jones had the WBC, WBA, IBF, IBO, NABF titles around 6 or 7 years ago and was leagues above everyone.

Lacy & Kessler were on no pound for pound lists - and Hopkins was slipping fast off the top of that list and at 43, was unable to sustain the superior work over Calzaghe in the latter rounds.

Hopkins dropped him and took him for a split - hardly mesmerising work from Calzaghe, who'd promised to 'knock Hopkins out as only a KO will do"

If he'd fought Glencoffe Johnson, Hopkins 5 years ago and maybe fought Jones (but lost) i'd have the utmost respect for him.

But as it stands he has fought everyone on his own terms - and the 'legend killer' tag he has gave himself is slightly embarrassing.

But not as embarrassing as his cuffing, skimming, slapping 'punches' !

 

Put it this way.

I was a strong Calzaghe critic for years and I am now proud of him.

I think we can permit him to be proud of himself.

 

Joe will be pleased for a while if it all ended tomorrow. After a number of years, he will think about the undefeated part and wonder why nobody ever beat him. He has clearly been managed into certain situations but he's always been happy to go along with that for the most part.

When all is said and done, I hope Calzaghe will be frustrated that he never tested himself against the very best in his era at the right time - a prime Jones has been mentioned, the fight that fell through against Johnson will irk, never putting Ottke in his place will frustrate and not trying to unify the division sooner. It sounds like a long list for a stellar boxer and it's too long for Joe to be regarded as one of the very best.

He's had a brilliant career, had some fantastic wins, some thrilling fights and always looked to go forward - never has he taken a backwards step and he can be very proud of that. But there will come a time when he thinks about the bigger picture and the one question he will ask himself to which he or nobody else will have an answer to is "How good was Joe Calzaghe?".. Could he have beaten a prime Roy Jones? Probably not, but he never got near enough to the right kind of competition to probe further.