Can a Champ be too dominate?

I say yes. Because naturaly people will downplay their wins and compition.

Look at this scenerio.

Say Ali never went into exile and stayed HW Champ, and went on and beat Frazier, Norton, and Foreman and then retired.

He wouldn't be considered as great as he is today. Why

Frazier and Norton made a name for themselves by beating Ali, and Foreman made a name for himself beating those two.

Norton be nothing but a footnote if it wasn't for the Ali fights. Frazier become HW Champ during Ali's exile and then cemented himself by beating Ali when he came back.

So your saying your in love with the Klits?

People tune out now if a guy loses. The fascination of undefeated champion keeps people tuned in sometimes. The opponents have to be challenges but if a guy can dominate even decent opposition people will tune in to watch. If a fighter absolutely destroys everyone and they're contenders hell have a fanbase.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The very best thing for boxing are men who are on top for 5+ years and get to be household names.

do you think that being too dominant is the reason Calzaghe still gets no love State-side?? (said with tongue in cheek)

dbudge wrote:do you think that being too dominant is the reason Calzaghe still gets no love State-side?? (said with tongue in cheek)

Looking back I get MORE angry with Calzaghe. HE could have been one of those Holy Crap kind of guys. There were some awfully good names at 168 in the late 1990's etc.

Of course retiring with one's health, wealth, a babe and all the cocaine one can snort isn't a bad option I guess.

Calzaghe just missed out on the big names around 168lb, he got Eubank and whooped him but Benn was done by then and Collins retired when a Calzaghe fight was inevitable. i get wound up a bit by it too as his skill level, sense of anticipation and fighting heart were second to none. he tried to make the Hopkins fight in 2002, Roy Jones wanted no part of The UK guys at 168 in the 90s so who do you really have to blame for the lack of quality opposition on his resume pre 2004. Calazaghe just admitted to using cocaine as well, it wasnt like he got caught outright shovelling 7 lines of Pedro's finest up his schnoz. i imagine there have been a lot of prizefighters in history have done a lot worse. i'd be a hypocrit to condemn him for it

marbleheadmaui wrote:NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The very best thing for boxing are men who are on top for 5+ years and get to be household names.

+1

dbudge wrote:Calzaghe just missed out on the big names around 168lb, he got Eubank and whooped him but Benn was done by then and Collins retired when a Calzaghe fight was inevitable. i get wound up a bit by it too as his skill level, sense of anticipation and fighting heart were second to none. he tried to make the Hopkins fight in 2002, Roy Jones wanted no part of The UK guys at 168 in the 90s so who do you really have to blame for the lack of quality opposition on his resume pre 2004. Calazaghe just admitted to using cocaine as well, it was like he got caught outright shovelling 7 lines of Pedro's finest up his schnoz. i imagine there have been a lot of prizefighters in history have done a lot worse. i'd be a hypocrit to condemn him for it

I get PO'd at guys who had a chance to be GREAT most.`

Frankie Liles, Thomas Tate, Sven Ottke, Antwuin Echols were all top 5 guys while Calzaghe was at 168. It's too long a list.

One thing I've learned over the catastrophe that has been boxing in the last decade is to accomplish like Marvin Hagler? Fighters have to THINK like Marvin Hagler.

Marb, Sven Ottke wouldn't have any part of Joe Calzaghe, there were countless times that fight being discussed but it was refusal from Ottke's camp to make the fight. Hopkins signed a deal that would have earnt him nearly $2-3million against Joe in 2002 and then doubled his demands to come over at the eleventh hour. i don't think Calzaghe's numerous hand surgeries helped matters either as he spent 7-8 months inactive and then he'd come back in routine defences. Ricky Hatton, Naseem Hamed and Lennox Lewis' stars were all shining a lot brighter than Calzaghe's throughout his career as well, there was never the public demand/pressure for a big Calzaghe fight. he wasn't devestating in the ring, and he was an ordinary Joe out of it. Mild-mannered prizefighters don't seem to crossover well to the mases. i'm not trying to justify Calzaghe's resume as a great one, but i think there were other factors that weren't solely his fault as to why the level of opposition he faced wasn't stepped up earlier. Also i forgot, he got a TV date on the undercard of a Naseem Hamed fight that was due for broadcast in the US. he fought David Starie who did everything he could not to engage and was there solely to survive, it didn't help Calzaghe's cause and US TV perceived him as an overhyped Brit that they had no interest in

dbudge wrote:Marb, Sven Ottke wouldn't have any part of Joe Calzaghe, there were countless times that fight being discussed but it was refusal from Ottke's camp to make the fight. Hopkins signed a deal that would have earnt him nearly $2-3million against Joe in 2002 and then doubled his demands to come over at the eleventh hour. i don't think Calzaghe's numerous hand surgeries helped matters either as he spent 7-8 months inactive and then he'd come back in routine defences. Ricky Hatton, Naseem Hamed and Lennox Lewis' stars were all shining a lot brighter than Calzaghe's throughout his career as well, there was never the public demand/pressure for a big Calzaghe fight. he wasn't devestating in the ring, and he was an ordinary Joe out of it. Mild-mannered prizefighters don't seem to crossover well to the mases. i'm not trying to justify Calzaghe's resume as a great one, but i think there were other factors that weren't solely his fault as to why the level of opposition he faced wasn't stepped up earlier. Also i forgot, he got a TV date on the undercard of a Naseem Hamed fight that was due for broadcast in the US. he fought David Starie who did everything he could not to engage and was there solely to survive, it didn't help Calzaghe's cause and US TV perceived him as an overhyped Brit that they had no interest in

In my view? You get credit for who you fight and everything else doesn't matter much.

yeh i agree that too. it's not how many wins on the record it's who they came against that is important. that is true for all sports though but it is also true that you can only beat who is put in front of you. i don't know if whether the person we should be blaming is Joe Calzaghe or Frank Warren though, i don't think Warren's efforts were focused on Calzaghe's career as much as they should have been because he had more profitable investments under his promotional banner. i don't believe that it was down to Joe's reluctance to fight anybody at all. even with the lack of top-tier opposition on his resume early in his career it is very hard to argue that Joe Calzaghe's career as a Boxer was anything less than an extremely successful one

dbudge wrote:yeh i agree that too. it's not how many wins on the record it's who they came against that is important. that is true for all sports though but it is also true that you can only beat who is put in front of you. i don't know if whether the person we should be blaming is Joe Calzaghe or Frank Warren though, i don't think Warren's efforts were focused on Calzaghe's career as much as they should have been because he had more profitable investments under his promotional banner. i don't believe that it was down to Joe's reluctance to fight anybody at all. even with the lack of top-tier opposition on his resume early in his career it is very hard to argue that Joe Calzaghe's career as a Boxer was anything less than an extremely successful one

See I don't care one iota WHY fights weren't made. Throughout boxing history there were ALWAYS obstacles...yet it only has become a dominant issue in the sport over the last 15 years. I mean look at the following guys, Arguello, Hagler, Miguel Canto, Harry greb, Henry Armstrong, Barney Ross, Archie Moore, Muhammad Ali. Hell look at Sal Sanchez when he died at 23. Who would you like them to have fought that they didn't? Is there a name here and there? Perhaps. But you can't put together a 5-10 fighter list in no time like you can with Jones or Calzaghe or Mayweather. I think as fans we hurt the sport when we show ANY WILLINGNESS to accept or explain away top fights not being made.

Was Calzaghe successful? Sure. Was he as accomplished as he could have been? Not even close is my view.

A true champion seeks out the competition that creates his greatness.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

dbudge wrote:yeh i agree that too. it's not how many wins on the record it's who they came against that is important. that is true for all sports though but it is also true that you can only beat who is put in front of you. i don't know if whether the person we should be blaming is Joe Calzaghe or Frank Warren though, i don't think Warren's efforts were focused on Calzaghe's career as much as they should have been because he had more profitable investments under his promotional banner. i don't believe that it was down to Joe's reluctance to fight anybody at all. even with the lack of top-tier opposition on his resume early in his career it is very hard to argue that Joe Calzaghe's career as a Boxer was anything less than an extremely successful one

See I don't care one iota WHY fights weren't made. Throughout boxing history there were ALWAYS obstacles...yet it only has become a dominant issue in the sport over the last 15 years. I mean look at the following guys, Arguello, Hagler, Miguel Canto, Harry greb, Henry Armstrong, Barney Ross, Archie Moore, Muhammad Ali. Hell look at Sal Sanchez when he died at 23. Who would you like them to have fought that they didn't? Is there a name here and there? Perhaps. But you can't put together a 5-10 fighter list in no time like you can with Jones or Calzaghe or Mayweather. I think as fans we hurt the sport when we show ANY WILLINGNESS to accept or explain away top fights not being made.

Was Calzaghe successful? Sure. Was he as accomplished as he could have been? Not even close is my view.

i can only see that as being a credit to Calzaghe that somebody of your experience would say that, which is refreshing, and i totally see what you're saying. the best should be facing the best, that's how it works in every other sporting competition and how it should in boxing. the reason i'm making the argument for why Calzaghe didn't have certain fights is because the theme of the thread was can a champ be too dominant. i'm not saying that Calzaghe was too dominant in the late 90's early 00's, but i'm saying that he did have trouble making fights with other champions because he was seen as too much high risk-low reward and he didn't have the financial backing in him from his promoter to offer opponents, particulary Sven Ottke, high risk-high reward fights. I still have to put Calzaghe as the best British fighter i've seen in my short lifetime but i understand that is very naive, but the nights he totally took apart Lacy and beat Kessler were my proudest moments as British boxing fan supporting a British fighter

dbudge wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

dbudge wrote:yeh i agree that too. it's not how many wins on the record it's who they came against that is important. that is true for all sports though but it is also true that you can only beat who is put in front of you. i don't know if whether the person we should be blaming is Joe Calzaghe or Frank Warren though, i don't think Warren's efforts were focused on Calzaghe's career as much as they should have been because he had more profitable investments under his promotional banner. i don't believe that it was down to Joe's reluctance to fight anybody at all. even with the lack of top-tier opposition on his resume early in his career it is very hard to argue that Joe Calzaghe's career as a Boxer was anything less than an extremely successful one

See I don't care one iota WHY fights weren't made. Throughout boxing history there were ALWAYS obstacles...yet it only has become a dominant issue in the sport over the last 15 years. I mean look at the following guys, Arguello, Hagler, Miguel Canto, Harry greb, Henry Armstrong, Barney Ross, Archie Moore, Muhammad Ali. Hell look at Sal Sanchez when he died at 23. Who would you like them to have fought that they didn't? Is there a name here and there? Perhaps. But you can't put together a 5-10 fighter list in no time like you can with Jones or Calzaghe or Mayweather. I think as fans we hurt the sport when we show ANY WILLINGNESS to accept or explain away top fights not being made.

Was Calzaghe successful? Sure. Was he as accomplished as he could have been? Not even close is my view.

i can only see that as being a credit to Calzaghe that somebody of your experience would say that, which is refreshing, and i totally see what you're saying. the best should be facing the best, that's how it works in every other sporting competition and how it should in boxing. the reason i'm making the argument for why Calzaghe didn't have certain fights is because the theme of the thread was can a champ be too dominant. i'm not saying that Calzaghe was too dominant in the late 90's early 00's, but i'm saying that he did have trouble making fights with other champions because he was seen as too much high risk-low reward and he didn't have the financial backing in him from his promoter to offer opponents, particulary Sven Ottke, high risk-high reward fights. I still have to put Calzaghe as the best British fighter i've seen in my short lifetime but i understand that is very naive, but the nights he totally took apart Lacy and beat Kessler were my proudest moments as British boxing fan supporting a British fighter

I am NOT crediting Calzaghe. I'm TRYING to insult the guy!!!!!!

Let me try it this way. I don't believe his matchmaking or risk taking matched his innate talent. I think his potential outweighed his accomplishment. I HATE when that is true.

Compare him to a guy I am always going after in these talks, Lennox Lewis. I don't believe Lennox was close to an ATG fighter. But he WAS a GREAT CHAMPION. lennox left very, very few unanswered questions. Want another Brit for whom that was true? Ken Buchanan. Here's another, Nigel Benn.

I have IMMENSE respect for men who willingly test the deep waters over and over again. If they lose, they lose. But they measured their gifts to the fullest. That, maybe more than anything else is what drew me to boxing.

Enormous talents who don't test their limits? That's like a champion collegiate sprinter who decides never to even try for the Olympics. You gonna be impressed because he never lost in college and trumpets THAT as their claim to fame?

i think you indirectly credited Calzaghe by saying that you don't think he accomplished what his full potential was (ok you didn't say them words exactly but this is how i've translated it). 2 weight lineal champion, over 20 title fights and wins and a place in Boxing's HoF but you think he had the ability to accomplish much more. i think indirectly you're putting Calzaghe on a high pedestal. it's ironice to call Calzaghe a ducker when he was ducked throughout his career. it wasn't until after Calzaghe beat Kessler that everybody wanted a part of him

It totally comes down to a fighter's resume'. Floyd could be put in this category. He dominates his opponents completely, but there are too many fighters the fans wanted him to fight, so it kind of tarnishes his legacy. Same with Joe C., too much shoulda, woulda, coulda. It's up to the fighter to call out the guys that cement their legacy.

dbudge wrote:i think you indirectly credited Calzaghe by saying that you don't think he accomplished what his full potential was (ok you didn't say them words exactly but this is how i've translated it). 2 weight lineal champion, over 20 title fights and wins and a place in Boxing's HoF but you think he had the ability to accomplish much more. i think indirectly you're putting Calzaghe on a high pedestal. it's ironice to call Calzaghe a ducker when he was ducked throughout his career. it wasn't until after Calzaghe beat Kessler that everybody wanted a part of him

BS 20 title fights. STRAP fights. Ring said Calzaghe became THE MAN after he beat Kessler. Let's go with that. Then he had at MOST four title fights. Calzaghe had extraordinary POTENTIAL. He had only an excellent career in my view.

flapanther2001 wrote:A true champion seeks out the competition that creates his greatness.

DAMN! I wish I'd written that!

marbleheadmaui wrote:

dbudge wrote:i think you indirectly credited Calzaghe by saying that you don't think he accomplished what his full potential was (ok you didn't say them words exactly but this is how i've translated it). 2 weight lineal champion, over 20 title fights and wins and a place in Boxing's HoF but you think he had the ability to accomplish much more. i think indirectly you're putting Calzaghe on a high pedestal. it's ironice to call Calzaghe a ducker when he was ducked throughout his career. it wasn't until after Calzaghe beat Kessler that everybody wanted a part of him

BS 20 title fights. STRAP fights. Ring said Calzaghe became THE MAN after he beat Kessler. Let's go with that. Then he had at MOST four title fights. Calzaghe had extraordinary POTENTIAL. He had only an excellent career in my view.

i thought he took the Ring title when he beat Lacy??

flapanther2001 wrote:It totally comes down to a fighter's resume'. Floyd could be put in this category. He dominates his opponents completely, but there are too many fighters the fans wanted him to fight, so it kind of tarnishes his legacy. Same with Joe C., too much shoulda, woulda, coulda. It's up to the fighter to call out the guys that cement their legacy.

but how does that work when you do call the guys out, open up negotiations just to have them decline??? US fans wanted to see Lacy whoop Calzaghe, Calzaghe was meant to be easy pickings... whoops. then they have the contender series and Bika is sent over, then another contender star is born and sent back, then a unification fight with Kessler is wanted we get it. then we want to see Calzaghe go up and beat THE MAN at 175lb he does that. then he takes his retirement pot. not many in Calzaghe's time or the future have or will emulate his success in a hurry

dbudge wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

dbudge wrote:i think you indirectly credited Calzaghe by saying that you don't think he accomplished what his full potential was (ok you didn't say them words exactly but this is how i've translated it). 2 weight lineal champion, over 20 title fights and wins and a place in Boxing's HoF but you think he had the ability to accomplish much more. i think indirectly you're putting Calzaghe on a high pedestal. it's ironice to call Calzaghe a ducker when he was ducked throughout his career. it wasn't until after Calzaghe beat Kessler that everybody wanted a part of him

BS 20 title fights. STRAP fights. Ring said Calzaghe became THE MAN after he beat Kessler. Let's go with that. Then he had at MOST four title fights. Calzaghe had extraordinary POTENTIAL. He had only an excellent career in my view.

i thought he took the Ring title when he beat Lacy??

YOU ARE CORRECT SIR! My bad! So that's what? Six title fights? Not bad at all. The 20 stuff makes it sound like he ahd more than Hagler or Monzon or Canto etc which just ain't apples and oranges.

lol Marb. i'm not arguing his record's greatness. i'm just saying that some fights not getting made aren't solely his fault. especially a fight with Sven Ottke, dude wouldn't go near anyone credible even in Sweden or Germany. Ottke's biggest wins all came through dubious scoring. the fight with Hopkins in 2002 i can't see how he could've done anything else to make that fight. couldn't even get a negotiation going with Roy Jones. when he beat Eubank in 97 in his 20th fight or something was an impressive feat, even though he was the younger man he displayed a lot of grit and fight as well as good power which his brittle hands couldn't keep up. Calzaghe used to be a puncher and he had to adapt to enjoy his longetivity. when you look back at any fighters career there are always some question marks but i don't think it's fair to label Calzaghe as a ducker or a fraud

dbudge wrote:lol Marb. i'm not arguing his record's greatness. i'm just saying that some fights not getting made aren't solely his fault. especially a fight with Sven Ottke, dude wouldn't go near anyone credible even in Sweden or Germany. Ottke's biggest wins all came through dubious scoring. the fight with Hopkins in 2002 i can't see how he could've done anything else to make that fight. couldn't even get a negotiation going with Roy Jones. when he beat Eubank in 97 in his 20th fight or something was an impressive feat, even though he was the younger man he displayed a lot of grit and fight as well as good power which his brittle hands couldn't keep up. Calzaghe used to be a puncher and he had to adapt to enjoy his longetivity. when you look back at any fighters career there are always some question marks but i don't think it's fair to label Calzaghe as a ducker or a fraud

I don't either and that's why I was defending him yesterday. People say he ducked Glenn Johnson but he KO'd Omar Sheika who Johnson lost to. Johnson lost four in a row then moved up to 175. Joe fought for seven more years at 168 and then defended or unified against Lacy, Bika, and Kessler. He then moved up to take on Hopkins who is contending for a title next month and who many publications still rank in the top five at 175 and P4P.