Calzaghe must be top 10 atg ?

Thats true it doesnt tell the whole story, you got to watch the other fighters at that time aswell to pass a judgement. But the 60s,70s HW scene has PLENTY of information

Perhaps thats not he best era to talk about, lets say under the 60s

 

I think Calzaghe might have a shot at a top 10 h2h. However if we look at accomplishments then there is no way... Joe only has three sort of major wins: Kessler, RJJ and Hopkins (and the RJJ win is really worthless actually..). And they all came too late for him to really make the mark he perhaps could have made.

 

You missed out an '0' in your thread title mate.

 

If you don't think an undefeated fighter who has been undefeated champion for more than a decade does not have even the possibility of being top 10 H2H then you cannot be taken serious.

Then you must be a hater.

Noone can prove that he could not have been a top 10 - just like noone can prove that he in fact is.

That all comes down to his lack of opposition until his las year or two. That is why he cannot be considered top 10 at all..

..but if you say it is IMPOSSIBLE that he could have been H2H... then you are no better than the people arguing that he definitely IS a top 10 - either not serious, a hater, or do not know what you are talking about.

 

:huh A shot at the top 10 H2H? Pretty pointless thing to suggest.

 

The thing is that we cannot totally refuse this because we never saw Calzaghe's limit. He was never defeated like almost all other fighters.

Anyway - it matters little because he still is not top 10 because of his lack of opposition.

 

You do realize that saying "End of thread" just makes you look like a stubborn fool, don't you? If we all did that then we would just be the smartest people in the entire thread right?

Also, nice job for speaking on behalf of all boxing historians whom half are the same age as their list of top fighters.

 

Who do you have in your ATG top 10? In a H2H fashion, who does he beat? And how?

You willfully admit his resume is thin, which is true. I've always thought the WBOP belt he cherished, along with Frank War.ren's love affair with the WBO, held him back.

But we have to judge him on who he's beaten. We can't just assume he'd look as good vs. more top guys as he did vs. scrubs. He has two big wins. One vs. Hopkins, one vs. Kessler. And that Kessler win looks less impressive since Andre Ward did the same thing to him.

Joe C make look like an ATG vs. thee best the WBO had to offer, but that has to be taken forr what it is, looking good vs. the WBO's 'top guys'.

 

Stubborn or not, there's truth to it. Joe's resume is not close to being good enough to ******t that distinction. Andf that's not hating, that's being fair about his resume. It's just terrible for someone of his skill and talent.

 

Terrible is way too harsh for speaking on his resume. Sure he could have fought better but you are acting like he is Sven Ottke. JoeC fought Kessler, Hopkins, Reid, Lacy, and other title contenders. He is no Ali but there is no need to take credit away. People just can't stand the fact that he kept winning. I'd like to archive all of the threads before Lacy, Kessler, even Manfredo. Joe was always supposed to lose until he fought Hopkins because people stopped wearing their star-spangled-banner glasses.

 

I'm certainly not claiming that I have Joe in my top 10 H2H... or that he has somehow deserved or proven to be there..

The problem is that he hasn't. But he also hasn't proven that he is NOT there...