by Sam Singh: Cliff Rold, generally speaking, is a respected writer within the boxing world. Rold is a member the Ring Magazine Advisory Panel, the Boxing Writers Association of America and the Yahoo Pound for Pound voting panel.
Despite Rold’s flashy credentials I feel compelled as an avid follower of the sweet science to voice my firm disagreement in response to his recent article on Joe Calzaghe.
Rold claims his series of articles examine modern fighters to establish how their careers compare to those of the all-time greats.
This article is a direct response to Cliff Rold’s final verdict on Joe Calzaghe. Rold’s verdict on Calzaghe is that he is an all-time great. Let me put my stance on Joe Calzaghe very clear: he is nowhere near all-time great status. Furthermore, he is nowhere near a top 50-100 all-time great as Rold shockingly claims.
In start contrast to Rold, I firmly believe Joe Calzaghe was very well protected in what ultimately was a well managed career.
My argument is that Joe Calzaghe’s achievements must be looked at with perspective. Indeeed, Calzaghe made a record of 21 championship defenses but compare that with Dariusz Michalczewski who made 23 championship defenses up at light-heavyweight or with fellow 168lb-er Sven Ottke who made 21-defenses alongside Joe Calzaghe’s ‘reign’.
Yet Michalczewski is not an all-time great and, rather surprisingly, neither is Shane Mosley or Oscar De La Hoya according to Rold’s series of verdicts.
I fully acknowledge and accept that all prizefighters have their share of easier fights but a closer look at Calzaghe’s career reveals a startling truth. Based on the Ring magazine’s annual ratings, a rating system of each division and its respective top ten contenders, Calzaghe had a total of sixteen fights against opponents who were not ranked within the Ring’s top-ten contenders for the 168lb division which totaled a period of five years.
If you apply the same Ring annual ratings against the careers of Bernard Hopkins and Roy Jones Jr., we find that both Hopkins and Jones Jr. consistently boxed top-ten ranked contenders who were deemed good enough to be in the Ring’s annual top 10 contenders for their respective weight classes.
In closing, there are five fights which highlight Calzaghe’s career: (1) Chris Eubank, (2) Jeff Lacy, (3) Mikkel Kessler, (4) Bernard Hopkins and (5) Roy Jones Jr. Before my verdict, my estimations are as follows. (1) Chris Eubank was past-it and at the very end of his career when Calzaghe beat him. (2) Jeff Lacy, despite all hype, was an unproven prizefighter with little fight experience and a poor record. I still rate this is as a good win for Calzaghe. (3) Mikkel Kessler was also a good victory for Calzaghe and despite Andre Ward’s recent domination over Kessler; the Dane is still a good fighter. (4) Bernard Hopkins, at 43-years-old, was able to push Calzaghe very close and many media outlets had Hopkins winning the bout. To Calzaghe’s credit, Hopkins came back to defeat the undefeated Pavlik. Note: Pavlik recently lost to Sergio Martinez. (5) Roy Jones Jr. was completely finished as an elite fighter, at over 40-years-old he was recently knocked out by journeyman Danny Green in under a round.
Verdict: Joe Calzaghe was a good but not great fighter. It must be said that Calzaghe’s reluctance to take on the elite names will always reflect badly on his career. In an article at thisislondon.co.uk, Calzaghe talked about the prospect of facing a prime Roy Jones Jr. Calzaghe said “I could probably give Jones a tough fight, probably the best fight he’s ever had, but I know my capabilities and unless I got paid the crown jewels I wouldn’t want to risk it’’. And that was the problem, Team Calzaghe knew their capabilities and they did not want to risk it
Comments are closed.