Better Resume: Calzaghe Or Jermain Taylor?

Sure, 168 hasn't been brimming with talent, but then 160 hasn't exactly been fantastic either has it? Marquez and Bunema are pony, and Calzaghe has numerous fighters on his record who are either on a par with or better than these guys. Spinks and Ouma are nobodies at 160, and unless they go on to do something at the weight then i fail to see the significance of these wins. If Calzaghe had wins over a former light-middle belt holder, say a Fernando Vargas type character, and a middleweight belt holder like say, Keith Holmes, and he had struggled massively with both of them, would you give him credit? Somehow i doubt it.

 

Debatable.

 

I would also like to point out that i don't entirely agree the version of B-Hop that Taylor beat is better than the current version. Sure he was younger, but he looked totally dead at the weight and he has looked far better at 175lbs than he did for the last couple of years at 160lbs, just ask Kelly Pavlik and Antonio Tarver.

 

now that u bring it up. i would have to say they r pretty equal. calzaghe has beaten bigger names, but talent at the time of the fight and all that, taylor might have the upper hand. plus he beat hopkins 2 times.

 

:good yeah this is just another stupid post to put down Joe.

 

WasHow many MWs did Taylor actually fight?No more than 4 probably.Calzaghe at least fought guys in his division.

 

Yeah, and you need to realize resume includes losses. Why the hell would you only count wins on a resume? It's like if you have your own resume, if you have to put down the reason why you got your ass fired you have to be honest.

Resume and competition are different. Competition is the bare facts, who you faced. Resume is open to interpretation, because it includes everything, and how you analyze that. You can have better competition and a worse resume, quite easily.

 

So Calzaghes win over Hopkins are overshadowed due to age.... yet Hopkins goes on to beat Pavlik - in what he called his "best performance - better than Trinidad".... That's fuced up. And Taylor beating Pavlik really strengthens his resume..... Even though now Pavlik is/was an "overated American Hype Job"

You Yank turds are really funny....

 

are we talking who they fought or who they beat? to me taylor has been in with the better fighters overall. if going just by the wins then it is very close.

 

Are you joking? Aside from Hopkins, Pavlik and Wright (who is really a light-middle) who has he fought?

 

At least the poll results make a little sense in this thread.

 

stupid ****ing question. another biased ***** with an irrational hate for calzaghe. why else put manfredo over mitchell, or is it just lack of knowledge ?
the answer is obviously joe, he's fought and beat better oppostion in the last 2 years than taylor has in his career
and i'm disapointed in pacfan, you just seem to jump on any calzaghe thread with abandon these days. you seem to have good boxing knowledge, but where is the reason?

 

taylor beat LAcy but it was a work for him he was spooked of lacy power. he was faster then him. he won a ud but he worked really hard for it.

Joe battered lacy and won evey round except fo the round he was deducted a point he even knocked lacy down . something Taylor failed to do.


so all in all joe has a better resume. mitchell and brewer are better wins then ouma and spinks. reid is a better win then marquez and joppy, his lacy win was far better and more dominant. and the kessler wins are better then all his wins except his hopkins wins. JT drew with Wright. joe beat hopkins and RJJ. no to mention joe beat an undefeated shika(i think he was or he had one loss) and Viet. and jt struggled with smaller men such as spinks and ouma.


point blank its joe hands down