Why did Calzaghe hide at 168 for so long?

Calzaghe done well to fight at SMW because that's the way he would start his career on the right foot with all the great British fighters that dominated the Division in the 90s along with Roy Jones and James Toney. Roy never thought of travelling to Europe before and Toney was most disrespectful towards the British Champs ( only faced Francesco D'Aquila at some point), Mike McCallum done what he had to do with Kalambay and Michael Watson, so who was left?... Steve Collins ( beat Eubank twice and Benn twice) so that Joe could start a great career. Unfortunatelly for Joe, Steve was no longer there but he has done better what Collins once did - he beat clearly Chris Eubank! From that point on, he just had to defend the WBO title against all those mandatories ( Sobot, Jimenez, Thornberry, Sheika, and others) and prove himself against the best SMWs in the UK - former British & Commonwealth Champ David Starie, former WBC World titlist and Olympic bronze Robin Reid, former WBC titlist Richie Woodhall, and later on, prove himself against some of the former american SMW titlists, Charles Brewer who beat Graham, and Byron Mitchell... Just one thing Calzaghe didn't do and that was to face Ottke or Beyer, but he beat Veit twice, Lacy and Kessler ( who knocked out Beyer) so you can say he done what he had to do...

It would be irrational to criticize Calzaghe for what he has done and not do the same to Hopkins... But people can criticize them for what they haven't done - examples: Hopkins didn't beat all his opponents at his weight-class and just moved up after losing; Calzaghe didn't run into the big risk of facing american opponents in America but kept saying he wanted to...

 

Probably because Roy Jones was the champion at LHW. Is it a coincidence that he moves up when a 43 year old man is the champ?

 

Because there were alot of british in the division. Why are almost all americans avoiding smw? It's strong now... Exposure elsewhere? Therein is your answer.

 

What is so strong about light heavyweight or middleweight? Cruiser? Heavyweight? Those divisions are weaker.

 

Bigger names and historical significance don't make the fighters any better Mycroft

 

Do you think he was as big a money maker back then as he is now?

 

I can't be bothered with the whole Joe Calzaghe resume/strength of SMW division debate, I've done it to death

But as it happens, MW is woeful, I don't even see how an incredibly biased traditionalist such as yourself could dispute it

Pavlik, Abraham then who? Sturm, Castillejo, LOCKETT?

Calzaghe, Kessler, Bute, Mundine

Give me a ****ing break. I guess LHW is a matter of taste. Do you prefer watching washed up old grandads that are big names or young up and coming lesser names? I personally prefer the latter

 

SMW still has far greater depth

The fact I had to include Gary Lockett in MW sums up how **** poor that division is

 

I think light heavy is a good division, despite the fact that the majority of the top guys are long in the tooth. If you arranged catchweight fights say 172, or even compared them P4P, then 175 probably has the edge.

Lets see. Using boxrec rankings:

Hopkins vs Calzghe - split on this one, suppose we will find out soon!
Woods vs Bute - Woods wins this for me, Bute is OK, but not as good.
Dawson vs Kessler - a cracking rumble this one, I think Kessler has the edge
Johnson vs Mundine - Johnson for me, Mundine is average
Jones vs Lacy - no conest!

So that makes it 3-1 to LHW, with one fight too close to call.

You are welcome to disagree, no doubt you will.