'Call em Out Fridays': Does Joe Calzaghe Really Stack Up
By Vivek Wallace: In this weeks 'Call em Out Fridays' segment, we take a look at the Pride of Wales. For so long he's been undeniable. A formidable talent in many ways, Joe Calzaghe has finally watched his name grow in the memory of fight fans around the world. Trouble is, despite his victory over the legendary Bernard Hopkins, the jury is still out relative to his true greatness.
Aside from that Split Decision that some still question, to many, his overall resume lacks the 'kick' that most Hall of Famers possess. Today, we call out good ole 'JC' by putting him under the microscope to weigh his worth. Like always in the weekly 'Call Out' session, we'll take a look at the PRO-ARGUMENTS as well as the CON-ARGUMENTS, and with all the facts on the table, we let you the reader sort 'em out and decide......
PRO-CALZAGHE ARGUMENT: For years, Joe Calzaghe has done all you can ask of any athlete. Win. Plain and simple, no strings attached. Simply go out, stand across from the mission ahead, and overcome the odds in a high fashion. Fighting primarily in the U.K., few around the world could truly attest to his skills, but even fewer would dare step into this lion's den to measure themselves against them. For the longest time, he was viewed as simply a high volume puncher. Along came Jeff Lacy and most found out that power also accomodates that high volume. Then along came Mikkel Kessler, and that same group of transforming non-believers then learned that guts and determination were also part of the package. Following their lead was Bernard Hopkins who later came along, only to find out that aside from the high volume punching, coupled with guts and determination, was also a heart of a champion. The culmination of these tools display a total package. Standing at a solid 45-0, 32KO's, there's no coincidence why Calzaghe remains a very intriguing commodity in the world of boxing, and it's safe to say that whether he decides to call it a career and end things on a high note or step into the great 'blue abyss' a few more times and add to his legacy, whenever it's all said and done, his overall status as a champion will be well solidified in the minds of most. Or atleast so we think.......
CON-CALZAGHE ARGUMENT: Despite the unparalleled success in the ring, Calzaghe continues to fall under scrutiny by those who analyze his resume and notices that it lacks the 'star-power' that other Hall-of-Famer resume's have. Of the top contenders on Calzaghe's resume, it has been widely noted that only Mikkel Kessler and Jeff Lacy (relatively untested themselves), were the only opponents considered to be true test who were still in their prime. Peter Manfredo was an obvious mismatch, and Chris Eubank was clearly facing the 'westside' of a sun-setting career. Now that Calzaghe has become part of the Light Heavyweight division, there are many that wants to see him prove his mettle against the best in the division before calling it a career. Whether he chooses to do so or not may have an everlasting impact on his bottomline analysis. The good thing about the Light Heavyweight division is the fact that it brims with talent. On the veteran side you have formidable foes such as the legendary Roy Jones Jr. who has recently reestablished his swagger, you have his conqueror, Antonio Tarver, you have both of their conqueror's, Glen Johnson, and in the 'new blood' department you have his recent conqueror, Chad Dawson. As if that weren't enough, there are even a few more opponents whose name we could toss into the hat, but for the sake of making the point, the ones listed are more than adequate, and in the mind of some fight fans, perhaps more than what Calzaghe is pugilistically capable of chewing on. In the welterweight division a very strong topic of debate is whether or not the divisional king Floyd Mayweather Jr. will be remembered as an all-time great if he opts not to challenge the best in the division - (Cotto, Margarito, etc). The Calzaghe chronicles are pretty similar, although perhaps a bit more threatening because he would be walking away from the sport having done far less than Mayweather, (who is a 5 time Champion of 6 different weight divisions), while being crowned a champion against talent he never measured himself against.
BOTTOMLINE ARGUMENT: When it all boils down, I think any fighter has to be measured by the talent of his era, as well as how he stacked up against them. "Iron" Mike Tyson was often questioned and criticized by skeptics for not having many huge names associated with his era of dominance until later in his career. When the Holyfields and Lewis' caught up with Tyson, he had seen his greater days and they were well behind him. In the case of the Calzaghe and Mayweather, there's no effective argument for walking away from the game with rivaling talent ready for a shot. Granted, this is not a contractual game, and there's no stipulations that say a fighter HAS TO fight forever, but when it comes to legacy, the only way it can be measured in full, is by taking a look at how a fighter stacked up against the talent of his era. Plain and simple, there will always be a new challenge, and while it's not Calzaghe's job to chase them, if he truly wants to maintain the legacy he feels he deserves, he'll need to do more to solidify it. Beating Hopkins in a split decision without a rematch and an aging Chris Eubanks will not punch the Hall-of-Fame ballad, despite all of the defenses - at least not right away. He needs to do more, and do it more convincingly. But of course that's just my opinion....For those that disagree with me, it's your turn to sound off and let your views be heard! Another great debate continues
