Revisionist History never worked for me. Here are some FACTS, and not RUMORS. 1. As good as Kessler was and as intimidating as Lacy was, NEITHER WAS EVER TOP 10 POUND FOR POUND. 2. To this day, Calzaghe has only faced ONE (Count 'em, ONE) fighter who was currently Pound for Pound Top 10 in his 46 (Count 'em, 46) fight career, in Hopkins. Again, a grand total of ONE fight. 3. That Top 10 Pound for Pound fighter, while coming off 2 wins, had also lost two fights back to back TWO WEIGHT CLASSES BELOW. He was also well over the age of 40. FORTY. There's your history lesson. Can you disprove any of those points?
No matter how you spin it, The guy finds a way to win and generally does it with a better work rate and an adaptable style to beat any opponent he is facing. 46-0 He is defintely a true champ in my books.:thumbsup
1. Never said they were. 2. And? Wlad Klitschko hasn't faced a single solitary P4P fighter. Most of them tend to be in the 120-154lb range. In fact, Hopkins and Joe seem to be the only two in a higher range that got there on volume of work, rather than Hopkins getting beat by Taylor who got beat by Pavlik 3. Lost in very controversial fashion, then ended up dominating the guy who beat the guy twice that he lost too. So what about his age? I can disprove 3. I can argue the reasoning for 1 and 2 to be argued in this thread?
How does that disprove 3? The guy who beat the guy? That's still not the guy in question. And your guy who beat the guy was moving up to fight at light heavy for the first time. While we're at it, how about the guy who beat the guy who beat the guy who beat the guy? Your analogy is as ridiculous as this thread you started. As far as 2, you're right. Wlad has never faced a P4P fighter. And guess where Wlad is in the Top 10 P4P discussion, or discussion of ATG Heavyweights? The same place where Joe belongs when discussing the primes of Jones and Hopkins: NOWHERE! To be the best, you have to BEAT the best. And Joe Calzaghe has certainly not beaten the best. ONE P4P fighter in 46 fights. 1/46 in fraction form What a FARCE!
pugilistic power is one of the best american posters on here. note, numbnuts that he is not saying calzaghe is the best fighter ever, just saying that he deserves credit for a career that has been very very good, yeah he had a stretch where he could have fought bigger names but the guy is making up for that, and then some.
Reid clearly beat Ottke. (Didn't just beat him, but beat the living **** out of him.) And Joe beat Reid. Any ducking there was on Ottke's part.
As neither an American or a Brit from my point of view there is clearly mis-placed patriotism going on here. There is also much nonsense being thrown around such as Joe C hiding etc, Joe fought hard to get big fights much earlier in his career. It didn't happen because he was not considered marketable enough in the USA. Should he be blamed for that? The boxing game ultimately is about money, like any business. And money decides what fights happen and what fights don't happen. It ISN'T and never has been FAIR, thats just the way it is and the way it will continue to be. The age old argument of 'so-and-so beats so-and-so in their primes' is pointless banter and proves absolutely nothing. YOU CANNOT EVER PROVE that one way or the other. RJJ IS a legend Bhop IS a legend Calzaghe IS a legend
The circumstances behind why he never fought great fighters in there prime is irrelevant. He didn't get Jones or Hopkins when he should have, which is a shame because it will always raise question marks on him.
The Lacy win isn't great, hes not a world class fighter he was a hyped fighter with limited skills and good power. The Kessler win is good though, he can fight. Joe's resume is solid, but it's not great. I'd like to see him fight Dawson before he retires.
You can easily turn the jones and hopkins around and say, why didn't they get him when they should have ? If the op is right, it appears hopkins clearly dodged calzaghe earlier in his career, and if eubanks is to be believed, roy seen him as to much of a risk, considering he was barely known or recognized stateside. In these circumstances, the question mark is'nt so much on calzaghe but rather on hopkins and roy.