Will Jones/Hopkins/Kessler's careers go on to define Calzaghe's?

The ONLY fighter who will define Calzaghes legacy is Mikkel Kessler. If Kessler wins this super middleweight tourney, with the host of good fighters therein, that will define Calzaghes legacy.

Not some old shot roy jones beatng a lacy who got his ass kicked by Mendoza and Taylor.

 

knew this was going to come up - and no it won't.
kessler winning this SMW tournament is the best thing that could happen to calzaghe's 'reputation' because then we could argue that calzaghe beat a proven world class fighter in his prime.

 

thats exactly right and its also unfortunate.

 

It does help calz a lot because using the same argument people would rush to say how meaningless the wins where if jones had gone onto lose badly and same with hopkins and kessler. If kessler loses now really badly people will come out and say see calz wasnt that good ect.
People are trying to place calz in the ATG HOF and doing this based on his wins, so everything each fighter he wins goes on to do will ofc effect his status, both for the good and bad. Hopkins win over pavlik and jones win both help his claim but in the same instance if kessler gets beat badly or hopkins that will hurt his status.
IMO anyway

 

but the bottom line in this argument is that you have a very talented fighter like calzaghe who still needs defending using that terrible line that only boxing can cheapen in the world of sports....'undefeated world champion'.

if calzaghe had avoided frank warren altogether and wasn't influenced by warren's philosophy of fighting to get rich rather than seeing how good you can be, then we might not be having this discussion - which is nothing more than trying to legitimise calzaghe's status in boxing by feeding on the leftovers.

 

its only strange in that a fighter of calzaghe's calibre never silenced the critics himself. trying to add to calzaghe's 'legacy' by legitimising wins against faded greats that were easily his defining fights while they were in his prime, but who he never fought, just isn't good enough.

 

Its very hard situation because we all agree calz should have padded his resume better, but to do this he would have needed to travel abroad and gone after people even tho he was the champ, In america its a diff situation because ppl like jones often show a refusal to travel and instead let people come to them. They do this with excuses of fact they are the top dogs and ppl should come to them. Would calz had got many more top challengers if he had lived in america and would jones or hopkins got half as many if they had lived in UK. If Jones for example had the same mental philosiphy of letting ppl come to him and had lived in UK would his resume have been that much diff to calz?. So maybe calz real fault was this stubborn elite top dog mentality many top boxers seem to share.

 

Think you right and the real enemy of calz career was pride. If the much earlier hopkins fight hadnt fallen at final hurdle who knows how the story would have gone.

 

good post - and you're right.
calzaghe's only real fault was not being born in the US and both jones and hopkins would have suffered the same fate as calzaghe IF they had adopted the same mindset.

but you cant blame jones for that because he was the king of the sport for so long, and even though he wasnt a pvp draw, its common sense that he wasnt going to give a free ticket to a guy like calzaghe who was high risk and low reward.

calzaghe being the SMW champ, having belts, whatever...didnt matter.

how hard would it have been, considering the division jones and hopkins ruled, for calzaghe to impress in the US on PPV undercards to get a crack at either of them IF HE WANTED TO DO THAT - and thats what it boils down to.

calzaghe didnt avoid this because of a stubborn elite top dog mentality, he did it because he consciously chose to sit on his (relative) goldmine and take it over-the-top accolades from those who didnt see the bigger picture, rather than test himself against possibly the two best fighters of his era.

because losing would have dispelled the 'myth' in britain if he lost badly.

 

In Kessler's case, yeah. What he does now is important to Calzaghe's legacy.

But nothing RJJ or B-Hop do now is fundamentally going to alter our perception of them at this stage in their careers.

 

He did make one attempt for Hopkins tho but Hopkins priced himself out, still tho calz should have pushed and pushed and tried again. In reality i imagine jones and hopkins both saw calz as high risk and low reward and calz the same about them. In hindsight avoiding calz didnt effect hopkins and jones careers but avoiding jones and hopkins did effect calz. I think the big problem most have with calz is seperating his resume from his ability, anyone who says he has a resume to rival other elites is clearly misguided, but also anyone who says he wasnt as skilled as the other elites is also clearly bias or misguided. He was as skilled as any boxer out there he was just a case of wasted potential for long periods of his career