Calzaghe Appreciation

Afternoon Gentleman.

Just thought pour a little positive ink on Joe Calzaghe, not to everyones taste I know, but since I've posted on the old 606 a couple of years back and on here, Joe seems to have gathered his fair share of members who are happy to stick the knife in, I think he deserves some slack after being a tremendous champion IMO.

In short I think Calzaghe will be regarded as a great fighter who pulled the super middleweight division together and then beat the man at light heavyweight, before Hopkins dismantled Kelly Pavlik who is far from a finished story. Calzaghe has had an excellent career thus far, and probably will in due course challenge Buchanan for the best post World War II British fighter, and will I suspect comfortably sit in the all-time British top 10 list.

A tremendous fighter who would've gave anyone a difficult nights work throughout history.

Cheers

Rodders

Just waiting for Froch to beat Johnson then Ward and watching how the "Froch v JC legacy" threads kick off!

If he'd fought RJJ/BHop before father time was catching up with them then there wouldn't be an asterisk beside his legacy, as it he has Kessler as a prime win but that's about it in my eyes. Not his fault he didn't have the Benns, Eubank, Watsons and Collins in his era though

Can of worms this one Rodders. Will try and offer my thoughts before it degenerates as mentions of Calzaghe inevitably do. Think I am in he middle ground when it comes to Joe. Feel he is a terrific fighter and as you say a tough nights work for anyone, however can't help but look back at his career with a little disappointment.

Eight years to secure a unification is really not good enough IMO and he has to shoulder some of the blame for this. Personally feel Joe was nowhere near por-active enough in trying to secure more meaningful fights pre Lacy and for me too many other brits have proven with a little work such fights can be secured, too easy to blame Warren for me and when a guy stays with a promoter who is not delivering for so long can only interpret this as him being happy staying in his comfort zone to a degree.

That said he is nowhere near the fake or the charlatan many on here would have you believe and a two weight ring champion is not someone who should be dismissed out of hand and his best wins such as Hopkins and Kessler were plenty impressive, just wish there were a few more of them on the record because outside of Jones who I don't see him beating at his best he has a more than decent chance against the likes of Tarver, Hopkins and Johnson and would beat the likes of Ottke every day of the week.

Afternoon Rodders

I agree, must be honest wasn't sold on him at first, but realise he was an excellent fighter and one of the very best over the last 15 years. . In the 1940's and 50's, there were many who did not think much of Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Joey Maxim, and a number of others. Today, however those guys are regarded rather highly to say the least.

Calzaghe was quick, busy, and had more physical strength about him than many others Ever since I saw Joe beat Eubank, I thought he was the real goods, overprotected for too long, but stylistically he would've gave anyone fits, I'm one of the very few who would've tipped him to beat Jones Jnr whilst Roy was in his pomp.

JC should be ranked as Britian's P4P #1. Given what Bhop has gone on to do, you should put that win (albeit close but deserved) as one of the best by a British fighter.

Still not a fan of his though, but respect is due to him.

Whoever said JC would give RJJ a close fight is plain wrong. RJJ would have murdered him as he was way too quick for JC and hit too hard. The only thing that would have helped JC was his chin and the frequency RJJ would have peppered it lends me to believe that it was in JC's best interest they never fought. He would have taken one hell of a beating.

Thanks very much lads, think thats a fair enough assessment Jeff, you have some valid point, I'm no Calzaghe diehard but feel his wins are too easily sniffed at by the detractors.

Cheers

Rodders

Ayup Rodders, I'd agree that Calzaghe tends to split opinion like no other British fighter, and while I can understand certain critisisms regarding the path his career took, it's still simply impossible for him to feature anywhere other than inside a top ten all-time Brit list.

People tend to look at the failure to meet Jones and Hopkins between, say, 2000 and 2005, but the fact is that both of them were fighting in different weight classes to Calzaghe at the time, and Hopkins priced himself out of a fight a long time before they eventually did meet; 2003, I think?

What he lacks in so-called 'defining wins' he makes up for in consistency and sheer dominance of his chosen weight class. Granted, the likes of Buchanan, Lennox Lewis and Nigel Benn may have the better singular wins, but at the same time they lost to lesser fighters than many of the ones which Calzaghe did away with during his 168 lb reign.

I think Calzaghe was certainly lacking in ambition, which is a shame as he was a tremendously talented fighter who, I believe, would have been a tough, tough fight for Roy Jones even in his pomp. Calzaghe can't trouble Ted Lewis, Wilde, Lennox Lewis, Buchanan or Welsh for me personally, but after that he's very much interchangeable with the likes of Berg, Lynch and Moran, for me.

azania

Think the likes of Lewis, Buchanen, Fitzsimmons and co might have something to say about that. Barely squeeks top 5 to be honest

rowley wrote:Can of worms this one Rodders. Will try and offer my thoughts before it degenerates as mentions of Calzaghe inevitably do. Think I am in he middle ground when it comes to Joe. Feel he is a terrific fighter and as you say a tough nights work for anyone, however can't help but look back at his career with a little disappointment.

Eight years to secure a unification is really not good enough IMO and he has to shoulder some of the blame for this. Personally feel Joe was nowhere near por-active enough in trying to secure more meaningful fights pre Lacy and for me too many other brits have proven with a little work such fights can be secured, too easy to blame Warren for me and when a guy stays with a promoter who is not delivering for so long can only interpret this as him being happy staying in his comfort zone to a degree.

That said he is nowhere near the fake or the charlatan many on here would have you believe and a two weight ring champion is not someone who should be dismissed out of hand and his best wins such as Hopkins and Kessler were plenty impressive, just wish there were a few more of them on the record because outside of Jones who I don't see him beating at his best he has a more than decent chance against the likes of Tarver, Hopkins and Johnson and would beat the likes of Ottke every day of the week.

In Germany Ottke would have won a points decision against anyone he fought .....even if they knocked him out.

azania wrote:Whoever said JC would give RJJ a close fight is plain wrong. RJJ would have murdered him as he was way too quick for JC and hit too hard. The only thing that would have helped JC was his chin and the frequency RJJ would have peppered it lends me to believe that it was in JC's best interest they never fought. He would have taken one hell of a beating.

It was me Azania, although in no degree of certainty I would say Calzaghe could win 2/3 times out of 5 against Jones Jnr, Calzaghe style is all wrong for Jones Jnr, he would've took him too places we wouldn't have know with his pressure, Jones didnt like to work the full round.

I agree with you about the Hopkins win, It was actually a magnificent performence by Hopkins and yes it does enhance his legacy.

I do however think peope were being a bit too quick to dismiss this as a win for Calzaghe. Hopkins was still the best 175 pounder in the world and had beaten a pound for pound great in his previous fight I believe. Cant think of anyone who would look good in beating Hopkins.

Pretty much in the middle ground regarding Calzaghe. Far too much wastage on his record, lots of holes and lots of valid criticisms of him which I will leave to others.

I tend to gloss over the rather long stretches of mediocrity (Staries, Pudwills, Ashiras, Salems etc) and skip to his big fights which I think give a fair reflection of his true abilitys and status. Eubank, Kessler, Hopkins I think puts his career in perspective.

I felt Hopkins beat him, but it was close and Hopkins is a top fighter. Lots of ifs, buts and maybes in his career but if you judge him on his biggest wins then I am happy to place him on that basis.

coxy0001 wrote:azania

Think the likes of Lewis, Buchanen, Fitzsimmons and co might have something to say about that. Barely squeeks top 5 to be honest

They may have a lot to say about it, but JC did not lose to mediocre fighters. Lord knows he defended his title against many limited opponents but when it came to the crunch against Lacy and Hop, he delivered. The Lacy fight sealed it for me. Absolutely took him to school and finished a once very promising career. He put on a boxing masterclass.

Beating Hop was the tip of the ice-berg. I'll refrain from commenting on Fitz, but Lewis is top 5 material imo. JC is top 1. Also I'll repeat. I was never a fan of his.

Afternoon Folks

I think Rowley hit the nail on the head really.

Calzaghe = Amazing Talent, No enough Ambition probably sums him up best.

Jimmy Stuart wrote:

azania wrote:Whoever said JC would give RJJ a close fight is plain wrong. RJJ would have murdered him as he was way too quick for JC and hit too hard. The only thing that would have helped JC was his chin and the frequency RJJ would have peppered it lends me to believe that it was in JC's best interest they never fought. He would have taken one hell of a beating.

It was me Azania, although in no degree of certainty I would say Calzaghe could win 2/3 times out of 5 against Jones Jnr, Calzaghe style is all wrong for Jones Jnr, he would've took him too places we wouldn't have know with his pressure, Jones didnt like to work the full round.

I agree with you about the Hopkins win, It was actually a magnificent performence by Hopkins and yes it does enhance his legacy.

I do however think peope were being a bit too quick to dismiss this as a win for Calzaghe. Hopkins was still the best 175 pounder in the world and had beaten a pound for pound great in his previous fight I believe. Cant think of anyone who would look good in beating Hopkins.

I'll give RJJ a win 9 out of 10 times. RJJ is a top 10 ATG for me. Frightening talent with a huge punch on either hand and delivered with amazing speed and accuracy. JC wasnot much of a pressure fighter. When Kessler pressured him, JC reverted to pure boxing in order to win. Great fight and win for JC. Also Bhop gave him fits with his style, yet RJJ would have been even more elusive and trickier for JC. JC would have the number of Hop at any weight and at any time.

azania

Again i disagree, if JC had fought the version of BHop that turned up and annhialated Trinidad he would've been on the wrong end of a UD.

On that night he took apart the best P4Pr in the world, not many could've lived with him that night (from history) and JC most certainly doesn't make the list of those who could IMO

Calzaghe = Amazing Talent, No enough Ambition probably sums him up best.

*****************************
Disagree slightly....Calzaghe always had ambitions to be the best in the world, he simply lacked the motivation to do anything about it when he had the opportunity.

coxy0001 wrote:azania

Again i disagree, if JC had fought the version of BHop that turned up and annhialated Trinidad he would've been on the wrong end of a UD.

On that night he took apart the best P4Pr in the world, not many could've lived with him that night (from history) and JC most certainly doesn't make the list of those who could IMO

Tito was a very small middleweight who was bullied about by Hop, who was a very large middleweight. I think JC was all wrong for Hop. Hop hadn't deteriorated when they fought. He was the main man at LHW and JC beat him in a close but correct decision.

I see JC punching from all angles, confusing Hop even more than Hop confused JC.

Again Azania - Completely disagree

First off BHop had deteriorated - it's pretty evident when unless someone comes charging at him he has to hold and mug his way through fights - The JC fight being a prime example of an attempted mugging.

And BHop was a massive underdog against Tito who'd just come off beating Joppy, i don't recall anyone thinking BHop had much of a chance either. To make excuses now is simply typical of a fanboy kinda mentality - Tito was expected to brush BHop aside easily, and he got his bum handed to him in a big way.

The speed, technical ability and general brilliance that BHop showed that night would've been far too much for all barring the elite of the elite middleweights.

It was a stunning performance, please drop the fanboy nature by attempting to discredit that win - it's renowned as being one of the greatest performances of the decade, for a chuffing good reason as well.

Think you'd be struggling to find anyone looking in objectively who would say JC takes BHop on that particular night, because for me if BHop is almost able to mug him he'd certainly do a job on him based on that brilliant performance.

DAVE667 wrote:Calzaghe = Amazing Talent, No enough Ambition probably sums him up best.

*****************************
Disagree slightly....Calzaghe always had ambitions to be the best in the world, he simply lacked the motivation to do anything about it when he had the opportunity.

Hi Dave

I see your point. But if you are truly Ambitious - surely motivation is a given?

Otherwise you are just a dreamer? You can't be ambitious without motivation.

What do you think mate?

one of the all time greats and one of the reasons i got into following boxing- i think he is under appreciated, he could look an untidy fighter who didn't hit hard- i think this was just how his style came across- certainly his record shows he can hit and he can fight....

also it isn't his fault the big fights in his career came later on, and B hop and RJJ were past peak

i like the fact that he trained from his local gym with his dad through his career

coxy0001 wrote:Again Azania - Completely disagree

First off BHop had deteriorated - it's pretty evident when unless someone comes charging at him he has to hold and mug his way through fights - The JC fight being a prime example of an attempted mugging.

And BHop was a massive underdog against Tito who'd just come off beating Joppy, i don't recall anyone thinking BHop had much of a chance either. To make excuses now is simply typical of a fanboy kinda mentality - Tito was expected to brush BHop aside easily, and he got his bum handed to him in a big way.

The speed, technical ability and general brilliance that BHop showed that night would've been far too much for all barring the elite of the elite middleweights.

It was a stunning performance, please drop the fanboy nature by attempting to discredit that win - it's renowned as being one of the greatest performances of the decade, for a chuffing good reason as well.

Think you'd be struggling to find anyone looking in objectively who would say JC takes BHop on that particular night, because for me if BHop is almost able to mug him he'd certainly do a job on him based on that brilliant performance.

Fanboy of who? I was a fan of Tito. I'm no fan of JC or BHop. Read what is written and not what you assume is written before throwing baseless coments at anyone's direction. Understood?

I was happy Tito beat Oscar. Yes, Bhop handed it to him in a massive way. Tito had a weak chim at welter. If that British guy could deck him, I feared for him whenever he fought someone who could keep him there.

I maintain that JC would have been all too wrong for Bhop. JC was fast, had a decent dig. Extremely skilled and elusive with a strong chin. Punched from various angles. JC would have beaten him 7/10 times imo. He was all wrong for Bhop.

Its all so easy to say that Hop has deteriorated. He destroyed Tarver. Slaughtered Pavlik who everyone rated highly. Got robbed against Pascal who was fighting at his best weight and who had just beaten who many considered the #1 light heavy. were it not for the KD, JC would have been a clear winner.

I thought Hopkins beat Calzaghe narrowly. I dont get the reasoning that Hopkins hasnt deteriorated. Yes his longetivity is quite unique but to say he hasnt changed at all from around the 200 mark almost a decade ago by virtue of his win over Pavlik is far fetched.

Hopkins was beating Calzaghe until he ran out of steam. The secret to Hopkins longetivity is his ringcraft is so good he can win rounds fighting only for a minute as opposed to be being freak who doesnt age. He clearly has aged. He doesnt have the same same stamina or speed now. He will say as much himself. He has just relied more on other aspects now to accomodate his slowing reflexes and smaller engine.

The Calzaghe fight was a fight of two halves. The first half was Hopkins, the second was Calzaghe. You can give Calzaghe lots of credit for being able to sustain a high tempo and forcing Hopkins to fight at a pace that was above what he was entirely comfortable with. But I firmly believe tht the Hopkins in 2002 had more stamina and was just better overall in mst depatments. That extra stamina would have made a big difference in the fight and would have been the difference between a win and a loss. This idea that Hopkins hasnt lost something is off the mark. You can clearly see nowadays he doesnt have the smae engine but he has adjusted to allow for this.

It was quality v quantity against Calzaghe. I thought Hopkins quality nicked it. I can see why others would take Calzaghe though. But in 2002 I think the fight belongs to Hopkins.

I cant think of another fighter in history that people would say hadnt changed at all over the course of a decade, especially into their 40s.

You can't be ambitious without motivation.
**********************************************************
Not necessarily...look at the tsunami of talentless wannabes flooding our tv screens each week. They all have an ambition, namely to be famous, but at least 99% of them aren't prepared to put in the graft required to make it big and are happy just to sit and wait for a "lucky break"

DAVE667 wrote:You can't be ambitious without motivation.
**********************************************************
Not necessarily...look at the tsunami of talentless wannabes flooding our tv screens each week. They all have an ambition, namely to be famous, but at least 99% of them aren't prepared to put in the graft required to make it big and are happy just to sit and wait for a "lucky break"

Fair enough. I think we just have different definitions of ambitious. I see motivation as a pre-requisite of true ambition. If they havent got the motivation they are dreamers.

Cheers
Dazstarr

DAVE667 wrote:You can't be ambitious without motivation.
**********************************************************
Not necessarily...look at the tsunami of talentless wannabes flooding our tv screens each week. They all have an ambition, namely to be famous, but at least 99% of them aren't prepared to put in the graft required to make it big and are happy just to sit and wait for a "lucky break"

Their motivation is to get on the tv screen to be successful. They succeeded. So it seems you cannot have ambition without motivation.

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:Again Azania - Completely disagree

First off BHop had deteriorated - it's pretty evident when unless someone comes charging at him he has to hold and mug his way through fights - The JC fight being a prime example of an attempted mugging.

And BHop was a massive underdog against Tito who'd just come off beating Joppy, i don't recall anyone thinking BHop had much of a chance either. To make excuses now is simply typical of a fanboy kinda mentality - Tito was expected to brush BHop aside easily, and he got his bum handed to him in a big way.

The speed, technical ability and general brilliance that BHop showed that night would've been far too much for all barring the elite of the elite middleweights.

It was a stunning performance, please drop the fanboy nature by attempting to discredit that win - it's renowned as being one of the greatest performances of the decade, for a chuffing good reason as well.

Think you'd be struggling to find anyone looking in objectively who would say JC takes BHop on that particular night, because for me if BHop is almost able to mug him he'd certainly do a job on him based on that brilliant performance.

Fanboy of who? I was a fan of Tito. I'm no fan of JC or BHop. Read what is written and not what you assume is written before throwing baseless coments at anyone's direction. Understood?

I was happy Tito beat Oscar. Yes, Bhop handed it to him in a massive way. Tito had a weak chim at welter. If that British guy could deck him, I feared for him whenever he fought someone who could keep him there.

I maintain that JC would have been all too wrong for Bhop. JC was fast, had a decent dig. Extremely skilled and elusive with a strong chin. Punched from various angles. JC would have beaten him 7/10 times imo. He was all wrong for Bhop.

Its all so easy to say that Hop has deteriorated. He destroyed Tarver. Slaughtered Pavlik who everyone rated highly. Got robbed against Pascal who was fighting at his best weight and who had just beaten who many considered the #1 light heavy. were it not for the KD, JC would have been a clear winner.

How can you say JC would've been a clear winner when he barely scraped past him when they eventually got around to fighting? And you can't say "Oh but JC was struggling with his hands etc" and then not acknowledge BHop wasn't past his best either.

And you keep banging on about JC being too fast for that version of BHop, showing him angles etc - what on earth did BHop do against Tito? He totally outclassed him and boxing his head off in one of the great technical performances of the decade.

Again, i'm struggling to see how JC gets past a far superior version of BHop if he was up against him that night against Tito who produced the best performance of his career, he barely got past an inferior version.

And looking at your comment that "JC should be the #1 British fighter of all time" isn't and my follow up comments weren't exactly without a base, were they? If you want to ignore the likes of Buchanen, Fitz, Lewis etc and place him number 1 then please expect a fanboy accusation - you can't even make room for him in the top 5 if you're being objective. To place him ahead of Jimmy Wilde is pretty scandalous to be honest, so yeah - i'll throw around what ever terminology i want if you rate JC above Wilde.

I can definitely see your point Daz but as far as Calzaghe is concerned, I think if he'd really REALLY wanted the big fights he'd have put aside his fear of flying (take a sleeping pill ya dingbat or book an Atlantic cruise) and forced the issue. As it stands, I think he was happy to wait until an opportunity fell into his lap knowing he had plenty of soft but lucrative defences to fall back on.


Azania writes - Their motivation is to get on the tv screen to be successful. They succeeded. So it seems you cannot have ambition without motivation.
**********************************************
If their motivation is to be rich and famous for what little talent they possess then simply getting on tv and being told they're hopeless ISN'T classed as success....unless you have a particularly low threshold for what constitutes success!

Definite can of worms article -

I had him beating B-hop - as I've always scored heavily on aggression.

As everyone else has said - there's huge holes in his career - on the standard of opponent - yes he had personal issues with injury and a VERY messy divorce. However - I find the argument a bit of a tenuous argument to support his legacy.

Re: Calzaghe-B-hop

It should be remembered that people always seem to consider the idea that Joe was still at his peak when he retired. IMHO this is quite far from the truth. Even when Joe was granting Lacy one hell of a hiding - he still looked a bit slower than when he say - blew Veit away in a round. His punches lacked any dig that they once had. Against Veit, Brewer and Mitchell he punched through a target. By the time he beat Lacy - he pulled his punches and resorted to tapping - with those "pitta-patta" punches for which he became famous. As suc - I've often considered that Calzaghe could have gone on to do a bit more, a bit more impressively had he fought someone better earlier - as his punches had more dig and came quicker.

The downside of this is the "peak" period of which I speak was spent fighting weak/substandard opponents; and this is the great frustration of Joe's career. Its VERY hard to accurately determine how good he was - as there's no benchmark for how good he was as he never lost AND there's no consensus about when his prime was.

I cannot for the life of me see how anyone could view Calzaghe as the number 1 British fighter of all time.

I think you could make an argument for him to squeeze into the last couple of places but when you have such illustrious names as Wilde, Kid Lewis, Lynch, Welsh, Driscoll, Berg.

Thats even without recognising the great Bob Fitzsimmons.

I think Calzaghe is battling it out with the likes of Lennox Lewis, Ken Buchanan and the very underrated Owen Moran for the lower slots on the top 10 list. I have him about 9.

But even looking at Wales alone, there are several fighters that place above Calzaghe.

Calzaghe was a great fighter, a very difficult style to deal with, threw a lot of punches, great work rate, good power, good body and head movement, a solid chin and great powers of recovery. Calzaghe was also great at adapting in a fight and did this against Hopkins who is a great tactician himself.

Dominated a division for over a decade, Calzaghe is one of the best fighters of his generation.

Question over should he stepped up to light-heavy earlier, but then he would not have cleared up the division.

Hopkins didn't want to step up a fight him, Taylor turn him down, but for my money only a prime RJJ would be able to beat him from middle-light heavy and that was by no means a certainty.

D4 he didn't really dominate the division for over a decade, he didn't unify until Lacy. Whilst I agree he was the best fighter in the division prior to that boxing is about getting in there and proving it and the reality is for large portions of his reign Ottke could make as legitmate claims to be the man at the weight.

The only reason why he didn't unify earlier was down to politics, the German fighters Beyer and Ottke.

Calzaghe beat a lot of world champions and beat most of them comfortably.

At the end of his career people were saying he should have fought the likes of Pavlik and Dawson, Calzaghe beats both of them with ease for me.

Large portions? 3 years according to the ring ranking. After what happened to Reid and other do you blame Calzaghe for not going to Germany to fight Ottke.

That being said he didn't dominate the division until he beat Lacy and Kessler. He may have beaten both Beyer and Ottke but didn't and at the time they all had a claim to being the best in the division.

imperialghosty wrote:That being said he didn't dominate the division until he beat Lacy and Kessler. He may have beaten both Beyer and Ottke but didn't and at the time they all had a claim to being the best in the division.

According to your Bible, he was ranked no.1 for the vast majority of those years.

Irrespective of the reasons D4 you cannot claim to be dominating a division whilst there are any number of other fighters out there who have as legitimate claims to be the man at the weight. I understand why he didn't go to Germany but for as long as he refused he cannot claim any supremacy over Ottke.

Harsh reality is pre Lacy Joe's claim to be dominating the division was no better or worse than the claim of Johnny Nelson would have been at cruiser as they were both long reigning WBO champions who failed to fight unifications.

He was but that doesn't define domination, to dominate you need to unify and the fact he wasn't recognised as the best til he beat Kessler says it all. Took him ten years to go from number one to champion

Yes as soon as Ottke retired and Beyer lost his title he cleaned up. Anybody who knows boxing new that Calzaghe was no.1 and it was only the politics that stopped him unifying earlier.

Apart from the German pair Calzaghe beat everyone there was at supermiddle, ex champions and up and commers and dealt with them all and didn't need a corrupt ref or dodgy judges to keep his title.

In this country yes they would agree on Calzaghe being number one but there is more to it than that. Being recognized as the best doesn't equate to domination.

You've convinced me D4, in fact why bother having people fight at all, lets just let a few fans sit down in a room and decide who is the best, saves all that pesky getting in a ring and proving it.

You are wrong on this mate your original commnent was he dominated the division for a decade and that is just wrong because he did not beat the people out there who had equally as good claims to be the man at the weight and no fighter can claim domination without doing that.

Like I said your bible had Calzaghe at no.1 for the majority of those years and he beat everyone that there he could beat.

If Pacquiao beats every welter in the top 10 but Mayweather refuse to fight him, Pacquiao still has dominated the division.

Just because one fighter doesn't want to play ball doesn't stop the other one from being dominant.

jc was/is a legend ofc being from wales that is a completley biased opinion
but if im honest hes left a lot of ifs buts and maybes about what he could have achieved if only hed splitt from fwank sooner
still awsome fighter with an exiting style and was never afraid of a good tear up

Yes it does stop them from being dominant

imperialghosty wrote:Yes it does stop them from being dominant

Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree then.

We sure will, for the record he fought very few guys ranked in the top ten so blows that argument of yours out the window

D4thincarnation wrote:Like I said your bible had Calzaghe at no.1 for the majority of those years and he beat everyone that there he could beat.

If Pacquiao beats every welter in the top 10 but Mayweather refuse to fight him, Pacquiao still has dominated the division.

Just because one fighter doesn't want to play ball doesn't stop the other one from being dominant.

Up until the point Ottke retired, himself and Calzaghe had beaten largely the same collection of fighters without evr facing each other. The educated guess based on performances and results would point to Calzaghe being the superior fighter but together, they both dominated the largely the smae group of guys so Ottke had a substantial claim to be number 1. To lend weight to Ottkes argument was that he had beaten the fighter first before Calzaghe in many cases. Off the top of my head I think Brewer, Mitchell and possibly Thornberry had already been beaten by Ottke when Calzaghe faced them. Which incidentally is a problem I have with Calzaghes career as for a time at least he was playing second fiddle to Ottke.

You point on Pacquiao and Mayweather is not the same. A truer example would be if Mayweather and Pacquiao dominated the same group of fighters at welterweight without fighting each other.

imperialghosty wrote:We sure will, for the record he fought very few guys ranked in the top ten so blows that argument of yours out the window

Not really.

Chris Eubank
Richie Woodhall
Charles Brewer
Robin Reid
Byron Mitchell
Jeff Lacy
Peter Manfredo Jr
Sakio Bika
Mikkel Kessler
Bernard Hopkins
Roy Jones Jr.

How many of them were ranked in the top ten at the time Calzaghe fought him and Hopkins is a pure irrelevance

Colonial Lion wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:Like I said your bible had Calzaghe at no.1 for the majority of those years and he beat everyone that there he could beat.

If Pacquiao beats every welter in the top 10 but Mayweather refuse to fight him, Pacquiao still has dominated the division.

Just because one fighter doesn't want to play ball doesn't stop the other one from being dominant.

Up until the point Ottke retired, himself and Calzaghe had beaten largely the same collection of fighters without evr facing each other. The educated guess based on performances and results would point to Calzaghe being the superior fighter but together, they both dominated the largely the smae group of guys so Ottke had a substantial claim to be number 1. To lend weight to Ottkes argument was that he had beaten the fighter first before Calzaghe in many cases. Off the top of my head I think Brewer, Mitchell and possibly Thornberry had already been beaten by Ottke when Calzaghe faced them. Which incidentally is a problem I have with Calzaghes career as for a time at least he was playing second fiddle to Ottke.

You point on Pacquiao and Mayweather is not the same. A truer example would be if Mayweather and Pacquiao dominated the same group of fighters at welterweight without fighting each other.

Except, of course, that Ottke robbed both Brewer and Mitchell blind. How anyone gave him those fights is beyond me.

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:Again Azania - Completely disagree

First off BHop had deteriorated - it's pretty evident when unless someone comes charging at him he has to hold and mug his way through fights - The JC fight being a prime example of an attempted mugging.

And BHop was a massive underdog against Tito who'd just come off beating Joppy, i don't recall anyone thinking BHop had much of a chance either. To make excuses now is simply typical of a fanboy kinda mentality - Tito was expected to brush BHop aside easily, and he got his bum handed to him in a big way.

The speed, technical ability and general brilliance that BHop showed that night would've been far too much for all barring the elite of the elite middleweights.

It was a stunning performance, please drop the fanboy nature by attempting to discredit that win - it's renowned as being one of the greatest performances of the decade, for a chuffing good reason as well.

Think you'd be struggling to find anyone looking in objectively who would say JC takes BHop on that particular night, because for me if BHop is almost able to mug him he'd certainly do a job on him based on that brilliant performance.

Fanboy of who? I was a fan of Tito. I'm no fan of JC or BHop. Read what is written and not what you assume is written before throwing baseless coments at anyone's direction. Understood?

I was happy Tito beat Oscar. Yes, Bhop handed it to him in a massive way. Tito had a weak chim at welter. If that British guy could deck him, I feared for him whenever he fought someone who could keep him there.

I maintain that JC would have been all too wrong for Bhop. JC was fast, had a decent dig. Extremely skilled and elusive with a strong chin. Punched from various angles. JC would have beaten him 7/10 times imo. He was all wrong for Bhop.

Its all so easy to say that Hop has deteriorated. He destroyed Tarver. Slaughtered Pavlik who everyone rated highly. Got robbed against Pascal who was fighting at his best weight and who had just beaten who many considered the #1 light heavy. were it not for the KD, JC would have been a clear winner.

How can you say JC would've been a clear winner when he barely scraped past him when they eventually got around to fighting? And you can't say "Oh but JC was struggling with his hands etc" and then not acknowledge BHop wasn't past his best either.

And you keep banging on about JC being too fast for that version of BHop, showing him angles etc - what on earth did BHop do against Tito? He totally outclassed him and boxing his head off in one of the great technical performances of the decade.

Again, i'm struggling to see how JC gets past a far superior version of BHop if he was up against him that night against Tito who produced the best performance of his career, he barely got past an inferior version.

And looking at your comment that "JC should be the #1 British fighter of all time" isn't and my follow up comments weren't exactly without a base, were they? If you want to ignore the likes of Buchanen, Fitz, Lewis etc and place him number 1 then please expect a fanboy accusation - you can't even make room for him in the top 5 if you're being objective. To place him ahead of Jimmy Wilde is pretty scandalous to be honest, so yeah - i'll throw around what ever terminology i want if you rate JC above Wilde.

Great. I'm a JC fanboy even though I stated in my very first post on this thread that I was no fan of his. Wonderful. Because I believe that he had the beating of Hop I am also a fanboy. Marvelous.

Anyway, you say Hop had deteriorated. Dont you think that JC had also deteriorated from his peak? Hypothetical fights are about opinions. You have yours and I have mine. Such a pity that you seem oblivious to respecting the opinions of others when they disagree with yours.

My views of old timers are well known here. I see no reason to repeat myself.