Why is Calzaghe undefeated?

But maybe you are misunderstanding me. I'm not arguing one way or another on his competition.

My point is the number one factor in Calzaghe being undefeated is he is extremely good. If he's not he loses to at least one of the guys you mention, or quite a few previously.

It has to be the deciding factor. You could say competition makes it more achieveable.

 

well i think there are quite a few fighters who could have achieved that. Look at it this way, I don't think Kessler would have lost to any of Joe's other opponents, do you? So is the best opponent Joe defeated Kessler? and how many of Joe's other opponents come close to that level? 1? maybe 2? old Hopkins and maybe old Eubank?

So Calzaghe does not have enough of that level opponents on his resume, and presumebly, considering how close both the MK and BHOP fights were, he would have lost one eventually, sooner rather than later.

 

many will never admit the guy has talent...:-(

 

Joe had lots of soft touches early in his career, but the divsion then was one of the weakest, and none of the title holders were willing to fight one another because there wasn't much money involved for doing so, than for them to fight some chump mandatory. But whenever Joe did step up, he was dominant in doing so. He jumped all over promising fighters like Shieka and Veit, showed no flaws verse Brewer, and utterly dominated his toughest challengers in Lacy and Kessler. Lacy had the makings of a Mike Tyson. One punch power that could knock a guy out through the guard, and an aggressive demeanor that he owned you. Even when Sheika and Vanderpoole were outboxing Lacy, Jeff never lost his confidene. By the mid rounds of his fight with Calzaghe, he was demoralized. You seen a similar look of surrender with Kessler as well.

Far as I'm concerned he's done all he could with the oppurtunities availible to him. He pushed HARD for a fight with Bernard back after Hopkins beat Trinidad, and accepted terms to goto Germany and face Ottke, but neither man was willing to face him. There wasn't really anything else he could've done different than what he did I guess.

 

Kessler would lose to Eubank, Hopkins and possibly Reid. Reid was very good with his jab and in his prime was a tough, technically gifted boxer.

Also, I'd like to see how Kessler fares against Lacy and even a guy like this version of Roy Jones Jr.

Lots of people don't like to admit, Calzaghe has a very difficult style to beat and that's why he's looked so good for so long. Kessler's style is very easy to read and thus against some of these master strategists, I think he would struggle big.

Remembering Mundine was able to make him look average in parts, Mundine was never a great boxer.

 

Of course he could have lost if he fought 15 elite fighters. That is just odds.

But you still can't beat the 5 or 6 top fighters you did face if you aren't extremely good.

It takes one bad night at the office. One stylistic nightmare against a lesser opponent. One flaw in a certain area, maybe chin.

The key thing is Calzaghe is very good or we wouldn't even be having the discussion.

 

1. Because he fought competion for the majority of his career.
2. The great fighters he faced were years past their prime.
3. He's an excellent fighter.

 

Because he's an ATG.

He has excellent stamina and over-whelmes foes with non-stop punching

He is intelligent and knows how to make the right adjustments to win fights..

 

Because he is an ATG fighter that would be competitive with any ATG from 168-175