Do you currently have Calzaghe or Buchanan higher in your British ATG list?

Kirkland wasn't fighting the legend at the weight where he was a monster and nigh on unbeatable...in my view the greatest lightweight ever to lace them up.

If Calzaghe had taken a prime prime Roy Jones to the 13th round in a competative fight and then only been stopped by a punch in the grovellys then I would say that that was a superb performance. However, Roy Jones at any weight and at anytime was not the fighter that Duran was at 135

 

I'd say he is as insurmountable a challenge at 168 then Duran was at 135, the difference being that Duran would beat any 135lber IMO and although Jones would beat any 168lber, the depth in class in each division is vastly different.

 

You cano only beat whats infront of you.

I don't want this to come off that I'm not a Duran fan as he is one of my all time fav's.

I was just making the point that several people did well against Duran, but that does not automatically make them better than Calzaghe.

Again it depends on how you rate a fighter. If it is just on Resume then Joe is going to come up short. But like I've said previously I rate a fighter on having seen them what I think they could do as well as what they have done!

 

Well, I also rate people on ability. I.e how good would this guy do IF HE HAD come up against the best.

As good as Joe C was, I don't think he'd beat ANY ATG 175lbers, and in his own division, one which is not very historical and not that deep, he comes up short to Jones 10 times out of 10.

 

Thats your opinion and I repect that. Most would probably agree with you.
I actually feel that Joe would have been more of a handful for Jones than a lot of people think. But hey thats just my opinion too.

 

I just don't see how Calzaghes attributes would match up with Prime Jones'. As a fan of Calzaghe (went to see Joe vs Kessler so obviously not a hater) I can say he was adaptable, tough and fast-handed. Tactically astute well.

However, I've seen many others that are better; and have performed against better opponents.

 

Joe was able to find a way against everybody he fought. Could he against RJJ? I don't know, I'd like to think so, but I don't know.

I've rewatched the Hopkins fight recently and think it's a very VERY underrated win. From about the 4th on Calzaghe had Hopkins, one of THE great tacticians, worked out. Not worked out to the extent that he could do what he wanted, but worked out enough to be able to string rounds together.

Do you know that in the Hopkins fight, from round 4 thru 11 Calzaghe won every round on at least 2 scorecards?

If you combined the 3 scorecards and give the round to the fighter who got the round on 2 of the 3 cards Calzaghe won 116-111.

 

And if you just flat out watch the fight you'll see that Calzaghe would stand little chance against many other fighters around the division. Sloppy, hittable, and despite his own adaptibility, never really solved the puzzle.

Which, seeing as it's Hopkins is like trying to do a Rubix cube blindfolded, chained up underwater. Still, there are many Lightheavys I'd pick to solve that puzzle more conclusively than Joe did.

Despite forcing a close fight from Hopkins, which in itself is very, very good (especially considering Hopkins was not drained as he was against Taylor, so no excuses there) it HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT that Hopkins was a career Middleweight and an old man.

It proves in no way Calzaghe's capacity to square off with the 'greats' of the division, and as his own division (168 is not that deep) is not 'historically great' I think his 'greatness' has to be called into question, especially when you look at his wafer thin resume.

Undefeated or not, a good fighter or not, not on Buchanan's level. Aesthetically or on paper IMO:good

 

Sorry mate we've been having a good debate but for me your oppening paragraph is total bollocks!

 

Against Hopkins?!?!?! He was.

Okay, put him in with Matthew Saad Muhammad, Bob Foster, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Mike Spinks, to name a few and he'd get DECIMATED. Hopkins' low workrate was in part due to what Calzaghe was doing, but with his punching power (little) you can't think he'd be able to stave off the fighters I've just mentioned. I think Yaqui Lopez would get to him to be honest, as would Marvin Johnson. John Conteh is a far more effective fighter.

These are the kinda' fighters you have to bring up when discussing whether someone is 'great'.

Calzaghe is no.2 at 168 for me anyway:good But as I say that is not a deep division, and Calzaghe didn't exactly beat anyone whilst he was there anyway. Hence why I don't rate him above the Scot:good

 

For me he would have hung with any of those guys you mentioned and in no way do I see him being 'decimated' by anyone around his weight.

Also am I on my own in thinking that Joe would have had an easier time agains the 'hopkins' that faught RJJ?

 

Ummm, obviously. Hopkins was fairly green and 160lbsatsch

And no, those guys woulda destroyed him mate.

 

Don't forget Calzaghe was post prime also.

It's a shame he left so many questions marks, the fact that his best win was when he was 36 says a lot about his opposition during his best years.

He had the opportunity to answer these questions, but for one reason or another never did.

We'll never know how good he was. Or how lucky.

 

No.

Calzaghe fought the better version. A very good version.

 

Exactly. And fleaman you say those fighters win. Fine thats your opinion.

But it certainly ain't fact!