Why doesn't Calzaghe get any love?

Ok cool. I'd agree Hopkins was a little better than Whitaker (though I don't think it was by loads and I think the difference is closed by the fact that at their respective stages volume punching Calzaghe was PERFECT stylistically to beat Hopkins while Whitaker was a nightmare for the left hand dominant Oscar).

But either way, Im sure we can agree there's a sane discussion to be had in both cases? And that hence the wins are if nothing else broadly comparable and that says something about how we contextualize Joe's career?

 

One thing is for sure, any version of Joe Calzaghe beats any version of Tito Trinidad. 365 days of the year.

 

And if Joe Calzaghe had ever been able to make 160lb (or 147lb in Oscar's case) this'd be relevant.

 

Of course. I even said Oscar should possibly be ranked higher due to sheer level of opposition, a lot of good wins, being a multi weight champ etc etc. But Calzaghe was a long reigning super middle, undefeated, also beat some very good fighters and one great fighter etc etc. An argument could be made either way.

And honestly, I'm not a Calzaghe fan, I'm not sure but I don't think I've even watched a Calzaghe fight twice. You might remember back in the day, like the SO days or the early fightworld days, I used to be a Calzaghe hater.

But I've come to respect him, he really can fight, and has a unique and VERY tricky/hard to beat style. His career isn't spectacular, but it seems even his ability as a fighter is being underrated somewhat on this thread.

 

Never rewatched a Calzaghe fight either. There's nothing to rewatch. Just a great talent for range, natural speed and a prodigious fitness level. Nothing worth studying or aesthetically enjoyable to look at. I personally think there's nothing 'arguable' about who belongs higher between Calzaghe & Oscar at all, the quality of the wins is black and white and Oscar loses no points in my book for losing to 3 of the 4 best fighters of the last 20 years beyond his prime either in weight or years.

 

Carl Froch: "Yeah, I see the sad old fat boy is still digging me out. Joe forgets he gave up the belt rather than fight me."

 

...and he can't dance! ::

Froch is so deluded, but hilarious

 

What was so frustrating about Sloppy Joe was that like Hamed, he got knocked down more than a couple times and managed to regroup and win. He seemed so vulnerable and yet nobody could beat him.

 

Damn. You bought Boxing Monthly too???

 

Even if Oscar should be ranked ahead, it's close. Oscar has an excellent record, and I agree he loses no points for his losses to Floyd and Pacman (but the Nard loss? well phantom body shot/business transaction, he should lose some points for that really) - but Oscar's best wins are Tito and Vargas, and Tito is officially a loss on his record (though I thought Oscar won clearly).

And I know that you know that Tito is fucking overrated, and Vargas was a good fighter, but not quite an A class fighter.

Based on multi weight champion-ness, fighting everyone, only losing to the best etc - but it's close, I think Calzaghe is actually a better fighter, and would probably beat Oscar in a P4P battle. He also retired undefeated and beat Hopkins, a fighter significantly better than anyone Oscar beat.

 

Aye mate, good Froch-Kessler preview

 

Again, Tito & Quartey @147, and probably Mosley at 154, all > 43 y/o Hopkins at 175, with Whitaker at 147 & even Chavez I at 140 not a million miles behind.

 

I bought it as I needed something to read when I was up on the crapper in the Passport Office in Dublin.

Go in, grab yer ticket, hit the crapper with a copy of BM for around 30 minutes, wipe yer arse, and head back on in when your number gets called.

Its what BM was invented for........

 

....and he´s one win away from being the most successful super-middleweight in history and all Calzone can do is sniff some coke to get over it.

Dirrell, Taylor, Pascal, Kessler > Kessler, Lacy, Eubank, Reid.

 

great post


being undefeated only means that you didn't fight enough good fighter. If you challenge yourself repeatedly, you'll ,lose sooner or later

 

Amen.

 

I certainly don't disagree with that.

You have to give Calzaghe credit for being undefeated and getting some very good wins, same as if Floyd retired undefeated.

But ultimately I don't think losses to great fighters should be particularly damning, even in your prime. If you challenge yourself over and over, you're going to lose.

It's pathetic that Joe did fight for so many years without really challenging himself, and it's pathetic the way Floyd has done the same for the last 5 or 6 years.

Joe's career isn't great, I guess my point is more that he really is a great fighter, ability wise, fucking hard to beat. Tough, skilled, high workrate, great stamina, and very tricky/unpredictable to boot.

It's not Joe's career or all time ranking I think is underrated, it's more his ability as a fighter.

 

Tito made 168 towards the end didn't he?

Fact is that when Tito was beating the likes of Joppy, people were saying Tito was the best fighter right across ALL 3 MW divisions.

 

:atu::atu:

 

Well this is all purely subjective of course just as it is with Tyson because he never did fight a prime p4per or close. But I now think we're now getting to a point where he's become overrated wildly. Sly said recently that he was along with Jones, Hopkins & Floyd among the greatest fighters that ever lived. Accomplishments aside, he's still NOT of Hopkins, Jones or Floyd's level never mind greater fighters from history. But that aspect is to some extent just down to opinions I suppose....

Re loses: if the loss is to a greater fighter than yourself it doesn't hurt your standing even 1%. That's the way I look at it, end of story. And if its to a comparably great fighter and the fight is hella close, ditto. If Joe had taken a chance in 2000 and come off second best to Jones I wouldn't regard him in even 0.1% lesser terms. Unfortunately some (Sly, no offense), really would.

 

I wouldn't argue for a second that Oscar isn't greater than Calzaghe in terms of career accomplishments, because he clearly is.

That said, I do think two important factrs have to be taken into account. Frstly, Mex is correct when he says that Calzaghe is a better fighter than his overall accomplishment's merit.

I think a good way of comparing is by doing so against fellow Brit Hatton, who is about 70% as skilled a fighter as Joe was but, for me, accomplished at least 30% more over the course of his career. He fought and beat the lineal champion and went on to make several tough defenses, falling short only against two of the best ever.

History SHOULD look more favourably on Hatton than Calzaghe IMHO.
However, the second factor to consider is how much of Joe's lack of 'achievements' truly are his fault. In this thread alone the popular myth that he 'ducked' Hopkins has been debunked, whilst Jones is on record as having said he was never interested in fighting Joe around 2000.

As I have asked before- who else was there? Johnson is a standout I suppose but only a cynic doesn't believe that Joe was legitimately injured in the year or so that he didn't fight ANYONE around 2001, but other than Ottke, who was scared stiff to leave his corrupt judges and referee's at home, who else was he to fight?

I've said it before and it is worth repeating that Calzaghe suffers greatly, especially in the eyes of British fans, for following the excitment and brilliance of the Watson/Eubank/Benn era. These guys are held in much higher regard because they fought each other and a selection of other top level guys. Calzaghe never had a Benn to lift him up in the same way that Eubank did, for example.

These are important factors when exmining Calzaghe's career. It's true that he never faced one or two great fighters in their prime, but 168-175 has been largely dead for years and years.

MTF

 

he throws punches like a fag

 

Then with that all readily acknowledged (the weakness of his 168 comp, circumstantially enforced or otherwise) - what makes you think Hatton was only 70% the fighter Joe was? Seriously? He fucked up Tszyu and Castillo pretty good. Beat Malinaggi easily. These guys are at least as good as Eubank, Kessler & Lacy. And he looked every inch as good doing it as Joe did against those guys. Why do you perceive him as so inferior?

With due respect, isn't it at least in part (and I suspect more than that) because you saw his abilities put into their proper context by true ATG fighters, who painted the ceiling of his limitations on screen in so much blood splattered telecolour? Whereas we can all go on imagining Joe as every inch the equal of a 36 y/o B-Hop or 30 y/o Roy, despite knowing in the back of our minds that had he fought them prime he'd have been beaten just as conclusively (though doubtless less dramatically) as Ricky was by Pac & Floyd.

So again, it comes back to that shimmering, immaculate '0' pulling more weight in our perceptions than it should. I don't think Joe stacks up to Oscar in ability or accomplishment yet most people would now rank him above. I don't think he should rank FAR ahead of Hatton yet to most people the conversation is now a joke. All reflects our collectively putting too much weight on losses to great fighters and not enough on great wins, IMHO.:notallthere:

 

True. The more boxing becomes decoupled from the martial art of HURTING fuckers in the ring the more it becomes devalued, IMHO. And that process continues on apace.

 

The reasons why Hatton is less skilled as a fighter are obviously for my money.

Firstly, he only had one plan- Plan A. When Plan A failed, he had no Plan B, and whilst this became more obvious the better his opposition went, it is also obvious in other fights such as the Collazo fight. It wasn't just Grade A opposition who troubled Hatton- grade B opposition could to if they had quick hands and were able to time him rushing in.

Calzaghe, on the other hand, was noted for adapting to his opponents as a fight wore on, and he won numerous fights in numerous different ways. He slugged it out with Brewer, rushed in against Hopkins and outslicked Lacy. Three different fights plans for three different opponents. Look also at how many times he was behind early in fights and turned things round mid-fight; the Kessler fight being a perfect example of Calzaghe changing tactics mid-fight when things were going against him.

Joe was one of the most adaptable fighters of the modern era. Hatton was one of the most predictable.

Secondly, Hatton only really ever had one world class attribute and that was his superior footspeed. Once that went, he became hittable and hurtable. Calzaghe had a number of world class attributes, including his footspeed, handspeed and stamina.

Thirdly, he threw hundreds of punches per fight which is an incredible amount for a supermiddle/light heavy. He had a unique form of attacking- lots of half turned shots which confused opponents mixed in with hurtful shots. This 'slapping' business is nonsense- Lacy, Kessler and Jones looked like hell by the time Calzaghe was finished with them. Even Jones admitted that the 'slaps' hurt a lot more than he expected.

Fourthly there is longevity. Calzaghe was beating Kessler and Lacy and in most people's top-five P4P when he was in his thirties and supposed to be past his best. Hatton is twenty nine and finished as an elite fighter.

Then there is the issue of chins. Hatton had a good chin which got substantially worse as he got older. Lazcarno even hurt him at one point. Calzaghe had an excellent beard along with a tremendous recovery from being hurt. At not a single point in his career was Calzaghe in serious trouble of being stopped, even when Jones punched and followed through with his elbow in their fight, breaking Joe's nose. Calzaghe was up at the count of three. When Hatton was hit, he was hurt and didn't recover well.

These are the reasons why I think Calzaghe was more talented than Hatton. Based on the evidence of watching every single professional fight both men had, these appear logical conclusions for me to make.

None of this is to diminish from Hatton-in fact, it is to Ricky's immense credit that he achieved as much as he did and obtained the notable wins that he did in light of his deficiencies. That is why I think history will judge Hatton very well indeed. Considering his flaws, to win titles at two weights and to go unbeaten for so long against good opponents was outstanding. IMHO, and as I have stated many times before, Hatton's standing does not and should not diminish because he suffered two losses to a pair of all time greats.

For me, if Calzaghe had lost to RJJ in 2000, as he would have done if they had fought, then that wouldn't have diminished him at all. Losing to one of the best ever doesn't diminish Hatton's achievements in my eyes and so the same applies naturally to Calzaghe. To suggest otherwise is pretty insulting, frankly. When, for the record, was the last time you saw me even mention his unbeaten record in support of any argument I make on his behalf? :dunno:

BTW, I don't think he would have lost to any version of Hopkins, because his style would have always caused Hopkins the same problems he caused him when they fought.

MTF

 

Very true...









MTF :nono:

 

Hatton has become a BIT underrated too, in the sense that people act like he's some scrub now, when actually, he has only lost to the best 2 fighters of the last decade.

And he didn't even get blown out by Floyd.

But Calzaghe is a much better fighter than Hatton.

And hut hut - Scotsman please - the Castillo that Hatton fought is at least as good as Kessler?

Prime Castillo is much better than Kessler, but not the one Hatton fought, he was more or less shot, and is now completely shot it seems.

Hatton is an overachiever, Calzaghe more of an underachiever. I agree with MTF's assessment of both. Calzaghe was significantly more talented and skilled, and one of his best attributes was adaptability, something that Hatton sorely lacked.

Hatton certainly made the most of his talent though, it's true that at world level his only significant talent was footspeed. He did have good stamina and a solid chin too in his prime though.

 

Really. Green knocks Roy out in 90 seconds and you come in here to brag that Calzaghe cut Roy. ::

 

Yea Castillo barely scraped by Ngoudjo before the Hatton fight.

And MTF, I also agree Calzaghe would give Hopkins hell, any version of Hopkins, whos reign is really not too dissimilar to Joes.

 

No-one is bragging about anything. It was merely an example of Calzaghe's faggy slaps, as brought up by others in this thread...

MTF :kick: