is Calzaghe's record any worse than Rocky Marciano?

Once again.

Marciano: Walcott X2, Charles X2, Louis, Moore, LaStarza X2, Matthews, Layne, Savold, Beshore, Cockell, etc.

Calzaghe: Hopkins, Kessler, Eubank, Lacy, Mitchell, Reid, Sheika, Brewer, Bika, Veit, etc.

Please, PLEASE explain Calzaghe's superiority. Marciano has wins over 4 greats, all past their best, but still very formidable fighters. Calzaghe's best win is over one such fighter. Calzaghe's other big wins are Kessler, Eubank(another faded but formidable fighter), and Lacy(who's been exposed as second rate since that loss). Otherwise, when looking at their secondary resume(as it's obvious Marciano holds the edge as far as top wins) can you honestly tell me you rate the likes of Reid(arguable robbery), Mitchell, Sheika, Bika, etc over the likes of Roland LaStarza, Kid Matthews, Rex Layne, Lee Savold, etc?

Sorry, but there is no justification whatsoever for rating Calzaghe's resume above Rocky's.

 

As of right now, you are correct.

Marciano's resume is better, and by a good margin.

But, like Wlad threads sometimes state, Calzaghe is still a work in progress.


IMO, I don't think he'll reach Rocky's level, nor do I expect Wlad to overtake Lennox.

 

I feel you brother.

 

At this stage in his career, I don't know how much more Calzaghe will do for his standing. Beating this version of Roy does pretty much nothing. A win over Pavlik, however, would help.

Wlad has more "upside" in what he can do for his legacy.

 

Can you explain that? Joe is 36 years old. Are you trying to say he hasn't peaked yet? Or, are you saying his resume' is still a work in progress that depends on what past opponents might do in the future?

Lacy isn't going to do anything except lose to Taylor and retire.

RJJ is 39 and shot to ****.

BHop is 43 and about to take his first serious beating.

That leaves Kessler who is still an open question, but how much can one guy do to enhance joe's resume'.

 

Marciano absolutely did not avoid the best opposition in his era. As a matter of fact, five of his six title defenses were against the RING Magazine #1 contender! These fighters were not "washed-up" all-time greats. It is true that Walcott and Moore were very old by boxing standards, but they were late-bloomers by any standard and were still the elite performers of the division; Moore was on the biggest and most impressive winning streak of his career going into the Marciano fight, an retained his light heavyweight title for another five years afterwards! It is objectively virtually indisputable that the three best contemporary fighters in Marciano's era were Walcott, Charles and Moore, and he faced all of them and compiled a 5-0 (4 KO's) record in the process. The highest-ranking opponent he failed to face was Nino Valdes, who had a couple of stints as #1 contender during 1953-55, and he was a considerably limited fighter, not nearly accomplished or formidable as several of Marciano's opponents, and was beaten twice by Moore. You are severely mistaken in your assessment of Marciano; he fought and beat the best in his era, and did so twice if the first fight left any doubt.