Calzaghe has recently said he may be up for a fight with Kelly Pavlik after he fights Jones. I think this is a bold move by him if he does it, I think it is a massive risk for him to take. I'm sure Joe will see after the Jones fight, if he still feels sharp and still feels he can look after himself on the big stage I think he will fight Pavlik, if he loses to Jones or turns in a poor performance and loses some of his ability through age, I think he will not take the fight. If Calzaghe puts in a poor performance against Jones, I don't think we could blame him for not fighting Pavlik. Because that would be his second poor performance in a row, and why should he lose his WBO belt and his undefeated streak to prove a point when he clearly is past it? We all complain about fighters fighting past their best and thats what Calzaghe may be doing if he fights Pavlik. On the other hand, if he beats Jones convincingly and looks on top of his game, then decides to retire, I would agree with everybody who calls him a ducker. As he should take the Pavlik fight whe he is fighting at his peak. I'm going to reserve judgement until after the Jones fight and after he has made his decision.
1 - The Hopkins performance was an excellent performance 2 - He is going to be in a close one against Jones, closer than people think 3 - He would be a favourite against Pavlik if he hasn't fallen off any further.
I don't think it was a good performance against Hopkins. He seemed to have lost a lot of speed, that he normally has and quite a bit of stamina, too. Maybe that could have been to do with him going up a weight. I can only see it being close if Calzaghe doesn't fight busy, like he used too. If he fights busy like he did against all of his opponents (bar Hopkins) I think he will overwhelm Jones and exhaust him to a late TKO. If Calzaghe puts in a good performance against Jones I think in the UK he will be favourite against Pavlik, but in America a lot will put Kelly as favourite.
1- SO SO WRONG 2- SO SO WRONG 3- A slight bookies favourite maybe, but I doubt their faith would be proven right.
He had indeed lost speed. That's what happens when you get old. As for losing stamina, he punched less than is normal, but I, and many others on the site, said that this would happen. A swarmer in against a counter-puncher with A+ timing and balance is at a serious stylistic disadvantage. Calzaghe toned down the bunches because he knew he would have been badly countered all night. The first round would have been a walk in the park in comparison. Joe had a panic for a couple of rounds, then he executed his strategy, which was excellent. Calzaghe worked Hopkins with footwork instead of punches. In order to keep Hopkins moving - to tire him, and his old legs - Calzaghe constantly manuevered himself so that he was just, just out of punching range, ready to slip in. Watch the fight again. It is brilliant to watch. It's pressure of the most intelligent order. Few fighters could have pulled it off. Hopkins, if younger, could have countered this with some aggression, but he just doesn't have those type of energy reserves...Calzaghe used footwork where speed may have failed him anyway. A great performance, great ring generalship. This is exactly what people were saying going into the Hopkins fight. You don't fight cagey veterans like that. Calzaghe knows this. Joe's style is fundamental - that is, he can't change it for toffee, wouldn't. He can control the degrees is all. Jones knows this. He is sat at home devising a plan. If you think the best he can come up with is something to get him into the tenth round, you are mistaken. One of the greatest fighters who ever walked will find a way to make it competitive. Calzaghe UD.
Well about Joe's performance maybe I will have to watch it again, but I think Joe's best syle is to use his speed and stamina which it looked like he had lost in the Hopkins fight. Hopefully he can regain it. I'm not saying Joe should go in all guns blazing against Jones but he should still take the fight to Jones, but smartly throw punches. You do raise a few good points here, though.
