Calzaghe's legacy is already fading........

what a fcking stupid thread, couldnt believe it when something like this was made

does this mean ali leagcy is tainted because foreman was beaten after ali beat him?

does this mean pacmans leagcy is sht as well because cotto, marquez, hatton and so on were already beaten

why is everyone forgetting hopkins ducked calzaghe by pulling out of a fight in 2002, everyone ducked him, they were afraid of the undisputed champion of the world. he destroyed everyone and is one of the greatest of all times

 

That is a good point Frankie mate and i'm sure no-one would contest it!

 

As stated by somone else, 46-0 is not to be taken lightly

 

The difference is that Ali's legacy is not so heavily reliant on the likes of Foreman. Aside from that Foreman was by far a more formidable opponent than any of the guys mentioned in JC's resume. Just sayin.

 

Foreman was number 1 heavyweight at that time, he destroyed Frazier in 2 rounds, and he beat top heavyweight contenders like Ken Norton. He was the one to beat at that time.

Who did Lacy, and Kessler beat prior from taking their beating from Calzaghe?
Lacy had beaten old men Scott Pemberton and Robin Reid, while Kessler had beat decent like Mundine, and Markus Beyer.

 

Hes fading by the page.

 

:good Class!! .

 

Joe's legacy is what it is. Good fighter with good wins. Nothing more.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:roflatschatschatsch

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:roflatschatschatschatschatsch

 

What legacy? the one where he retires before proving himself?

 

:good An objective assessment of Joe's legacy, which is difficult to counter. That is what bugs me about Joe. He had all the tools to ensure that neutral fans like Lance would proclaim him a great! But, for a variety of reasons, he never did! This is the frustration felt by many rational Joe Calzaghe fans.

 

This.
He dominated a weak smw division in my eyes. If he woulda come along earlier or later wed of found out more about the welsh dragon.

 

Top 50 what?? Please dont say greatest boxers.

 

YEP. Came into view as a bunch of talents moved out/up or retired in the mid to late 90s.

Struggled against limited guys and old greats.

Good fighter. Nothing more. His longevity is a direct result or product of not meeting greats in battle.

If he had even met guys just as competent as that past peak version of Eubank (from '97) in the following decade he never would have been in pristine condition at the end. He always had favorable conditions and got to mature in the most advantageous fashion.

Imagine Joe following his struggle with that past peak version of Eubank against any assortment of prime versions of talented threats who fought between 160 and 175 and it is impossible to believe that he wouldn't have gotten his chin checked and rechecked until broken.