Calzaghe or Hamed - who has the better legacy?

You should have entered this as an article, very good. Calzaghe by the way, he never quit.

 

You should re do this thread as a poll. My vote goes to Hamed for giving us more entertaining fights and for fighting an elite fighter in his prime.

 

Hamed by a country mile. Hamed left a long lasting legacy in this sport. His legacy was VERY apparent even when he was still fighting. Joe on the other hand has been nothign more than a glib arrogant opportunist. History wont remember him kindly.

 

Lol calzaghes legacy beats hamed easy.
Stupid poll and stupid topic.

 

Hamed might have given more entertaining fights (for some, I hate his style and really find the rounds leading up to the knockouts to be a chore for the most part, but I need to watch a few more of his fights. Honestly though it's just hard to sit through). But Joe is undefeated, and is definitely regarded as the more talented fighter by miles. Additionally, regardless of the "he didn't fight Roy Jones and Hopkins in their prime" arguements against him, at the end of the day he had solid victories over them, and those will be remembered, especially the Jones fight. Hamed will be remembered most for losing to Barrera one-sidedly and being completely outclassed in the fight, although I feel that this is unfair. Plus, it's not like he fought elite fighters all the time himself.

Calzaghe also has that solid win over the young gun Kessler where he completely outboxed him, and a win over Nigel Benn (again despite his age, it's a fight that will be remembered for him because he won it solidly). And I haven't mentioned the Jeff Lacy fight because in hindsight that's surprisingly the least consequential of the bunch. It's really how much better than his opponents he looked that will stand out in history for Calzaghe. If he retires undefeated, he'll have the better legacy.

 

Why not give a reason, instead of lols and insults.

 

Naz bought more people into the sport, he was exciting to watch, in the end he got carried away, never took fights against people he should have. he rejected a fight with juan manuel marquez, looking back at that decision, if naz took the fight, he would be favourite as he carried explosive power, more power than manny pacquiao who has dropped marquez 4 times in two fights.

 

Naz was generally more exciting , but Calzaghe has the slightly better wins and longer career.

 

Hamed was never that well received by the general public (IMO). I'd like to ask, what will he be remembered mostly for by the casual, British boxing fan?:

a) his entertaining style and power which brought him world titles at a young age
b) his defeat to Barrera
c) his early retirement (soon after his first defeat)
d) his car crash/prison sentence, etc
e) his waistline

 

f) being a cocky twat who most people wanted to see lose.

 

I kinda agree with Scurla here, but Naz was certainly something of an opportunist himself.

It tends to be a theme with SN fighters - because they tend to only challenge for titles when there is a weak champion or threaten to leave.

Calzaghe's greatness (or lack thereof depending on your opinion) could have been defined much better had he crossed the pond earlier and/or taken on challenges earlier.

The likes of Hatton/Hamed/Haye have all lost fights, but have shown willingness to test themselves - Calzaghe hasn't in truth.

 

This is the 1st I've heard of "Hamed's Legacy."