British Forum: Which ATG was Calzaghe greater then?

Thanks. It's refreshing and interesting to know how people think.

When compiling these lists, modern training methods (or lack of them) must play a part too. Some old timers fought lots of fights in quick order but against awful opposition. I think the guys from the 50/60's onwards had verifiable records which took away a lot of the speculation. Plus the changes in weight divisions. I still think that some better known fighters like Marciano would never have been competitive today as a HW/CW or perhaps LHW. Whereas some lessser known fighters from yesteryear may well have flourished.

Do you have SRR as No1?

I tend to rate Duran much higher than most folks purely on his record as a LW. But as you say, It's all subjective.

 

I find its a lot more subjective when people tend to focus heavily on head to head abilities, or perceived skills because that is truely in the eye of the beholder. I think that is okay as a tie breaker, but overall I'm very much in favour of skewing the rankings towards records and achivements. That is why modern training methods do not play a large part for myself. Sure, Mike Tyson probably beats the **** out of Jack Johnson, but did he achieve as much?

I think thats the only fair way to assemble a list for all fighters since the bare knuckle era, I mean it does get slightly ridiculous trying to imagine how Bob Fitzsimmons matches up against Carlos Monzon. It's all relative in the end, the styles, training method and everything else were the same for their contempories, their achivements in their era are just as credible. An alternative is to create a pre-modern and modern list, its an easier dynamic if you wish to compare fighters in that way.

Incomplete records are unfortunate, but if anything they take away from the old time fighters rather than help them, because often they would be accomplished, experienced fighters. No decisions are also a pain in the arse, relying on news paper reports is not ideal. It tends to take a lot more time and effort when one considers the older fighters, to really get an appreciation for where they should be ranked, because the more you delve into their record the more research is needed.

Marciano would definitely not be a heavyweight today. Or at least, he'd be at a big disadvantage. Another reason to consider records.

I do rank Ray Robinson as my all-time #1, closely followed by Henry Armstrong and Harry Greb. Duran would make my top 15, until I dig a draft list out I couldn't be sure precisely where.

:good

 

TFFP. Thanks. I appreciate you taking time to explain your reasoning.

I obviously used Marciano as only a name to hang a hat on. JC would easily have taken him. LOL

It is clear that you love the sport and put a great deal of thought into it- much more than me. I just like seeing a guy who can box well and as much as I like to see a scrapper, I equally enjoy seeing a pure boxer display his skills. My father always told me that a boxer complaining about not being able to hit someone is much like a good snooker played complaining about being snookered.

 

I have to agree.

To further add to TFFP's point, let's look at that list. I'm not suggesting that it's 100% in the correct order but Ottke stylistically is an absolute nightmare for Calzaghe whereas Benn is the kind of fighter Calzaghe would look good against.

I find it impossible to "rank" Calzaghe against ATGs as I don't know enough about guys who fought well before I was born. It's far more interesting to me to put him in fantasy matchups against fighters recently in memory like the guys kos listed. Head to head, those fights are very debatable indeed. However, I think this thread is just designed to try and get some Calzaghe nuthuggers to say something stupid so I'm wasting my time.

 

Kos, if that's your ATG list of super-middleweights, I'm shocked you don't have Roy Jones in there (#1 for me personally)! Or even James Toney.
Not knocking it mate, your opinion is your opinion, just saying I'm surprised that's all.

 

Who ever said he was better than the true ATGs? :huh

 

I think you're barking up the wrong tree with me. I don't think he is, as you put it, a "true ATG".

To me, Calzaghe's an incredibly competetive workmanlike fighter who is very very difficult to beat. Obviously not without flaws, he made the most of what he had and like you say, had a managed career in a time when managed careers were the norm. Look, Calzaghe was never genuinely considered the best boxer in his own era (at one point, top 5 seems fair given the timing of a few retirements) so he is far from one of the best of all time.

A very good fighter in his time, far too many question marks about opposition to be considered an ATG. Could he have been? Maybe... but he's not based on what happened.

 

At the end of the day h2h is always going to be subjective, so any ATG fighter anyone claims calzaghe beats h2h you'll just say no he doesn't. Someone mentioned arguello, why is he not up there with arguello?

What is your top 100?

Why not post this in the classic forum?

 

I would wait and see where the bar for an ATG gets set for this generation before I made a judgment on the matter.

Todays "good fighter who snagged the title" somtimes ends up as tomorrows legend.

Many fighters from the 40s and 50s who we today acord all time great status to were not highly hyped in their own time. Take fighters like Ezzard Charles, Loyd Marshal, Holman Williams, Jersey Joe Walcott, and Charlie Burley.

By the same toke I can see fighters like Glen Johnson and Antonio Tarver having their dovotees in years to come.

Now in Calzaghes case many of the people he beat are still active and going concerns. A champions stock can continue to rise after he retires if his opponents keep winning (see Lennox Lewis).

What if Mikkel Kessler won the supermiddleweight tournament?

What if Bernard Hopkins were to beat Admek?

You could even imagine a scenario where sombody like Saiko Bika pulled an upset.

 

Please define ATG Jeff.

Give me a list of what you consider to be the bottom 20 of an ATG list and we'll start from there.