Cotto may have more loses in his record, but he fought the better PRIME competition... Besides Eubank early in his career Calzaghe never challenged the BEST at the right time in their careers. Fighting Hopkins & RJ when they were less then PEAK form doesn't push him over Cotto in opinion, but he was a world champion for a long time and I have to give him respect for that. I just can't give him props for hiding out in Whales all those years milking the system (smart business decision). The level of overall competition (not the names on paper) is WHY I give the nod to Cotto. Plus Cotto still is fighting & his Legacy is still yet to be completely written.
You're comparing one of the ATG boxers to someone who no one will remember outside of Puerto Rico when he retires? Preposterous.
As much as I hate to say it as a big Cotto fan and someone who's always found Calzaghe overated, Calzaghe is a class higher then Cotto.
Level of competition wise it has to be Cotto...I give Joe credit for goin undefeated but really what fighters were close to being in their prime wen he fought them?
I'd love to say Cotto and hope he passes up Calzaghe, but as of now I think he's behind in the rankings. If there's one thing Cotto has on Joe is that he is more willing to face the very best.
Cotto has never been the Champ of any division he's fought in. He has two defeats on his record. Calzaghe was THE Champ at two weights and retired undefeated. IMO, Neither are ATG's. Certainly not Cotto. But in terms of who is the better fighter, the answer is Calzaghe. Who had the better career? Same answer.
Lots of good stuff in this thread, so I'm just gonna let it out all at once...... I would have to take Calzaghe at this point. Cotto may still have some glory days ahead, but his best are behind him. Cotto would also be a special fighter if he had faced the same relative competition as Calzaghe. Cotto dared himself and risked himself against the best in the world. Calzaghe did step it up later in his career, it seems he started to believe in himself at that point. I would say their ability was about equal, but I agree with everything else. Its Wales. The Welshmen will get you. Eubank wasn't prime or at his best. He had been very inactive for a while. He lost a few, came back for a few fights against nobodies and then Calzaghe. Overall, he lost 5 of his last 9 fights. He never won another fight. Not at his best. In fairness, it was not Calzaghe's best win either, to me that is Kessler, who was prime when Joe beat him. Honestly, the irony is that Cotto will probably be better remembered. For the most part no one outside the UK holds Calzaghe in such high regard. Agreed that neither is ATG, but both are HOF bound IMO. As for who's career is better? The book is still unwritten on Cotto. Calzaghe has the undefeated record and the defenses, etc. , so that makes him the guy, but I think his career will also be viewed as a bit of a disappointment and full of what if's. I don't care who was at fault for in the end, fighters fight who they fight and that's the end of it. I mean really, as a boxing fan, who cares why guys don't fight?
Tricky one this. Calzaghe has the zero and the longevity, Cotto fought better fighters and arguably has a deeper resume despite his shorter career, this being due to Calzaghe's weak standard of opposition throughout his career. I think Cotto's win over Mosley is better than any of Calzaghe's wins, and Cotto has won titles in more weight classes. I think Calzaghe perhaps has a slight edge in ability. Hmmmmm. I have voted 'About the same'. I can really see the case for either man here.
