Adversarial robustness is an increasingly critical property of classifiers in applications. The design of robust algorithms relies on surrogate losses since the optimization of the adversarial loss with most hypothesis sets is NP-hard. But which surrogate losses should be used and when do they benefit from theoretical guarantees? We present an extensive study of this question, including a detailed analysis of the H-calibration and H-consistency of adversarial surrogate losses. We show that, under some general assumptions, convex loss functions, or the supremum-based convex losses often used in applications, are not H-calibrated for important hypothesis sets such as generalized linear models or one-layer neural networks. We then give a characterization of H-calibration and prove that some surrogate losses are indeed H-calibrated for the adversarial loss, with these hypothesis sets. Next, we show that H-calibration is not sufficient to guarantee consistency and prove that, in the absence of any distributional assumption, no continuous surrogate loss is consistent in the adversarial setting. This, in particular, proves that a claim presented in a COLT 2020 publication is inaccurate. (Calibration results there are correct modulo subtle definition differences, but the consistency claim does not hold.) Next, we identify natural conditions under which some surrogate losses that we describe in detail are H-consistent for hypothesis sets such as generalized linear models and one-layer neural networks. We also report a series of empirical results with simulated data, which show that many H-calibrated surrogate losses are indeed not H-consistent, and validate our theoretical assumptions.