sorry calzaghe your resume is weakest ever.

The haters will always hate Calzaghe, just like they will always hate the Klitschkos, Chagaev, Valouev, Povetkin, etc.

 

The haters will always hate Calzaghe, just like they will always hate the Klitschkos, Chagaev, Valouev, Povetkin, etc.

 

if he fights pavlik that will shut every hater up..

 

Exposed against Jones?

Jones was KTFO back-to-back and looked gunshy against a blown-up welter last time out.

 

Kessler at SMW > ODLH at MW?

Abso****inglutely.

 

See that's the thing ... we just don't have enough threads on this board by idiots parrotting the same stupid ****ing thread about Calzaghe and his resume.

To the OP: You know NOTHING about Joe Calzaghe or the fighters on his CV, you most probably had never heard of the guy prior to the Lacy fight. You know **** about Kessler and we don't need another dumb thread on this topic started by another pea-brained idiot/troll like you.

 

JC's resume isn't top notch but it is very very good. There aren't that many current boxers who have a better resume than him. To fight the quality of opponents he's fought and to come out 45-0 is nothing short of brilliant. If you can't see that then you have issues personally with him that you should deal with.

Reading this thread and seeing the support of his career by Americans brings a tear to my eye... may God bless you. And screw the others who can't appreciate an incredible career.

 

we all know its weak

 

Lacy is NOT THAT GOOD people. Even before the Joe Cal fight.

 

Yes I am agreeing with what you said and my point was to the original poster. My point being that 90% of the posters on esb could probably name boxers from waaaay back that this guy has never heard of, it does not mean they are bums infact I would bet that a lot of the names would be better than the boxers the OP knows already.

 

This is very informed.

Take Robin Reid as an example. His first fight (to many Americans) was when he was absolutely demolished impressively by Jeff Lacy. He was old, shot and his preparation was questionable for that fight. A prime Reid on the other hand was a compete handful and had hotly disbuted decisions against SMW superstars Joe Calzaghe and Sven Ottke. Former WBC titleist Reid was a high class fighter in his prime and a massive puncher. Other boxers have their credability too but these points have been covered over and over again.

 

Calzaghes resume is decent. Great? no Shitty? no
Could he have done more? Yes.
Then again alot of fighters could have done or do more

I mean we cant expect every fighter to be like Cotto or Margarito

 

If what's the case he wouldn't have beaten Hopkins? If he has the weakest resume of any undefeated champion ever? I don't see how the two things are connected. Hopkins was 43 and you could clearly see in the fight that he was the better fighter, he just didn't have the stamina/energy/workrate to keep up with Calzaghe purely due to age.

Again, what is the connection between his weak resume and the fight against Jones?? I think his resume is weak, but I think he will stop Jones early. If Jones was getting sparked by Tarver & Johnson 4 years ago, and has had 4 years to age and decline further since, Calzaghe will definitely dominate and stop him as he is a far more talented boxer than either of those guys (despite the feeble resume).

I agree with the thread starter to an extent. I have seen every one of Joe Cal's fights since he won the WBO title against Eubank in '97, and I believe he has only had 2 genuinely excellent wins since, v Lacy and v Kessler, which were both excellent. But 2 excellent victories are not enough to make a strong resume. From 1997 til 2006 Calzaghe had 9 years as champion and achieved nothing, except a long long string of defences against a mixture of poor opposition (Sobot, Thornberry, Podwill) and adequate opposition (Mitchell, Woodhall, Reid), but he never chased and got a big fight v a top fighter that whole time.

IMO

 

its not the worst resume by no means but he does deserve some criticism for not pushing himself further I think you have to look at things objectively...is his 21 defenses impressive yes but less impressive when you look at the fact sven ottke accomplished the same feat in exactly the same time frame and joe didnt even look to unify until 2006..thats his 8th year as champion Very few of his fights were against top ten 10 ranked opposition (top ten ranked by RING) I think an earlier post established that only 4 were at the time top ten ranked. Lacy and kessler are important to him and will help his legacy is they succeed from hear on out
Hopkins reign like calzaghes was over a weak division and his marquee wins during the reign were against guys coming up in weight. Looking back now its easy to dismiss the wins but tito was just off the back of a big win over established MW joppy and himself had an excellent JMW resume thus making him a hot favourite The manner of the victory should also work in his favour as it was complete domination which means he did what he should have done to the smaller opponent. The trinidad win should hold more weight than the de la hoya win but again he knocked oscar out (only person to do so) and did what he had to do. Also worth mentioning that he didnt fight oscar at middleweight he fought him barely over the junior middleweight limit and showed he could box with oscar While i won't argue against the fact these are his best names i will say that he was right to take the fights he had to beat trinidad as part of the unification tournament and oscar stepped up and challeneged him what was he supposed to do duck them. What makes his title reign different is the fact that IMO opinion he was the more dominant champion as he faced all the challengers whereas calzaghe didnt step up the competition until the last two years of his reign. 7 or so of hopins defenses were as undisputed champ and there was a stretch from about 96-03 where he was not only winning but dominating and losing very few rounds int he process. He shouldnt be penalised for the weak MW opposition as he did what he had to which was face all the challenges and dominate. Calzaghe was unarguably the less dominant champion.

 

take away his win over kessler, and joe´s resume is borderline good, perhaps, above average is more like it..

eubank: lost twice to collins,and was preparing for a fight at a higher weight
he was close to being shot.

lacy: was at the time considered a real threat, but in hindsight had a weak
resume. was without a doubt overrated. what people thought lacy
would do, doesnt really matter,what he did or didnt do, thats what
matters. lacy was good win, but absolutely not extraordinary.

kessler: kessler´s future is actually quite a big contributor to joe´s resume.
if kessler does great this will push joe´s resume in the right direction.

hopkins: again lets not get carried away, it was a good win, over an aging
hopikns. who lost to taylor while being closer to his prime. hopkins
though, is a tricky sob, and as said, a good win.

to me, its perhaps a little to late for joe, but actually its hard to blame him. he was stuck between a rock and a hard place. at the time he wasnt big enough, to attract the biggest names, and now that he is, they are too old.

the most impressive about him, isnt the resume, but the fact he had the ability to stay at the top, with hands as brittle as cornflakes.

early in his career he could bang, but that was taken away. how many figters could manage that and adjust accordingly, and be so succesfull.

imagine joe´s intense workrate, ability to adjust, use og angles and with power.. OUCH..