http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/boxing/article421669.ece big george makes some stupid comments here.
i think the headline was taken out of context to the rest of the post. basically george is saying calzaghe is not famous in america because he is not american. i agree and the exact could be said about mayweather in the uk compared to hatton.
He's right. Calzaghe can not be called an ATG with that **** poor resume. Simple as. Talent? Possibly. Resume? Not a chance. Calzaghe's three best wins are over a "good" Kessler, a "mediocre" Lacy and a "shot" Eubank. He is not an ATG and will never be known as one. Dominating a division is fine, but, like Bernard Hopkins, he has not beaten one great opponent. Therefore, there is no logic behind calling him an ATG. "So-so" is a ridiculous comment though. Calzaghe is far more than that, but he is right in sayng Calzaghe is not a great.
He's not a top 50 fighter. Therefore, not an ATG. I could list 50 fighters with a better resume than him, with ease. When your best win is over a mediocre fighter like Antonio Tarver, you aren't an ATG.
id personally say his best win was over tito but then again tito was 13pds over his best weight so its all a matter of opinion.
and gave Carl Thompson two really good fights for the Cruiserweight title after that . He wasn't prime , but he wasn't shot either .
joe is just so-so until he steps up and faces a true elite fighter then he will never get the worldwide recognition his fans crave. look at kosta tszyu as a prime example he ended his career never facing one true elite fighter in any weightclass and he is and never will be considered an ATG.
Eubank hadn't had a good, decisive win in years. He looked slow, lacked power and agility. His footwork was poor and even his chin started to wear away. Maybe "shot" was harsh, but he wasn't close to being in his prime. Amuse me. When was the last time Eubank beat a good opponent clearly before the Calzaghe fight?