British Forum: Which ATG was Calzaghe greater then?

Calzaghe is in my bracket of "**** off the sooner the world forgets you the better"

(Around 500-600)

 

Right, Laguna may be better than anyone that Joe has faced but then again he was old and never fought again after the rematch. Therefore I reckon Joe's quantity of smaller wins puts him above Buchanan.

I reckon Joe shouldn't have retired and that he should still come back. He had far too much talent to not go down as an ATG. Then again, boxers, like in everything else, aren't appreciated until they're gone.

 

You know, all this is completely pointless. Nobody here even has any idea in their mind what the benchmark for being an ATG is. Unless you have made a list, or have at least comprehended a half decent list made by somebody else, you would have no idea who is considered a great and how Calzaghe would compare.

Throwing up a few random names achieves **** all.

 

Kenny Buchanan was a fantastic boxer who unfortunately fought for a few fights too long. Joe Calzaghe was never beaten and didn't fight enough quality opponents. They are the antithesis of each other in this fact and that Buchanan fought all of his big fights overseas. I really can't see the point in denigrating the abilities of brilliant boxers to simply prove a point on a forum.

The sport of boxing would have been much poorer if any of the great fighters mentioned in this thread had not participated.

 

I have him up there with Arguello and better than DM

 

Harsh. Did you think that way before the Lacy fight?

 

Do you like boxing?

 

But that's kinda the point of a forum:huh

 

Good case, well presented! You are perfectly correct.

It's just that I don't get off on dragging the good guys down to simply prove a point. It's a hard enough game as it is.

If any of them (boxers) logged on here, the majority of posters would become suppositories!

 

Agreed, I've tried numerous times to draw up a top 100 but there's just no way I can do it. Outside the top 50 gets very murky and I start to group 10-20 fighters together with nothing to seperate them. I had JC in the 80-100 bracket.

 

It's a fairly simple concept.

If a polar bear and a honey badger were the same size and retained their skills and attributes; who would win in a fight.

Obviously, the honey badger because he's a ferocious ****er! It doesn't detract from the fact that the polar bear is still a worthy opponent.

I'm taking the **** (in a nice way, hopefully) and also proving your points. :hey

 

Me too, there is doubt he is in the lower echelon.

 

:good

 

Why?

I read your posts with interest as you seem to have an incredible knowledge of the game and value your judgement.

 

Thanks!

Just purely on his record, one has to recognise its very difficult to put him much higher and that is how 'ATG' lists must be compliled. Otherwise, how can you compare a guy from the early 20th century to a modern fighter? The only way is to compare achivements in their respective eras.

To use a name in this thread I'd pick out Barrera. I place Barrera somewhere around the 60 mark and he has notably better scalps on his record than Calzaghe. That alone should suggest Calzaghe has to be a fair bit lower.