Better Resume: Calzaghe Or Jermain Taylor?

its Calzaghe and its not close

 

Zab has beaten hardly anyone of note and has lost every time he has faced an elite fighter, and he was never a puncher at 147 yet still managed to stop Spinks. Reid, Mitchell, Woodhall and Brewer were all legit belt holders at 168 regardless of your opinion.

You still haven't answered a question i have posed 2 or 3 times now; how many current or former middleweight champions has Taylor beaten? I would wager it's a lot less than the number of 168lb champions Calzaghe has beaten.

 

It should be evident to all regardless if your a big calzaghe fan or a big calzaghe hater that calzaghe's resume is lacking.. with no comparison to jermain taylors record... calzaghe's resume just really doesnt stack up to the title of such a great and dominant champion that people give to him.

is he a great fighter? no doubt
has he accomplished a lot over time? no doubt

but to claim hes beaten a lot of great fighters over time is just totally unfair... i mean if you look at the so called "great fighters" that calzaghe has beaten they all have a lot in common

- No notable fighters on their resume
- If they do they were over the hill at the time of fighting calzaghe
- An overall poor record (in 95% of calzaghes opponents)

im not even trying to hate on calzaghe because he is a good fighter but i think his problem with his resume is that he just came into the game at a bad time....

hes one step behind roy jones jr and bernard hopkins class
but one step ahead of the pavliks, dawsons & lacy's of boxing..

the perfect fight for calzaghe would have been jermain taylor if jermain taylor beat pavlik.. but jermain taylor dropped the ball against pavlik.. if jt beat pavlik nobody could make any excuses about jermain taylor being to green or being too old because beating pavlik would have put him on the mountain top... not on his way down or on his way up

 

:rofl

 

Calzaghe has fought better fighters - i can't believe anybody can argue this - but his resume is hardly impressive if you consider he has been champ for 11 years

 

no but were just measuring the difficulty of the fighters jermain taylor & joe calzaghe beat..


so the losses really have nothing to do with the wins? get what im saying?

 

Nah your wrong..probably should look at the fighters and how good they were at the time. You dont seem to know much about boxing. Taylor by 1/2 mile. You need to study up a little bit there little guy.

 

Genuine LOL at the cluelessness of this post.

 

This thread is just what I expected: when asked a question purely about resume, people fail to separate achievement/p4p greatness/accomplishments/recent form/a whole host of other factors from what is being asked: the quality of the guys on the resume. Add to those people the vast amount of that particular kind of Calzaghe-maniac who would vote for him if the question was who is the greatest fighter between him and Muhammad Ali, and that's why you get this uneven poll score.

Taylor has TWO wins over a better version of Hopkins than Calzaghe does - big advantage Taylor.

Taylor beat Jeff Lacy as did Calzaghe - even

Taylor drew with HOF lock Winky Wright, Calzaghe beat potential HOF standard Mikkel Kessler - advantage Calzaghe

Taylor beat Spinks, Joppy, Marquez, Calzaghe beat Eubank, Mitchell, Bika - more or less even, perhaps Calzaghe shades it simply because he has more wins as he has had a longer career.


Someone explain to me why on resume alone this isn't even close??

 

Well actually, your very own thread title says "Better Resume". A resume encompasses the entire thing, wins, losses, draws, NC, DQ's. If you wanted to talk about competition thats something different.

The funny thing about the Calzaghe resume debate is usually that the knowledgeable Calzaghe fans concede its not an outstanding resume, yet people will continually try to degrade it, arguing against themselves.

 

Thats a fair post, Calzaghes career/ opposition fought has been very patchy and could defineatly have been better but theres still enough names on there over 11 years to see off Taylors record quite comfortably.

 

How many "great" fighters were around during Calzaghe's reign? Jones at 175. Hopkins at 160. Calzaghe wasn't even in contention for being a "great" until he beat a name American fighter in Lacy. He solidified his status as best ever supermiddle with the Kessler win.

Everyone and their neighbour knows that Calzaghe's resume is sorely lacking, but people continue to throw aroun the phrase "how many greats has he beaten"? Ottke, Larsen, Braehmer, Catley, Lucas, Johnson, Beyer etc are all good fighters that would of increased Calzaghe's resume greatly, but they themselves were not "great".

 

my bad i aint even see it....

to be honest that question means nothing... because if those guys are champions... but didnt beat any worthy adversaries to earn that championship status it really doesnt mean much to me...

that would be like if dwight howard went back to college last year (since he would only be 21) and averaged like 40 points and 20 rebounds..

yeah he would have remarkable #'s but he would be competing against people who were out of his class anyways

point is...

the people joe c beat to earn his belts he was way out of their class and this isnt a compliment to calzaghe but more of a mark against his competition

 

atsch Beating guys in one own weight division doesn't count???

Damn Kessler better find some featherweight Champs to beat up

 

Taylor gets more credit for Hopkins than Calzaghe but the same credit for beating Lacy who clearly has too many miles on the clock these days??


Spinks has never even fought another opponent at 160 and got sparked by Zab at 147. You've also mysteriously "forgotten" world titlists Reid, Woodhall, Brewer from Calzages list.