Who is higher all time p4p, trinidad or calzage?

Tito rather easily calzaghe did nothing until last year and his wins came over guys that are 40 yrs old

 

Calzaghe has the better skills, but at the end of the day, Tito did MUCH more than Calzaghe ever did. Calzaghe could have been one of the very best, but his resume is ****.
Seriously imo his best win is aganst Kessler, then he won a SD against a 43 year old and I can give a **** about his last fight against a has been.

 

TRINIDAD

imo this should'nt even be a question. Tito fought better competition, won titles in more weight divisions and fought better fighters than calzaghe. sure you can argue calzaghe is a better fighter, but resume weighs more in atg standings. look at tito's ledger (wins and loses) and you'll a who's who of very good fighters who have fought in or around the weights trinidad has fought in. dlh, vargas, whitaker, campas, reid, joppy, hopkins, mayorga, wright........ basically trinidad actively sought out the best available opponents throughout his career (losing to some, but winning most), same can't be said about joe. i'm suprised the poll results are'nt separated by a larger margin.

 

I'll be honest and say both have excellent achivements, and both were very good fighters. But I'm suprised the gap isn't wider, in almost every department Tito should be rated higher. It's Tito for sure.

 

exactly. i see a some posters also cast their vote for who is the better "p4p-h2h fighter", or whatever that hell that fairy tale bull**** is. but those things are PURELY based on conjecture and are not at all defining. why not compare standards that are definite and concrete? things such as accomplishments, wins over great fighters, number of divisions conquered etc....

 

It's Trinidad.

Also, Calzaghe's best win was against Kessler, not Eubank, Lacy, a shot Roy Jones Jr., nor a 43-year old Hopkins as some of you are claiming.

 

I agree. But it is debtable. If Kessler goes on to do nothing, then that win will be on the same level as Lacy - a young, undefeated world title holder - that Calzaghe beat, good win. Whereas we all know about Hopkins, still a great fighter - might be considered Calzaghe's best win eventually. As things stand now, I see it:

Kessler>Hopkins>Eubank>Lacy

 

There are enough posts on ESB to educate you about Joe's career. Do some research. Many of us have broken down his career and described the holes in his resume. Better yet watch him fight and then watch great fighters. You should be able to see the difference.


Here .. a guy has a nice compilation video of an elite fighter. Check out Gerald McClellan. Then think about the JC nuthugging posts on ESB and ask yourself why would he be so overrated here? Why is a very good fighter at best put on such a pedestal? Then consider the demographics of the posting population and you'll have your answer.

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=124733&page=3

 

What hurts Joe are the # of fights that COULD have been made in or near his weight class. Regardless of whom you blame, they weren't made and too many questions and "what if's" left in it's place. Tito fought just about all top guys in his era.

 

calzaghe's legacy would just keep on building over time...

 

I really can't believe how many people are presumably being influenced by the 0 on Joe's record - because that's surely the only reason people could even think about voting for him.
Tito dared to be great, he wanted to take chances to prove how great he was. If he had beaten Hopkins he was ready to fight a peak Roy Jones!
Think about that - a guy who, a short time before had been the best welterweight in the world was willing to fight the Light-Heavyweight champion who just happened to be the pound-for-pound king.
Joe never seemed in too much of a hurry to fight Roy when he was at his best.
Who rates higher all-time - Oscar or Ottke?
Ottke has some wins over pretty good fighters and he retired unbeaten, so I guess it has to be him?

 

One thing to consider, did tito trinidad, after beating oscar de la hoya, move up and stay in light middleweight, a very comfortable weight for him, win the title, and defend it a billion times against a billion bums in puerto rico? Or did he go to a real weight class, and challenge the reigning champ? I think he wants to be known as the best and fight the best instead of ruling a pathetic weight class.

 

A bit harsh but true though. Reigning at junior middle, super middle, or cruiser has certainly been the smaller accomplishment.

Also, Trinidad was IBF champ at 20 years of age.

Such a vote wouldn't be anywhere near this close (almost 50/50) if not for the demographics of this posting population. The skewed results are seen time and time again for certain fighters on ESB.