calzaghe best british boxer ever ??

lol how long have you been watching boxing... calzaghe's resume is nowhere near has good has lennox lewis resume.. tyson ducked lennon lewis earlier on... why do u think they did that... lennox lewis beat every heavyweight that was any good from late 80s and 90s and the best klitchsko.. u gotta remember knockouts over razor ruddick, tommy morrison,, david tua.. tyson avoided him till late so that knockout was well deserved, ray mercer, mcall was a beast... what are u talking about... mcall hadnt loss for years... riddick bowe refused to fight him and threw belt in the garbage... come on now lennox lewis had a resume full of excellent fighters... whose on calzaghe's resume... an unproven kessler... who has kessler beat to where we can call him great... he was clearly beaten by calzaghe so how good can he possibly be when an old ass hopkins almost beat calzaghe... and first of all just cuz he beat pavlik does not mean he was all there... hopkins outsmarted and outboxed pavlik... pavlik clearly is one dimensional and cannot adjust to a master boxer.... it didnt take excellent stamina or young legs to do what hopkins did... if hopkins was in his prime pavlik would have got layed out in the process... and if hopkins was in his prime calzaghe wouldnt have been able to press the issue like he did to a fighter that was 7 years his senior.. and still almost beat him... in fact calzaghe's resume is pathetic compared to lewis ... he shouldnt even be mentioned in lewis class.. and dont forget lewis beat anyone that ever beat him in a much more competitive class and age.. and out of his prime he beat an excellent fighter in his prime... while calzaghe beats up a shot roy jones who was knocked out by other fighters and now he is being acclaimed has the greatest ever... U GOTTA BE KIDDING ME!!!!

 

Check out any old Willie Pep pieces on youtube...some of the moves that Ken pulled are straight out of the Pep training manual, its quite uncanny.

 

tyson was better than lewis - calzaghe better than tyson !!!!

 

Lennox, then Calzaghe. The fact the two crossed over is great for UK fans.

 

cant see how lennox was better - he lost 2 fights calzaghe none surely the 0 counts for somet..

 

He fought better oppostion.

 

ill have to disagree with you - calzaghe has fought just as good opposition & yet not got himself defeated - leenox can come a bold second

 

Now THATS a beast of a post. If there were a 'post of the year' competition on British ESB, this one would get my vote.

 

I think LLs record has a lot more solid names on the Calzaghes, sure he got KO'd twice but that can happen when you fight a lot of decent heavyweights. As well as Hopkins, Kessler, Lacy Calzaghes defences prior to that also included some good fighters in with the oft-quoted Tocker Pudwell types but I still don't think it ranks with Lewis'.

 

lennox was no big deal when he was around - tyson was the big deal & as lennox couldnt make up his mind whether he wanted to british or canadian then i think he lost alot of uk support which is why he fought most of his career in the states & tbh i couldnt really give a toss if he won or lost - sorry true british champ is calzaghe hands down

 

I think there is a tendency in most sports to rate the participants from previous eras higher - in some cases this is absolutely correct, others not so.

For instance, in cricket it is generally accepted that Don Bradman is the best batsman ever, averaging 99 would suggest this - especially given that the mark of a great batsman is averaging 50. These days, with flatter decks and shorter boundaries, the fact that someone averaged 99 is even more remarkable.

Boxing, I am not sure. Not being much of a boxing historian I have no idea about most of the older fighters, and how the game was back then. Obviously, there were no fractured titles, but was there was much ducking as there is now? Boxrec is a pretty reliable source for certain things, but others not so.

I would suggest that boxing is perhaps the hardest sport to rank people - not only are there so many different weights, there are styles of fighting, judging (which is always subjective), politics et al - whereas in other sports there is less of a grey area.

 

It wasn't a case of ducking, more some people not getting a shot back then. Not everyone can fight one champion. Since actually being "champion" was meaningful back then, we know if a guy was middle, light heavy and heavyweight champion its a special achievement. You can't cherrypick a John Ruiz like Jones and call yourself champ.

This is why Fitzsimmons is rightly held highly. Simple logic dictates fighters from past eras are ranked higher. If you fight more fights, more rounds, do not have a promotional team consisting of a dozen members whos sole purpose is to protect their asset you have a better chance of racking up a great resume.

 

The only wins you could think of for Naseem Hamed were Paul Ingle and McCullough?
How about Kevin Kelly? Wilfredo Vasquez? Tom Johnson? Manuel Medina?
Hamed basically unified and cleaned out his division, he was more than "ok" :-(

 

Agreed, in a much more competitive division as well.