Is Joe Calzaghe The Greatest British Fighter Of All Time?

Lewis did actually have trials for the GB team but they picked James Oyebola over him, Lewis then went on to beat him in the commonwealth games.

So the only way for Lewis to fight in the Olympics was to box for Canada.

Lewis was born in the UK and lived here for the first 13 years of his life, he got stick for being a Brit at school when he first arrived in Canada, that means he's British, he simply picked up an accent like plenty of people do all the time when they move to somewhere new.

 

Ken Buchanan doesn't get mentioned in The Sun so most of the knuckle draggers on here won't know anything about him.

 

Ted Kid?

 

Froch was better than Kessler at the time?

It would be another year before Froch even stepped in with Pascal to challenge for a world title whilst Kessler was an established world champion and was considered the only man at that point in time that could trouble Calzaghe + was a much bigger name.

Then there's the fact 2/3 years after Calzaghe, Kessler beat Froch.

 

Volcanic Ash.

 

I only mentioned Eubank because your so far up his ass and questioned Calzaghe's opposition. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if you said Eubank is the best british fighter of all time.

Liles beat Amaral easier than Eubank did, and do me a favour Eubank won 2 rounds against Calzaghe if you were generous and he won 4 or 5 against Schommer.

 

Nonsense. Eubank won 3 against Calzaghe and 3 against Schommer. And the rounds Calzaghe won he took countless hard shots - Schommer didn't.

Eubank walked away with the last five rounds against Amaral very easily. Liles struggled.

The best British fighter of all time is Herol Graham. The greatest is Ted Kid Lewis.

 

Graham (15 years past his best) was beating Brewer a lot easier than Calzaghe was.

 

It's all about opinions Furey mate. I know Buchanan fought better opposition in Ismael Laguna and Roberto Duran, but he also had 8 losses in his career. I know that takes nothing away from his achievements, but it affects his legacy in the long run and Calzaghe never lost to the likes of Charlie Nash (who was battered by Watt in his next fight) and the other guys Ken lost to in the end of his career while Joe never lost to anybody and he actually had his best wins at the end of his career.

 

True It frustrates me even more that the Scottish poster on here don't realise how great Buchanan was, Even Billy Nelson who accused me of east coast bias atsch

Most of Kens warm up 10 rounders between title fights had tougher/better opponents than a lot of Joe's world title defences. Ken schooled very highly rated undefeated Canadian Donato Paduano (22-0-0) in a ten rounder before defending his world title against Ruben Navarro. He Ko'd ex world champ Carlos Henandez 60-11-4) in a ten rounder before the laguna rematch. He also out pointed Al Ford (41-1-0) and ko'd Andries Steyn (25-2-0) before he defended his title against Duran. There's more examples but I cant be arsed

Lets look at some of the guy's Joe defended his title against. Tocker Pudwill , Branko Sobot, Willie McIntyre, Evens Ashira, Rick Thornberry etc, etc. Those guy's would only be warm up opponents in better era's.

 

Ken also fought Jim Watt remember

 

Maybe so, but if Joe had fought the likes of Sven Ottke, Roy Jones Jnr in his prime and James Toney do you think he would have had 8 losses at the end of his career? NO CHANCE!
Joe would have beaten Ottke any day of the week, Prime Jones would have been hard, but he would have beaten Toney two out of three times IMO the same with Hopkins. If's and but's though.

Joe might not be better than Buchanan, but Calzaghe is very underrated and his longevity was tremendous.

 

Ken had 22 more fights than Joe in a much tougher era. Of course he had loses.

 

He finished his career with a flourish, and certainly the way he beat Lacy and Kessler put him right up there. But, let's be honest, the RJJ win meant sod all and I'm still not sure he deserved the nod over Hopkins. As for the run of opponents that came before Lacy...less said the better.

One of the best we've ever produced, no doubt.

 

I'll say it again. Ken had 22 more fights in a tougher era and fought way past his prime. Ken was a travelling fighter because he got no support in the UK. He had to fight on past his prime to earn cash.
Joe would still be fighting if he was in the same situation as Ken at the end of his career. I'm sure another 22 fights would have seriously challenged that 0.
Joe had the luxury of being able to get out the sport at the right time as a millionaire. Ken didn't have that luxury so fought on.