# I Consider Joe Calzaghe to be a ATG



## rjjfan (May 17, 2013)




----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

This should be fun....


----------



## tliang1000 (Jun 5, 2013)

out of what? 100?


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

:lol: I agree but this is very random.


----------



## rjjfan (May 17, 2013)

Bailey, where are you?


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

56.5 years from now, people will be astounded by the depth of Calzaghe's resume.


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

rjjfan said:


>


Watching him do this to an ATG like Jones, it's obvious that he must've been the best ever and never ducked anyone.


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

rjjfan said:


>


He's saying, "I am TGA" (The Greatest Always).

It has initials so it must be true.


----------



## heavyweightcp (Jun 11, 2013)

Joe was a great fighter


----------



## J.R. (May 21, 2013)

Great fighter. That was evident. How great he was we'll never know. A lack of top notch competition and a few ducks are the main contributors.

His win over Hops looks better and better every day... I'll give him that.


----------



## tliang1000 (Jun 5, 2013)

Sittin Sonny said:


> 56.5 years from now, people will be astounded by the depth of Calzaghe's resume.


People would think that he had beaten Bhop and Roy in their primes


----------



## JeffJoiner (Jun 5, 2013)

I'll never consider a man who said things like "I'm not looking for tough fights" and "I know my limitations" as anything approaching an ATG.

He has one solid win (Kessler) and the biggest joke reel of alleged KO stoppages ever assembled.


----------



## Pimp C (Jun 3, 2013)

I do to. A true ATG who would be great in any era. I wish the guy was still fighting today.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

I didn't score the Hopkins fight for him but he did make it a competitive affair in which he got the decision. After that, he has Kessler...and that's about it. Jones was so shot, it's not worth discussing. I think he can qualify for HOF, but I can't call him an ATG. Jermain Taylor officially beat Hopkins twice, would people be calling him an ATG if he retired shortly after? I doubt it.


----------



## Jimbob (May 26, 2013)

I've never got Calzaghe fans, the guy said he didn't want tough fights, said he knew his limitations and said that we wasn't chasing Roy Jones (when it mattered), what more needs to be said?

Good fighter but no ATG, people simply get dazzled by the '0'.


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> I didn't score the Hopkins fight for him but he did make it a competitive affair in which he got the decision. After that, he has Kessler...and that's about it. Jones was so shot, it's not worth discussing. I think he can qualify for HOF, but I can't call him an ATG. Jermain Taylor officially beat Hopkins twice, would people be calling him an ATG if he retired shortly after? I doubt it.





J.R. said:


> Great fighter. That was evident. How great he was we'll never know. A lack of top notch competition and a few ducks are the main contributors.
> 
> His win over Hops looks better and better every day... I'll give him that.




I'm sort of stuck in between these two opinions. He's a lock for the Hall at the very least.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

O59 said:


> I'm sort of stuck in between these two opinions. He's a lock for the Hall at the very least. [/COLOR]


It's simple really, I can think of at least 100 fighters with a better resume (not that I'm strict about top 100's being the exclusive ATG list but it's a good reference point). Some who aren't even ATG's. I'd say Miguel Cotto has a win over a faded ATG himself in Mosley and a much much deeper array of wins over 3 weight classes. He's not considered an ATG. Ken Norton beat Ali, Junior Jones beat Barrera. Not ATG's. You need some sort of depth to back it up and he doesn't have it IMO.


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> It's simple really, I can think of at least 100 fighters with a better resume (not that I'm strict about top 100's being the exclusive ATG list but it's a good reference point). Some who aren't even ATG's. I'd say Miguel Cotto has a win over a faded ATG himself in Mosley and a much much deeper array of wins over 3 weight classes. He's not considered an ATG. Ken Norton beat Ali, Junior Jones beat Barrera. Not ATG's. You need some sort of depth to back it up and he doesn't have it IMO.


I think by definition any fighter who's in the top 100 is an ATG, but not every ATG is in the top 100.

Calzaghe gets by on these sort of discussions based almost solely on title defenses and consistency. To be fair, he does have two very impressive wins against a prime, undefeated Kessler and Bernard Hopkins, who despite his advanced age did go on to continuously win fights and is still a top light-heavyweight years later.

Obviously it's not jaw-dropping, amazing stuff, but he was at the worst a highly dominant champion in a so-so era. If he had beaten a younger Roy (he wouldn't have) it gets more difficult to place him.

Norton did beat Ali and Jones did beat Barrera, but Ken (R.I.P.) also got handled by Gerry Cooney and Jones TKO'd by Kennedy McKinney. Calzaghe doesn't have any stand-out victories but he was consistent almost every time. Probably not a great but a definite Hall of Fame type-guy. Which is an incredible achievement. I mean, how much worse is he than lower-tier greats like Shane Mosley?


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

O59 said:


> I think by definition any fighter who's in the top 100 is an ATG, but not every ATG is in the top 100.
> 
> Calzaghe gets by on these sort of discussions based almost solely on title defenses and consistency. To be fair, he does have two very impressive wins against a prime, undefeated Kessler and Bernard Hopkins, who despite his advanced age did go on to continuously win fights and is still a top light-heavyweight years later.
> 
> ...


I agree with your posts in general, but for me consistency is contingent among top-tier opponents. Consistency alone can't get you points. So he gets credit for showing up every time out against Lacy, RJJ, Hopkins, Kessler, but it stops there.

On the bold, Mosley beat a prime Oscar De La Hoya, Philip Holiday, Antonio Margarito, Mayorga, Vargas, Collazo, Johnson,Leija...that's one very accomplished prime ATG, a few possible Hall of Famers, and numerous top-tier champions & contenders. The eventual losses he picked up were due to a willingness to take risks Calzaghe never bothered with.

So for me, HOF. It's a thin red line that puts some into deserving ATG rankings, but in my opinion Joe never crossed it.


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> I agree with your posts in general, but for me consistency is contingent among top-tier opponents. Consistency alone can't get you points. So he gets credit for showing up every time out against Lacy, RJJ, Hopkins, Kessler, but it stops there.


Yes, I agree. Consistency against decent, solid guys and one or two outstanding opponents doesn't make you a genuinely great fighter. I'm just saying the argument for him being an ATG (which I wouldn't subscribe to) lies in his dominance and consistency. I do think, by the way, that a guy who goes, say, 50-0 against solid contenders and a few top-flight fighters has an argument over a guy who went 30-5 with more wins against top opposition.

Obviously each case is different and it's not clear-cut, but consistency alone does get you points, IMO. It's understated how difficult it is to time and time again be the winner against world-rated fighters. Even when you have little niggling injuries or problems and can still do your job each time out adds to that.

Sort of why Roman Gonzalez would be up above, say, Juan Francisco Estrada, though various other factors are included in that ranking, not least of which is Estrada's loss to Roman. But now I'm rambling....



> On the bold, Mosley beat a prime Oscar De La Hoya, Philip Holiday, Antonio Margarito, Mayorga, Vargas, Collazo, Johnson,Leija...that's one very accomplished prime ATG, a few possible Hall of Famers, and numerous top-tier champions & contenders. The eventual losses he picked up were due to a willingness to take risks Calzaghe never bothered with.


He is very accomplished indeed. He has the best victory between the two in beating De La Hoya, and his destruction of Margarito was astounding, a Margarito who had just trounced borderline P4P talent Miguel Cotto. The DLH win was better than Calzaghe's Hopkins win by a fair margin but Shane's other defining victory isn't a huge amount better than Calzaghe over Kessler.

This is all subjective but Calzaghe-Kessler was hugely important, an already slightly faded Joe unifying the division and beating a 39-0, primed champ. Add in wins over Eubank, Bika, Lacy, Veit x2, Brewer, Woodhall, Reid, etc. The two aren't oceans apart if you get me. Difference is Shane is a great and Calzaghe isn't for reasons already mentioned. Both were successful in two weight-divisions, both were highly dominant in their prime, except one did a bit better versus better opponents.



> So for me, HOF. It's a thin red line that puts some into deserving ATG rankings, but in my opinion Joe never crossed it.


I don't really treat the Hall as a cut-and-dry measuring stick for greatness. I don't think Joe crossed it either, but there is an argument, and I know knowledgeable people who would argue that. I'm not one of them, but it's an interesting topic.


----------



## raymann (Jul 6, 2012)

the thing is he could have fought toney and rjj back in 02 or 03 or whatever or moved up to lhw earlier to cement his legacy. he had the skills to do both. thats what does me with him, what he could have done (or tried to) if he had wanted. i think a more adventurous cv with the odd loss would look so much better than his current carefully planned one. that said his wins against kess and bhop were top draw.

great athlete though and a supreme talent.


----------



## G-fellaaaaa (Jul 31, 2012)

Cast iron ATG.


----------



## JeffJoiner (Jun 5, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> I agree with your posts in general, but for me consistency is contingent among top-tier opponents. Consistency alone can't get you points. So he gets credit for showing up every time out against Lacy, RJJ, Hopkins, Kessler, but it stops there.
> 
> On the bold, Mosley beat a prime Oscar De La Hoya, Philip Holiday, Antonio Margarito, Mayorga, Vargas, Collazo, Johnson,Leija...that's one very accomplished prime ATG, a few possible Hall of Famers, and numerous top-tier champions & contenders. The eventual losses he picked up were due to a willingness to take risks Calzaghe never bothered with.
> 
> So for me, HOF. It's a thin red line that puts some into deserving ATG rankings, but in my opinion Joe never crossed it.


Consistency means nothing when the competition is weak. Two wins over Mario Veit shouldn't get a guy bonus points. While Joe avoided the best his generation had to offer, Mosley faced Oscar, Forrest, and Cotto at higher weights than he started his career. There's no comparison between the two.

Nobody bases JCC's HOF bid on the number of cab drivers he beat. They talk about his great win over Taylor and other big fights. Joe doesn't have that.


----------



## rjjfan (May 17, 2013)

Bailey, we are patiently waiting for your 300 page dissertation......


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

JeffJoiner said:


> Consistency means nothing when the competition is weak. Two wins over Mario Veit shouldn't get a guy bonus points. While Joe avoided the best his generation had to offer, Mosley faced Oscar, Forrest, and Cotto at higher weights than he started his career. There's no comparison between the two.
> 
> Nobody bases JCC's HOF bid on the number of cab drivers he beat. They talk about his great win over Taylor and other big fights. Joe doesn't have that.


Consistency does mean something when you're constantly beating solid fighters. It doesn't translate to greatness when you're not fighting great fighters, but being unbeaten in a 40+ fight career is an excellent thing to do. Again, it doesn't make him an ATG on its own.

I don't see Joe as a *great *fighter but a very good one. Going 46-0 at a good level takes something that a lot of guys don't have. Most of his opponents were relatively average at a championship level, but he beat all of them without any major hiccups and had two or three quality wins.


----------



## Jimbob (May 26, 2013)

O59 said:


> Consistency does mean something when you're constantly beating solid fighters. It doesn't translate to greatness by default but going undefeated in a 40+ fight career, beating Kessler, Hopkins, Lacy, Brewer and Eubank during that career is impressive.
> 
> I don't see Joe as a *great *fighter but a very good one. Going 46-0 at a good level takes something that a lot of guys don't have. Most of his opponents were relatively average for a world champion, but he had his moments. The Hopkins and Kessler wins are impressive.


Artur Grigorian had a similar WBO run to Calzaghe in terms of number of defenses and number of years as champ, it really doesn't mean much. Obviously Calzaghe is better than Grigorian but for me people over state his WBO run, it really was pretty weak.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

O59 said:


> Yes, I agree. Consistency against decent, solid guys and one or two outstanding opponents doesn't make you a genuinely great fighter. I'm just saying the argument for him being an ATG (which I wouldn't subscribe to) lies in his dominance and consistency. *I do think, by the way, that a guy who goes, say, 50-0 against solid contenders and a few top-flight fighters has an argument over a guy who went 30-5 with more wins against top opposition.*
> 
> Obviously each case is different and it's not clear-cut, but consistency alone does get you points, IMO. It's understated how difficult it is to time and time again be the winner against world-rated fighters. Even when you have little niggling injuries or problems and can still do your job each time out adds to that.
> 
> ...


I have to disagree with the bold, showing up is all well and good, but it's easier to show up consistently against lesser opposition. What you just outlined was an argument that Mayweather is greater than Leonard (bleeh!)

When you consistently face top competition, it adds to it. Calzaghe's competition wasn't completely dire so it enhances it, but simply not enough to tip the scale. But you seem to agree with that so it's all good. As you say, consistency doesn't define greatness but it does impress. Very good, not great.


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

Jimbob said:


> Artur Grigorian had a similar WBO run to Calzaghe in terms of number of defenses and number of years as champ, it really doesn't mean much. Obviously Calzaghe is better than Grigorian but for me people over state his WBO run, it really was pretty weak.


I'm not saying it wasn't weak. It was littered with too many Pudwill and Thornberry types. But Griogrian's run was even worse, he lost during it and his level of opposition was markedly lower almost each time out than Calzaghe. I don't recognize a single name on his win column, the two are only the same in the fact they both held a title and made a string of defenses.


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> I have to disagree with the bold, showing up is all well and good, but it's easier to show up consistently against lesser opposition. What you just outlined was an argument that Mayweather is greater than Leonard (bleeh!)
> 
> When you consistently face top competition, it adds to it. Calzaghe's competition wasn't completely dire so it enhances it, but simply not enough to tip the scale. But you seem to agree with that so it's all good. As you say, consistency doesn't define greatness but it does impress. Very good, not great.


I mentioned afterward that each case is different though, plenty of different variables in each discussion. Rather than Mayweather-Leonard, treat it like Calzaghe-Tyson. I'd have Mike comfortably above Calzaghe but I've seen a few guys who know plenty more than I do argue the opposite. SRL didn't just have a few better wins against top opposition, he has probably the best top-five victories in the entire sport, y'know? :deal


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

O59 said:


> I'm not saying it wasn't weak. It was littered with too many Pudwill and Thornberry types. But Griogrian's run was even worse, he lost during it and his level of opposition was markedly lower almost each time out than Calzaghe. I don't recognize a single name on his win column, the two are only the same in the fact they both held a title and made a string of defenses.


Hopkins, Kessler, Reid, Lacy, Eubank

Bika, Sheika, Mitchell, Brewer, Manfredo

Was a champ for a longggg time. I think he should be a top 150 HOF'er. Just because he didn't beat a peak Roy Jones shouldn't be held against him. Does that make him an ATG? it's very debateable seeing arguments in the thread. I do. He beat an ATG and overcame the odds in the Lacy bout and unified with Kessler.


----------



## Masters (May 20, 2013)

Nah.

Coasted along and played it safe his whole career while avoinding every available challenge. The man even admitted he didn't want hard fights.

He was a great Welsh fighter.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

O59 said:


> I mentioned afterward that each case is different though, plenty of different variables in each discussion. Rather than Mayweather-Leonard, treat it like Calzaghe-Tyson. I'd have Mike comfortably above Calzaghe *but I've seen a few guys who know plenty more than I do argue the opposite.* SRL didn't just have a few better wins against top opposition, he has probably the best top-five victories in the entire sport, y'know? :deal


uke


----------



## Jimbob (May 26, 2013)

rjjfan said:


> Bailey, we are patiently waiting for your 300 page dissertation......


:rofl

Please no, it makes a change to see a sensible debate about Calzaghe for a change.


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> uke


It was in a thread on ESB, the massive top 100 Classic Forum thing, I can't remember who made the case but it was a massively knowledgeable poster.

Tyson looks ridiculously better on film and his top-two wins aren't much better than Calzaghe's, though he was stupidly more impressive in them.

I don't agree with it but it does show that Calzaghe is in and around the top 150, as @turbotime mentioned. It seems we don't see eye to eye on the Welsh Dragon.


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

turbotime said:


> Hopkins, Kessler, Reid, Lacy, Eubank
> 
> Bika, Sheika, Mitchell, Brewer, Manfredo
> 
> Was a champ for a longggg time. I think he should be a top 150 HOF'er. Just because he didn't beat a peak Roy Jones shouldn't be held against him. Does that make him an ATG? it's very debateable seeing arguments in the thread. I do. He beat an ATG and overcame the odds in the Lacy bout and unified with Kessler.


Good post.

It isn't amazing or stand-out but it's not bad, either. He's _just_ on the line.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Yup I remember it in the top 100 classic forum too, when we went on for the top 120 or so after. @059 and that win over Lacy was massive when it happened, so many were picking Lacy by KO or by bad beating. Joe fought his ass off and really ruined him.


----------



## Jimbob (May 26, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Yup I remember it in the top 100 classic forum too, when we went on for the top 120 or so after. @059 and that win over Lacy was massive when it happened, so many were picking Lacy by KO or by bad beating. Joe fought his ass off and really ruined him.


I agree with this and whilst in reality and with hindsight, Lacy was never that good but the manner of the victory and Joe's performance was something that not many other fighters could pull off, regardless of Lacy's limitations.


----------



## Brnxhands (Jun 11, 2013)

Calzaghe is underrated. Question but who the fuck did bernard beat at middleweight that was such a atg? His best win is johnson.His resume is butt at the weight since you wanna say joe beat nobody. Howard eastman, two fights with antwun echols lol, robert allen. Im blown away... Bhop is a great for me because of his combinaton of his success across two divisions. The win over tarver is one of the best in boxing in years, an that was very close to the joe fight. Joe beat hopkins. I love how people say hops was so washed up when using the joe fight yet he is still a belt holder 5 years later lol.


----------



## Brnxhands (Jun 11, 2013)

Yes they were. Most everybody i knew said lacy was going to expose joe, an saying joe is only a "euro" level talent waiting to be exposed. Lacy was a decent belt holder, he got beaten so damn bad an ruined


turbotime said:


> Yup I remember it in the top 100 classic forum too, when we went on for the top 120 or so after. @059 and that win over Lacy was massive when it happened, so many were picking Lacy by KO or by bad beating. Joe fought his ass off and really ruined him.


----------



## PowerBack (Jun 4, 2013)

I think it is on the fence.. I am tempted to say yes he is. Kessler(prime) and Hopkins are two pretty good top wins, along with wins over a host of capable contenders during a very long reign.
Longevity combined with a few great wins does it for him.


----------



## JeffJoiner (Jun 5, 2013)

rjjfan said:


> Bailey, we are patiently waiting for your 300 page dissertation......


:rofl:happy
Notice how much better the exchange of ideas is without him? Such a better world.


----------



## Masters (May 20, 2013)

Hopkins longevity along with his skills makes him an ATG. If he retired at 36 after beating Trinidad he wouldn't have any relavance in boxing history.

When Joe reached the weight he was meant to fight at since his early 30's , he fought two past prime fighters and threw in the towel. He could of hung around to try capture an ABC belt and become a legit two weight champ , but he didn't take the risk.
Some people may think thats the career of one of the greatest fighters who ever lived. I don't.


----------



## JeffJoiner (Jun 5, 2013)

O59 said:


> Consistency does mean something when you're constantly beating solid fighters. It doesn't translate to greatness when you're not fighting great fighters, but being unbeaten in a 40+ fight career is an excellent thing to do. Again, it doesn't make him an ATG on its own.
> 
> I don't see Joe as a *great *fighter but a very good one. Going 46-0 at a good level takes something that a lot of guys don't have. Most of his opponents were relatively average at a championship level, but he beat all of them without any major hiccups and had two or three quality wins.


I compare him to my college buddy who consistently bagged fat chicks and occasionally dated a cute girl. He was a bit of a joke, but he took himself for a true ladies man.


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

JeffJoiner said:


> I compare him to my college buddy who consistently bagged fat chicks and occasionally dated a cute girl. He was a bit of a joke, but he took himself for a true ladies man.


:lol:


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

O59 said:


> It was in a thread on ESB, the massive top 100 Classic Forum thing, I can't remember who made the case but it was a massively knowledgeable poster.
> 
> Tyson looks ridiculously better on film and his top-two wins aren't much better than Calzaghe's, though he was stupidly more impressive in them.
> 
> I don't agree with it but it does show that *Calzaghe is in and around the top 150*, as @turbotime mentioned. It seems we don't see eye to eye on the Welsh Dragon.


That's fair.


----------



## rjjfan (May 17, 2013)

Jimbob said:


> :rofl
> 
> Please no, it makes a change to see a sensible debate about Calzaghe for a change.





JeffJoiner said:


> :rofl:happy
> Notice how much better the exchange of ideas is without him? Such a better world.


Sometimes I miss him. I suspect he was trolling but its hard to tell with him.

In all honesty, for all the reasons posted by you and others, I cannot put him as a ATG because his resume other than Lacey, RJJ and Hoppo is quite lacking. But to be fair, the 168lb division had only 2 fighters who reigned supreme, so Joe must be given credit for rising so high. H2H he's definitely a worthy opponent.


----------



## Leftsmash (Oct 22, 2012)

Maybe a HOF but definitely not an ATG. As Joiner said, a man who admitted he didn't want tought fights and only went to the states at the end of his career and ended it fighting a shot to shit Roy Jones barely scraped in the HOF. Solid fighter but definitely isn't ATG.

I scored Hopkins vs Calzaghe a draw at the time though but leaning towards Hopkins.


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Jimbob said:


> ...people simply get dazzled by the '0'.


Seems to be a common trend around here lately. :smile


----------



## Lester1583 (Jun 30, 2012)

O59 said:


> But Griogrian's run was even worse, he lost during it


To be fair, by the time he lost to Freitas Grigorian was an old inactive fighter at the very end of his career, ruined by multiple injuries and way past his prime.


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

Leftsmash said:


> Maybe a HOF but definitely not an ATG. As Joiner said, a man who admitted he didn't want tought fights and only went to the states at the end of his career and ended it fighting a shot to shit Roy Jones barely scraped in the HOF. Solid fighter but definitely isn't ATG.
> 
> I scored Hopkins vs Calzaghe a draw at the time though but leaning towards Hopkins.


 definitely. I think calzaghe fought for money instead of any legacy


----------



## knockout artist (Jun 5, 2013)

Illuminaughty said:


> definitely. I think calzaghe fought for money instead of any legacy


Legacy don't pay the bills...

In all honesty, I don't understand this post, what boxer fights for legacy???


----------



## Emeritus (Jun 9, 2013)

Hmmm he's not to me, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I think he was definitely talented but his resume is incredibly weak with a controversial win over Hopkins and his best win was Kessler.

Wish he had of challenged himself more, I respect Hatton & even Khan more at least they fought the best opposition even if they did get iced.


----------



## Arran (Jun 21, 2012)

Emeritus said:


> Hmmm he's not to me, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
> 
> I think he was definitely talented but his resume is incredibly weak with a controversial win over Hopkins and his best win was Kessler.
> 
> Wish he had of challenged himself more, I respect Hatton & even Khan more at least they fought the best opposition even if they did get iced.


how was his win over hopkinds controversial? he went to hopkins country and made hopkins beg by cheating, faking and everything else not to get beat by a white boy


----------



## Emeritus (Jun 9, 2013)

Arran said:


> how was his win over hopkinds controversial? he went to hopkins country and made hopkins beg by cheating, faking and everything else not to get beat by a white boy


I'm not too bothered by Hopkins antics/comments before the fight however stupid.

I was bothered by the result and clearly so were a lot of other people who didn't think Joe won.

I would have liked to have seen a rematch to be honest.


----------



## Arran (Jun 21, 2012)

emeritus said:


> i'm not too bothered by hopkins antics/comments before the fight however stupid.
> 
> I was bothered by the result and clearly so were a lot of other people who didn't think joe won.
> 
> I would have liked to have seen a rematch to be honest.


hopkins was faking low blows and begging the ref for extra time...we all know who won.


----------



## Emeritus (Jun 9, 2013)

Arran said:


> hopkins was faking low blows and begging the ref for extra time...we all know who won.


Yep Hopkins was Hopkins but he still landed the cleaner more effective punches and won IMO.

Anyway I'm not sure why you are acting surprised it's not like I'm the only person who thought Hopkins won, ALOT of people did.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

I thought Joe won 8-4


----------



## megavolt (Jun 5, 2013)

oh lord...


----------



## EngorgedW/Blood (Jun 5, 2013)

2003 after Jones fought Ruiz:

"I could probably give Jones a tough fight, probably the best fight he's ever had," said Calzaghe. "*But I know my capabilities* and unless I got paid the crown jewels* I wouldn't want to risk it.*"

LOL, ATG my ass.


----------



## JMP (Jun 3, 2013)

Calzaghe was supremely talented and a fun fighter to watch, but he fell short of all-time greatness. Well short.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

He's definitely an ATG! I'd probably have him around 130th as a random guess. He was that good.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

O59 said:


> It was in a thread on ESB, the massive top 100 Classic Forum thing, I can't remember who made the case but it was a massively knowledgeable poster.
> 
> Tyson looks ridiculously better on film and his top-two wins aren't much better than Calzaghe's, though he was stupidly more impressive in them.
> 
> I don't agree with it but it does show that Calzaghe is in and around the top 150, as @turbotime mentioned. It seems we don't see eye to eye on the Welsh Dragon.


Yup. Great memories with that Top 100 list


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Yup. Great memories with that Top 100 list


Greatest thread ever.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

O59 said:


> Greatest thread ever.


:cry


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

O59 said:


> Greatest thread ever.


Something like that was the reason why I joined a boxing forum in the first place. Was nice to have made contribution. I've been engaged in pretty fun things over the past year since joining ESB/CHB: That top 100 thread, learned a lot about the 60's bantam era, unleashing '_Fuck The Judges_' and now Loma hype. 
Hope there's another great thread like Top 100 that I can learn from...that's kinda what I crave each time I get on this site.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

:cheers@O59 aka Orriray lol @turbotime...was a pleasure.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> :cheers@O59 aka Orriray lol @turbotime...was a pleasure.


O getting wiped out was a fucking travesty :-(


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

Same to you, Gaul. :good


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

turbotime said:


> O getting wiped out was a fucking travesty :-(


:lol: It was very strange. I had like 200 fuckin' posts in that thread. :rofl I don't care much about the rest of the forum stuff but that thread was a goldmine of info. Still is but :-(


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

I think I had around 75-100 posts on that thread. Don't really remember. I'm going to try and bring that in more of my posts now as I really want to learn more..otherwise my posts will just be passive and I won't be developing my passion for boxing as much, just discussing the 'goings on' and enjoying my current but relatively stagnated levels of understanding etc.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> O getting wiped out was a fucking travesty :-(


What do you mean it was wiped out? I checked now..it has 232 pages lol...or did it have more than that?


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

knockout artist said:


> Legacy don't pay the bills...
> 
> In all honesty, I don't understand this post, what boxer fights for legacy???


 okay, how about career defining fights?


----------



## Mal (Aug 25, 2013)

His string of title defenses, while being his strong argument on being an atg, looks to be a matter of quantity over quality. It's not especially impressive by the fighters he beat, and only looks worse when one considers there was another sprmw (Ottke) making a similar string of defenses. That is not something one should overlook. He'll likely get into the hof, but I wouldn't call him an Atg.


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

JeffJoiner said:


> I'll never consider a man who said things like "I'm not looking for tough fights" and "I know my limitations" as anything approaching an ATG.
> 
> He has one solid win (Kessler) and *the biggest joke reel of alleged KO stoppages ever assembled*.


:rofl :rofl


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

MadcapMaxie said:


> :rofl :rofl


 why do you think he's wrong?


----------



## Theron (May 17, 2013)

Neh


----------



## Stone Rose (Jul 15, 2013)

Definately a British Boxing great , and one of the best 20 fighters of the last 20 years. Whetehr that makes him an ATG i dont know.


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

Stone Rose said:


> Definately a British Boxing great , and one of the best 20 fighters of the last 20 years. Whetehr that makes him an ATG i dont know.


 I think this is a good assessment


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

Illuminaughty said:


> why do you think he's wrong?


Nope. He's spot on with that comment. I do consider him a very good fighter but to call him Great would be pushing it...a lot.






:rofl


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

MadcapMaxie said:


> Nope. He's spot on with that comment. I do consider him a very good fighter but to call him Great would be pushing it...a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 but isn't a fighter judged on who he fought and when?


----------



## DOM5153 (May 16, 2013)

The lack of depth in his resume hurts him bad, probably just outside the top100.


----------



## Stone Rose (Jul 15, 2013)

DOM5153 said:


> The lack of depth in his resume hurts him bad, probably just outside the top100.


Yeah about that, which isn't a bad place to be.


----------



## knockout artist (Jun 5, 2013)

Illuminaughty said:


> okay, how about career defining fights?


He had career defining fights

Hopkins is probably the best LHW in the world today, Joe beat him 6 years ago in Hopkins country. That is career defining to me


----------



## DOM5153 (May 16, 2013)

Stone Rose said:


> Yeah about that, which isn't a bad place to be.


Exactly, he's pretty well thought of considering his resume is clearly lacking, its the delusional few that turn the majority of people against Joe and that's a shame really.


----------



## Stone Rose (Jul 15, 2013)

knockout artist said:


> He had career defining fights
> 
> Hopkins is probably the best LHW in the world today, Joe beat him 6 years ago in Hopkins country. That is career defining to me


Yeah and Kessler was a top win. Lacy was a career defining performance if not fight, he was amazing that night i dont care what anyone says.


----------



## Eoghan (Jun 6, 2013)

JeffJoiner said:


> I compare him to my college buddy who consistently bagged fat chicks and occasionally dated a cute girl. He was a bit of a joke, but he took himself for a true ladies man.


Wow, a lot of your analogies are about pulling birds, aren't they!

TBH, it's too easy to shit on Joe's resume, APART from a peak Jones and Hopkins (of whom he beat a very respectable and difficult to beat version who would still go on to become the legit 175 champion), he faced pretty much everyone (dare I mention Sven Ottke?) who was relevant in the super-middleweight division. If you look at how he beat his opposition, he was dominant against most of them, but he did get put on his arse a few times. Sure-fire HoF, but a general rule of thumb is if you have to debate whether somebody is an ATG, they generally aren't, even if they are a particularly polarising fighter like Joe or Wlad. I have him about top 150 ATG, but wouldn't argue too much if you squeak him above that kind of range


----------



## Eoghan (Jun 6, 2013)

Mal said:


> His string of title defenses, while being his strong argument on being an atg, looks to be a matter of quantity over quality. It's not especially impressive by the fighters he beat, and only looks worse when one considers there was another sprmw (*Ottke) making a similar string of defenses*. That is not something one should overlook. He'll likely get into the hof, but I wouldn't call him an Atg.


I don't like this argument, mainly because Calzaghe beat them in a better manner


----------



## Mal (Aug 25, 2013)

Eoghan said:


> I don't like this argument, mainly because Calzaghe beat them in a better manner


Beat which ones in a better manner? Not that it matters, because that's just down to styles. Both beat Byron Mitchell, Calzaghe by stoppage, Ottke by decision. But Calzaghe's stoppage of Mitchell has been seen a somewhat premature by some. A whole lotta swinging and missing before the ref jumped in. And I know Ottke has his fair share of dubious decisions as well (Mitchell for example). I think Robin Reid got the shaft against both guys to be honest (although it's been AGES since I saw those fights).

But back on point, beating the few common opponents better (subjective for the most part), IMHO, really has no bearing on what makes one greater then the other. But my point was, *we had two guys doing the same thing, at the same time, making a lengthy list of title defenses. And something like that reflects somewhat poorly on BOTH guys line of defenses.* I've always been a fan of Joe Calzaghe for a long time, and prefer him much more to Ottke. But one thing is undeniable, two guys doing that at the same time is just not good. You can't have two guys calling themselves the champ, in the same division, at the same time, racking up a string like that. Makes a mockery of the term "Champion." Just my opinion anyway.


----------



## Eoghan (Jun 6, 2013)

Mal said:


> Beat which ones in a better manner? Not that it matters, because that's just down to styles. Both beat Byron Mitchell, Calzaghe by stoppage, Ottke by decision. But Calzaghe's stoppage of Mitchell has been seen a somewhat premature by some. A whole lotta swinging and missing before the ref jumped in. And I know Ottke has his fair share of dubious decisions as well (Mitchell for example). I think Robin Reid got the shaft against both guys to be honest (although it's been AGES since I saw those fights).
> 
> But back on point, beating the few common opponents better (subjective for the most part), IMHO, really has no bearing on what makes one greater then the other. But my point was, *we had two guys doing the same thing, at the same time, making a lengthy list of title defenses. And something like that reflects somewhat poorly on BOTH guys line of defenses.* I've always been a fan of Joe Calzaghe for a long time, and prefer him much more to Ottke. But one thing is undeniable, two guys doing that at the same time is just not good. You can't have two guys calling themselves the champ, in the same division, at the same time, racking up a string like that. Makes a mockery of the term "Champion." Just my opinion anyway.


Reid was robbed in Germany, the fight with Calzaghe was close IMO (crazy cards for me). I know Pudwill was not world class, but Joe dealt with him a lot better, Brewer as well. There is that question mark against the Mitchell one for sure, but at the same time, if there are numerous examples such as these, regardless of styles
I think it reflects badly on the two of them (why did they not fight? Calzaghe gets a reputation for staying at home, but he had his share of travelling in his career, he went out to Germany, if need be, they could have done it there), and the governing bodies even more so, in a more ideal world, they'd have pushed for this fight to happen. In terms of quality of opposition, they are underrated, it's become too easy to shit on their resumes because the Hopkins and Jones fights didn't happen until later (for Joe) and Ottke was involved in a few 'close-calls' and only once traveled outside Germany for a pro fight... to Austria (ROAD WARRIOR!!!)


----------



## Mal (Aug 25, 2013)

Eoghan said:


> Reid was robbed in Germany, the fight with Calzaghe was close IMO (crazy cards for me). I know Pudwill was not world class, but Joe dealt with him a lot better, Brewer as well. There is that question mark against the Mitchell one for sure, but at the same time, if there are numerous examples such as these, regardless of styles
> I think it reflects badly on the two of them (why did they not fight? Calzaghe gets a reputation for staying at home, but he had his share of travelling in his career, he went out to Germany, if need be, they could have done it there), and the governing bodies even more so, in a more ideal world, they'd have pushed for this fight to happen. In terms of quality of opposition, they are underrated, it's become too easy to shit on their resumes because the Hopkins and Jones fights didn't happen until later (for Joe) and Ottke was involved in a few 'close-calls' and only once traveled outside Germany for a pro fight... to Austria (ROAD WARRIOR!!!)


I know Ottke gets a lot of hate for is dodgy decisions, but one cannot deny the guy could box. Why they did not fight, for starters (and all this is just my guessing and opinion), Calzaghe held the WBO belt. And from from it's inception, until Oscar Dela Hoya money came in vs. Hopkins, the WBO just did not allow it to be unified with any other belt. The WBO had been seen as a minor league belt, or stepping stone belt, for a long time. Definitely above belts like say....The WBC North Atlantic title (if that's even a real belt :smile). But while some very good fighters held a WBO belt early on, it never gained any real clout until perhaps the last 5-7 years. So that's part of the reason. Also, I don't think Ottke had any intention of leaving Germany, especially to face someone as good as Calzaghe. Ottke was a huge money maker in Germany (Don't know why to be honest), and if I had to make a guess, just didn't care to leave his back yard, as you noted, which Calzaghe had done before. I get the feeling they were both fine doing their own things. But if i had to assign a percentage of blame as to why they never fought, it would be 65-35 Ottke's management.


----------



## Little-Red (Jun 6, 2013)

I think the view of history on this thread may be a bit too narrow. Calling Joe an All Time Great means comparing him to every fighter who ever fought at any point in history. That would be a monumental task, so let's narrow it down to guys around Joe's weight. Since the IBF first inaugurated the super middleweight division in 1984, and Joe finished his career at 175, let's start with Billy Conn. A 175 pound Conn came within 6 minutes of beating Louis. Now, try to imagine Joe Calzaghe in the ring with Joe Louis:huh Next, try to imagine Joe in the ring with a peak Michael Spinks, or Joe waging war against Dwight Mohammed Quai. :-( Now that we looked at a few naturally bigger guys, let's look at a naturally smaller man. Ask yourself, how would Joe fair against the version of Tommy Hearns that out boxed Virgil Hill? Slappy Joe was one helluva a fighter who made a ton of money and had a very good career, but calling him an all time great is muddle headed.


----------



## JeffJoiner (Jun 5, 2013)

Eoghan said:


> Wow, a lot of your analogies are about pulling birds, aren't they!
> 
> TBH, it's too easy to shit on Joe's resume, APART from a peak Jones and Hopkins (of whom he beat a very respectable and difficult to beat version who would still go on to become the legit 175 champion), he faced pretty much everyone (dare I mention Sven Ottke?) who was relevant in the super-middleweight division. If you look at how he beat his opposition, he was dominant against most of them, but he did get put on his arse a few times. Sure-fire HoF, *but a general rule of thumb is if you have to debate whether somebody is an ATG, they generally aren't*, even if they are a particularly polarising fighter like Joe or Wlad. I have him about top 150 ATG, but wouldn't argue too much if you squeak him above that kind of range


Those are my only two bird analogies, I think. But I couldn't agree with the bold part more. Every year I hear debates about whether certain guys belong in the baseball Hall of Fame, and that is my reply. If you have to ask, you already know the answer.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

@JeffJoiner you appear very hard on Sir Joe. The guy was always in shape and ready to fight and 168 was his fighting weight?

So what he didn't move up and chase Jones fucking Jr? Everyone and their mom was picking Lacy by brutal KO and it looked like Pac/Margarito.


----------



## JeffJoiner (Jun 5, 2013)

turbotime said:


> @*JeffJoiner* you appear very hard on Sir Joe. The guy was always in shape and ready to fight and 168 was his fighting weight?
> 
> So what he didn't move up and chase Jones fucking Jr? Everyone and their mom was picking Lacy by brutal KO and it looked like Pac/Margarito.


I just can't forgive the guy for "I'm not looking for tough fights" and "I know my limitations" while his fans try to preach he was a world beater. When the fighter himself admits he's looking for soft touches then rematches Viet, and wins with a literally laughable "KO" he's a joke. I'll never discredit his one A level win over Kessler and admit that his win over Hopkins looks better now than it did at the time.

But nobody with a joke reel of KO's, who spoke "I know my limitations" and has a delusional fan base like Joe's will ever get much credit in my eyes.


----------



## Snakefist (Oct 22, 2012)

knockout artist said:


> He had career defining fights
> 
> Hopkins is probably the best LHW in the world today, Joe beat him 6 years ago in Hopkins country. That is career defining to me


I dont think Hopkins probably being best LHW in the world today is a achievement given the talent level of these guys nowadays. Hopkins picks his fights well too, he always picks 1 dimensional guys he can look good against, guys who typically are in love with their power and not very dynamic, when you break it down. But he loses to all the dynamic guys, as he is well past it -- he loss to Dawson, would lose to Ward, would lose to Froch, loss to Pascal for crying out loud, even if he got him in the rematch. When you compare Stevensons win over Cloud to Hopkins, it tells the story. Hopkins is well past his prime, and he was past his prime 6 years, hopkins is just so damn crafty and physically, is a phenomenon. I would hardly call Calzaghe's win over Hopkins that great anyways, it wasn't a dominate win, he arguably loss. That is the only great win of his career, and it came against a old hopkins.

His career defining win was vs Lacy... even if Lacy turned out to not really be that great, it's not Calzage's fault - he just utterly destroyed him... and perhaps ruined him, although Lacy did nothing to deserve such hype.


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

knockout artist said:


> He had career defining fights
> 
> Hopkins is probably the best LHW in the world today, Joe beat him 6 years ago in Hopkins country. That is career defining to me


 I think it's his best win - better than Kessler even though Kessler was in his prime and Hopkins was in his 40s. career defining for me would be if calzaghe fought either Hopkins or jones when they were also in their prime, instead of waiting until they weren't anymore


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

turbotime said:


> @*JeffJoiner* you appear very hard on Sir Joe. The guy was always in shape and ready to fight and 168 was his fighting weight?
> 
> So what he didn't move up and chase Jones fucking Jr? Everyone and their mom was picking Lacy by brutal KO and it looked like Pac/Margarito.


 but calzaghe use to call out jones and Hopkins from wales. he just did nothing about it. did nothing until they wre in their 40's and been beaten by someone willing to fight them while they were on top


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Illuminaughty said:


> but calzaghe use to call out jones and Hopkins from wales. he just did nothing about it. did nothing until they wre in their 40's and been beaten by someone willing to fight them while they were on top


To be fair, Hopkins didn't want to fight Jones while Jones was on top either.


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

turbotime said:


> To be fair, Hopkins didn't want to fight Jones while Jones was on top either.


 I don't really know much about that. but I guess the difference is that, while calzaghe didn't want to get his name made in the US, big fights were never going to come to him


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Illuminaughty said:


> I don't really know much about that. but I guess the difference is that, while calzaghe didn't want to get his name made in the US, big fights were never going to come to him


Joe kind of did fight Hopkins while Hops was on top. Hopkins was the champion at light heavyweight, and still a top guy today.


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Joe kind of did fight Hopkins while Hops was on top. Hopkins was the champion at light heavyweight, and still a top guy today.


 yes. I think its amazing to see Hopkins still on top. that win was a good one, but calzaghe waiting until Hopkins and jones were in their 40's and beaten by someone else is pretty much in keeping with how he ran his career


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Illuminaughty said:


> yes. I think its amazing to see Hopkins still on top. that win was a good one, but calzaghe waiting until Hopkins and jones were in their 40's and beaten by someone else is pretty much in keeping with how he ran his career


The Jones fight I agree was a joke.

But the Hopkins fight is a damned good win. What was Joe supposed to do, move down to 160 for Hopkins? He was making money and defending his own title a weight higher.


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

turbotime said:


> The Jones fight I agree was a joke.
> 
> But the Hopkins fight is a damned good win. What was Joe supposed to do, move down to 160 for Hopkins? He was making money and defending his own title a weight higher.


 I think if calzaghe didn't spend so much calling out jones and Hopkins , then I would agree with you. he could still have been the super middleweight champion fighting in the US, but the difference would be that he could have got jones or Hopkins when it was important. having a profile in the states seems to be a guarantee to get big fights. Hopkins and calzaghe surely would have clashed and the fight would have happened


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Illuminaughty said:


> I think if calzaghe didn't spend so much calling out jones and Hopkins , then I would agree with you. he could still have been the super middleweight champion fighting in the US, but the difference would be that he could have got jones or Hopkins when it was important. having a profile in the states seems to be a guarantee to get big fights. Hopkins and calzaghe surely would have clashed and the fight would have happened


Joe was making tons of cash in Wales he wouldn't need to be going to the US? He had American challengers travelling to fight him regardless. See the Kessler fight? Something like 60000 people there :err


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Joe was making tons of cash in Wales he wouldn't need to be going to the US? He had American challengers travelling to fight him regardless. See the Kessler fight? Something like 60000 people there :err


 but don't you think that is part of the problem with boxing? fighters who don't go to the US because they can make more money over time by keeping a belt and taking less risks doing so? I don't mean joe calzaghe at super middleweight because he was the best there - but I do mean it for fighters who want to be remembered outside of their continent


----------



## Nucking Futs (Jul 12, 2013)

Hagler on Calzaghe

"I knew the first time I saw Calzaghe that he really had something, he went in there completely unfazed against (Chris) Eubank which nobody else had done. Eubank was the guy who usually seemed to have control of everything around him but the way Calzaghe went in there and manhandled him like that...

"I was watching it in Italy, it was the same night England beat Italy to qualify for the soccer World Cup.

"Calzaghe showed and proved power, speed, strength, workrate, stamina, chin, heart and every tangible and intangible that night and that's why I'm not suprised that he's not lost since.

"Sometimes it's like watching a welterweight or junior-middleweight in a super-middleweight's body because he's so nimble and sharp handed. I would never bet against him."

Good enough for Marvellous Marvin, good enough for me


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

Nucking Futs said:


> Hagler on Calzaghe
> 
> "I knew the first time I saw Calzaghe that he really had something, he went in there completely unfazed against (Chris) Eubank which nobody else had done. Eubank was the guy who usually seemed to have control of everything around him but the way Calzaghe went in there and manhandled him like that...
> 
> ...


 joe calzaghe could have backed that up by fighting roy jones or Bernard Hopkins in their prime. but he didnt


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Illuminaughty said:


> but don't you think that is part of the problem with boxing? fighters who don't go to the US because they can make more money over time by keeping a belt and taking less risks doing so? I don't mean joe calzaghe at super middleweight because he was the best there - but I do mean it for fighters who want to be remembered outside of their continent


A lot of people, pretty much 80 percent were picking Lacy to spark Joe out. That was a risky fight whether people want to revise history or not.


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

turbotime said:


> A lot of people, pretty much 80 percent were picking Lacy to spark Joe out. That was a risky fight whether people want to revise history or not.


 yes, I agree. but i'm not judging joe calzaghe at super middleweight


----------



## Nucking Futs (Jul 12, 2013)

Illuminaughty said:


> joe calzaghe could have backed that up by fighting roy jones or Bernard Hopkins in their prime. but he didnt


There is no way someone can blame those fights not happening purely on Calzaghe, isn't it pretty common knowledge Bhop doubled his cash demands back in his MW days.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Illuminaughty said:


> yes, I agree. but i'm not judging joe calzaghe at super middleweight


Oh ok then. I do wish he'd have stayed at light heavy a bit longer for fights with Dawson or even Tarver/Hopkins rematch. He got his money and got out. Can't blame him, he had a long career.


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

Nucking Futs said:


> There is no way someone can blame those fights not happening purely on Calzaghe, isn't it pretty common knowledge Bhop doubled his cash demands back in his MW days.


isn't that the same thing that happened to cleverly? and neither fighter decided to make their name in the US to 'even the playing field' and make the fight happen. I think frank warren is good at getting his fighters marketable enough to make money, but awful at making them credible opponents to the best fighters in the world


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Oh ok then. I do wish he'd have stayed at light heavy a bit longer for fights with Dawson or even Tarver/Hopkins rematch. He got his money and got out. Can't blame him, he had a long career.


 but doesn't the 'problem' with his career have everything to do with "he got his money and got out"?


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Illuminaughty said:


> but doesn't the 'problem' with his career have everything to do with "he got his money and got out"?


He defended his title a record time. A career doesn't depend on beating a host of ATGs. Carlos Monzon for instance is rated prpobably 80 spots higher than Calzaghe, how many times did he move up? How many ATGs did he beat?


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

turbotime said:


> He defended his title a record time. A career doesn't depend on beating a host of ATGs. Carlos Monzon for instance is rated prpobably 80 spots higher than Calzaghe, how many times did he move up? How many ATGs did he beat?


 I really don't know very much about earlier fighters to be honest. but like I said, I don't have a problem with calzaghe at super middleweight. but he did spend a lot of time calling out Hopkins and jones from wales, without ever doing something about it. then when he fought them in their 40's he tried to sell himself as a great fighter


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Illuminaughty said:


> I really don't know very much about earlier fighters to be honest. but like I said, I don't have a problem with calzaghe at super middleweight. but he did spend a lot of time calling out Hopkins and jones from wales, without ever doing something about it. then when he fought them in their 40's he tried to sell himself as a great fighter


Joe was past prime as well. In terms of fighting he had been boxing longer than Hopkins had.


----------



## Bladerunner (Oct 22, 2012)

Joe Calzaghe makes these guys look like Joe Louis :yep


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Joe was past prime as well. In terms of fighting he had been boxing longer than Hopkins had.


 but that doesn't mean he was past his prime. Hopkins was much older


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Illuminaughty said:


> but that doesn't mean he was past his prime. Hopkins was much older


You think that was prime Calzaghe fighting Hopkins? :think


----------



## knockout artist (Jun 5, 2013)

Illuminaughty said:


> I think it's his best win - better than Kessler even though Kessler was in his prime and Hopkins was in his 40s. career defining for me would be if calzaghe fought either Hopkins or jones when they were also in their prime, instead of waiting until they weren't anymore


That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. For me, I'd say his big fights were career defining


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Calzaghe *was definitely *an ATG.


----------



## errsta (May 16, 2013)

The Welsh Sven Ottke


----------



## rjjfan (May 17, 2013)

ATG.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Calzaghe is certainly not underrated. He's not an All Time Great by any means, people who think he is need to take a long hard look at all the names showered in greatness over the past century.





Bogotazo said:


> His resume is underwhelming aside from Hopkins. Jones was well past his best. Then what, Kessler? Bika? Lacy? In the words of Larry Holmes, "So. Fucking. What?"


----------



## The Sweet Science (Jun 5, 2013)

I concur. Calzaghe is definitely an all-time great.


----------



## Trippy (Jun 18, 2013)




----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

The Sweet Science said:


> I concur. Calzaghe is definitely an all-time great.


For doing what?


----------



## JMP (Jun 3, 2013)

Calzaghe and hall of famer fit perfectly. Calzaghe and all-time great just don't, however.


----------



## FloydPatterson (Jun 4, 2013)

Good fighter but represented everything wrong in boxing, although you can't blame a man for doing anything possible to put food in his families mouth


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

JMP said:


> Calzaghe and hall of famer fit perfectly. Calzaghe and all-time great just don't, however.


Agreed.


----------



## DirtyDan (May 25, 2013)

Stone Rose said:


> Definately a British Boxing great , and one of the best 20 fighters of the last 20 years. Whetehr that makes him an ATG i dont know.


Perhaps.. 20 years ago today was 1994.. I'll try to name 20 fighters around that era who were fighting near or before their prime and had accomplished more than him..

Floyd Mayweather, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield, Julio Cesar Chavez, Oscar De La Hoya, Manny Pacquaio, Vitali Klitschko, Bernard Hopkins, Erik Morales, Marco Antonio Barrera, Felix Trinidad, Roy Jones, James Toney, Pernell Whitaker, Shane Mosley, Wladimir Klitschko, Juan Manuel Marquez, Humberto Gonzalez, Mike Tyson, Joe Calzaghe.

So yeah, he's right at number 20.. I couldn't think of anyone else to fill the number 20 spot. Without his win over Hopkins, he would of been no better than Eubank, Ricardo Lopez, or Dariusz Michalczewski.


----------



## Trippy (Jun 18, 2013)

DirtyDan said:


> Perhaps.. 20 years ago today was 1994.. I'll try to name 20 fighters around that era who were fighting near or before their prime and had accomplished more than him..
> 
> Floyd Mayweather, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield, Julio Cesar Chavez, Oscar De La Hoya, Manny Pacquaio, Vitali Klitschko, Bernard Hopkins, Erik Morales, Marco Antonio Barrera, Felix Trinidad, Roy Jones, James Toney, Pernell Whitaker, Shane Mosley, Wladimir Klitschko, Juan Manuel Marquez, Humberto Gonzalez, Mike Tyson, Joe Calzaghe.
> 
> So yeah, he's right at number 20.. I couldn't think of anyone else to fill the number 20 spot. Without his win over Hopkins, he would of been no better than Eubank, Ricardo Lopez, or Dariusz Michalczewski.


Vitali Klitschko?

Andre Ward has beaten everyone in his division, every current belt holder in fact and is lineal champion. He's achieved more and had better wins in the past 4 years than Vitali did in his entire career.


----------

