Comments on: Calzaghe – Did Joe Avoid Taking Risks?

By: danners2003

danners2003 — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:41:42 +0000

I once write a piece like this. I agree with you.
Calzaghe had loads of hard fights he could have had, even now.
Hopkins win over Pavlik, made Calzaghe’s win over Hopkins look much better than it was.
Pavlik didn’t really turn up to that fight; There are rumors he was ill.

Very good post mate.

By: simvas

simvas — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:55:12 +0000

Beaten 9 world champions

By: hazza

hazza — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:52:44 +0000

just to say although roy jones was shot hopkins was definately not and proved he is still a competent fighter after his schooling of the overhyped pavlik. So it proves americans are just as overhyped joe was great fighter not the best though.

By: Johno6585

Johno6585 — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:47:37 +0000

Calzaghe has retired with a 46 0 record,people just need to accept it…..Mainly the Americans!

He was a great champion…no question!

Kessler would prove himself if big names would fight him…people wont fight him for the same reasons they wouldn’t fight Calzaghe..He’s too big of a risk for the money.FACT!

Kessler will be another Calzaghe….he wont get the recognition he deserves.FACT!

Johno.

By: James Hughes

James Hughes — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:52:32 +0000

Even if we accept (for sake of argument), that Calzaghe had half a dozen unnecessary fights against poor opposition*, that still leaves a 40-0 record for the one of the longest reigning champions this sport has seen.

*By this, I mean non-mandatory/voluntary title defences against fighters who were low B-grade fighters or worse.

It was disappointing that JC didn’t fight Hopkins or Jones Jr. sooner. I’m not going to say he should have fought them in their primes, because I don’t think he reached his prime until a little after they had finished theirs – both were in their primes in the 1990′s/early 2000′s, whereas Calzaghe’s was early-mid 2000′s.

Pavlik’s name keeps being brought up when discussing fighters JC could/should have fought, but quite frankly, I can’t see why. Inbetween making his name with the Taylor fights, Calzaghe was proving himself the best super-middleweight in the world bar none by defeating Kessler.
Dirrell and Ward are even more laughable. Dirrell’s best opponent was Anthony Hanshaw (21-1-1 going in), while Ward’s may well have been his last fight vs Henry Buchanan (17-1 going in). Neither has fought an A-grade opponent yet, let alone a truly world-class operator like Calzaghe or Kessler.

By: warbz

warbz — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 12:44:12 +0000

lacy got well and truly bummed from joe

By: adamfillingham

adamfillingham — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:58:24 +0000

Is this basically a reply to my article on Sunday. hahaha.

By: ukansodoff

ukansodoff — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:44:15 +0000

Im sure this had over 60 replies. What happened there?

By: Anton Mccabe

Anton Mccabe — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:57:58 +0000

Fleck me another calzaghe article…how longs he been retired now?

By: greg.

greg. — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:33:10 +0000

wel u’ve done it again chris u in a race wit scott and micheal for muppet of the year award ……….

By: Gazchap

Gazchap — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:17:39 +0000

There has been, since the start of February, 30 articles arguing more or less the same point. Please, somebody make an argument that 30 articles on the same subject in about two months is justified because I cannot see it.

In short, write something fresh. This is Boxing News, not Boxing Olds.

By: SugarScott

SugarScott — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:52:31 +0000

Give me a break Joe fought who was put in front of them and outworked and showed more desire to win than any of them. Bernard Hopkins please, doesnt anyone remember the 20 odd defences he made of his title, exactly cos he fought tubes as well. and only realy became famous after beatin up a welter and another guy whos career began at 126 nuff said on him. as for jones as great as he was(probably the best athlete in boxing history) he still liked to feast on the odd policeman and public citizens. but joe beat who was put in front of him and had any big name stood up they would have been beaten too cos hes has too much energy more desire to win than any man and a chin like granite.

By: god

god — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 14:17:57 +0000

seriously, how many more articles do we need on this. theres always gonna be those who feel calzaghe could have done more. there are also those who feel calzaghe did enough to have a legend status. like as Jime said, whatever happens the critics pick faults in what they do. reminds me of the pacquaio fight not to long ago. 95% of people were saying oscar was gonna destroy him. as soon Pacquaio destroyed him, the critics said yeah but he was past it etc. showing that whaetevr u do in the sport of boxing, people will say you didnt do enough.

By: jime

jime — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:47:45 +0000

Look, if a fighter retires unbeaten, there’s automatically a presumption that he didn’t face quality opponets. Put another way- it only makes sense that if you routinely fight people on par with you, someone will best you sooner or later. If that doesn’t happen your record is suspect. I think the criticism of Joe not facing too many top rated guys early on is warranted, but he came over and challenged several notable guys and beat them. Then the critics say, he won only because Hopkins was past his prime. So, he can’t win. I don’t think he went out of his way to find someone who could beat him – but I wouldn’t say he was hiding by any means.

By: s

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:12:58 +0000

why do they keep writing these articles? their exactly the same as the last 50, if he did fight benn and won it would of been shadowed by the same point as eubank being over the hill, JUST ACCEPT IT THAT CALZAGHE IS WHAT HE IS!