| Home | News | Current Champs | WAIL! | Encyclopedia |
| The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board |
Good for him but I see him as the type who will get bored, get obsessed with the next guy who is in his spotlight and come back in a few years for one more shot...and probably lose.
I hope he is happy in retirement & stays there.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/boxing/7871918.stm
Congrats on a swell career, Joe. This was probably the right decision.
One fight out there for him and that was a rematch with Hopkins.
Either he didn't want to have to put up with Bernard during what probably results in another ugly promotion or he wanted to stick it to Bernard.
Either way, He obviously didn't think it was worth it.
I did have thier fight Thisclose and deciding definitively who was the better man, would have been nice......But unfortunately, a rematch between the two probably wouldn't be that enjoyable to see again.
For it to be a financial success, it would have had to taken place abroad. And it would have been so as well. I personally would not have paid money to see it but it would have been big.
I guess finishing on a high note was the wise choice. A rematch with Bernard....there is a definitive risk there that Bernard spoils that record.
Don't think THAT was the reason he decided not to take the rematch. But then agian, who knows?
We'll see if he stays with his decision.
Hawk
I think he did us all a favor by passing a Hopkins rematch. On antics alone, Calzaghe felt Hopkins didn't deserve one and I don't disagree. The fight sucked & when Calzaghe turned it up, BHop stunk it up more. Calzaghe brought the fight & BHop stunk it up as he usually does when he doesn't have someone like Pavlik or Tarver to look good against.
I'm glad to see a fighter who can walk away with money in his pocket and all his marbles. Good move Joe.
Joe has nothing left to prove, Chad Dawson? Nah......
The fact that his ex wife gets a percentage of his purses, will probably make him happier in retirement.
I think history will be kind to Joe.
See ya Joe, congrats on a great career. Not and all time great career, but a very good one.
I certainly hope he stays retired. I followed his career for a while and was always a fan. He battled through a lot of injuries to remain undefeated and beat everyone out there in the middleweight division. I gave him the nod in a shitty fight against BHop.
I always felt people did'nt give him his props, especially the guys on this board. I hope is status is elevated with time and he stays retired as well.
Maybe he'll take Ottke's lead and stay retired and healthy.
Okay, who wins between Calzaghe and Ottke at '68? PeteLeo.
Calzaghe by close but clear UD with help from his quicker & busier hands.Originally Posted by PeteLeo
Calzaghe would have beat the hell out of Ottke which is why the Germans never answered offers.
My own opinion for what its worth is Joe was a good fighter but if you look at the competition that he beat including old Roy Jones and old Hopkins this tells me he is far from on a level with the great's from the past. Does anyone think that Marcel Cerdan Holman Williams, Charley Burley and many other let alone the top three MW's would not have had a field day with Joe's competition. But i guess the modern fan along with some of its writers will consider him one of the elite. At least Randy Turpin beat and ran the great Sugar Ray Robinson to quite a fight in the return when Ray was close to peak compared to Jones and Hopkins. But i guess a lot will now rate Joe Calzag above him and others i could mention.
Anyway Joe i think has been good for the game and i wish him all the very best in his retirement just hope like most fighters that cant stay away from the glory and still think they have one last fight left in them. On the other hand what's to beat now Joe is going, so maybe the temptation to return will be to much for him, who knows.
Last edited by wildhawke11; 02-05-2009 at 09:09 PM.
I don't see anyone putting him in with the likes of Cerdan or Burley. But in the relatively brief history of the 168 lb division he has an excellent argument for being ranked #1 in that division and was clearly one of the top 10-15 fighters of the last 20 years. Calazghe made me a believer late in his career. His stamina, work-rate, and awkward but effective technique could've given a lot of the old-timers problems. The fact that he was the only man in my eyes to clearly beat Hopkins since 1994 says a lot to me.
Yes at 168 he has done very good but what was there to beat. As for Hopkins i think a prime Hopkins would have beat Joe. I personally believe right or wrong that the once great i will call it MW division because i am sure many of the old MW's could have with a day before weight in came at 168 or so would have took THIS Hopkins. In fact i think they now rule so long because there is no real depth in that once great elite division. Less fights per year, less tough fights allows the modern guy i think to last longer. With less fights per year it takes till there pretty old to get the experience that many from the past had when they was about 25 or so years of age and the body was at its peak. Give me a good fighter with 60 or so fights behind him at his physical peak and i feel sure that he could take the plus 34 or so fighter in most cases.
Hagler my sons friend who is only about 23 was talking boxing to me the other day and in his opinion he thought Joe Cal Zag was one of the best fighter ever. I started to ask him about Harry Greb, Sam Langford and others like Ezzard Charles who had passed through the MW division. I had to smile to myself at the blank expression on his face
I can't see any way Calzaghe beats Hopkins if they're both at their best.
Of course.Yes at 168 he has done very good but what was there to beat. As for Hopkins i think a prime Hopkins would have beat Joe. I personally believe right or wrong that the once great i will call it MW division because i am sure many of the old MW's could have with a day before weight in came at 168 or so would have took THIS Hopkins. In fact i think they now rule so long because there is no real depth in that once great elite division. Less fights per year, less tough fights allows the modern guy i think to last longer. With less fights per year it takes till there pretty old to get the experience that many from the past had when they was about 25 or so years of age and the body was at its peak. Give me a good fighter with 60 or so fights behind him at his physical peak and i feel sure that he could take the plus 34 or so fighter in most cases.
Hagler my sons friend who is only about 23 was talking boxing to me the other day and in his opinion he thought Joe Cal Zag was one of the best fighter ever. I started to ask him about Harry Greb, Sam Langford and others like Ezzard Charles who had passed through the MW division. I had to smile to myself at the blank expression on his face
Frankly, I think Pacquao is the only current fighter who could be up there with the true all-time greats. But Calzaghe had to make due with what his era presented. He fought some very good fighters and passed the test everytime, even if his era was diluted. That's all you can ask of the current guys. Not like a Klitschko who managed to lose embarassingly to three scrubs in an even scrubbier division!
The one top guy at 168 he didn't face in his era was Mr. Gift Decision Ottke and does anyone really believe Calzaghe wouldn't have beaten him if they'd faced off??
I agree completely, dig. This wasn't a close fight to me, and had JC not been dropped in a flash kd, it would have been even less close. Am I the only one who was thinking "What are you talking about?" when BHOP gave his BS after the fight about how he gave JK a boxing lesson? He taught him only how to be lazy and stink out the place; what else is new.
I'll go further and disagree with those who favor BHOP if both were in their primes. This just means that Hopkins will still stink out the place and JC will not get dropped, hence, JC, with his top drawer work rate, wins a bigger points decision. IMO.
And I'm no JC fan. But I'm even less of a Hopkins fan.
And Had Bernard not faded over the last 3 rounds, He'd have won the fight rather clearly on my card.
Personally, Not only do I feel that a Prime Hopkins beats Joe C and Rather convicingly, I think that had the Hopkins from the Pavlik fight showed up, he'd have beat Joe when they did fight.
I think Joe Cal has left his mark on the sport and deserves accolades and respect. I think some Mythic pound for pound fights involving him would prove interesting to discuss. However, I probably wouldn't take him to win very many of them.
Both Hopkins' and Calzaghe's comp when both were in their primes will leave historians wanting. However, I do feel Bernard has proven more agianst superior competition, than what Joe has done.
And while yes the head to head matchup does indeed show Joe won, I had it a 1 point fight either way and we have to be honest here, This was not the absolute best version of Hopkins and an official win over Bernard should not be treated as such.
Again, about my point involving a rematch between the two, NO, I wouldn't want to see it again either. But that IS the ONLY fight for Cal that means anything IMO. And I DO believe there is a bit of unfinished business given how extremely close the fight was. (A large number of scribes and experts have thought the decision went to the wrong fighter. And to me this speaks volumes becuase I'm betting a good many of them aren't big Hopkins fans.)
If he does indeed stay retire, congrats and good for him. I do think he left the game with something out there that still needs to be settled. Much the same way that I felt Lennox Lewis left the game with something still to be settled. I've never openly criticized Lennox for NOT taking on Vitaly agian, and I won't do so for Joe either re Hopkins.
But if it is presented that both left the game after clearing out their divisions with nothing left to settle or prove, I would point out that I think that is incorrect.
Wise moves to retire by both and it certainly is NOT out of the question that had both taken on these two pieced of unfinished buisness, that they both wouln't have taken care of them. Re Lewis, I do think he would have answered the question with a clean win in a rematch. Joe C and Hopkins? I dunno. Based on how good Hopkins looked against Pavlik and the motivation he'd have, I'd favor him. But a rematch is a VERY winnable fight still for Cal.
I simply would have like to have had it settled. Even though I wouldn't have paid to see it.
That's just me.
Hawk
Disappointed JC has hung them up, living in the UK i'm going to have to hear how great he was from sports writers who've never heard of Spinks, Foster, Saad, Qawi, Torres and a whole bunch of others who were much better than him.
There was a convo around my table at work today about JC. People acknowledged Hopkins and Jones were in there 40s and Marciano's name was surprisingly mentioned by my producer. But when i said his 10 years didn't mean anything because it was 'just a WBO belt' people got confused & didn't follow me.
For f#cks sake.
Oh and i had Hopkins winning the fight.
If I didn't know any better, it sounds like the only reason you want Cal to keep fighting is so he can eventually lose and then the Loss will set everyone straight!
Unfortunately for Cal, the ONLY fight out there for him is Hopkins. Say they fought agian and Joe wins, this time convicingly, you know what everyone will say....Hopkins is over 40 years old so what does it REALLY mean?
I'm guessing the only outcome that you would see as justice, would be Hop by decision or KO.
With ONLY Hopkins out there, I doubt another fight with Bernard would help enhance his stature too much. A Loss WOULD hurt it and I'm guessing Joe realized there was little upside, except financially and too much downside (besides a ding to his legacy...he'd have to endure more of Hopkins' nonsense.)
Looking at it from THAT angle, his decision makes sense.
Those who have the blank look when you explain the WBO title to them...Are those the opinions that really count when judging fighters in our sport?
When Historians start losing perspective, then we can worry. What Joe Lunch box, or ESPN, who doesn't know the difference between a Super Featherweight and a Jr. Lightweight is (Yes that was done on purpose), thinks, is irrelevant.
Hawk
When people here picked Lacy,Hopkins and Jones to beat Cal you would think they would give Cal his props. Some still would not give him respect. You earn respect from what you did in the ring and nothing else. People said Hopkins was too old. He didn't look old vs Tarver or Pavlik. Lacy was a killer in the ring yet Cal made him look foolish. The bottom line is that Joe Calzaghe was a very good fighter. He knew how to steal rounds. He had a good chin and lots of heart. Unlike many fights Calzaghe was of of the very few in boxing history who could change his game plan in the middle of a fight. Love him or hate him he just kept winning.
to beat Cal of that group and On my card, and as poorly as Bernard looked, I had Hopkins winning by a single point. No arguement with a draw or a Cal win by a single point either.
I think a rematch would clear up who was better, whihc is why from that standpoint, I think there is some unfinished business.
That said, the first fight sucked and I wouldn't pay to see it agian, but would like to have seen it come off none the less to settle who was better at this stage of their careers.
Lacy, was pretty exposed by Calzaghe. ANd probably ruined. There wasn't anything he accomplished PRIOR to his bout with Joe, to give Joe extra credit for that win. As it was, I expected Joe to win as I thought he was the better fighter, based on the few fights I had seen of Cal, going into the bout. His domination of Lacy was a bit of a surprise though.
Anyone who picked Jones to be Cal, was reliving glory days of old. And somehow extrapolating Hopkins' win over Pavlik into somehow Jones duplicating that performance.
Jones hadn't shown us anything agianst Anyone in years. Heck, Hopkins for as Bad as he looked agianst Cal, was an arguable winner, beat Wright in a stink fest, did beat Tarver and his two bouts with Taylor could have gone either way.
Jones by comparison was fighting blownup, inactive hasbeens (Tito) and never wases since losing back to back to back fights with Tarver, Johnson and Tarver.
I can not see how ANYONE give Credit to Cal for that win. Even those who fooled themselves into thinking Jones could win the bout.
Rather enjoyed (malisciously) Cal embarrassing Jones. But Not going to credit him for beating anything other than a completely spent fighter.
Hawk
I don't see how this comparison adds up when Pavlik isn't all that fast & his head and foot movement leaves much to be desired. Also it was the first time Pavlik fought anyone that big or skilled. I don't think it had anything to do with Hopkins having an off night, Calzaghe set a pace Hopkins could not match. IMO Calzaghe would have beaten Pavlik almost as bad as Lacy and certainly worse than Hopkins did.
I also don't put BHops record much above Calzaghe's, if at all.
I think Calzaghe's wins over Kessler & Hopkins himself are at least as impressive or more than Hopkins' over an old & flat Tarver, and an outsized Tito or DLH.
Also, at this point I don't see any reason not to put the win over Pavlik on par with Zag's win over Lacy.
I do agree that at prime, Hopkins would have been very tough for Calzaghe. I can see them splitting 10 close fights.
Dig
Agree 100% Hop's did not like to fight at any pace but his own , that's why he had problems with Jermaine Taylor, (though I think Hop's won their first fight)
Jermaine set a blistering pace for an old dude, JC liked to fight at a fast pace
and set the tempo, always would be a problem for BHOP, though I agree a prime Bernard will set even more traps and make it much closer.
"I think Calzaghe's wins over Kessler & Hopkins himself are at least as impressive or more than Hopkins' over an old & flat Tarver, and an outsized Tito or DLH."
The major differences are that Hopkins won those bouts difinitively and conclusively.
Cal's win over Hopkins was ANYTHING but conclusive or definitive. In fact, and just barely, I had Hopkins winning agianst Cal.
I think Bernards win over Pavlik merits much more weight than Cal's win over Lacy. Pavlik will obviously need to prove this in subsequent performances.
Personally, I think Pavlik takes Lacy OUT inside of 5. Best vs best.
What struck me curious in the Calzaghe bout was Hopkins late rounds conditioning. We ALL know that Hopkins agianst Joe C. was using that minimalist offensive style he had been "perfecting" in later years. It's ugly and boring.
And he was NOT upping the activity level at ALL agianst Cal. Yet he was spent over the last few rounds.
Conversely, agianst Pavlik, who admitedly did not provide very much offense on HIS side of the game, Hopkins was SIGNIFICANTLY more active and came on even stronger in the final few rounds.
So yes, I did see a difference with Hopkins's performance. Had Cal the power that I thought could have worn down Bernard, I would have factored that in as a reason for Bernard wearing down. But given Joe's pitty pats we KNOW that isn;t the case.
Re Bernard's win over Tito......I did think Bernard would win the bout as I thought him to be the better middleweight. But let's be honest. Tito looked VERY impressive when he bombed out Joppy the bout prior to the Hopkins fight and those many who thought Tito would win had pretty solid reasoning for thinking that way.
For YEARS, it was talked about Felix struggling to make 147 and moving to 154 seemed more comfortable for him. The wipe out of Joppy had many thinking he was at his ideal weight. While that may have been an overstatement, the performance agiasnt Joppy was very impressive and showed that Tit did have legit 160 power.
I'll give you the Oscar performance as I thought Oscar looked pathetic at 160 in his previous outing there agianst Sturm. Still, Hopkins did what he needed to and took Oscar out of there.
Tarver being flat agiasnt Hopkins. Chicken or the egg? Was Tarver flat becuase of Hopkins or was Hopkins so impressive becuase Tarver was flat?
A Little bit of both perhaps. Either way, a dominating one sided performance for a fighter in a bout most of us thought was going to lose.
Raise your hands if you thought, following a layoff and two close losses to Jermaine Taylor in dreadfully dull performances, and then rising in weight, straight up to 175 from 160, that Hopkins was going to beat Antoinio Tarver and that he would do so in a one sided manner to boot.
Honest.
Addendum: TD, I'm not so sure about the blistering pace that Jermaine Taylor set agianst Hopkins. The punch stats in both fights were pretty equivilant. In the second bout, Taylor threw more punches than Hopkins but landed less. And he was outscored significantly (according to the dreaded compubox) in the power punches landed. Tarver was more effective with his jab, landing more.
But of the more punches thrown, it averaged out to be about 6 more punches a round than what Hopkins threw. Not anything that would raise any eyes. Especially when you consider, that Tarver averaged about 32 punches thrown per round to Bernards 26 per round.
NEITHER of those numbers are impressive or "blistering".
Hawk
Last edited by hawk5ins; 02-06-2009 at 11:56 AM.
46-0. No Ordinary Joe
By Jeff Pryor
He was out of the ordinary in his unique style, out of the ordinary in his accomplishments and talents, and out of the ordinary in the way he has left the sport; undefeated, a champion and apparently content and ready to move on to a new phase of his life after dedicating the vast majority of his 37 years to the sport.
Joe's tremendous hand speed and conditioning, combined with an intense will to win and a higher gear that few would have been able to match, served him well over the years. Though never heavy handed, his was strictly a numbers game.
While he lacked the punch to immediately put away his foe, many a man withered under his endless barrage of punches; tossed from every imaginable angle. To fight Joe Calzaghe must have been like standing in the ocean and facing down the oncoming tide.
read the rest here: http://theboxingbulletin.blogspot.co...inary-joe.html
Hawk,
You can't judge a pace strictly by number of punches, it is also speed of punches, footwork, and movement......
But to suggest that Taylor set blistering paces in EITHER of his fights with Hopkins I think is flat out Wrong.
Calzaghe set a fantastic pace with Bernard, but the punches did not have a whole lot on them.
I don't think you can compare what Taylor did agianst Hops with how Cal performed. And I don't think you can blanket the three fights together and state that to beat Hopkins you need to establish a blistering pace, becuase one fighter did and the other did not.
Hopkins fighting conservatively in BOTH fights agianst Taylor had very little to do with the PACE Taylor set. Becuase there really was not anything remarkable with what Taylor did. And CERTAINLY, Bernard was not winded down the stretch with Taylor in the manner he was with Cal.
And poor performances in ALL three of these bouts (Taylor I, II and Calzaghe) aside, I think you can make solid Arguements that Hopkins actually WON all three bouts.
Not NEARLY as impressively or as onesidedly as he did agianst Tito, Pavlik or Tarver....But Ugly, boring, unimpressive, One point wins are still Wins, none the less.
Officially NO. But in the minds of numerous scribes and experts who thought it to be the case in all three, the two Taylor and the Calzaghe, fights, Wins, yes.
Hawk
Hopkin's had to conserve energy for the Taylor fights, he new he was in with a
younger fresher guy, and paced himself accordingly, it had everything to do with how Hop's fought (IMO) .....
Joe won because he outworked Bernard, and fought at his pace, (Hawk do you
think Bernard one the first Taylor fight?)
Bernard himself said he was conserving energy for the first Taylor fight,
You can make arguments Bernard won all three, but he didn't and IMO the Calzaghe fight wasn't that close......
Hop's is an old man, clearly you MUST outwork him to beat him, nobody is going to knock him out, (though I thought Pavlik would at least hurt him at some point in their fight)
on just about all these points.
Yes Bernard did fight conservativley agianst Taylor, but that was a decision he made going into the fight as he had been able to utilize this strategy agianst recent opponents. De la hoya included.
But that STILL does not mean Taylor established a blistering pace. He simply did not and both bouts were fought conservatively by BOTH fighters. Nothing tiring or blistering about either.
My scores for the two Taylor bouts were Hopkins by 1 point in the 1st fight and by 2 in the second.
I don't understand this talk about the Calzaghe fight not being close. I have heard this from a few posters now and I simply don't understand how the feeling that nearly all viewers, experts and scribes had immediately after the fight is now somehow being ignored.
I don't have an issue with someone saying Cal won the fight. But not by any margin greater than a point or even two.
It was a debatable decision that I think had the bout been more aesthetically pleasing to the eyes, it's closeness would have had everyone demanding a rematch.
BECAUSE it was so ugly, even those who thought Hopkins won, simply didn't care to see it agian.
Kinda like Whitaker de la Hoya imo.
Hawk
Posting Permissions
| News | Current Champs | WAIL! | Encyclopedia | Links | Home |
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks