This is a subjective question as we all know. Feel free to approximate. :thumbsup lmao... The vodka hurt this poll slightly... Ignore the glitch in the third option. That's '2002-2004.'
he was champion for like 13 years and won all his fights so i guess that he has been prime for a long time, but the best win he had was against Lacy, it was a boxing lesson.
Id have to say the last couple of years thats when he won his biggest fights.The rest of the time the opposition was not always that good.
Interesting. So I take it you aren't one of these people that would say that "Joe was past his best" when he was beating Lacy, Bika, Kessler, Hopkins, and Jones? Are you sure you want to be this controversial?
The reason that this is tough is that for most boxers their physical prime is also the time when the were the most difficult for their opponents to beat. That's not the case with Calzaghe, I would argue. His physical prime was the first part of his world championship career. The time when he was hardest to beat as an opponent was the later part.
Tough to what? Politic this the right way? I'm not asking when he could produce the most semen. I'm asking when he posed the greatest possible threat inside a boxing ring. That's his prime within the proper context.
in the lacy fight, he was the underdog in the US, but he showed his skills more than anything else..handspeed and footwork..he defined the division
Not an easy question. He might never had an 'absolute prime' part of his career, since when he looked the best (Lacy, Kessler), because of the injuries, the punching power wasn't there anymore. He became 'Calslappy' because of the hand problems. The punching power of the Mitchell fight or earlier combined with the very impressive performance in the Kessler fight - that is Calzaghe's prime - and that never happened.
Threat of what though? Threat of stopping his opponent? Or the time when he was most likely to beat the widest range of opponents? I would consider the second to be the correct definition. In which case a lot of boxers' primes are when people would consider them past prime. 2006 - 2007 in Calzaghe's case.
i would say 2003 when he beat mitchell in the second round after his first knockdown of his career and then showing the decency not to do any further damage to mitchell when he was out on his feet
As a physical specimen - he's nowhere near prime, however as Calzaghe says - put him in now with the Calzaghe who beat Eubank - and he kicks his ass, like Hopkins - he's found way's to compensate.
Ah, but Calzaghe never relied on physicality and/or youthful athleticism entirely, like "alot of boxers" as you say, so it's a non issue. This is Joe Calzaghe related, strictly. Right, then we do agree that the second definition is the correct one. As far as stopping his opponents... Well, that's really got very little to do with this. Calzaghe was allegedly in some sort of "prime" when he fought Reid, 23 KO's in 25 fights, and he wasn't coming close to stopping jack **** as we know - and it isn't like he didn't have opportunities to take Robin's head off - if he was capable. Unless the opponent wasn't an outrageous bum, patently careless, or (again) an outrageous bum, Calzaghe wasn't stopping dick, according to the actual fight footage. Not only couldn't he land a heavy enough shot, he couldn't even set it up if he was facing a foe reasonably equipped to prevent it. People can toss that myth around all they like. I'm a fan on non-fiction myself.. Quality post, however.