Calzaghe must be top 10 atg ?

****!!! I meant Pernell!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

calzaghe couldnt slap his way out of a paper bag, compared to some of the true ATG's

 

see this is the problem with calzaghe fan boys. they make up **** all the time. they know zero about the history of the sport. joe was 110-10 as an amateur. joe never beat chris byrd in the amateurs and hopkins never turned down a career high payday in '02 to fight the "unknown" calzaghe. joe wasn't even a blip on the boxing radar until '06 when he was 34 and beat lacy. he's not top 200 all-time imo. i've explained why earlier. again, the undefeated record is all smoke and mirrors and to compare him to the true greats of the sport is a disgrace. here's joe getting beat in the amateurs so some of you can get over the fact that he never lost.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWu1jycEbas[/ame]

 

No he doesn't. You are ****ing mad to suggest that JC is top 3 ATG.

99% of posters on here have taken this **** and slandered you, maybe that gives you a little bit of a hint that you're wrong

The problem with people like you is that I've given you 30 fighters who are above Joe, I could go on forever but you can't seem to grasp the concept of it can you

Ritchie Woodall
Omar Shika
Byron Mitchell
Chris Eubank

these calibur fighters, good but not ATG's

If you asked Calzaghe, to his face, is he in the top 3 ATG's he would **** himself laughing

I would love to fight you because people like you make me angry

You are so dumb it's really sad

Sugar Rat Robinson?
Sugar Ray Leonard?
Joe Calzaghe?
Archie Moore?
Willie Pep?

Which one is the odd one out?

**** off you stupid, thick ****

 

Artur Grigorian was WBO champ for about 8 years and must have made nearly as many defences of the belt as Calzaghe did. Holding on to a alphabet strap against hand picked opponents doesn't mean a great deal.

And I disagree with the Boxing Writers Association of America, in my opinion Calzaghe struggles to make the top 10 fighters of the '00's, nevermind all time.

 

@silencer, come on man, you do your fair share of trolling "how high do you rate the hopkins - allen trilogy" :lol

 

the fighter of the decade award is a tangible award for a certain period of time and this is why joe finished third. this was a two horse race between pac and may. hopkins was the third best but since joe beat a 43 yr old version of him in that time, joe got voted above him. when you look at total careers, joe can't compare to the other greats of the era. he basically has one good win over a 43 yr old hopkins to hang his hat on. that's it.

 

This whole defending joe business is a bit naive imo. If he make the hof we can call him a great fighter. I personally believe he will make the grade, but I also believe hamed would.

Joe had a tricky style due to workrate and chin. That can't really be denied.

But his resume and legacy doesn't hold up to those people try comparing him with. Had he beaten ottke or beyer i'd think he gets remembered much more fondly. Had he done that and moved up sooner into the lhw tarver/jones/johnson/hopkins/woods merry go round then he'd be remembered much more fonder.

For those ranking him highly, i'm just gonna ask this.

"how do you view kid gavilan compared to joe"

 

save your questions. trust me, they have never heard of kid gavilan.

 

ATG's

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

just right now.