It's gotta be Hopkins and Calzaghe. How can you even argue for any other pair? It's them by light years.
It might be them alright, but by light years? Surely there's some room for debate, unless longevity is the only criteria.
B-Hop/Joe based on resume and skillset. Roy Jones at either weight was better than both of them, doesn't quite have the resume at either weight to truly nab the top spot, but not faroff. Then again, Calzaghes Lacy, Woodhall, Kessler combined don't quite match up to whitewashing James Toney :yep
It's longevity that gets Calzaghe no.1 for me, and that is a major factor. From Eubank onwards he was top 5/3 and beat some decent (Sheika, Mitchell) to very good fighters (Woodhall, Reid) over the years that kept him up there and cemented himself as no.1 towards the end of his tenure there. Some good solid wins, though his best win is against one of the greatest 160lbers ever....@175 of course, which adds 0 to his standing as a super middle.
Not even just longevity necessarily...it's just that no other champions at those weights happen to have put together anywhere near the resumes in the last 20 years (even as nitpicked as both are) and been so dominant over the competition provided. Longevity is a big part, though.
Roy Jones owned the 90's. Hopkins and Calzaghe have done amazing things but neither had the talent of Jones. He should have retired a long time ago but that is the fate of many boxers. Roy Jones by a country mile.
Is roy jones allowed to be considered at both weights? because he, at his best at each weight was untouchable for a few years