British fighter of the decade (2000-2009)

I kind of disagree, I believe it is sort of between 'pretty good' and 'superb' because it is very rare for a fighter to go out on top, remain undefeated and become the top fighter of two divisions. You would normally see a defeat/s on a boxers record at the end of their career, so calzaghe needs praise for remaining undefeated whilst in the toughest faze of his career and past him prime.

 

No

its the reason why Lewis is rated above Calzaghe

even though Lewis has been KO'd twice

and Calzaghe is the perfect 46-0

If Hatton had never fought Floyd and Pac - then you could still have the myth he was this unbeatable warrior

but

his C.V would not be impressive enough to claim to be so great

 

Calzaghe has always been a greater fighter than Hatton

He might not of fought pound for pound greats in their prime (apart from Hopkins who was better than ever)

But he would have done better than Hatton

You cant say Hatton is better than Calzaghe just because he fought better pound for pound fighters - because he was destroyed.

That'slike saying Clinton Woods is a great - because he fought Prime Roy Jones - except for the signifcant reality he was outclassed and stopped.

 

Yes, but from your quote it seemed like you implied that you just removed the pac and floyd fights from his record and had not fought other opponents.

 

True, i agree with you and thats why i voted for Lewis over Clazaghe. But look at the number of votes Calzaghe got, if the decision went the other way against Hopkins he would probobly have very few.
IF Hatton didn't fight Pac or Floyd, and had say 3 more wins against B level opposition, more people would consider him better than Calzaghe or Lewis than they do now.

 

Hatton does nothing better than Calzaghe except punch harder. Nothing.

 

I thought we were rating on accomplishments, not p4p rating.

 

True

But that would have more to do with smoke and mirrors of being undefeated and unexposed

Rather than proving yourself against the best

 

If Hatton was fighting a Hopkins or Kessler he would have been knocked out. Calzaghe was getting tagged hard and often and stung on occasions but made the neccessary adjustments. As Roach said; Hatton can't adjust. After the first round you know his fate.

 

As Calzaghe was.

 

Was there any point in putting Scott Harrison on that list, considering he was a very average fighter .... How the hell did he get more votes than Hatton, thats just ridiculous !!
It has to be Calzaghe .. Scott Harrison, slightly better than Clinton Woods as a champion but lets be honest, that isnt saying much ..

Good thread but lost a little credibility when you mentioned Harrison ..

 

The fact that Calzaghe was getting tagged hard by Kessler reflects badly on Calzaghe, it has nothing to do with Hatton .... Hatton got beat by P4P king Floyd and PFP king Manny Pac ..

Just remind me TFFP, apart from an old Beyer and a limited Andrade, who has Kessler beat ?? And for that matter, take away an old Jones and Hopkins and who did Calzaghe beat ??

Calzaghe beat nobody of any note that was in they're prime .. As Rafa Benitez would say 'FACT'

 

Excellent post :good. I totally agree

 

Kessler is better than the Urango's and the Malignaggi's. And the Collazo's and Mausa's. If you cant see that while watching Kessler then we probably will never agree. Calzaghe wouldnt struggle with a Collazo type of the Lightheavys. When he moved up, he fought the best and beat him.

You cant take away Hopkins from Calzaghe. His win list and performance before,during and after cements his standing as a top 3 P4P'er. And Calzaghe beat him.

Whatever the age. Even if you didnt score it for Calzaghe It's close. No shut out or KO. When he steped up he was there with them. The others werent.

No contest for the 00's unless Haye gets the Klits.

 

I would agree with you to a point .. For me Kessler did well in a 'Losing' effort and there are plenty of guys that have looked good in a 'Losing' effort but the fact is that he lost ..
The Hopkins v Calzaghe fight is a very interesting one, i'm still not sure that Calzaghe won that fight, Yes he was always the aggressor but if you watch it again, Joe landed virtually nothing of any effectiveness .. I fully admit that ive never like Calzaghe's style of fighting but i could have scored that fight to Hopkins quite easily .. I know Hopkins work-rate in that fight was shocking but for 'effective boxing', i would have given it to Hopkins no problem, as Joe landed absolutely nothing in the whole fight, he was so inaccurate ..

My point is that Hatton got beat by the 2 best fighters of his generation and he is denigrated for losing .. Calzaghe never fought fighters of this calibre, he outboxed Lacey who proved to be a limited fighter. Kessler could yet prove to be a very good fighter but hes proved nothing up to this point, Hopkins could have gone either way and Jones was a shadow of his former self ....