Best Fighters to start their career past 1990

25 title fights, 0 losses.
Name me another fighter in that list that has that achievement.

 

out of those, how many in the top 10 pound for pound? how many HOF?

calzaghe may deserve to be on the list but ahead of pac is just unfathomable

 

That is how superficial you look at numbers? Seriously? Sven Otke has like 20.

 

Ahead of Pac in achievements, I completely agree. Pac has five wins as big as any win that Calzaghe has. He's done more weight classes and despite not knowing how to rank his performances against Morales (due to the condition of Morales) or his performances against recently knocked out Hatton and fighting at 147 for the first time in ages Oscar De La Hoya because neither of them stepped back into the ring following those losses.

But despite this, Pac is above Calzaghe in achievements.

In pure talent? The ability to win against all styles, adapt and be able to beat anyone? There is a reason RJJ is #1 on that list. There is also a reason I rank Calzaghe higher than Pac. (The whole 0 losses thing helps too)

 

Drill into the numbers.

Sven has 5-6 disputed decisions.

Calzaghe has a tight call against Hopkins that 80% of the media said was a close but clear victory.

 

One post could never provide the sort of education you need on the fight game, so I'm not even going to bother. If you think someone with the glaring technical deficiencies of Joe Calzaghe has better ability than Manny Pacquiao, good for you. If you think someone who never ever beat a single prime HOF calibre fighter proved his abilities in the ring to a higher degree than Manny Pacquiao, then good for you too. The only thing I'll say though is this: to dominate prime Marco Antonio Barrera and naturally bigger Miguel Cotto, to stop Erik Morales, to blow naturally bigger Ricky Hatton away, to edge prime Juan Manuel Marquez, and to shut out naturally bigger Joshua Clottey and Oscar De La Hoya is far, far more substantial evidence of ability than beating Jeff Lacy, Mikkel Kessler, and a version of Hopkins that couldn't fight flat out for 12 rounds or convincingly beat Jermain Taylor in two attempts. To even compare these two is ridiculous. Anyone can look good when the opposition is right.

 

i may disagree (well i do disagree) but i respect your reasoning and clearly outlined your critera. personally, i think pac has proven himself a more well rounded fighter against technical boxers (JMM), boxer-punchers (morales, barrera), brawlers (cotto), rough, dirty brawlers (hatton). the fact that these wins range from 126-147 is astounding to me

 

You nit picking Sven's resume while defending Calzaghe's 46-0 is just mind blowing.

Talent? Yes the best slapper in the last 20 years. I mean he did win belts slapping those fellas.

 

:-( This is just so appalling mate, honestly. You think because someone has a zero that they can defeat all opponents and all styles??? OK, who to you was more adaptable, Rocky Marciano (0 losses) or Muhammad Ali (5 losses)? That's just a diabolical argument, playground stuff. Joe Calzaghe has a zero because of who he fought, he was one of the greatest career-strategizers of all-time! He couldn't land a punch on Hopkins for 12 rounds, and this was a version of Hopkins with greatly declined workrate and speed. If Calzaghe had ever fought someone with the skillset of a prime Hopkins, Jones, or Toney, his technical deficiencies and his over-reliance on physical tools like handspeed and stamina would both have sorely exposed.

 

This is ****ing cute, considering you have no clue my accomplishments within the fight game nor the fact that I currently work on the legal side of things for a prominent NYC promoter.

You don't agree with me? Feel free to state it. But don't pull the usual rhetoric bull**** out, I've given reasons as to why I put Calzaghe ahead of him.

"Edge prime JMM" - in a decision that the majority of press row had him losing?

Prime Marco? You MAY be able to debate that he was prime in their first fight, although he already had three losses at this point and was a couple years removed from his best win (Naseem) - but yes, that's an excellent win

Ricky Hatton, the guy who comes from 190 down to 140 and expects it to all work out for him on fight night? The same guy that had lost his first bout by knock out prior to the fight against Pacquaio and hasn't fought since? Hrrm.

Joshua Clottey - impressive performance, although Clottey didn't seem to be himself, didn't throw anything, could put that down to Pac's awkwardness though.

But yes, let's revise history

Let's state MAB, Morales, JMM, Hatton and Cotto and co are all in their primes and forget to mention their recent losses, the fact that many of them never fought again, etc.

Let's then bring up Hopkins and his losses to Taylor, while forgetting his impressive performances against Wright, Tarver and the impressive performance of Pavlik following.

See why I don't take you seriously? You voice hatred on one fighter while revising history to suit the other.

Don't do it.

 

Yeah, me too - but how good are the guys he's beat at 147? All of them have baggage to consider when judging how good the wins were. That doesn't mean you should give him huge kudos for the achievement - but the talent?

Do any of us disagree that JMM at 135 or 140 represents a far tougher fight for Pac than anyone he's beaten at 140 or 147 so far?

 

at 135 or 140? I still put the hatton and cotto wins on par or ahead. now, jmm at 130 that may be his most impressive win (on paper anyway). jmm at those weights and at this point in his career is just too shopworn and too big

 

You are blinded to a guy's very obvious flaws because he has a zero. That's teenage stuff. Don't do it.

Joe Calzaghe did not have a great jab, his head movement was dire, his guard and all-round defence were sloppy and easily penetrated, his punching technique was shocking, he threw fast flurries rather than measured combinations, he did not have good punching power or accuracy, he didn't punch to the body often enough and was not a particularly good infighter...

...but he did have great physical gifts which allowed him to be successful against the standard of comp he faced - handspeed, workrate, stamina, chin, and good mental strength. These attributes made up for the weaknesses in his skillset against his level of opposition.

Bearing in mind Pacquiao's performances against guys the calibre of Barrera/Morales/Cotto etc, Manny Pacquiao absolutely annihilates and embarrasses guys of the standard of Mikkel Kessler, guys of the standard of Jeff Lacy and Robin Reid, Pacquiao would humiliate this level of fighter.

Bearing in mind Calzaghe never once beat a p4p ranked guy who was in his prime and never once beat a HOF calibre fighter in his prime, do you just guess that his technical deficiencies would not be exposed by fighters of the calibre of Barrera, Marquez and Morales, at supermiddle?

To say Calzaghe was better is at best just idle guesswork based on a personal preference. At no point in his career did he ever prove his abilities to anywhere near the extent that Manny Pacquiao did.

 

Let's look at some more of your revisionist bull****.

Didn't have a great jab, yet used his jab to beat Eubank, used it against Reid when Reid was noted as the much better boxer and out-jabbed Mikkel Kessler who was reputed to have one of the best jabs in the game at that point.

Didn't have good head movement, yet could swarm in against opponents like Jeff Lacy, Bernard Hopkins later in the fight and shot-Roy Jones Jr all throughout the fight without being hit.

Didn't have good guard defense, yet went through fights (Salem, Reid) with broken hands by using his guard and evasiveness to protect himself while being a one handed fighter

Didn't have good punching power, yet put an iron chinned Eubank down with one shot, belted Mitchell into the ground after being KD'ed by him and had a very high stoppage percentage despite the amount of title fights he had - this got worse as his career went on due to hand problems, at which point he changed his style.

Didn't punch to the body enough, despite hurting Hopkins, Kessler, Lacy, Bika, Reid, Woodhall, Starie with body shots...

Not a good infighter, yet managed to thrive against potentially the best in fighter in the game (Hopkins) by working as an infighter against him... also roughed fighters like Bika up on the inside and dominated Lacy (who was an inside fighter at the time) on the inside.

OK.

Agree, physical gifts made him able to battle past flaws, such as his ego which often had him sticking his chin out and tempting fate, forgetting to use his technique which is much better against much better fighters (view Bika vs Kessler/Lacy, the difference in his style and the straightness of his punches) - he fought down to the level of his opponent too often. Intangible assets always speak volumes for a fighter, he has a **** tonne.

Cotto who was in back to back destruction fights against Margarito and Clottey and who left the weight following their fight.

Morales who quit boxing for several years, put a loss on Pacquaio's career before hand and was known as "a shot boxer" at the time of their fights?

Barrera - their first fight, yeah, that's a great win, much better than Kessler, Lacy, Reid and thus Pacquaio gets rated ahead on achievement, but, the best fighters aren't always the best achieving fighters.

Lacy and Kessler were in discussions as P4P Top 10 at the time he defeated them and were in their primes. Hopkins was at the highest point he'd been in years when Calzaghe beat him ( P4P #2 ) and dominated P4P fighters either side of Calzaghe (Tarver and Pavlik)

The thing is, Morales, Marquez and co exposed flaws AND capitalised on them against Pacquaio - while flaws were found in Calzaghe, he adapted and suddenly changed the game on them and found a way to win. He has better intangibles and better overall assets in my view than Pac. I'll stick by that.

He never lost, unlike Pacquaio. He has had testing fights over a period longer than a decade without losing. He managed to adapt once his physical best had gone, we've yet to see Pacquaio do this.

Then you've got the actual ability to analyse fights and see where Calzaghe was heads and shoulders above his reputation, those that respect the game and know it intricately all state "Calzaghe is the real deal" - we're talking Sugar Ray Leonard, Emmanuel Steward, Roy Jones Jr, Lennox Lewis, Floyd Mayweather Jr - students of the game who all rate Calzaghe very highly.

So, like I said earlier, let's not revise history and forget things about a fighter solely because of personal preference.

 

I could write a similarly lengthy and explicative post in response again, and we could do this all night long, but if you are happy to pronounce Calzaghe's ability based on performances of varying quality against the likes of Lacy, Kessler and a well-declined B-Hop, then fair enough, nothing I will say change your mind.

If Calzaghe had even once excelled against a single prime p4p ranked fighter or a single prime HOF calibre fighter or any fighter of that nature, then perhaps I would rate him accordingly, but he didn't, so it is simply not possible for me to do so, because I base my opinions on the evidence of what actually happened in the ring, not what could have or would have.

Manny Pacquiao has proved his abilities against a level of opponent and in a level of fight that Joe Calzaghe has not, and history will recognize that he is the superior fighter in every way because of that evidence.