Was it as early as Eubank, when he was still a big puncher?
Was it against Lacy?
Was it against Kessler?
Or some other time?
Printable View
Was it as early as Eubank, when he was still a big puncher?
Was it against Lacy?
Was it against Kessler?
Or some other time?
I don't think Eubank, he got smarter, more refined that stuff.
Its hard to tell, really you could have a similar argument about Hopkins in that was his prime his athletic peak or maybe later when he was a bit smarter.
Also a bit hard to tell with Calzaghe in that he could stink it up a bit when he wasn't worried about a guy he was fighting, looked real good against guys like Lacy and Kessler obviously but also Brewer, Veit (I guess he got up for Veit) but pretty crappy other times against Salem, a few other guys, even Mitchell.
So basically I guess I don't know. I would suspect sometime in his early to mid thirties, he hadn't lost the physical ability and you have to assume he got smarter, more experienced.
He had a 3 year period where his head was not right (going through a really messy divorce and losing a fortune) and he did have some pretty poor performances.
His best performance was undoubtedly Lacy for me, but I don't think that he was in his prime at that point :-\
I've come to believe prime is rubbish in most cases.
No fighter should be labled "past his prime" unless he is showing a consistent obvious deterioration in performance.
All Cazlaghe critics, and many of his fans, say he beat a "past his prime" Hopkins, yet Hopkins recorded TWO of his greatest wins immediately before the fight and by his own admission his GREATEST perfomance after it.
As Ouma said (sort of), physical prime and mental prime occur at different times, so what is better, when you have two solid hands or a clearer/calmer/smarter/experienced head?
Joes best performance and the one that means the most for his legacy is the Kessler fight, he proved he was still top of his game at 35 against a unifie, undefeated, younger and very well regarded fighter, he also showed very good skills by adjusting, he took some big flush shots and fired back, he also had Kessler hurt, the fight had everything that proved how good Joe was, listen to teward commentating on it and he gushes with praise for Joe and calls him a "fighting machine".
It doesnt matter what part of Calzaghes reign you fight him, he is an irresistable force;)
The younger version could overwhelm you with hurtfull combinations, the older version could box your head off and outwork you.
Joe had two good healthy hands when he beat Eubanks and would have wiped Collins out at that time. However he was inexperienced and was tired after round 4. He was more experienced when he fought Kessler and Lacy but not as hurtful a puncher. He was crap during his fights with Starie because he had an elbow injury but livened up when he blasted Sheika.So the answer is don't really know. :-\
The thing I find so special about Joe is he has maintained the desire to be the best and has kept the work ethic to boot, he has been very consistant.
I you were watching his match with Starie or Salem would you believe that his best days were yet to come?
Did he have one?;D
Did he have one
I say in the early 2000's. That Calzaghe was unstoppable. And he proved it. It was during that time that he went through this murderous roll of fighters. Mario Veit, Will McIntyre, Miguel Jimenez, Tocker Pudwill and the serviceable 8 loss having Charles Brewer.
If people don't think Calzaghe had a prime then you must not have watched him fight enough. The Eubank performance was brilliant, an absolute demolition of Lacy, a schooling of kessler into the championship rounds and also a good performance against an absolute legend in Hopkins. He landed more shots on Hopkins than anyone else had ever managed to in Hopkins whole career. The only thing Joe lacked is more fights overseas....
i remember seeing an interview with joe about a year or so ago saying that the calzaghe of today would wipe the floor with the calzaghe of old, i think pysically he could of gone on for a few more years but he said that his hungers was starting to go, and thats when u no u should stop fighting
I think the Calzaghe of the last 2-3 years was him at his best, he is a smart guy & has hopefully bowed out before he deteriorates
I can't really say when Calzaghe's prime was.
It was always the case of the bigger and better the opponent, the better he boxed. And he proved that time and time again.
It's so hard to place cos he had a few consistancy probelms for whatever reasons.different tools for different times, early in the career he had with his volume punching,later still had the pace,had bad problems, but better boxing and great combination punching.
But the best example of Calzaghe for me is Kessler, that's the best calzaghe.All his experience and fitness.And kessler still felt the shots. "If he slaps,he slaps hard" how many times have you heard that?
When he beat a weight drained Eubank , Calzaghe for me looked like a potential wrecking machine , he threw the left cross like he was wielding an axe.
The rest is history as he evolved into Calslappy.
Calzaghe didnt have a prime, He was a class boxer with decent power in both hands. Then the hands got injured to the point he couldnt afford to land many power shots so he become more of a boxer and his talent just kept improving.
A prime Calzaghe would of had the power and the skills at their very best but the 2 never combined. Maybe they would of at some point but the hands gave in too early for that to happen.
Calzaghe's prime is like Hopkins prime.
Very hard to pick out where he was at his best.
I personally think he was at his best around 2002-2003.
It's hard to say, I think Calzaghe's toughest opponent was Kessler and it brought out the best in Calzaghe.
Well arguably no, as he was that consistent!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tysonbruno
But if pushed, I would say Joe peaked the night he beat Lacy. I think people sometimes forget how hot Lacy was going into that bout, and yet Calzaghe absolutely dominated, in a manner that I doubt even Joe's biggest fan would of called.
When he fought Lacy.
He may have hit harder when he was younger but I'd have to put his prime at Lacy-retirement mainly because I don't think even he realised how good he was until the Lacy performance. I remember him saying how he didn't sleep the night before the Lacy fight, which was the first time he was ever like that pre-fight. Also, his whole personality and demeanour changed after that victory... He believed he was unbeatable from that point on imo.
Hard to tell as his career suffered at times due to injuries that sidelined rather than him gaining momentum.
I prefer his performance over Lacy to Kessler as he was punching with authority in the fight while against Kessler he didn't have the power and only through really solid shots when going for the body.
The Kessler fight while a great win signalled the decline of Joe - he was slightly passed his best that night and his hands were gone.
Possibly 2000 onwards was his prime from the Sheika fight to the Lacy fight but still at times he was sidetracked by hand injuries - also an ankle injury.
Great fighter and I agree with many like Master, Fenster, Tins and Ross regarding the physical and mental (experience) primes. Lennox Lewis is another who it is hard to pinpoint a prime.
I'm far from an expert on Calzaghe, but I feel that the period between Lacy and Hopkins has to be considered his prime. What he had lost physically due to his age he made up for with intelligence and experience and that was the only period of his career that he tested himself against world-class opposition. The Kessler, Hopkins, and to a lesser extent Lacy victories were the best of his career (though I feel Hopkins edged the fight, but that's immaterial).
Rob the reason i went for his fight with Eubank , was although beating Kessler etc , he won big. When he fought Eubank his delivery of his punches was much better, he got so much leverage and shoulder into his shots , also his body shape and foot positioning was much better. In later fights he became an arm puncher ( a very good one i may add ) but he was awkward and not to good for the boxing purist to watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDevilRob
It was when he retired for me. Kind of like Lennox, he got better with age but he didn't wait for someone to come along (Vitali) to show him he was finally on the decline!
Joe was never my favourite fighter but I really respected his decision to retire when he did rather than go on and be finally embarassed by someone with far less quality.
I say Kessler!
Against Lacy he looked incredible but Lacy did nothing other than plod forward in straight lines,made Joe look good and threw no combinations at all and hardly landed a punch.
Considering the hype that came over with him i think we can all agree he was just a bit over rated.
Kessler had Joe matched until the 5th or 6th when Joe changed tactics and ran away with it and took some thumping right hands in the process.
The fact Kessler was definately more "live" and the fact Joe adjusted to what he brought mid fight took his best shots and still beat him are signs of just how good he was.
IMO only great fighters can do that and add to that the occasion of 50,000 (or whatever it was in Cardiff) and the thousands of Danes who came over just made that night so special.
That for me was his best ever peformance because he was in a real fight with someone of near equal skill and well into his mid thirties still pulled it out the bag and showed so much diversity and heart in the process.
Lacy was there to be hit and lost before he got in the ring where as Kessler came to damage and put Joe in a dark place for a good few rounds.
the way Joe got out of that place was through superior boxing skills and a huge heart.
Great fight.