Joe Calzaghe: Andre Ward is good but beatable

People always downplay Lacy and to a degree that is correct, but he injured his shoulder and was never the same. Everyone stateside was picking Lacy. I remember it as I was new to the forum and couldn't fathom what they were all going on about.

Then there was the huge clamour to fight Kessler and Calzaghe did so. It was a HUGE fight, but again people are dissing Kessler saying he wasn't very good.

They were huge wins and Calzaghe was predicted to lose by many and then when he does fight Hopkins, he did it with relative ease after a shaky start and then everyone says 'Oh but Hopkins was old'. Well, has he continued to win his big fights? Jones Jr certainly hasn't. Is he old or not? Seemingly not, but too old for Calzaghe and yet still great to be winning titles afterwards.

People just don't like Calzaghe and don't want to give him his dues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

That's a little harsh...he defeated several top-10s, and destroyed Glen Johnson and Trinidad when they were undefeated. He also took 4 rounds off of a prime Roy Jones, and did MUCH better against him than Toney did in a fight that was more hyped and totally one-sided. He was on the P4P list for a number of years, and deservedly in the top 3 for a few of them.

---

It is harsh, absolutely. Hopkins has a credible record, but so does Joe Calzaghe. It is hypocrisy to criticize one and give the other a free pass. They both have credible opposition AND their share of filler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Who did Hopkins beat at MW to prove his greatness?

His biggest wins were small men moving up. DLH who had really already lost to Sturm and Trinidad who spent most of his career at WW.

Then after Hopkins moves up you have loads more men being called up way beyond their optimum fighting weights.

Hopkins wins over Trinidad and Tarver were significant, but no more significant than Calzaghe beating Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins himself.

---

Hopkins's win over Trinidad was substantially more significant than Calzaghe's wins over Lacy and Kessler. Trinidad was an undefeated, top P4P fighter, and Hopkins destroyed him. In terms of significance of the opposition, of the three wins you listed, only Calzaghe's win over Hopkins is comparable.

At middleweight, most of Hopkins's defense were against top-10 fighters in the weight class. They weren't "greats," but on balance, they were probably more credible than most of the people Calzaghe defended against.

I only started talking about Hopkins's record to challenge the claim that he wasn't great. I never took the position that Calzaghe wasn't great; clearly he was. If I recall correctly, the only things I said "against" Calzaghe was that he wouldn't destroy Ward (nor would Ward destroy him), and that it's simply not true that he cleaned out the 168-pound division.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Who did Hopkins beat at MW to prove his greatness?

His biggest wins were small men moving up. DLH who had really already lost to Sturm and Trinidad who spent most of his career at WW.

Then after Hopkins moves up you have loads more men being called up way beyond their optimum fighting weights.

Hopkins wins over Trinidad and Tarver were significant, but no more significant than Calzaghe beating Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins himself.

---

Hopkins's win over Trinidad was substantially more significant than Calzaghe's wins over Lacy and Kessler. Trinidad was an undefeated, top P4P fighter, and Hopkins destroyed him. In terms of significance of the opposition, of the three wins you listed, only Calzaghe's win over Hopkins is comparable.

At middleweight, most of Hopkins's defense were against top-10 fighters in the weight class. They weren't "greats," but on balance, they were probably more credible than most of the people Calzaghe defended against.

---

They were big wins and huge fights in the division. P4P is mythical anyway and saying one is bigger than the other is entirely subjective. Lacy was undefeated and so was Kessler. They were huge fights and extremely significant. Calzaghe unified his division and then went up and beat 'the man' fair and square.

It is wrong to discredit Kessler and say that he is not comparable to Hopkins. He was undefeated and coming in off of a string of very decent performances. Many tipped him to beat Calzaghe.

Both fighters have what you would call decent resumes. Hopkins added a few more late on with calculated CW's, but calculated up to the age of 36 they are both relatively even.

I credit Calzaghe for what he did and also acknowledge what Hopkins has done, but some are unable to give Calzaghe any credit and call him a 'ducker'. He proved himself, you can't say the same for someone like Ottke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

I only started talking about Hopkins's record to challenge the claim that he wasn't great. I never took the position that Calzaghe wasn't great; clearly he was. If I recall correctly, the only things I said "against" Calzaghe was that he wouldn't destroy Ward (nor would Ward destroy him), and that it's simply not true that he cleaned out the 168-pound division.

---

He unified the division. As for destroying Ward that really is just down to personal opinion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Who did Hopkins beat at MW to prove his greatness?

His biggest wins were small men moving up. DLH who had really already lost to Sturm and Trinidad who spent most of his career at WW.

Then after Hopkins moves up you have loads more men being called up way beyond their optimum fighting weights.

Hopkins wins over Trinidad and Tarver were significant, but no more significant than Calzaghe beating Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins himself.

---

Hopkins's win over Trinidad was substantially more significant than Calzaghe's wins over Lacy and Kessler. Trinidad was an undefeated, top P4P fighter, and Hopkins destroyed him. In terms of significance of the opposition, of the three wins you listed, only Calzaghe's win over Hopkins is comparable.

At middleweight, most of Hopkins's defense were against top-10 fighters in the weight class. They weren't "greats," but on balance, they were probably more credible than most of the people Calzaghe defended against.

---

They were big wins and huge fights in the division. P4P is mythical anyway and saying one is bigger than the other is entirely subjective. Lacy was undefeated and so was Kessler. They were huge fights and extremely significant. Calzaghe unified his division and then went up and beat 'the man' fair and square.

It is wrong to discredit Kessler and say that he is not comparable to Hopkins. He was undefeated and coming in off of a string of very decent performances. Many tipped him to beat Calzaghe.

Both fighters have what you would call decent resumes. Hopkins added a few more late on with calculated CW's, but calculated up to the age of 36 they are both relatively even.

I credit Calzaghe for what he did and also acknowledge what Hopkins has done, but some are unable to give Calzaghe any credit and call him a 'ducker'. He proved himself, you can't say the same for someone like Ottke.

---

ok, seriously, it's discrediting Kessler to say that he's not comparable to Hopkins? Kessler was "undefeated and coming in off of a string of very decent performances," and Hopkins ruled a division for more than a decade, with TWENTY successful defenses, most of which were against top-10 opponents, and many of which were against top-5 guys. It's BY FAR a discredit to Hopkins to say that Kessler is comparable.

True, Hopkins is the bigger and more established name than Kessler, but what I am saying is that Kessler was a big win too and was a proven SMW champion. It was extremely significant. Just as Hopkins was able to unify against Trinidad, Calzaghe did the same with Kessler. And of course Calzaghe beat Hopkins anyway.

Calzaghe turned on the afterburners with some really good wins late in his career (starting with Lacy). I think it's far to say, though, that he did much more for his resume in the last 2 1/2 years of his career than in the previous 7 (since winning the title).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

Calzaghe turned on the afterburners with some really good wins late in his career (starting with Lacy). I think it's far to say, though, that he did much more for his resume in the last 2 1/2 years of his career than in the previous 7 (since winning the title).

---

Calzaghe definitely gained more US recognition with the Lacy win, but there are several very decent wins before that. My own issue with Calzaghe is that there is too much filler, but every fighter has filler on their resume.

For Ward to have a resume like Calzaghe's he needs to unify the division and move up and beat the main man there. He is relatively young and has plenty of time, but I'm really not convinced regarding his class. Beating Bute would answer a lot more than beating Allan Green and I really think Kessler deserves another shot as that last fight was appalling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Althugz

I need make no further points as I said in my last post..you guys make all the points for me! Apart from prime Kessler, Lacy is Calzaghes biggest win..lmao listen to yourselves...

---

IMO hopkins has turned out to be calzaghes best win

It was a clear victory over a man who has fought at the top level for years and has had some of his best wins right at the very top since losing to Calzaghe

hopkins has lost before but never as convincingly as Calzaghe beat him

---

Althguz thinks all British fighters are shit, pussy, overrated etc...

Oh sorry, apart from his mate Larry Olubamiwo, he was a guy to look out for (:LOLATYOU:)

---

Thats original Fenster. I certainly haven't been called unpatriotic before for being a boxing fan first and foremost have I? :rolleyes:

If you cant handle the fact that your boy Calslappy was an over rated mug who fought tomato cans in the Welsh Valleys for most of his life, then I suppose daddy hasn't told you that Santa isnt real yet either? Aww..I'm sure santa is bringing you your "JC - Greatest of All Time!!!" DVD tomorrow morning..

I like British fighters if they're good. Simple. Most Brits like fighters because they have this arrogant notion that because they have a Wbo/Wbu strap around their waist that they're the greatest. If I know someone isn't that good then I call it.

For the record British fighters I have infinitely more respect for that the idiot in question :

Froch..already a better resume than JC. Fights anyone..unlike you know who
Ricky Hatton..Was good but overhyped and I called it but at least he went stateside and tried to be great.
Amir Khan..arrogant but respect for going stateside and fighting some fairly tough opposition. JC too scared to do.

I got behind Haye and Kevin Mitchell too. My point is you'll never find me getting behind a guy purely because he's British..I have more love for the sport than that

Hope you have a merry xmas Fenster..enjoy your presents from Santa *Pats Fenster on the head*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Im English , so who is your favorite fighter ?

---

On the world scene id say i enjoyed bruno and benn and hatton, and british and a bit closer to home id say carl thompson and jamie moore

Currently id say froch is briliant for the sport and its a pity he hasnt had the exposure some other fighters have coz he deserves it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shza

Glad you are being honest about your irrational pro-British bias. It's obvious from all of your posts (your previous one included) but good that you at least admit it.

---

if you are refering to my post about calzaghe beating hopkins then you are clearly more bias than i am for thinking that i am bias for thinking that

Get me? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shza

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

Kessler would get beaten more decisively in a second fight with Ward than he did in the first.

---

Opinion and nothing else.

---

Hilarious, coming from you. In this thread.

Miles, you are taking this way too personally and exaggerating to an extreme to compensate.

Hopkins "turned out to be an easy win" for Calzaghe? Ward is not really very good? You don't need to jump to this kind of out-and-out hyperbole to make your point. It comes off as (and is, really) pure provocation and not even an attempt to persuade anyone to agree with you. Just like in the Manny/JMM threads.

Personally, I thought the old, Jermain Taylor-losing version of Hopkins still shaded a decision against Calzaghe. Plenty of others agree. But I'm not going to claim it was "decisive" or "easy" or pretend I can't conceive of how anyone could possibly see it any other way. Or call it a "robbery." If you score workrate above absolutely everything else, even if it's ineffective pitter-pat, you have to score the fight for Calzaghe (though still close on the cards -- not "easy").

Same with the Calzaghe-Ward point. Here, I'm generally inclined to agree that, at this point, Ward is just too young and unproven to pick in this mythical matchup. But 5 years from now? We'll see. Not out of the question. No need to completely denigrate the guy and basically say he's a completely average fighter except that he's good at clinching in order to conclude or argue that the bout favors Calzaghe at this point.

---

All boxing debate is just opinion at the end of the day and I happen to believe Calzaghe is much better than Ward and that the only person to really prove a challenge would have been a prime Jones Jr. Just because you don't agree doesn't make it hyperbole. You just disagree.

I don't think Ward is terribly good, I think his style involves blatant cheating and his resume isn't all that hot either. All of those points can be backed up. I don't need hyperbole, the facts to support the opinions are there. Froch has a better resume than Andre Ward.

---

I was going to assume that this was a self-deprecating joke about how ridiculous you were being before. Except that you're now continuing to be all butt-hurt about criticism of Calzaghe and are spouting off with more of the same hyperbole. It is truly bizarre how personally you are taking criticism of Joe Calzaghe.

No one picked Kessler to beat Calzaghe, btw. And it wasn't a "huge" fight outside of Europe. And please stop pretending that Lacy's shoulder is what made him average - the guy was a one-note power puncher with no skill, always. Cheers to Joe C for exposing that but exposing is all it was.

It's a shame that Calzaghe didn't fight Jones or Hopkins in their primes so we wouldn't need to engage in this. I think he gets completely outclassed by both. (And please stop pretending that the lost-twice-to-Jermain-Taylor, no power, no offense, 40-plus, version of Hopkins was somehow a bigger challenge than a circa-Tito Hopkins.) Just my opinion.

You have succeeded in making me think less of Calzaghe as a result of your spastic personally-involved responses to nearly every post in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shza

Glad you are being honest about your irrational pro-British bias. It's obvious from all of your posts (your previous one included) but good that you at least admit it.

---

if you are refering to my post about calzaghe beating hopkins then you are clearly more bias than i am for thinking that i am bias for thinking that

Get me? :)

---

You should probably go back and read the exchange, if you can.

I'll remind you: you attempted to browbeat someone for being British but not sucking Calzaghe's dick. I don't recall anything about Hopkins.