Who's Legacy was Greater - Calzaghe or Wlad Klitschko?

Doesn't change a thing, he's top 10 for sure after everything is considered.

 

Nah...
You can make a small case, but very few would buy it.

Roy was a lot better.

Fact.

 

I've actually stopped using that one in the wake of everyone hanging themselves lately.

 

History will treat him VERY WELL, as the #1 fighter of this era - by a good distance.

Roy was good, but not as good as Floyd Mayweather was. I'll give you this, Roy was supernatural and beat a lot of good quality fighters!

He's just not as impressive as Floyd when it comes to legacy.

 

Roy wins the eye-test.

That much cannot be seriously disputed.

As regards resume, Floyd might have a tiny edge, given the number of top level fighters he beat.

But Roy won titles at MW and HW and that's pretty rare.

His 12 round shut out of James Toney is better than anything Floyd did.

And his offensive dominance clinches it for me. (Bernard was only the second man to go the distance in Roy's first 22 fights).

He had magic that was another level up from Floyd.

 

Offensive dominance has nothing to do with legacy or greatness, it has to do with being electrifying.

He had magic over anyone whose ever fight, so what?

NO one doubts he wa sthe most naturally gifted boxer to grace boxing.

 

You're mixing up LEGACY with RESUME.

Every aspect of a fighters career forms part of his legacy.

The HOW he won as well as the WHO he beat.

Glad we agree on that !

 

When did I mix it up? All I've ever said was Floyd fought the better fighters overall which means he has the more lasting legacy and a better one.

Sorry, but judging by "How" you win is all subjective. Knocking a guy out in my book isn't "BETTER" than decisioning them. A win is a win.

 

If you're a boxer, your resume is your list of wins, draws and losses. Your legacy is your resume, plus everything else pertaining to your career. It's a bit broader than just the resume.

Lots of things are subjective but they still get considered. Even who won the round (or the fight) is subjective, hence fierce arguments on here !

Floyd got a win over Maidana (7-5 or maybe 8-4) and he got a win over Baldomir (12-0) and he got a win over Gatti (stoppage after totally outclassing him.

They were all wins but some were better than others.

And even though it's subjective, most would say he had a better win over Gatti than over Maidana.

 

It is mostly if not all resume, that's what legacy is mostly judged on. You can add extracurriculars but that's not anything that's taken too seriously.

2. Exactly, you value offense, I value defense.

3. Subjective, once again. Getting a win through adversity could be seen as greater than just 12-0ing someone.

And in your example, I don't think so, I think they're great in their own right.

He came back from a disaster in the first 3 rounds and won the fight.

 

no he went full fight, you are being told again.

 

if its true, it means you are the windowlicker of the windowlicker.

nice one. either its true and u r the worst...or you lie again.

 

As-Salaam-Alaikum..

 

Wlad and its not even close

If you need to ask, then try to watch more boxing and do less Boxrec studying.