What does Calzaghe have to do to surpass RJJ and BHOP?

If he beat Dawson and Adamek he still wouldn't have an agrument IMO. Not with his biggest wins being

Lacy A guy who made a name for himself koing cans and no-hopers with little boxing ability who has done nothing since Calzaghe.

Kessler who hasn't done anything of note since losing to Joe.

Hopkins best win on his resume IMO even though Hopkins was past his
best.

Roy Jones I give Joe no credit for beating a shot Jones who has been done since 2004.

With Dawson and Adamek wins I would put him into the top 50 ATG right now I have him in the top 75 to 80 ATG. I don't think there's anything he can do that would get him to surpass Jones who is a top 20 to 25 ATG.

 

you have to take into account that would make calzaghe champion of another weight and still not a defeat to his name, it all depends on how much you rank being undefeated compared to other things. Lets not forget jones fought his fair share of bums as well and althougth the ruiz win was good he wouldn't have fought any of the legit heavyweight champs.
I have calzaghe around 50-75 atg and jones 25-50 so imo those two wins could push him quite close.
Also don't rule kessler out just yet m8 he has along time left in his career, he still hasn't lost to anyone else yet and if he makes a decent name for himself it could easily prove to be calzaghe's best win.

 

He already has!!!!:happy:happy:happy

 

So because he chose to fight them at the tail end of their career he hs surpassed them ? Man they need to start durg testing some of you posters !

 

I think Kessler is Calzaghe best win followed by Hopkins and Eubank.

Even if Hopkins wins are slightly better,the fact he lost alot of fights negates them along with the fact he fought so many lighter guys and always at home,the loses tho are what hurts him the most and push Calzaghe at least equal to him.

 

me thinks one of the reason why jc lacks the respect is that he was not able to fight tough competitition in his prime. He lacks legacy fights if i may add.

if he only had fought bhop and rjj about 8-10 years ago, i think it would have defined his career already in the same manner mab, em, pac and jmm careers are defined by the wars that they fought with one another.

I just have a feeling that JC sort of missed the bus in this one. not having an opponent that defined his fighting career. jmm had pac, em had mab, srl had duran, hearns and hagler.

 

I'm not going to even start listing names of people he needs to beat. He's well behind both of them right now and would need to keep beating top fighters. He also should rematch Hopkins.

 

atsch

I ain't reading any more of this thread, ****ing nonsense.

 

Absolute bollocks from start to finish.

You hadn't seen the Lacy v Sheika fight before Lacy fought Calzaghe, so you are going under the assumption that no-one else did. Those of us who had knew Lacy was not what the American press were promoting him as. I thought Calzaghe would win. I didn't think it would be as easy as it was for him, but I could quite plainly see that he was a far better all-round boxer. Watch the Sheika fight and then tell me Calzaghe v Lacy was supposed to be a walkover for Lacy. :good


When are Calzaghe fans going to give up trying to rewrite history and tell the ****ing truth??

Calzaghe v Lacy was NOT Tyson v Douglas. It was NOT Ali v Leon Spinks. It was NOT Don Curry v Lloyd Honeyghan. It wasn't even in that league of upset at all - nowhere near it in fact. It wasn't even a Benn v McClellan.

Joe Calzaghe was more experienced/seasoned than Jeff Lacy, had a better resume than Jeff Lacy, and the fight was on Calzaghe's home turf.

Those of us who had seen Lacy fight knew he had a terrific hook, knew he was very dangerous, but also knew from the Sheika fight that he was not a great boxer.


Lacy was a favourite... with the majority of the American press.

WHAT?!?!? :yikes An up and coming American boxer with a KO punch was favoured to beat a Welshman who did not have the same KO power by the majority of the American press?! WOW, what a turn up for the books!

Calzaghe was favourite with much of the British press... I would go so far as to say the majority. He was a prime condition long-reigning champion who had beaten Byron Mitchell in style, and Charles Brewer with relative ease.


Lacy was overall the slight favourite to win this fight, but Calzaghe won it. This is not the achievement of the century. How many fights are won by slight underdogs every year? Get over it.

Bernard Hopkins was the underdog against three better fighters than Lacy - Felix Trinidad, Antonio Tarver and Kelly Pavlik - and you don't hear Hopkins fans continually going ape over the fact he beat the favourite. They have more strings to their bows than that.

This comment:

is just utter dog****. Rewriting history?? Grow up.

 

thats not quite right they do go on about trinidad being favourite a fair bit.

 

A fair bit is not the same as Calzaghe fans relentless obsession with how he "slayed the dragon" vs Lacy, as if it was Tyson v Douglas. I know you're trying to protect your boy Hotti, but you know this is the case here.

 

i don't know where you get this from about himbeing my boy i just think he is a half decen fighter 50-75 atg no more no less. Mr david haye is my boy :good

 

also what do you reckon to calzaghe if he was to beat these two guys without any kind of close fight or disputed win ?

 

If Joe Calzaghe was to beat Hopkins, Dawson and Adamek before he retires, then yes I would say he was definitively better than Hopkins.

 

Calzaghe has to rematch Hopkins and beat him legitimately to get the recognition he craves. Till then he's just a pretender