Calzaghe is one lucky fighter, that stayed around beating bums for years then barely scraped past a 40 year old hopkins and beat a truely washed up Jones and everybody says how great he is. The only guy he ever beat was an old Eubank who I think took the fight at short notice. Calzaghe is P4P nobody.
Lennox has a far better resume, he fought in 1 of the toughest HW eras ever, Lennox was fighting the top men in his division from 1993-2003. Meanwhile Calzaghe started fighting the top fighters in his division in 2006 after a 9year hiatus in Wales, the Eubank win was good, Mitchell, Reid, Woodhall were good wins in those 9years but nothing too special. Lennox was beating top5 contenders year in year out
Your post had absolutely nothing to do with what I said, so I returned the favor with a post that had absolutely nothing to do with what you said.:good
Longevity, quality of opposition, length of reign, bounce-back-ability from defeats, skill level, coming off the canvas to win, etc. I always tend to say that if a fighter has a short reign as a champion he better have beaten quality opponents within it. Leonard's welterweight reign boasts just that. And when a fighter is a champion thats what counts most IMO. Outstanding wins in non-title bouts obviously count for something, but don't impress as much if it was winning a title or defending it. Winning world titles is what elite fighters are in the game for afterall. Charles can be excused and is a great light-heavyweight champion based on the quality of opponents he beat. He never got a shot. In some cases world titles need to be overlooked.