Re: Joe Calzaghe under the micoscope
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
QUISQUEYA
Calzaghe beat a FORTY THREE YEAR OLD Hopkins. By a close points decision. After getting knocked down.
Please don't be confused. Hopkins dominating Pavlik says more about what Pavlik is NOT, than what Hopkins (at 43) is.
With all due respect, that "man that beat the man" argument is seriously flawed. Unless you are prepared to anoint Junior Jones as an ATG. Because he also "beat the man who beat the man".
Well if in addition to beating Barrera twice Jones also reigned for 10 years as an undefeated super bantamweight champ, made 21 consective defenses of his title, unified the entire division and won all four belts then moved up and beat the man at featherweight then I would happily put him as an all time great :)
I'm still awaiting reply to this post above. I think Game Set Match is about to be declared :)
I think you've made a very good point there. Fact.
Re: Joe Calzaghe under the micoscope
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Well if in addition to beating Barrera twice Jones also reigned for 10 years as an undefeated super bantamweight champ, made 21 consective defenses of his title, unified the entire division and won all four belts then moved up and beat the man at featherweight then I would happily put him as an all time great :)
It's odd that you now change the criteria...but OK. Here goes:
If Calzaghe was actually fighting the MAB-equivalent opponents for his whole career, he would not be undefeated. I talk to knowledgeable boxing fans who can't name 2 or 3 Calzaghe opponents pre-Lacy. What does that tell ya?
It tells me that all those title defenses should be taken in context.
Thomas Damgaard had a GREAT record fighting in Europe. Are you also ready to crown him?
Here are some of the top guys from 160-175 during Calzaghe's tenure:
Winky
Tito
Hopkins
Taylor
Tarver
Toney
Pavlik
Johnson
Dawson
Many people just find it odd that Calzaghe hasn't found his way into the ring with ANY of those guys during their primes.
I respect your views and your love for CalSlappy. I just wish Joe would stop hanging around nursing homes looking for opponents. it's unseemly.
Re: Joe Calzaghe under the micoscope
[quote=Bilbo;622929]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
QUISQUEYA
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Well if in addition to beating Barrera twice Jones also reigned for 10 years as an undefeated super bantamweight champ, made 21 consective defenses of his title, unified the entire division and won all four belts then moved up and beat the man at featherweight then I would happily put him as an all time great :)
It's odd that you now change the criteria...but OK. Here goes:
If Calzaghe was actually fighting the MAB-equivalent opponents for his whole career, he would not be undefeated. I talk to knowledgeable boxing fans who can't name 2 or 3 Calzaghe opponents pre-Lacy. What does that tell ya?
It tells
me that all those title defenses should be taken in context.
Thomas Damgaard had a GREAT record fighting in Europe. Are you also ready to crown him?
Here are some of the top guys from 160-175 during Calzaghe's tenure:
Winky
Tito
Hopkins
Taylor
Tarver
Toney
Pavlik
Johnson
Dawson
Many people just find it odd that Calzaghe hasn't found his way into the ring with ANY of those guys
during their primes.
I respect your views and your love for CalSlappy. I just wish Joe would stop hanging around nursing homes looking for opponents. it's unseemly.
Well seeing as the ancient past it Hopkins is beating most of the guys you mention Winky, Pavlik, Tarver etc you'd have to conclude that they are all in fact shit, losing to a shot fighter the wrong side of 40.
Really why would you say Calzaghe should fight them when grandaddy Popkin's beat them with ease? :confused:
And why do you keep mentioning James Toney, he's been fighting at CRUISERWEIGHT since 1997 :rolleyes:
Re: Joe Calzaghe under the micoscope
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Andre
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
That looks an impressive record by anyone standards.
He's beaten an all-time great fighter (Hopkins) and a great supermiddle (Eubank), unified against a couple of unbeaten prime fighters (Kessler and Lacy), beaten a handful of proven "world" champs (Reid, Brewer, Woodhall, Mitchell), beaten a handful of young hungry/tough contenders (Sheika, Veit, Bika, Starie) and totally outclassed some mediocre opposition.
How many fighters, over the past 10 years, around Calzaghe's weight-class, would also be UNBEATEN against that lot? ;)
Sven Okkte.;)
Reid was very unlucky not to beat him (shocking ref). Brewer and Mitchell had arguable losses. I don't see him beating Hopkins, Eubank or Kessler. Starie gave him a close-ish fight.
Very slim chance, Andre, Ottke would have remained unbeaten through that level of opposition. ;)
I did wink and smile after the comment.
Although he was a very tight fighter that just had answers out of his one dimensional boring fight style. Styles make fights, they also muck them up and guess who was a master at it.
When he did mess up in the ring, the home team refs had his back. Someone (we will blame the usual promoter) should have tried to lure him $$$ over to England for a good old school whooping then.
Re: Joe Calzaghe under the micoscope
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Well seeing as the ancient past it Hopkins is beating most of the guys you mention Winky, Pavlik, Tarver etc you'd have to conclude that they are all in fact shit, losing to a shot fighter the wrong side of 40.
Really why would you say Calzaghe should fight them when grandaddy Popkin's beat them with ease? :confused:
Please don't subscribe to triangular theories. I'm thinking that you are smarter than that.
Re: Joe Calzaghe under the micoscope
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
QUISQUEYA
Calzaghe beat a FORTY THREE YEAR OLD Hopkins. By a close points decision. After getting knocked down.
Please don't be confused. Hopkins dominating Pavlik says more about what Pavlik is NOT, than what Hopkins (at 43) is.
With all due respect, that "man that beat the man" argument is seriously flawed. Unless you are prepared to anoint Junior Jones as an ATG. Because he also "beat the man who beat the man".
Well if in addition to beating Barrera twice Jones also reigned for 10 years as an undefeated super bantamweight champ, made 21 consective defenses of his title, unified the entire division and won all four belts then moved up and beat the man at featherweight then I would happily put him as an all time great :)
I'm still awaiting reply to this post above. I think Game Set Match is about to be declared :)
Read the stats , lots of Calzaghe's oponants had already been beaten at top level , lots were total bums , Hopkins ,Kessler , were big names , and thats it , i accept Calzaghe is a top fighter , but why oh why did he fight so many soft touches ?
Also when you use Marciano as an example , remember 1 fact , Rocky was the only champion at the time.
Calzaghe held the WBO JOKE title for most of his reign with 3 other champions.
See my point Bilbo ?
It also makes me smile , a guy like Nigel Benn / James Toney etc could threaten an opponent " I'm going to knock you out " and for the most part in Benn's case he did.
Calzaghe is more a " I'll slap you around a bit and take you to a boring decision " lol
The famed Calzaghe " they cant take my power " was laughable as even pathetic fighters like Rick Thornberry who were KOED at lower levels , went the distance , even British standard fighters like Starie.
Re: Joe Calzaghe under the micoscope
Quote:
Originally Posted by
QUISQUEYA
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Well if in addition to beating Barrera twice Jones also reigned for 10 years as an undefeated super bantamweight champ, made 21 consective defenses of his title, unified the entire division and won all four belts then moved up and beat the man at featherweight then I would happily put him as an all time great :)
It's odd that you now change the criteria...but OK. Here goes:
If Calzaghe was actually fighting the MAB-equivalent opponents for his whole career, he would not be undefeated.
I talk to knowledgeable boxing fans who can't name 2 or 3 Calzaghe opponents pre-Lacy. What does that tell ya?
It tells
me that all those title defenses should be taken in context.
Thomas Damgaard had a GREAT record fighting in Europe. Are you also ready to crown him?
Here are some of the top guys from 160-175 during Calzaghe's tenure:
Winky
Tito
Hopkins
Taylor
Tarver
Toney
Pavlik
Johnson
Dawson
Many people just find it odd that Calzaghe hasn't found his way into the ring with ANY of those guys
during their primes.
I respect your views and your love for CalSlappy. I just wish Joe would stop hanging around nursing homes looking for opponents. it's unseemly.
That tells me they're not that knowledgable.
Re: Joe Calzaghe under the micoscope
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
QUISQUEYA
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. That must count for something, no? He beat the man that beat the men - that supposedly could equal his achievements. ;)
Calzaghe beat a
FORTY THREE YEAR OLD Hopkins. By a close points decision. After getting knocked down.
Please don't be confused. Hopkins dominating Pavlik says more about what Pavlik is NOT, than what Hopkins (at 43) is.
With all due respect, that "man that beat the man" argument is seriously flawed. Unless you are prepared to anoint Junior Jones as an ATG. Because he also "beat the man who beat the man".
41-year-old Hopkins EASILY beat Tarver.
42-year-old Hopkins COMFORTABLY beat Winky.
43-year-old Hopkins was
BEATEN by Calzaghe.
43-year-old Hopkins THRASHED Pavlik.
TWO fights prior to Calzaghe, Hopkins age WAS NOT a factor in beating class fighters. After he was BEATEN by Calzaghe his age WAS NOT a factor in defeating Pavlik. Fact.
So.. why is his age a factor in the Calzaghe LOSS?
Pavlik beat JT twice. JT beat Bernard. Pavilk beats Hopkins? Nope. Logic doesn't work.
Calzaghe is a first ballot hall of famer. 21 consecutive title defenses merits respect and adulation. Guy is a great. Does his resume leave something to be desired? Absolutely. Furthermore, if Kessler continues to fight bums and turns out to be all hype when he faces someone good, Calzaghe's resume will look weaker.
If Jones beats Calzaghe (and I don't think he has a shot), how will Calzaghe's resume look?
Re: Joe Calzaghe under the micoscope
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
QUISQUEYA
Calzaghe beat a FORTY THREE YEAR OLD Hopkins. By a close points decision. After getting knocked down.
Please don't be confused. Hopkins dominating Pavlik says more about what Pavlik is NOT, than what Hopkins (at 43) is.
With all due respect, that "man that beat the man" argument is seriously flawed. Unless you are prepared to anoint Junior Jones as an ATG. Because he also "beat the man who beat the man".
41-year-old Hopkins EASILY beat Tarver.
42-year-old Hopkins COMFORTABLY beat Winky.
43-year-old Hopkins was
BEATEN by Calzaghe.
43-year-old Hopkins THRASHED Pavlik.
TWO fights prior to Calzaghe, Hopkins age WAS NOT a factor in beating class fighters. After he was BEATEN by Calzaghe his age WAS NOT a factor in defeating Pavlik. Fact.
So.. why is his age a factor in the Calzaghe LOSS?
Pavlik beat JT twice. JT beat Bernard. Pavilk beats Hopkins? Nope. Logic doesn't work.
Calzaghe is a first ballot hall of famer. 21 consecutive title defenses merits respect and adulation. Guy is a great. Does his resume leave something to be desired? Absolutely. Furthermore, if Kessler continues to fight bums and turns out to be all hype when he faces someone good, Calzaghe's resume will look weaker.
If Jones beats Calzaghe (and I don't think he has a shot), how will Calzaghe's resume look?
Err.. so Kesslers future results will determine the worth of Calzaghe's win against him.. yet Hopkins ENHANCED reputation since Calzaghe beat him means nothing?
Just a tad hypocritical that one. ;)
And should Jones beat Calzaghe his WIN record will look as it does now. How does losing to Roy damage his 45 previous WINS?
If the GREAT fighter Roy Jones beats Joe that proves Joe is crap which must mean Hopkins and 44 others are incredibly crapper than Joe.
This is silly. Fact.
Re: Joe Calzaghe under the micoscope
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
41-year-old Hopkins EASILY beat Tarver.
42-year-old Hopkins COMFORTABLY beat Winky.
43-year-old Hopkins was BEATEN by Calzaghe.
43-year-old Hopkins THRASHED Pavlik.
TWO fights prior to Calzaghe, Hopkins age WAS NOT a factor in beating class fighters. After he was BEATEN by Calzaghe his age WAS NOT a factor in defeating Pavlik. Fact.
So.. why is his age a factor in the Calzaghe LOSS?
Pavlik beat JT twice. JT beat Bernard. Pavilk beats Hopkins? Nope. Logic doesn't work.
Calzaghe is a first ballot hall of famer. 21 consecutive title defenses merits respect and adulation. Guy is a great. Does his resume leave something to be desired? Absolutely. Furthermore, if Kessler continues to fight bums and turns out to be all hype when he faces someone good, Calzaghe's resume will look weaker.
If Jones beats Calzaghe (and I don't think he has a shot), how will Calzaghe's resume look?
Err.. so Kesslers future results will determine the worth of Calzaghe's win against him.. yet Hopkins ENHANCED reputation since Calzaghe beat him means nothing?
Just a tad hypocritical that one. ;)
And should Jones beat Calzaghe his WIN record will look as it does now. How does losing to Roy damage his 45 previous WINS?
If the GREAT fighter Roy Jones beats Joe that proves
Joe is crap which must mean Hopkins and 44 others are incredibly crapper than Joe.
This is silly. Fact.
VERY WELL SAID INDEED WE ARE GETTING SOMEWERE ;D
Re: Joe Calzaghe under the micoscope
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
Bilbo your analogy of Marciano is a fair point , however nobody really takes Rocky's win over an old Joe Louis seriously , so why should people take a win over a guy who has been KOED on two occasions and is way past his best , in Roy Jones seriously ?
i actually think RJJ is a no win fight for Calzaghe and he may end up with egg on his face.
In fairness, Roy Jones has got more left in the tank than Joe Louis did when Marciano fought him.
Still, Joe Walcott was still a very good fighter and he peaked late in his career. Ezzard Charles was also on the back end, but it's still probably more impressive to beat him twice for for Joe C to beat Eubank. LaStarza was a better win than Jeff Lacy. Archie Moore is probably equal to beating B-Hop.
Re: Joe Calzaghe under the micoscope
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
It's funny because Jones resume in terms of actual fighters is barely more impressive than Joe's
He beat Hopkins, but a green Hopkins who hadn't fully matured into the wiley fox he would later become. I don't believe that the Hopkins that Jones beat was better than the Hopkins that Calzaghe beat even in spite of the advancing years.
James Toney we all know the stories about the massive amount of weight he had to lose. Plus back then Toney wasn't the slick awkward fighter he was in higher weight classes. Michael Nunn outboxed him easily early as well. Toney really improved in terms of skills as he got older and anyway was much better suited at the higher weights.
Mike McCallum was a decent win but he was 40 and coming off a loss. Definitely at the end of his career, no better a win than Eubank certainly.
Then who else?
Clinton Woods, Virgil Hill, Reggie Johnson, decent fighters but not world beaters.
John Ruiz? Well it was a big achievement moving up to heavyweight to beat him but Ruix is derided as being universally recognised as one of the worst heavyweight champs ever.
Then Tarver who KO'd Jones and Glen Johnson who also Ko'd him.
If you just look at opponents you can make a case against any fighter.
Calzaghe's record is superb, if he beats Jones he has to first ballot hall of famers on his record, a great champ in Chris Eubank plus two highly rated undefeated, prime world champs in Kessler and Lacy.
He's proven himself, he's an all time great.
Both Jones and Calzaghe are guilty of not making certain fights which should have been made. Joninnes should have fought Steve Collins and Dariusz. Jones and Calzaghe should have met sometime between 2000 and 2002. Shame on both of them for not making the fight. Calzaghe should have been willing to go Germany and fight Ottke. That wasn't all Calzaghe's fault, but his team is partially to blame.
BOTH are ATG and HoF level fighters, but neither one acted like a true champion and made the best, toughest fights available. Both were content to make money off silly defenses mandated by idiotic, corrupt sanctioning bodies. Both guys were scared to take risks in there careers until the the back end, when when they realized that they better cash in before they lost it completely and there names had gotten big enough.
It's funny, when you look at Roy Jones record, you see a lot of guys that Roy catching guys on the back nine, and a bunch who James Toney and/or somebody else had already beat when they were in there primes - McCallum (Toney), Sosa (Toney and Nunn), Reggie Johnson (Toney), Gllen Wolfe (Toney) Virgil Hill (old Hearns, Dariusz), Toney Thornton (Eubank and Toney).
Yet he Jones would never rematch Hopkins or Toney. Never sought Calzaghe in his prime. Never fought Steve Collins or Dariusz. Picked one of the worst HW belt-holders in history to cherry pick his belt at HW.
Both are all-time greats, but Calzaghe deserves all the crap he gets, and it's too bad that Jones gets a free pass from so many people for being such a bitch-ass for a pretty good chuck of his career. He beats a weight drained James Toney, leaves strong SMW with unifying. He goes LHW and spends half his career beating James Toney's leftovers. Sad, because he was so talented and we deserved to see him against better opposition.
Jones gets all love. Joe gets all the crap. Makes no sense when they are so similar.
Re: Joe Calzaghe under the micoscope
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
41-year-old Hopkins EASILY beat Tarver.
42-year-old Hopkins COMFORTABLY beat Winky.
43-year-old Hopkins was BEATEN by Calzaghe.
43-year-old Hopkins THRASHED Pavlik.
TWO fights prior to Calzaghe, Hopkins age WAS NOT a factor in beating class fighters. After he was BEATEN by Calzaghe his age WAS NOT a factor in defeating Pavlik. Fact.
So.. why is his age a factor in the Calzaghe LOSS?
Pavlik beat JT twice. JT beat Bernard. Pavilk beats Hopkins? Nope. Logic doesn't work.
Calzaghe is a first ballot hall of famer. 21 consecutive title defenses merits respect and adulation. Guy is a great. Does his resume leave something to be desired? Absolutely. Furthermore, if Kessler continues to fight bums and turns out to be all hype when he faces someone good, Calzaghe's resume will look weaker.
If Jones beats Calzaghe (and I don't think he has a shot), how will Calzaghe's resume look?
Err.. so Kesslers future results will determine the worth of Calzaghe's win against him.. yet Hopkins ENHANCED reputation since Calzaghe beat him means nothing?
Just a tad hypocritical that one. ;)
And should Jones beat Calzaghe his WIN record will look as it does now. How does losing to Roy damage his 45 previous WINS?
If the GREAT fighter Roy Jones beats Joe that proves Joe is crap which must mean Hopkins and 44 others are incredibly crapper than Joe.
This is silly. Fact.
I don't understand your reply, but in all fairness it may be because my reply was difficult to understand.
Did I say Hopkins' win over Pavlik doesn't enhance Calzaghe's resume? I think it does legitimize it in a way. Moreover, Kessler dominating the 168 weight class from this point onward would legimitize it too. My point was that Kessler is Calzaghe's best win. Kessler was a dominant force and in his prime. Whatever you can say about the other fighters he faced, you can't make the same arguments about Kessler. Bhop was old, Lacy was overrated etc. etc. If, however, Kessler fought Jermain Taylor or Carl Froch and JT/Froch beat him, I think it would have an effect on how I view Joe's resume. Wouldn't it for you? It would, at least seemingly, lessen its grandness.
To put it in perspective, one of the first things I thought when Bhop trounced Pavlik, is wow, doesn't Joe C. look mighty good right about now. Say what you want about Hopkins, he's old and he doesn't fight, but he took the middleweight champion of the world to school. Then again, styles make fights. Like Calzaghe said, Hopkins was tailor-made for his style and like Hopkins said, Pavlik was tailor made for his style.
I haven't decided what I think about Joe's legacy if he loses to RJJ. I don't think a win significantly much either. I'm not sure.
Funny thing is: Joe felt vindicated for not taking the Pavlik fight, if I were him, I would have felt stupid. Assuming that he would have beat Pavlik, not one pundit could have said denied Joe his props. He would have beat a prime Pavlik. I understand that Hopkins beat Pavlik and that vindicates Joe's decision, but now he fights RJJ and although he is decisively favored against RJJ, we know now he probably would have beat Pavlik. Sorry to ramble.
Re: Joe Calzaghe under the micoscope
I totally understand some people disliking Calzaghe,after all we all have our own opinion on what makes a good fighter,but i cant really understand why soo many disagree with Calzaghe's past opponants:-\You cant tell me that these past Calzaghe's opponants were push-overs:-\:
Reid,Brewer,Bika,Lacy,Kessler,Hopkins.
Their all dangerous opponants!
Re: Joe Calzaghe under the micoscope
Quote:
Originally Posted by
yvonne
I totally understand some people disliking Calzaghe,after all we all have our own opinion on what makes a good fighter,but i cant really understand why soo many disagree with Calzaghe's past opponants:-\You cant tell me that these past Calzaghe's opponants were push-overs:-\:
Reid,Brewer,Bika,Lacy,Kessler,Hopkins.
Their all dangerous opponants!
Yeah, that pretty much sums all all of them. In ten years. Average of one dangerous opponent every 2 years. And it's pretty sad when you are pulling out names of guys who were on The Contender as one of the top 6 most dangerous fights of your career.
Go to BoxRec, lookup Oscar, and see his list of opponents. Or Tito. Even Roy Jones list makes Calzaghe look overprotected, and Jones was well protected.
