Do you think Calzaghe's legacy will improve or decline over time?

It got commerically sucessful later one.......from Lacy onwards but that lovely numbers record he has....help give the impression to general media/fan he is better than he actually is.

The man dosent have huge personality oozing out of him and is now trying to stay in the spotlight somewhat.........people outside of the hardcore wont be talking about every snippett of his carrer but they will mentioned he is undefeated and they can revise history and call him the man that dominated boxing for 10 years and never lost. He only ever wanted to stay in the valleys of wales and yet was destroying all before him Bull****.

Rocky Marciano...(who is a better fighter) got this type of myth that surrounded him even though the best fighters he ever fought were Jersey Joe and Charles.....men clearly under 200lbs. There is a reason why Rocky didnt carry on further than his 3 years as champ....the likes of Floyd Patterson, Johnassen, Liston, and C. Williams were coming through.

Anyhow..........can we get come danish fans on and talk about B. Nielson is one of the ATG please?

 

Marciano weighed between 180 and 190 for most of his career. People try to make out he had a huge advantage but it wasn't the case, he wasn't like the heavyweights today fighting light heavies. He's just as underrated by people because of his undefeated record as he is overrated by others for the same reason.

Calzaghe is much the same.

The Nielsen comparison is disingenuous at best.

 

In which case it reaffirms my opinion that Calzaghe had a decent chin. The uppercut you mention was monstorous an would've been a slid exmple to demonstrate my point. Alas was at work and relying on instinct....still think Foster, Marvin Johnson(fast starter), Moore, Charles would get him out of there early. His chin seemed to need a few rounds to warm up (Mitchell dropped him in the 2nd and Hopkins in the 1st) nd personally I think he was not at his best during his tenure at 175. However, hypothetical matchups regarding Calzaghe at lightheavyweight are one thing, at 168 there's one man I'd favour strongly to beat him prime for prime (RJJ) and one man I feel would beat him but there are things in Calzaghes favour ( Toney) that says how highly I regard his skillset and adaptibility, but is he an 'ATG' I would say no. Not entirely his fault. But damn good, just doesn't have the resume to match what he MAY have been able to do. I personally feel Buchanan was just as (well I believe moreso) 'talented' than JC, difference being he has the better resume (and his own shot to bits legend, Carlos Ortiz) :good

 

I think me and you both understand the little irony/joke about the B. Nielson thing. To be fair i know what i know....every tom, dick and harry saying this great, that guy is great is missing the point.

We cant just call every fighter All time greats.......its reserved for the top 10/15 in each weight division.

Some divisions are manufactured........i understand having 4 or 5 weight divisions but 17?

Heavyweight - 210 plus
Light-heavyweight- 175-210
middlweight- 154- 175
welterweight- 140-154
lightweight- 126-140
featherweight- 126 below

Not hard.......yet agian we are stuck arguing about fighting having 20 defences and being dominate in there division when there are like 100 divisions a few pounds around them.

Does anyone seriously thing if Calzaghe fought his entire carrer in a division that consisted of having the best fighters around 154 to 175.....from 1997 to 1999 that he would have been a champion or undefeated.

Joe took advantage of the disorganisation of boxing.

It like Man Utd in last year champions league final opting out saying they are already champions and dont have to face Barcelona as they have proven themselves which is what Floyd Mayweather loves to do.

 

Also to add...

Dont start giving me different fighters who would not be able to cope with a proper objective competitive structure for boxing weight divisions.

REMEMEBER - The whole point of boxing is to see competition and who is the best in each fight. Its meant to be entertaining and dramatic. What we dont want is over the top bull****, and hype around fighters that are being made out to be better than they actually are.

Weight divisions yes........but not ****ing 17 of them.

 

That last point actually raises a pertinent issue. That is exactly the problem with the sport, not all of the best want to fight and even if they do politics gets in the way. That just doesn't happen in other sports, not least boxings direct competitors.

I disagree with the point on weight divisions though. I don't think you can lump junior middleweight sized men together with the Chad Dawson's and Bernard Hopkins of this world. That would be completely unfair, we're not talking a small difference. It's a difference that could mean the more skilled man does not neccessarily win and that is bad for the sport.

People tend to look back with rosed tinted glasses towards the old days but they don't recognise some of the bad points when there were few weights and organizations. People could be easily avoided, not everybody got their shot whereas now you can guarantee you'll get your chance eventually. That comes at the expense of cheapening the title of world champion, but thats why we have undisputed champions.

 

Not this again. How many times do you have to be told its a not a good idea before you give it up???

You seem only to bring it up to "prove" certain fighters are no good because they would struggle under your system, completely ignoring that fact that the system itself is completely impractical and totally unfair.

Dwight Muhammad Qawi vs. Fernando Vargas?
Salvador Sanchez vs. Ricardo Lopez?

 

I think we could do without Strawweight, super flyweight and super feather. I hate to seem like I'm on a vendetta towards the little men but if all the strawweights moved up they'd get slightly more recognition and there would be more depth down there. The other two have a matter of a few lbs between them and to be frank I can't see a difference. The smaller fighters need competitive matchups to make any money so making the talent pool larger can only help.

 

He's not being pedantic. He's making a very obvious point there that would be many boxers alienated that can not make the lower weight healthily but are on the small side of the division they are in. That is what happens when there is such a huge disparity between the upper and lower limit.

To become a champion Ricky Hatton might have to face Paul Williams if we had this structure today. Hardly fair is it?

 

Exactly put your always going to have people defend the system as they fear change.

Boxing is getting direct competition from MMA.......boxing has two advantages...history of depth of talent but once that is gone then how exactly do we market the sport?

Does NBA create another divisions for players under 6'2 ?

Does the NFL create a division for players under 200lbs?

Does football (soccer) create a division for players under 5'4?

Of course we are talking combat........so its a little different.....but we can use our rationale thinking and create 6 or 7 divisions if you like.......but the fact we endorse the Calzaghes, Ottkes etc who manged to actually never fight one another.....is beyond laughable.

Just imagine if the top NFL team said hey look we have won it 5 times in the last 8 years so i think we arent gonna compete in this super bowl.....er we are gonna player the 1995 New York Bears team (example)..yet in boxing we actually do get this.......we get fighters actually fighting guys who were way way past it.

Look at my Khan carrer mode.......very plausible.

 

I'm all for change but you've got to be sensible with it too. Instead of making things more exciting and credible you might just end up making things all too predictable if you have such radically defined weight classes. I'm a huge believer in skills over size and will more often than not pick the better fighter despite size or perceived strength, but there are levels.

You'd have to also bring back same day weigh ins I feel.

 

For some reason you brought up Chris Bryd last time this daft idea raised its ugly head, no one is saying there should be a division esp. for him or that there should be a division every 10 pounds above 200. Just that you can't expect an 11 stone man to take on 12 and a half stone fighter on a level footing and having a separate division for small guys doesn't help out what is a ridiculous sytem of weight divisions that you only seem to trot out when you want to put a fighter down because he wouldn't do very well if it was enforced.

There'd be mismatches and fights decided based largely (soley?) based on weight/ size every week of the year. Not good for boxing.


On the Calzaghe issue, can you not see that if you have to invent a whole new system of weight divisions, scraping whats been in place for well over 50 years (even 168 is knocking on 30 years old now), in order to discredit a fighter then you've probably overstepped the mark a little?

 

Im gathering your not reading properly just skimming it right?

Il let you off........besides the little details of Hatton fighting so and so.......i didnt say my weight divisions were define like god creations.....if you want to tinker with it then go and ****ing do it.

Are you gonna argue for C. Byrd now or E. Chambers?

Pacman has made a fool of the weight divisions.

Besides the point..........hatton can go into 126 to 140 division so ur matchup with the biggest ****ing guy in the 140 to 154 division is void and missing the basic point of all this.

We have people ****ing arguing about Joe Calzaghe being this ****ing god like fighter when he has so many holes in his resume its not even funny. Im pointing out other aspects to show that he GETS AWAY with this because we fans let the boxing elite create 20 champions in 20 divisions.

The whole point of the sport is to see who is the best becuase if it wasnt then we would keep score now would we?

Im not being wacky and saying lets get Wicky Hatton to fight T. Fields.......but does anyone honestly think the men around his weight who have been the best in the last 10 years would not have been able to compete with Hatton...........so A prime Barrera, Morales would have it unfair aginst Wicky would they?

Well its sods law.........****ing fight...........besides the point that i believe barrera and morales would have beaten hatton anyhow.

Wait wait guys we cant have Rubin Kazan play Barcelona.......i mean Barca are for too big.......they have better players and far more money not to mention playing in the top league in the world.

In fact can barca not just opt out of this tournement its unfair, i mean they havent had enough rest......cant they play a the retro team of Real Madrid 2002.......i mean we could get to see fat ronaldo, old man zidane, past it figo, and media man Beckham play.....yeah thats it......we can show how great barca truly are.

 

Oh FFS do you wanna stop trying to get everyone to take notice of your ****ing 'Khan Career Mode' ! Its pathetic self-promotion

And whilst your at it. Stop trying to compare boxing to any and every other sport. Boxing is completely different and happens to be brutal as ****. The weight divisions are the way they are for a perfectly good reason