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

i am telling you in example form why we DONT get a fool pass to argue a failed argument, not asking us to do the same mistake again . thanks man.

 

Because he resided in an obscure division.
And RJJ was washed up by the time they fought.
Hopkins still had it, but it was a really ugly and close fight. However Joe proved that he can hang with the elites.

 

hyi

let me put the nature of the age arugment another way so that we can all understand bro.

if someon tells you that a gun is loaded, and fires a bullet from it thru the ceiling, you dont pick up the gun and say "huhu no its not look" and shoot your head off with it. thats not called winning the argument.

or. if 2 people are at a job interview, and one of them is dead, who do u employ.

 

I thought I understood you. Then you posted this and my head fell out the window.

 

Calzaghe doesn't get the credit he deserves because he isn't English. Look at Ricky Hatton who was world-level, English fans think of him as an ATG, whereas Joe is an ATG but isn't spoken of in the same sentence as a Hatton.

 

It's actually Americans that discredit Joe the most who don't care whether he's English or Welsh.

They have a point about resume though. Joe was far more talented than Ricky but which one of them chased elite boxers in their prime? Even willing to move up in weight just to secure said fight?

People respect that.

 

Again Hopkins wasn't 41, he was 41 vs Tarver, he was 43 vs Calzaghe.

5 years may or may not be much in the 21st century, but 7 years is far more significant, especially when in your 40's. For example in 2002 RJJ was beating Woods and Ruiz, 7 years later he was losing to Calzaghe and Danny Green.

Whitaker was getting robbed by Chavez in 93, 7.5 years later he was getting KO'ed by a guy with a 14-2-5 record.

7 years ago Pac was beating Mosley, Margarito and JMM, 7 years later he's been KO'ed by JMM, lost to Horn and no longer seen as elite.

Suffice to say a 7 year age gap between Calzaghe and Hopkins is significant. Hopkins hadn't declined as much as many but he was still a a far inferior fighter than he was in his prime.

 

Everyone would of beaten Calzaghe right up until they didn't.

 

wrong way round, calzaghe would have, but never fought them

 

besides the reasons mentioned already, JC got some heat because he got some very crappy stoppages.

 

The Hopkins win was a feather in the cap,
it wasn't some dominating win like some
Calzaghe fanatics claim (I had Joe winning simply
based on activity, the fight was close), but he got
the job done. Bernard despite his age
wasn't a worn fighter and went on to more success
after the fight.

The Roy win was nothing. Roy was
a "physically" aged, completely worn and shot fighter.

 

the roy win was the beginning of jones eurobum of the month exhibition fight series which he got trapped in for years clowning around.

 

Age and ring age are 2 different things.

Although Joe was 36, he was still an elite fighter, and in the P4P rankings. He was also coming off of 2 of the best wins of his career in Lacy and Kessler.

I give him credit for the his win over Bernard, but n my honest opinion, it was a draw. To me, it was a case of quantity vs quality. That's how I genuinely felt at the time. If I went back and viewed it again, I could well change my opinion. But I've never rewatched it as it was so awful.

He gets zero credit for beating Roy, as he'd dismissed Roy on numerous occasions leading up to their fight. He also obviously had no intentions of fighting Roy when he was anywhere near his best.


This is an excerpt from his autobiography - 'No Ordinary Joe' published a year before they fought in 2007:

"I have no interest anymore in Roy Jones and no interest in Antonio Tarver. Jones is washed up and Tarver was never that good anyway. He just caught Jones when Jones was shot and Johnson did the same"

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...ved=0ahUKEwiaorXBvP7SAhWJLcAKHVtXCskQ6AEIMDAG


This is an interview in the Setanta Sports studio, conducted early in 2008:

(6 min mark)

This content is protected

This is why he receives criticism, and justifiably so. He again dismissed Roy, and spoke of wanting to fight Pavlik afterwards. But after the Hopkins fight, he then dismissed Pavlik by saying he didn't rate him and he'd done nothing to warrant a fight, before also trying to kid the public into believing that Roy was a force again after 3 (supposedly) great wins.

 

Hopkins because it was an awful fight that could have gone to Hopkins (his age is less of a reason but still a factor), and RJJ because he was past his best. Both also dropped him in the opening round. They have too many mitigating factors to be considered crowning achievements the way other victories from other fighters are. Not to mention having avoided Jones as mentioned above.