Atg With Thinnest Resume Ever? Joe C

This thread is hilarious.....what alot of Hopkins fans seem to forget is that he has hasn't fought anyone either, and is certainly no ATG himself.

 

sums up your arguement really.

 

Bollocks, he hasn't fought anyone and won. He fought a decent fighter in Jones and lost.....fighting blown up flyweights and beating them doesn't mean jack **** just because they're famous, Calzaghe would beat Pacquiao, does that validate him?

Hopkins has the edge in one big area from what I see, and that's big fight experience (he may have fought blown up straw weights, but they were big fights), and Calzaghe may be blinded by the lights and razzmattazz.....Joe has to be careful.....

 

I'd say Tyson has the thinnest resume of an ATG.

He never beat one A list fighter and lost every time he was put down.

 

calzaghe is what he is: an atg in the eyes of many europeans, and a "close-toe elite" fighter for the americans. whateva. in my opinion he's definitely a all time great in the continent of europe. but internationally he is not proven enough. sorry.

 

I'd say Tyson has the thinnest resume of an ATG.

He never beat one A list fighter and lost every time he was put down.

 

If Johnsons so bad, why did Calzaghe seek a fight with him then? Does Calzaghe have a history of fighting bums or something...hmmm.

Even more to the point, why did he then chicken out, not once but TWICE?

Funny how the Calzaghe fans are crowing that Hopkins chickened out of fighting Calzaghe back in 2002 yet are full of excuses for their own guys ducking. Ridiculous.

 

Heavyweight champion at 20, undisputed champion at 21 (I think), defended against all comers for 3 years....won another belt 6 years later when badly faded....

As for A list fighters well the only one that really stands out is old Larry Holmes, who was 38. Hopkins is 43. Guess where I'm heading?

 

I admit that I personally under-rate Joe C...

But this is CLEARLY balanced by those who over-rate him...

I think calling him one of the best fighters (in terms of talent) of all time, is a VERY big stretch (and imo, needs some re-thinking). What do we define as talent?

Resume wise, he is also not an ATG, despite arguably being the greatest super middleweight ever on paper (although H2H, it's a different story). But I also think the word "ATG" is handed around today moreso than it was back in the day.

 

i don't cere! he's still a great fighter!

 

The thing is even that claim is a pretty poor boast - how long has there actually been a super-middleweight division? 20 years? I suspect if the 168 division hadn't existed the guy wouldn't have had 20 defences....

 

What makes you think his toes are close?

 

you left out the part where i said johnson ressurected his career at light heavy.


calzaghe did indeed agree to fight johnson twice and pulled out injured twice at light heavy , but in hindsight the fight just afterwards he stayed at 168 and fought what was considered at the time a much bigger threat than johnson in lacy and again the next time calzaghe fought kessler again the fight considered the greater risk.

what i applied johnson was his appaling record at 168.

johnson as far as i remember never beat a single 168 fighter ranked in the top 500 in the world but lost to every top 50 fighter he faced.

and i was replying to the fact that the poster said johnson would ko the **** out of calzaghe at 168.

why in your opinion would johnson lose to all the fighters i named at 168 yet would beat calzaghe at 168?


no excuses for calzaghe pulling out 100% johnson wanted the fights , but as far as the actual fight going, calzaghe has absolutly feasted on short come forward pressure fighters .

he has never even lost a round to 1.