Why wasn't Calzaghe given more credit for his wins against RJJ and Hopkins?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by OpinionOfACasual, Apr 15, 2018.



  1. OpinionOfACasual

    OpinionOfACasual Boxing Junkie Full Member

    5,080
    3,945
    Sportsbook:
    1,618
    May 3, 2017
    Was only 12 at the time of Calzaghe v RJJ so I wasn't really aware of everything going on......

    But I always hear talks of RJJ and Hopkins not being 'prime' yet there was less than 5 years between them when they fought?

    Calzaghe was 36 and retired after Hopkins.....who went on to beat Pascal, and even go 12 rounds with Kovalev 8 years later.


    Why isn't the fact that Calzaghe wasn't 'prime' taken into account?
     
  2. oiky

    oiky Gypsy Boy Full Member

    3,819
    840
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 17, 2014
    People love to hate on Joe for some reason
     
  3. Farmboxer

    Farmboxer Boxing Junkie Full Member

    86,133
    4,000
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 19, 2004
    Calzaghe was a very special fighter...............he came to America to fight both Hopkins and Roid.............
     
  4. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    52,435
    3,714
    Sportsbook:
    12,575
    Jul 19, 2004
    He definitely deserves credit for the Hopkins victory. Hopkins is far and away the best opponent Calzaghe ever faced, even at his advanced age.

    But on the flip side, he deserves almost no credit for beating Roy when he did, as Roy was far, far removed from being an elite level fighter by then.
     
  5. HerolGee

    HerolGee Boxing Junkie Full Member

    38,866
    2,719
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 22, 2010
    one was past prime 43 and joe was being handily outboxed until hopkins tank ran dry. But joe deserves credit for barely pulling if off against the 43 year old man, for sure.

    the other was, as joe readily admitted himself years before, shot 2 shyt, getting easily stopped by crapsters like enzo mac and "the russian swan", which showed calzaghe up for his lack of ability to finish an old man. Joe basically destoryed his own credit for the fight, it wasnt about anything anyone else did. After the jones fight, the penny drops as to why calzaghe didnt want any part of guys who would walk through his punches. u can see froch laughing at joes output and lamping him out.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2018
    Scar and kriszhao like this.
  6. HerolGee

    HerolGee Boxing Junkie Full Member

    38,866
    2,719
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 22, 2010
    wasnt that joe alone picked 40somethings to fight as his career ultimate.
     
  7. HerolGee

    HerolGee Boxing Junkie Full Member

    38,866
    2,719
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 22, 2010
    if u are say 30, and the other guy is 40, then its obvious who holds the cards. Just becos your name is "calzaghe" we dont get a free fool pass to ask "why wasnt the younger man given a free pass over the older man?"
     
  8. WhataRock

    WhataRock Boxing Junkie Full Member

    24,548
    480
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Jul 29, 2004
    Ward would have beaten him.
     
  9. Robney

    Robney ᴻᴼ ᴸᴼᴻᴳᴲᴿ ᴲ۷ᴵᴸ Full Member

    79,153
    8,794
    Sportsbook:
    9,314
    Jan 18, 2010
    Beating B-Hop coming up in weight, in Vegas with 3 US judges and Joe Cortez as a referee is quite a feat, which many glance over with "but he was 43 years old and Hopkins got robbed".
    I think it's really hard for people to give someone props while having so many "British stoppages" in his favor, hid away in a country that isn't the US for so long, was perceived as a "waiting to be exposed" overachiever, and had that slappy style to boot. His las year as a pro really soldified his legacy, but at the time people didn't know how good prime Kessler actually was, and what Hopkins would achieve years after.
    Roy was gone at the time, as besides massively overrated Lacy he never beat anyone of note ever again.
     
  10. OpinionOfACasual

    OpinionOfACasual Boxing Junkie Full Member

    5,080
    3,945
    Sportsbook:
    1,618
    May 3, 2017
    Calzaghe was 36.....RJJ was 39/Hopkins was 41.
     
    CST80 and Bensub like this.
  11. Brighton bomber

    Brighton bomber Boxing Junkie Full Member

    19,424
    6,720
    Sportsbook:
    927
    Apr 4, 2005
    Well RJJ was clearly shot to ****, even Calzaghe knows that so that fight was just a cash out fight before he retired, that's a meaningless win in regards to legacy.

    Hopkins fight was still a good win, Hopkins would go onto beat Pavlik, Pascal and Cloud. So Calzaghe deserves some credit, it's probably Calzaghe best win to be honest.

    But let's be honest Hopkins was 43 years old, he wasn't anywhere near prime as the losses to Taylor proved, hell even the fights before Taylor BHop was showing signs of decline. So while it was a good even a very good win for Calzaghe it's not like he beat a prime Hopkins.
     
  12. OpinionOfACasual

    OpinionOfACasual Boxing Junkie Full Member

    5,080
    3,945
    Sportsbook:
    1,618
    May 3, 2017
    It just screams hypocrisy that Hopkins/RJJ are seen as greats of the sport, yet Calzaghe isn't held on their pedastool.

    Non-prime Calzaghe > Non-prime RJJ+Hopkins
     
  13. Brighton bomber

    Brighton bomber Boxing Junkie Full Member

    19,424
    6,720
    Sportsbook:
    927
    Apr 4, 2005
    Hopkins was actually 43 not 41. Last fight Hopkins was prime or close to it was Joppy some 5 years before. Compared to Calzaghe who's best win vs Kessler was just 5 months before, though some say he was showing decline in that fight, so then maybe Calzaghe's last prime win was vs Bika 1.5 years before.

    So one fighter had been in decline for 5 years at age 43, the other was 1.5 years in decline at age 36. Can anyone imagine how a 5 years into a decline a 40 year old Calzaghe would of done in 2011 against Dawson when BHop fought him?
     
    kirk and Loudon like this.
  14. Birmingham

    Birmingham Boxing Junkie booted Full Member

    7,297
    5,117
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 13, 2017
    10 yrs difference between Calzaghe and Hopkins ?? I didn't know that
     
  15. Brighton bomber

    Brighton bomber Boxing Junkie Full Member

    19,424
    6,720
    Sportsbook:
    927
    Apr 4, 2005
    It's not hipocrisy it's a fair evaluation of their resumes. Calzaghe in reality was far better than his resume suggests, I think he was truly a special fighter but he wasted his prime years being content to not push himself or take risks. I also think he is regarded as one of the best super middles ever, but his P4P standing is poor because of his lack of a deep resume.

    It wasn't always his fault as he tried to make the Hopkins fight in 2002, but other than that he never tried to force the fights that mattered and even then he was trying to fight a guy from a lower division instead of unifying his own division.

    He refused to give Reid a rematch, can you imagine if Froch didn't give Groves a rematch? Froch in comparison took far more many risks, fighting Taylor in the US, Kessler in Denmark, took the dangerous Groves rematch, fought Bute when Bute was undefeated and he was the underdog. That made Froch a star, made him relevant, raised his standing and legacy, Calzaghe in comparison took very few risks over a much longer reign. Calzaghe is a far better fighter than Froch would of schooled him had they fought but in terms of legacy they are close because Froch achieved so much more in a shorter time as champion.
     
    destruction, KO KIDD, Loudon and 3 others like this.

Share This Page