Better Resume: Joe Calzaghe or Anthony Joshua

Joshua's best wins - Wlad, Parker, Povetkin, Ruiz Jr, Pulev and Whyte.

Calzaghe's best wins - Hopkins, Kessler, Eubank, Reid, Lacy, Brewer, Bika.

I don't think there's much in it, in terms of the quality of opposition they fought. But Calzaghe is undefeated and had a longer reign, that consistency has to count for something. So I say Calzaghe has the better resume.

 

Hopkins was far more skilled than Wlad, Kessler threw and landed far shots than Parker does, his bout v AJ was dull, wasn`t much difference in quality between Pov and Eubank, Ruiz`s feet were far slower than Reid`s, he was grossly overweight in the rematch v AJ, Pulev had nowhere near the power than Lacy had p4p, Brwr was a world champ before Calzaghe beat him Whyte hadn`t reached that level when AJ beat him.

 

That has nothing to do with the thread.

Also, apply context.

Joe stayed at that weight for 14 years.

It was also a weak division for the most part.

So you can’t make comparisons like that.

Also, would Joe have ruled for 14 years, had he have fought a guy as great as Usyk?

Usyk is a fine fighter.

So what would have been the equivalent of that?

A prime Roy Jones maybe?

 

Lol

 

It’s not really a fair comparison though.

Joe was at SMW for 14 years, where he got the opportunity to become the undisputed champion, by beating very good, but not great fighters, in both Lacy and Kessler.

He was 35 by then, where he’d had over 40 fights.

Whereas Anthony hasn’t had those same opportunities, and he’s fought a guy in Usyk, who was better than anyone who Joe fought at SMW, and by a distance.

So it’s unfair to vote Joe, on the grounds that he cleaned up at SMW, whereas Anthony hasn’t cleaned up at HW.

Anthony is younger and has had less fights.

Their circumstances are/were just completely different.

The thread also isn’t asking who the better fighter was on a P4P basis.

It’s just asking who has the better resume.

So I think it’s a great question.

A number of factors have to be considered.

 

This is completely irrelevant Mark.

1. You are only comparing their resumes.

2. Joe never fought anybody even comparable to fighting Usyk twice.

Usyk is a great fighter, who was in his prime when he fought AJ.

Usyk may even go on to beat Tyson Fury twice.

 

Andy Ruiz

 

1. Again, that’s irrelevant.

2. How good was Kessler?

He wasn’t a great fighter.

He hadn’t beaten anybody noteworthy before fighting Joe. His titles were won by beating B-C level guys.

So why was he an excellent champion?

After losing to Joe, he was beaten comprehensively by Ward, before he split 2 fights with Froch.

Andy isn’t great, but he could beat the same calibre of opponents who Kessler beat.

 

That smaller man happens to be one of the best fighters of this generation.
And the question was about resume, not who was the better boxer between the two.

Calzaghe had a long reign but most of it was spent in obscurity, fighting guys who simply were not world class.
The top guys he did beat were: Chris Eubank, Richie Woodhall, Jeff Lazy, Sakio Bika, Mikkel Kessler and Bernard Hopkins.
Jones Jr. was way past his best.

Now onto Joshua: Dillian Whyte, Charles Martin, Wladimir Klitschko, Carlos Takam, Joseph Parker, Alexander Povetkin are names that stand out.
Sure, you can start tearing down them by saying things like Wladimir was old and whatnot, but they were highly ranked opponents at the time, except Whyte, who got his recognition later on. Maybe Wallin should be on that list, but eh.

IMO, their resumes are quite comparable. Difference is that Calzaghe finished his career with Kessler, the rising young champion and he then put two cherries on top with wins over Hopkins and Jones Jr.

 

Again, he never fought anybody like Usyk.

The biggest win of his entire career, was a split over a 43 year old Hopkins.

No, he was never knocked out by a guy like Ruiz.

Joe had a great chin.

Again, none of this is relevant to the question what has been asked.

It appears that most people have read it wrong.

If you think that Joe was a better overall fighter, that’s cool.

However, this thread is comparing their resumes. And if you do that, then Joe doesn’t come out on top easily.

 

It should be. Considering that he has a poor resume, where he only fought about 10 world level fighters in his entire career.

 

Good post.

It appears that most haven’t read the thread properly.

It’s very close.

Yes, Joe had the much longer reign and was undefeated.

That’s fair enough.

However, the counter to that, is that Joe fought lesser opposition over a much longer period.

 

Mark, my good man.

You’re all over the place here.

These aren’t comparable.


Kessler threw more shots than Parker does?

Kessler was a SMW and Parker is a HW.

How is that relevant?


Ruiz’s feet were slower than Reid’s?

Again, you’re comparing a SMW to a HW.

 

No way someone mentioned Martin and Takam. Those aren't even better wins than Pulev lol. The myth is still strong I see

 

Great post.