Joe Calzaghe under the micoscope

[QUISQUEYA]

Someone list ALL the other fighters, over the past 10 years, that would have remained UNBEATEN against Calzaghe's comp?

Calzaghe benefited from an extraordinarily weak 168 division over the past decade.

When Jeff Lacy and Mikkel Kessler are the marquee names on your resume for a Hall of Fame bid, you are a very fortunate man.

If calzaghe had been fighting the best guys from 160-175 over the past decade, would he still have his "0"?

Hopkins (not the 43 yr old version)
Jones (not the 40 yr old version)
Tarver
Taylor
Pavlik
Johnson
Toney
Winky
etc


Instead, Joey made time for Peter Manfredo and Sakio Bika.

[Fenster]

Someone list ALL the other fighters, over the past 10 years, that would have remained UNBEATEN against Calzaghe's comp?

Calzaghe benefited from an extraordinarily weak 168 division over the past decade.

When Jeff Lacy and Mikkel Kessler are the marquee names on your resume for a Hall of Fame bid, you are a very fortunate man.

If calzaghe had been fighting the best guys from 160-175 over the past decade, would he still have his "0"?

Hopkins (not the 43 yr old version)
Jones (not the 40 yr old version)
Tarver
Taylor
Pavlik
Johnson
Toney
Winky
etc


Instead, Joey made time for Peter Manfredo and Sakio Bika.

That's an impressive list of fighters. If Calzaghe had never beaten ANY you'd have a very reasonable argument..

BUT - from your list Hopkins beat

Tarver
Pavlik
Johnson
Winky

Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. That must count for something, no? He beat the man that beat the men - that supposedly could equal his achievements.

[OumaFan]

We have this same debate every single day. Literally. Its amazing if you think about it.

The positions are always the same. I want to come in here one day and see Fenster bashing Calzaghe just to spice things up.

[Fenster]

We have this same debate every single day. Literally. Its amazing if you think about it.

The positions are always the same. I want to come in here one day and see Fenster bashing Calzaghe just to spice things up.

Defending Calzaghe is a SICKNESS for me. I've come to enjoy it.

And i'll have you know Ouma, I've criticized Calzaghe on many an occassion and believe he deserves his fair share.. but i'll argue otherwise for the sake of it

[Kev]

Someone list ALL the other fighters, over the past 10 years, that would have remained UNBEATEN against Calzaghe's comp?

Calzaghe benefited from an extraordinarily weak 168 division over the past decade.

When Jeff Lacy and Mikkel Kessler are the marquee names on your resume for a Hall of Fame bid, you are a very fortunate man.

If calzaghe had been fighting the best guys from 160-175 over the past decade, would he still have his "0"?

Hopkins (not the 43 yr old version)
Jones (not the 40 yr old version)
Tarver
Taylor
Pavlik
Johnson
Toney
Winky
etc


Instead, Joey made time for Peter Manfredo and Sakio Bika.

That's an impressive list of fighters. If Calzaghe had never beaten ANY you'd have a very reasonable argument..

BUT - from your list Hopkins beat

Tarver
Pavlik
Johnson
Winky

Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. That must count for something, no? He beat the man that beat the men - that supposedly could equal his achievements.

ahahahahahaha

[QUISQUEYA]

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".

[Kev]

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".

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

[Kev]

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".

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

[Fenster]

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.

[Dark Lord Al]

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.

[Kev]

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.

This post makes no sense Al. You criticise his wins over fighters who have previously lost whilst at the same time when he defeats unbeaten fighters like Lacy and Kessler you dismiss them as unproven and overratted

Calzaghe has beaten every man he's ever faced, his record is 100% perfect.

You simply cannot dimiss his resume, he's a proven champion and one of the very best fighters in the world. Trying to criticise every single win he's had is just plain hating. Did you see Kessler fight at the weekend, that KO was sick, the guy is a top notch operater. Wins over Beyer, Mundine, Andrade he was a tough tough opponent and Calzahghe gave him a boxing lesson.

[QUISQUEYA]

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.

[Bomp]

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.

[Mikkel_K]

Everytime Calzaghe is debated, we see the same arguments, and quite frankly I just dont get them. One side is saying that Calzaghe is the motherf****** man for beating 45 guys, while the other side tries to point out that most of these guys werent, well, all that great.

Yet what I fail to understand is 1) how people can say, he beat Will McIntyre, he must be an ATG (which is the consequence of touting the numerical argument), and 2) why people seem to think that because he beat the likes of Will McIntyre, he is not a great fighter. Surely, for any fighter out there, to win - and win in style even - is better than not doing so, and 45 wins must be better than, say, 25 wins? On the other hand just beating 45 guys do not make you an ATG, as witnessed by Sven Ottke.

[As for Bilbo's first since Rocky Marciano-statements, I'm pretty sure Ricardo Lopez would disagree]

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.

First of all Damgaard never had a GREAT record. He had a couple of good wins at European-level, and a very entertaining style, but fought mostly bums, and was obviously on the decline for a few years before crossing the pond. But I guess that is way off-topic, as far as this thread is concerned...

I do think however you're clutching at straws here. I have never ever heard anyone suggest that Calzalghe should have fought Tito in his prime -he was a welterweight, remember? Toney, as Bilbo pointed out, was hardly in Calzaghe's division during Calzaghe's prime either. And if he had fought Dawson or Pavlik before 2007, it (too) would have been against a very untested opponents (and while you can knock Calzaghe's career, you simply cannot knock his recent opposition).

You're left with a list of Winky (who is also smallish, compared to Calzaghe), Hopkins (who he did fight - and who may have been past his prime, but certainly not shot), Taylor, Tarver and Johnson. Those three would surely be good additions to his resume, but does anyone really doubt that Calzaghe would beat them?

[Dark Lord Al]

Everytime Calzaghe is debated, we see the same arguments, and quite frankly I just dont get them. One side is saying that Calzaghe is the motherf****** man for beating 45 guys, while the other side tries to point out that most of these guys werent, well, all that great.

Yet what I fail to understand is 1) how people can say, he beat Will McIntyre, he must be an ATG (which is the consequence of touting the numerical argument), and 2) why people seem to think that because he beat the likes of Will McIntyre, he is not a great fighter. Surely, for any fighter out there, to win - and win in style even - is better than not doing so, and 45 wins must be better than, say, 25 wins? On the other hand just beating 45 guys do not make you an ATG, as witnessed by Sven Ottke.

[As for Bilbo's first since Rocky Marciano-statements, I'm pretty sure Ricardo Lopez would disagree]

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.

First of all Damgaard never had a GREAT record. He had a couple of good wins at European-level, and a very entertaining style, but fought mostly bums, and was obviously on the decline for a few years before crossing the pond. But I guess that is way off-topic, as far as this thread is concerned...

I do think however you're clutching at straws here. I have never ever heard anyone suggest that Calzalghe should have fought Tito in his prime -he was a welterweight, remember? Toney, as Bilbo pointed out, was hardly in Calzaghe's division during Calzaghe's prime either. And if he had fought Dawson or Pavlik before 2007, it (too) would have been against a very untested opponents (and while you can knock Calzaghe's career, you simply cannot knock his recent opposition).

You're left with a list of Winky (who is also smallish, compared to Calzaghe), Hopkins (who he did fight - and who may have been past his prime, but certainly not shot), Taylor, Tarver and Johnson. Those three would surely be good additions to his resume, but does anyone really doubt that Calzaghe would beat them?

Does it matter ? if he didn't fight them then its irrelevant.
He spent the lions share of his career fighting bums , beat an old hopkins past his best , and fought RJJ when he had already been KOED on 2 occasions. which leaves Kessler , so what's your point ?