Why doesn't Calzaghe get any love?

You're right, there's no such thing as a legitimate injury

 

No. Someone said that Calzaghe was reluctant to fight Hopkins and Jones. That is why these two fighters have been addressed.

Nobody was talking about Glen Johnson.

MTF

 

It would be stupid to think Joe would beat a prime Jones, but I would pick him over any version of Hopkins.

And to Hut Hut - Calzaghe didn't have all his speed. Watch hima against Eubank, then against Hopkins. Joe used to be much faster, and possibly put a bit more in his punches too.

I also thought Calzaghe completely dominated the fight, and this is coming from someone who was rooting for Hopkins at the time.

Hopkins DOMINATED the first 3 rounds and of course put Joe on his arse, then Joe got into his rhythm and swept the next 9 rounds, clearly.#

If you think Hopkins won that fight, with his 5 punch a round output, and 1 clean counter right hand per round, you probably had Arabham - Dirrell scored even before the DQ.

 

Hopkins could neutralize the speed of a prime Roy Jones, but the sloppy slapshit he couldn´t have handled. Yeah right. All of a sudden Joe is this master craftsman. The guy can´t even make a proper fist, half his punches are illegal.

Ah If Dariusz only fought Thomas Hearns and Michael Spinks in 2001 and retired undefeated afterwards, some would consider him one of the 20 greatest fighters of the last 70 years. ::

 

Good thing you are not a childish person who pushes his biased and limited view of the world on everyone else. Oh wait...

Poor, poor Stafford...so angry and forced to fall back on middle school insults yet again.

And if I agree with with cdogg more than I agree with you...it's pretty simple...he is right WAY more often than you are. That's because he sees the sport, the fighters and it's history way it ACTUALLY is. And you on the other hand...see it (and endlessly subject the forum to) the way you would LIKE it to be based on your likes and dislikes.

Hell...I WISH you knew more so at least you would be running on endlessly about reality.

 

Whilst this is true, it also isn't

 

I wasn't specifically targeting you, I am guilty of glossing over posts a bit sometimes, I was referring to a collective notion of Hopkins groupiesm,.. but with that said you are going to have to claim that Hopkins in his own words is lieng about his performance against Pavlik being the best of his career,..and I do believe this 'unbeatable' version only exists against certain styles, I don't know when Hopkins was supposed to be in his 'prime', not in prime verses Roy, not in prime verses Mercado, then sprang back to his prime in the rematch, then was old and past his prime when Taylor beat him over the course of 24 rounds where the brilliant master could never figure Taylor out,.. then he sprang back to prime verses Tarver, was past prime for Winky, and then Calzaghe, then sprang back to prime verses Pavlik,.. it really sounds like just an excuse for the horrifying reality that he loses fights and cant deal with certain styles.

The reason why he slows fights down to a crawl is due to the fact that he backs away from his opponents range all the time,.. and shuts the action down with excessive clinching proceeding his intermittent timed potshot thrown with his head ducked down, *and repeat the cycle, *tick tock tick tock,.. and I'm not one to glorify his liberty to break the rules, it's devious, illegal, and an integral part of his game, he trains to break the rules,.. and never underestimate how effective a round of excessive clinching can be as a defence mechanism or a victory tactic, paired with running the clock out,.. when the end round bell rings, there's not much to judge, except intermittent pots, hit or miss,.. John Ruiz is another good example where he had success based on his deliberate and illegal abuse of this 'no rules' loophole.

 

Hopkins gave a good account of himself, but lost to Jones, 8 rounds to 4 at best.

Joe has a very, very difficult style to beat. He's an unpredictable volume puncher, with excellent accuracy and timing, a good chin, and good stamina.

Joe would have simply outworked any version of Hopkins. Joe has deceptively good footwork too, Hopkins land and grab simply doesn't work on Joe, because Joe himself is excellent at range and positioning.

I used to hate Calzaghe, and I'm not even a fan now, he's not particularly likeable, but I've come to respect him. He's a unique talent, a natural fighter - and he's unbeaten. He probably would have been even better with a better trainer.

And from the replies in this thread, it seems he's still pretty underrated.

Yep he pissed years of his career up the wall, which is annoying and weird given how good he is, but that doesn't reflect on his ability, only his all time ranking.

I think he would have beaten any version of Hopkins, and given a prime Roy a good fight. I don't think anyone in history from 160 to 175 would have beaten him easily.

 

Seriously.....comparisons with Darius make much more sense than comparisons with Jones & Hopkins. He's somewhere between those levels along with guys like Oscar. It's astounding actually that Oscar now ranks below Calzaghe by consensus when you consider that HIS wins over two ancient greats who made their names in lower divisions (Chavez & Whitaker, equivalent, IMO to Jones & Hopkins respectively) aren't even among his best. He topped those wins by beating Tito, Quartey and Mosley in the rematch (i refuse to even verbally acknowledge judging that inadequate, they can fuck off) and also KOd Vargas. All 4 of those wins are eons better than anything Calzaghe did outside Hopkins. Yet people think Joe ranks higher, now? It's utterly demented.

And we'll all sit and cry about guys avoiding risk on one hand yet when a guy like Oscar goes out and fights EVERYONE and racks up a few losses suddenly he loses ground to a guy who spent 70% of his career fighting Tocker Pudwell & Will Mcntyre. Or when a guy like Ricky Hatton loses ONLY to the two best fighters p4p of his generation he becomes a face first bum.

I'll say it here definitively, Oscar ranks above Calzaghe and anyone who disagrees is insane. Calzaghe ranks MARGINALLY above Hatton & Darius, but there's a rational argument to be made that he doesn't.

 

Calzaghe's measure and judgement for range is also a lethal attribute, especially when fighting on the fringe against a strict 'trap setting, counter-puncher' ,.. I don't think whatever a prime Hopkins is,.. defeats those things with legendness, and Americaness alone.

But still,.. in my opinion,.. mythical matchups are just a load of shit anyway, it's usually used as a therapy to help heal the shock and bitter feelings of a loss,..or to exhume a fighter from long ago to defeat a fighter somebody hates so much in the present day when nobody else can take care of him. I mean,.. it seems every fighter of 20 or 30 years ago can lose to opposition back in the day but go 90 - 0 with 88 ko's if they were around in this present time,.. it's mainly pure self serving fantasy,..nobody can guarantee anything that would have happenned,..

 

Oscar might rank a little higher than Joe based on sheer level of opposition, with some good wins in there too, like a prime Tito and Vargas.

But even the version of Hopkins that Joe fought is better than anyone Oscar has beaten.

Hopkins is also much better than anyone Hatton or Dariusz beat. Fuck, I think Eubank is better than anyone Dariusz or Hatton beat.

Calzaghe ranks significantly higher than Hatton/Dariusz. His resumé is better, and quite simply - he's a MUCH better fighter than both of them.

Evidently Chris Eubank has become pretty underrated too. He was an excellent fighter, it's a just a shame he became gunshy after the Watson incident.

 

A 43 year old Hopkins at 175 is NOT better than anyone Oscar beat. I don't even think he's better than the Whitaker Oscar beat at 147. As I said I regard those wins as closely equivalent in every regard. Eubank is not as good as Tszyu, not even close. Probably ranks evenly with beating Castillo.

 

Agreed

 

Rocky was at least as good as Eubank, fuck the judges.

 

Hahaha, I totally agree. Good post. I'm a fan of many eras of the sport, but mainly the Robinson and Cerdan era to now, there aren't any fighters before that I enjoy watching much. Apart from Georges Carpentier. He was awesome.

I also like watching Windmill Boy Hank and Joe Louis.

People do tend to look back with rose tinted glasses starting at 80's fighters going back. That's not to say most of them are worse, but it seems a lot of them get overrated, while present day fighters perhaps get slightly underrated without the retrospective viewpoint, we kind of take them for granted because they are here and now.

For instance in some ways Pacquiao is still underrated. He is one of the best fighters of all time, yet people still seem to think he loses to many of the champions in history around the 135 weight class. Nah, only Duran would have beaten Pacquiao, this version of Pacquiao would beat the fuck out of pretty much everyone else in history around these weights (130 to 140), especially the overrated Chavez, he wouldn't have stood a chance.

Calzaghe is not as good as Pacquiao, but I still think he would have given ANYONE in history a fight from 160 to 175, and beaten many of them.

 

Todays Super Sixers would lose to the likes of Eubank, Collins, Joe Calzaghe, Benn, Watson.

 

:: ::

Not only did Eubank beat "Rocky" (in Germany too it should be pointed out) but Eubank also has a better resumé.

So no, Gianni is not as good as Eubank.

 

You've got to be kidding? Who the FUCK did Tszyu beat that ranks as "not even close" to Eubank?

Tszyu is more overrated than Trinidad, Eubank was much better.

Who did Tszyu beat? Judah? I guess Clottey is much better than Eubank too.

The 43 year old Hopkins is much better than the Whitaker that Oscar beat. The Whitaker Oscar beat wasn't schooling undefeated champions like Pavlik, in fact didn't he not even win a fight after that loss to Oscar?

You don't think the Hopkins that delivered a ridiculously good performance against Pavlik is as good as THAT version of Whitaker? Really?

 

No really. ::

Calzaghe had TWO fights at 175 in his career. He won a SD against a 43 year old career middleweight in one bout and beat a shot to shit 40 year old Roy Jones by decision in the other. Yeah if that is not conclusive evidence that he could hang with anyone at 175, yet he avoided Chad Dawson like he had AIDS.

 

Agreed. I think Ward might do well with them though.

 

It should also be pointed out that most (even the brits) think Rocky won the fight, but since you are more into fights from the 1920´s you probably think the 118-109 scorecard was legit.

Roy Jones ducked Rocky. Court approved FACT. :hammert:

 

Carlos Monzon had no fights at 168, that wouldn't stop me from picking him against almost every 168 pounder in history.

 

If one of the scorecards read 118 - 109, that's insane. But Eubank beat Rocky fair and square. The Brits hated Eubank, it wouldn't surprise me at all if a few Brits thought he lost that fight.

 

Monzon was the pioneer for the Wladimir Klitschko style of fighting. :crafty:

 

And why I simply have no idea. Jones would have slapped him about like a red headed step child.

 

Fuck no. Some of you might be surprised at me being a Monzon fan, as I usually like my fighters more action oriented (Duran/Pacquiao/Tyson/Morales etc) - but I love Monzon and his style.

He was deliberate and precise, but not boring like Wlad, and he didn't fight scared like Wlad/Lewis either.

 

I actually think Rocky would have been one of the tougher fights for Roy. Tall southpaw boxers with excellent instincts and timing, good footwork and handspeed combined with a tight defense always gave Roy fits.

 

He was definitely a stiff, upright, 'strictly distance' man though. :crafty:

 

I think Hopkins is roughly AS good as that version of Whitaker, perhaps slightly better. Look, I don't wanna critisize Hopkins here because I rate him very highly, but had Whitaker moved to 147 and fought nothing but a bunch of highly rated lightweights he would have looked a hella lot better at his advanced age as he did. As it happened he took on HIS equivalents of Zolt Erdei or Tavoris Cloud and struggled to victories over them instead of getting the sexier looking wins over dejour smaller men like say Stevie Johnston.

Re: Tszyu, Ive actually gone on record as saying I regard him as the most overrated fighter of his generation too, but he still ranks above Chris Eubank. He was long time, dominant champion in a strong division with one of the greatest amateur records around. He was universally top 10 p4p when he fought Hatton and despite the overration (sic) top 12 was probably justified. Eubank barely fought a relevant opponent from outside his own country and the only time he did, against a decidedly average guy he barely won. P4P I think there's little doubt a guy like Rocky is a standard, Urkal type defence for Tszyu. Tszyu doesn't belong 'MILES' above Eubank, but I think he ranks higher quite decisively. I'd imagine if you put this to poll the answer would be pretty lop sided.

 

I think that version of Whitaker wasn't really close to how he was in his prime. Still had good defense, but overall was pretty washed up.

Hopkins? Sure his workrate has diminished considerably, but he is one crafty fucker, and there is just no way that version of Whitaker would have been able to whitewash someone as dangerous as Pavlik. Not a chance.

And in regards to Tszyu being ranked top ten P4P, I know, I remember. Why, I have no idea. The guy was an average champion, nothing more. He had a lot of defenses because he didn't fight any elite fighters, and he also got his arse kicked by Cool Vince, and never tried to get a rematch. He then retired after getting handled by Hatton. He was not P4P material, I don't care what anyone says.

Eubank doesn't have a spectacular record, but neither does Tszyu, and I think Eubank is a better fighter than Tszyu.