Re: Does Calzaghe have the opponents to be considered a true ATG?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
Do you consider Holmes, Louis ATG and even Bernard a ATG i mean if not for Tito and Oscar Bernard would not be considered. See the thing will Cal is that he undefeated and has good wins over a Old Ebunks, Lacy and Kessler also undefeated not to mention a champ 10 years and 21 defences so top 50 ain't out of the question i mean what else can you do. I mean look at Rocky's best wins were over old greats or complete bums i mean all in how you look at it.
well me personally, i don't consider rocky an all time great, and bernard i like him and he is great, but I always considered his mw reign a gift from RJJ because he moved out of the division. HOP never really chased that fight to validate his championship even if it meant taking less money...
Calzaghe though, he seems capable of being and all time great, there were fights out there that he could have made, rocky marciano fought everyone there was to fight so did holmes....calzaghe remained overseas and too bad for him there weren't enough great fighters over there for him to fight but he couldve left that soil....i know most will say that rjj never left america but lucky for him there were HOF fighters in the states for him to fight....
Re: Does Calzaghe have the opponents to be considered a true ATG?
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Gamo
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather+Mosley
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Gamo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
I think he's only a Bernard Hopkins away from a being a top 50 ATG's
Agreed. 1 more big win,over Hopkins and he could be an ATG,definitely at the lower end of the list though.
So a win over hopkins would do it? So what does a loss to hopkins do for his legacy?
Doesn't hurt it that much. He has done what Bernard has done-ruled a division,unified the titles and wiped away the competitors.Now he needs to move up and beat a top,top opponent.The 2 best names on JC resume are Lacy and Kessler,2 hungry,young,champions,both undefeated. The best 2 names on Hopkins resume are Oscar and Tito(2 smaller guys)maybe Tarver too although I never rated Tarver personally. So JC is not too far imo. And yes,I think he can beat Bernard and I REALLY hope he does.
If Hopkins is an ATG, then Calzaghe is for sure. I believe he's the first "Ring" champ in the history of the division. He's beaten everybody that has come his way. I just rewatched the Kessler fight, and I'm just amazed by him. Even the Bika fight, he didn't look great, but he won decisisively, and Bika's a pretty good fighter. Unfortunately, he fights in a division that doesn't have a lot of history or press, so some of his wins aren't as good than they seem. The names aren't eye catching, but guys like Veit and Reid were pretty good fighters when he beat them all convincely. It's not like he's been just scraping by, and when guys who are been put in front of him who were supposed push him, he handled them.
Joe Calzaghe would never have lost to Jermaine Taylor on any night, bad decisions or not.
Re: Does Calzaghe have the opponents to be considered a true ATG?
Unfortunately, he fights in a division that doesn't have a lot of history or press, so some of his wins aren't as good than they seem. The names aren't eye catching, but guys like Veit and Reid were pretty good fighters when he beat them all convincely. It's not like he's been just scraping by, and when guys who are been put in front of him who were supposed push him, he handled them.
No he didn't beat Reid convincing if you watched the fight you would know it was razor thin close and very controversial decision because alot of people thought Reid won.
Re: Does Calzaghe have the opponents to be considered a true ATG?
Here’s the way that I see it…& I’ll try to put the bias aside.
I am a HUGE fan of Joe Calzaghe…always have been & always will be.
As far as him being GOAT…yes. Certainly…he’s Hall of Fame material & all that…but there are fights that should have been made & weren’t…fights that he really needed to bag.
Granted those misses weren’t all his fault & for him to be regarded as a great…he should have traveled to get those bouts…but that’s a bit close minded. Our champs don’t have to go anywhere due to the fact that the U.S. is the mecca of boxing & all the fights & networks are here & within shouting distance…hence Joe being at a disadvantage on his side of the pond.
Now that being said…if Britain were the U.S., we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Calzaghe’s opposition is ripped apart due to the fact that he dismantled everyone that he faced & the fact that the division wasn’t the strongest of previous years…but he still ruled & dominated beautifully.
Joe should go down as one of the greatest of all time.
His personality & abilities make him a shoe in for a spot in the books.
Defeating any names such as Hopkins, Jones, Taylor, Pavlik, Johnson, Woods, or even Tarver would be a step towards making him a household name.
Re: Does Calzaghe have the opponents to be considered a true ATG?
Here is another spin on this. Has not fighting some big names made him a bigger name than what he may well have been had he fought the likes of RJJ, BHOP, etc.
If he'd had 3 or 4 defenses then fought RJJ and been Ko'd early he may have lost confidence and never been the champion and great fighter he is today. I'm not saying this is what would have happened in a fight between Roy and Joe, just a hypothetical.
If he'd fought Jones or Hopkins in say 2000 they were probably more on top of their game than what Joe was then, so by not fighting those guys he may have done himself the favor.
Or maybe im talking shit. ;D
Re: Does Calzaghe have the opponents to be considered a true ATG?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Unfortunately, he fights in a division that doesn't have a lot of history or press, so some of his wins aren't as good than they seem. The names aren't eye catching, but guys like Veit and Reid were pretty good fighters when he beat them all convincely. It's not like he's been just scraping by, and when guys who are been put in front of him who were supposed push him, he handled them.
No he didn't beat Reid convincing if you watched the fight you would know it was razor thin close and very controversial decision because alot of people thought Reid won.
A lot of people thought ODLH beat Floyd. A lot of people can be wrong.
Re: Does Calzaghe have the opponents to be considered a true ATG?
The thing about Joe Calzaghe is his biggest wins have been in his last 5 or six fights. His three biggest wins imo are Lacy, Viet (2nd fight), and Kessler. Lacy was obviously hyped, but he was thought to be the biggest threat in the division, Viet was still green when he fought Joe the first time but he got a few good wins to line himself up withJoe the second time, and Joe disposed of him. The Kessler wim carries the most weight because he was/is in his prime and absolute best. Plus he walked through everyone else in the division. Also I still give him some credit for beating Eubank. But I dont think that win did much for his legacy in the long run aside from the name on his resume. Before the Kessler fight I would have said he is not quite an ATG. now I say he borderline. Maybe one more big win will solidify him as an ATG, or maybe time will.
Re: Does Calzaghe have the opponents to be considered a true ATG?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather+Mosley
Just wondering, he's first ballot HOF of course because of his record alone...but does he have the proper opponent resume to be mentioned with the all time greats?
Nope it isn't but neither was Barry Mcguigan's so there you go ;)
I don't think anybody considers Barry McGuigan an All Time Great
Barry was a great boxer and he was good for boxing. he was exciting and his dad singing before his fights really got the crowd going.
Re: Does Calzaghe have the opponents to be considered a true ATG?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Unfortunately, he fights in a division that doesn't have a lot of history or press, so some of his wins aren't as good than they seem. The names aren't eye catching, but guys like Veit and Reid were pretty good fighters when he beat them all convincely. It's not like he's been just scraping by, and when guys who are been put in front of him who were supposed push him, he handled them.
No he didn't beat Reid convincing if you watched the fight you would know it was razor thin close and very controversial decision because alot of people thought Reid won.
reid fought out of his skin that night and remember holmes had split decision wins over both norton and witherspoon that could have gone either way. But hes still an all time great.
Re: Does Calzaghe have the opponents to be considered a true ATG?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
Do you consider Holmes, Louis ATG and even Bernard a ATG i mean if not for Tito and Oscar Bernard would not be considered. See the thing will Cal is that he undefeated and has good wins over a Old Ebunks, Lacy and Kessler also undefeated not to mention a champ 10 years and 21 defences so top 50 ain't out of the question i mean what else can you do. I mean look at Rocky's best wins were over old greats or complete bums i mean all in how you look at it.
Difference between Holmes and Hopkins is they fought in GREAT divisons ( HW-MW)
super middle is not a glamour division , Calzaghe is a tremendous fighter but not had more than a few competitive fights to be regarded as an ATG , not for me anyway , and Barry Mcguigan isnt a GREAT either.
Re: Does Calzaghe have the opponents to be considered a true ATG?
This is a question for the future. When Joe gets the benefit of rose tinted glasses, I'm sure he'll be held in as high a regard as many of the boxers mentioned on this thread.
If the criteria for ATG was as stiff as some guys on this thread claim, then the amount on it would be less than the fingers on one hand.
Re: Does Calzaghe have the opponents to be considered a true ATG?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bomp
This is a question for the future. When Joe gets the benefit of rose tinted glasses, I'm sure he'll be held in as high a regard as many of the boxers mentioned on this thread.
If the criteria for ATG was as stiff as some guys on this thread claim, then the amount on it would be less than the fingers on one hand.
cc..agreed..i been thinking of a good post all day to shun this idea about Joes opposition...his career isnt through yet...so no sense in discussing his position in boxing history.
however i would say Joe still does not get the credit he deserves and in my eyes will always be ATG..
theres only one other welshman who goes above Joe in my book and thats Jimmy Wilde.
Re: Does Calzaghe have the opponents to be considered a true ATG?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RozzySean
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Unfortunately, he fights in a division that doesn't have a lot of history or press, so some of his wins aren't as good than they seem. The names aren't eye catching, but guys like Veit and Reid were pretty good fighters when he beat them all convincely. It's not like he's been just scraping by, and when guys who are been put in front of him who were supposed push him, he handled them.
No he didn't beat Reid convincing if you watched the fight you would know it was razor thin close and very controversial decision because alot of people thought Reid won.
A lot of people thought ODLH beat Floyd. A lot of people can be wrong.
Thats totally different Reid and Calzaghe both landed same amount of punches stats wise Mayweather was ahead in punchstats by a mile against Oscar De La Hoya plus Mayweather was landing the way more effective blows against Oscar De La Hoya all you have to do is watch close and you can see most of Oscar De La Hoya's flurries missed.
Plus Reid was landing more effective blows vs Calzaghe i never see Calzaghe even hurt Reid once but i see Calzaghe rocked plenty of times.
Re: Does Calzaghe have the opponents to be considered a true ATG?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEANIE
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Unfortunately, he fights in a division that doesn't have a lot of history or press, so some of his wins aren't as good than they seem. The names aren't eye catching, but guys like Veit and Reid were pretty good fighters when he beat them all convincely. It's not like he's been just scraping by, and when guys who are been put in front of him who were supposed push him, he handled them.
No he didn't beat Reid convincing if you watched the fight you would know it was razor thin close and very controversial decision because alot of people thought Reid won.
reid fought out of his skin that night and remember holmes had split decision wins over both norton and witherspoon that could have gone either way. But hes still an all time great.
Im not saying that Seanie all im saying is that guy said Calzaghe beat Reid convincing which is not true.
And as for Norton vs Holmes well i don't think most people have seen that fight and they just base it on the last round and say well yes Norton was robbed when thats not true Norton won the first round then Holmes won next 8 easy as pie he was giving Norton a boxing lesson then Norton won most of the later rounds but not enough because i remember Holmes definetly won 13th or 14th round without a shadow of a doubt so points wise if you scored it round by round without biased scoring it was impossible that Norton could win no way was it as close as judges had it.
Witherspoon vs Holmes was close i think Holmes pulled it out by 1 round thats one of the most underrated HW fights.
Re: Does Calzaghe have the opponents to be considered a true ATG?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by RozzySean
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Unfortunately, he fights in a division that doesn't have a lot of history or press, so some of his wins aren't as good than they seem. The names aren't eye catching, but guys like Veit and Reid were pretty good fighters when he beat them all convincely. It's not like he's been just scraping by, and when guys who are been put in front of him who were supposed push him, he handled them.
No he didn't beat Reid convincing if you watched the fight you would know it was razor thin close and very controversial decision because alot of people thought Reid won.
A lot of people thought ODLH beat Floyd. A lot of people can be wrong.
Thats totally different Reid and Calzaghe both landed same amount of punches stats wise Mayweather was ahead in punchstats by a mile against Oscar De La Hoya plus Mayweather was landing the way more effective blows against Oscar De La Hoya all you have to do is watch close and you can see most of Oscar De La Hoya's flurries missed.
Plus Reid was landing more effective blows vs Calzaghe i never see Calzaghe even hurt Reid once but i see Calzaghe rocked plenty of times.
how was he meant to hurt a guy with a bust hand? it was broken out right in the 6 or 8 round, it was bust up bad before the fight, he couldnt throw a punch with it for the better part of 3 motnhs, no sparring or bag work, just running and still won, in reiads back yard.
punch stats don't mean shit, its whats done in each round, if sum1 landed 200 punches in a round they win one round only.
