Calzaghe & Mayeather's CV / Resume , is there much difference ???

Great wee breakdown there Tommy, unbiased and to the point.:good

 

How long have you been hear, 10 minutes? Calzaghe wasn't the best British fighter ever, hell he wasn't even the best Welsh fighter ever. And he shamelessly ducked Glen Johnson at 168 twice.

 

Basically, there have a massive bunch of fighters that are superior in skill AND resume (and both) to Floyd and Calzaghe.

 

so who would you say is the best in britain ever?:think

 

Jim Driscoll (best Welsh fighter ever, also looks better on film than Calzaghe so no 'oh he's old fashioned' please), Ted Kid Lewis, Bob Fitzsimmons, Lennox Lewis, Benny Lynch, Ken Buchanan........all higher in my alltime list.

 

"Shamelessly ducked" makes a come back eh?

 

its crazy how people say the old fighters were better boxers than the modern ones. thats basically saying we have gone backwards and become worse at it, which is total nonsense. its like saying boxing is the only sport where we havent progressed. :huh

 

Bob Fitzsimmons. Jim Driscoll is better than Calzaghe aswell, which means Calzaghe isn't even the greatest Welshman of all-time in the boxing.

 

H2H Fitzsimmons would of knocked Calzaghe out at 168 or 175, that's all you need to know. And achievement wise, being the undisputed MW, LHW and HW champion is a better achievement then 10 years of holding the least prestigous 'world title' in boxing hostage. :good

 

nobody has ever knocked him out but you think that fitzimmons would have? there are many different things to take into consideration when comapring older fighters to more modern ones... the level of opposition at the time, the standard of boxing of that era (not how tough they are, i mean how well they box, which means hitting while not being hit), the gloves, the ring size, everything. in my opinion, the technique and skill (defensive and offensive) of most modern boxers would prevail against most older boxers.

 

Mayweather has a better resume, no doubt.


Couple of things though Tommy, Lacy didnt hurt his shoulder till the 2nd round of the Tsypko fight, he was as good as he could be that night against Calzaghe.

Also doubting the legitimacy of Calzaghe's win over Hop at the same time as calling Taylor's victories "Official" is a bit harsh.

 

Fitzsimmons is a far, far, far bigger puncher than anybody Calzaghe has ever faced, not to mention he hit with laser-like accuracy & precision. I am not going into a modern v classic boxer's debate with you. If you want to do that, go to the Classic forum.

 

Hence the marks around official. I don't think he beat Hopkins in the 2nd fight; he may of edged the first. Lacy didn't look right in the ring that night, and was subsequently shown to be fairly average.

 

Watch the Jim Driscoll footage on YouTube then say Calzaghe was better technically.

 

Also, no ones saying we've regressed technically, more that fighters back then had to fight everyone (pretty much) and be consistent over many more fights, with smaller gloves and more lenient referees.

Unless you think bone density has improved over a hundred or so years those guys were tough as Hell, and it's not like Calzaghe had a 'modernstyle' anyway.

Two obvious examples: Carl Froch and Ricardo Mayorga. If they can succeed (to an extent ) why do old timers not deserve accolades? Especially when they weren't 'technically inferior' and arguably had much tougher careers.