Is Joe Calzaghe REALLY an ATG?

he is in the same boat as galaxy, although a little bit higher

 

HOF,I voted the bottom optiion though because thread started asked for it by making it an option

 

The only problem is with Joe.... You get massive extremes of Nuthuggers and Haters

I'm niether and I voted HOF....yes ATG 100.... No

 

Yeah he's top 100 - 200 for sure ... there are many fighters that are ahead of him - even the Hopkins and Jones, who have accomplished more during their prime reign and have beaten better opposition. Calzaghe does have the fact that he retire undefeated on his side but some of his opponents before Jones and Hopkins won't match up to their previous opponents.

If Calzaghe would've fought Tarver, Dawson, and Johnson before he retired, or even fought Eridei -- He wouldve been in better standings

But with guys like Manfredo, Ashira, Lacy, Veit ... you know guys who haven't accomplished anything and haven't made a name for themselves with their careers.

If Hatton beats Pacquiao I would definitely rate him above Calzaghe --
Wins over Castillo, Tszyu, and Pacquiao ... with his lone loss coming to PBF ... I'd say that out weighs Hopkins and Jones (who were both up there in age and wasn't in the prime of their careers - not that it matters but years from now it will come up)

 

I would say yes JC is an all time great between the 80-100.....to be undefeated in 15 years full stop is an achievement. But yes i agree he coulda fought better competition earlier in his career.

But when i think about who was there at SMW to fight that he has avoided the answer is none. Bhop avoided him early on so thats not his fault, but i do think he coulda moved up weight earlier to chase some bigger fights.

But that fact is at SMW he beat everyone and therefore imo deserves between 80-100 on ATG list.

 

So just out of intrest... who do you put joe above

 

edison miranda is a bigger atg.... who is joe.... he is not american is he....

 

Great fighter, great record. True ATG.:bbb

 

Listen *****!
Ok the guy slaps pretty good, thats all! He beat an overrated Lacy, a shot Roy Jones and lost to Hopkins and of course held a title for like 10 years and fought bums! His only good win was against Kessler!

 

He is an ATG. He beat everybody they put in front of him. He dominated Roy Jones, Lacy, etc. he is one of the best.

 

[quote="LA Earthquake";3400841]He is an ATG. He beat everybody they put in front of him. He dominated Roy Jones, Lacy, etc. he is one of the best.[/quote]


Glen Johnson dominated a 4 year younger Jones far worse than Calzaghe, if dominating a shot Jones is one of the highlights of your career you got a problem in terms of all time greatness.:yep

 

No, I genuinely do not believe he is an ATG. I think he ranks somewhere between 95th and 110th of all-time, and for me that placing does not merit the title of an All-Time Great.

I have always said that the accolade of All-Time Great is tossed around too cheaply and it should be reserved for only the top 50 fighters ever.

Joe Calzaghe will not be remembered as a great for all-time, because in 30 years no-one will remember the hype that surrounded Jeff Lacy and he will be just another Charles Brewer on a feeble resume (that will undoubtedly depreciate in value with time due to the dire lack of prime top-quality fighters on it). In 20-30 years, Joe's win over Jones will be remembered as one of those horrible mismatches where a shot-to-**** ATG gets humiliated by a guy who couldn't have laced his boots when he was in his prime (Leonard-Camacho etc).

The only wins that will carry any weight in the future are Kessler and Hopkins, but that is only 2 out of 46, a very very low ratio of top class wins. And for all we know, Kessler may be remembered as just a decent short-term alphabelt champ, unless he gets control of his career and achieves something before it's too late. If Hopkins continues to compete and win, that win will still mean something in time, but its value will always be diluted by the fact that Hopkins was 43 and was clearly not the same fighter he was around 2001, and that the decision has been debated feverishly ever since. I believe anyone who digs that fight out in 30 years time and watches it for the first time will not be remotely impressed by Calzaghe. As I've said a million times, he won on workrate against a 43-year-old man with natural and understandable stamina issues. To his credit Calzaghe was resilient and set a high tempo, but was very fortunate to get the decision. His attacking was woefully ineffective and he was outskilled by a smarter, better boxer.

Is that resume going to stand the test of time and be viewed as truly 'great' in 20,30,50 years time? Absolutely not. I can say that with concrete certainty.

The title of All-Time Great should run from the eternal elite which is the upper echelons of a top 50 (Robinson, Langford, Greb, Armstrong, Charles, Duran etc), to guys who did just about enough to be called All-Time Greats and reside towards the lower reaches of a top 50 (Floyd Mayweather Jr, Holman Williams, Luis Manuel Rodriguez, Salvador Sanchez, Jose Napoles).

I view Calzaghe as around 95-110, putting him alongside guys like Vicente Saldivar, Antonio Cervantes, Nicolino Locche and Aaron Pryor. All excellent fighters with excellent careers, but not in my view befitting of a title such as a Great For All-Time.


JMHO :bbb