Joe Calzaghe?

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:re hamed...&. there's a school of thought that hamed just couldn't cut it when he finally met an a-list operator and another that says if he still had ingle in his corner and his head screwed on the outcome might have been very different. We'll never know for sure, but personally I'm in the definitely a different fight, and likely a different outcome camp. But it's ifs and ands, record books say he lost comprehensively to the best fighter he fought.

As for JC, the record lacks quality, though it looks better in hindsight, as bhop resurrected his career. Watching their fight it seemed hard to believe that calzaghe would have won in bernards prime. Maybe that's a marker.

However, at his best he was a very difficult proposition for anyone. Fast hands, terrific work rate. He was also a brave fighter. For me guys who stand in the pocket and throw combinations, know they're in trouble if they miss and are always open to counters. He did that plenty with some big hitters. Always prepared to take 1 to land 2. My guess is against the true greats that asset might prove his downfall.

Re his other big name fights, Eubank was post prime, Reid is the black mark from a performance perspective. There are caveats with Lacey, although the performance was exceptional regardless, but the kessler fight (with home advantage) was an excellent win against an unbeaten and confident opponent.

Like alway, it depends where you personally draw the 'great' line. I suspect on record he falls just shy for me.

I think Hamed should have stayed at super bantam. Warren guided him towards Robinson because he was probably the easiest title holder to knock off at that point (with the likes of Barrera and Hector Acero Sanchez at 122 - from memory).

Hamed's motivation never seemed to be the same after Robinson. He made the mistake of getting his family involved in his management and gradually stopped listening to Ingle (while believing divine providence was bailing him out of fights). Compared to what he'd been, he looked rubbish against the likes of Medina, McCullough, Soto, Ingle etc. and it culminated in a Maidana vs Broner-type spanking against Barrera.

I think he'd have had a better career at 122 - and if he'd kept his mojo, would have been in the mix with Barrera, Morales, Jones and McKinney.

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:re hamed...&. there's a school of thought that hamed just couldn't cut it when he finally met an a-list operator and another that says if he still had ingle in his corner and his head screwed on the outcome might have been very different. We'll never know for sure, but personally I'm in the definitely a different fight, and likely a different outcome camp. But it's ifs and ands, record books say he lost comprehensively to the best fighter he fought.

As for JC, the record lacks quality, though it looks better in hindsight, as bhop resurrected his career. Watching their fight it seemed hard to believe that calzaghe would have won in bernards prime. Maybe that's a marker.

However, at his best he was a very difficult proposition for anyone. Fast hands, terrific work rate. He was also a brave fighter. For me guys who stand in the pocket and throw combinations, know they're in trouble if they miss and are always open to counters. He did that plenty with some big hitters. Always prepared to take 1 to land 2. My guess is against the true greats that asset might prove his downfall.

Re his other big name fights, Eubank was post prime, Reid is the black mark from a performance perspective. There are caveats with Lacey, although the performance was exceptional regardless, but the kessler fight (with home advantage) was an excellent win against an unbeaten and confident opponent.

Like alway, it depends where you personally draw the 'great' line. I suspect on record he falls just shy for me.

I think Hamed should have stayed at super bantam. Warren guided him towards Robinson because he was probably the easiest title holder to knock off at that point (with the likes of Barrera and Hector Acero Sanchez at 122 - from memory).

Hamed's motivation never seemed to be the same after Robinson. He made the mistake of getting his family involved in his management and gradually stopped listening to Ingle (while believing divine providence was bailing him out of fights). Compared to what he'd been, he looked rubbish against the likes of Medina, McCullough, Soto, Ingle etc. and it culminated in a Maidana vs Broner-type spanking against Barrera.

I think he'd have had a better career at 122 - and if he'd kept his mojo, would have been in the mix with Barrera, Morales, Jones and McKinney.

AdamT wrote:I actually think Joe would of struggled with Froch at that stage of his career.

He was dropped in his last two fights. He probably still had too much speed and skill, but Froch would of been all over him like a cheap suit.

Yeah Joe is better prime for prime, but Froch is one strong determined f***er. I think he would definitely have pushed Joe.

milkyboy wrote:Froch was typically as slow starter, but the early rounds were when Jc was also vulnerable, so a Bute approach was probably Froch's best chance.

Jc won most of his fights pulling away at the end. Bar a Hail Mary, I don't see a way for Froch to win this prime v prime. By the time the fight could have happened his chances were likely better but still a longish shot for me.

hazharrison wrote:You could argue a case for Calzaghe being a great fighter. Two weight lineal champion, unbeaten.

Froch, though, despite his excellent run of world class wins, didn't even champion 168 and lost to the two best fighters he faced (though he avenged the Kessler defeat). Might make the HOF - he has a good shot.

Mochyn du wrote:Calzaghe is an ATG. Not really a lot of doubt about it. 10 years + at the top, beat a number of quality fighters, never lost. Bottom end of top 100 ever for me.

milkyboy wrote:Froch was typically as slow starter, but the early rounds were when Jc was also vulnerable, so a Bute approach was probably Froch's best chance.

Jc won most of his fights pulling away at the end. Bar a Hail Mary, I don't see a way for Froch to win this prime v prime. By the time the fight could have happened his chances were likely better but still a longish shot for me.

Volcanicash wrote:I think its worth pointing out re lacy the signs were there about how much of a threat lacy really was.  In particular Lacy's Sheika win, who Calzaghe beat in 5 rounds, Lacy won a close decision etc.

Not taking away what was a good win, but with hindsight it shows how easy it is to get duped with the hype train for any fighter.

For me always found Joe entertaining, his career has a lot of shoulda woulda couldas about it, still think he should have fought froch post Jermain Taylor, but don't really blame him, as going out in vegas and madison square garden is a hell of a way to finish.  Should have made the jump from supermiddle to light heavy far sooner, distinctly remember him always complaining about making the weight so always found it difficult to understand why he left it so late, but overall you have to give credit while at the same time not be blinkered into bypassing the flaws in his career.

Mochyn du wrote:

Volcanicash wrote:I think its worth pointing out re lacy the signs were there about how much of a threat lacy really was.  In particular Lacy's Sheika win, who Calzaghe beat in 5 rounds, Lacy won a close decision etc.

Not taking away what was a good win, but with hindsight it shows how easy it is to get duped with the hype train for any fighter.

Volcanicash wrote:

For me always found Joe entertaining, his career has a lot of shoulda woulda couldas about it, still think he should have fought froch post Jermain Taylor, but don't really blame him, as going out in vegas and madison square garden is a hell of a way to finish.  Should have made the jump from supermiddle to light heavy far sooner, distinctly remember him always complaining about making the weight so always found it difficult to understand why he left it so late, but overall you have to give credit while at the same time not be blinkered into bypassing the flaws in his career.

Thing is though whilst people trump this one out to tarnish the victory they forget that Lacy demolished Robin Reid in a lopsided beatdown only a couple of fights previously whilst Calzaghe of course only scraped past Reid.  It was certainly an impressive victory and I remember it being significant at the time.

Atila wrote:Joe was a great super middleweight champ. Which means  more than being a British great. Not an ATG though.

Atila wrote:Why can't the win over Lacy be downplayed a little? The win over Hopkins has been upgraded over time due to what Hopkins went on to achieve after losing to Joe. But we are not allowed to take into account what Lacy has accomplished since losing to Calzaghe?