joe calzaghe's resume in years to come.

I'm not sure but I know its ****ing annoying. ****ing "resumes" my arse.

 

Must admit I prefer ''record'' to resume.

Or CV as an alternative.

 

Ring Record :deal

 

i agree there is alot of world beaters and he just played it to safe in his comfort zone

 

His career was GREAT in British boxing terms,very good in World boxing terms.

 

You got a point about the whole habit people have of labeling guys a bum after a loss, but I don't think Calzaghe would have falling into this. I think he would have lost to Jones and Hopkins, but he would have been competitive against a younger Hopkins and done better than a lot of fighters against a prime Jones.

 

well, yes i agree he would have been competitve against bhop and jones when they were in their prime, and maybe he would have won, maybe he would have lost. All i am saying is the attitude of people, if he had lost these fights, would have been "well he was never good enough, just another prtoected fighter"....etc, it ****s me off.

 

Although a fan of Joe's workrate and abilty to change tactics pre-fight to get the win, I find it ironic that Joe slated Sven Otke (in 'No Ordinary Joe' for reference) for not fighting him and yet their records are not massively dis-similar. Tocker Pudwill, David Starrie, Charles Brewer, Byron Mitchell, Robin Reid (controversial in both fights particularly Ottke's) and Rick Thornberry are on both men's win-list, good fighters but not legacy builders. And I have to ask myself, how will we look upon Sven Ottke's resume/record/c.v etcetc in the future? Will he even cross our minds??

Ok the comparison is heightened by the fact they are both from the same division and era but I think its legit. Joe will be remebered more fondly than Sven Ottke for his wins over RJ, Hopkins and more so the Lacy whitewash and imo his career best win over Kessler compared to Ottke's best wins over a rookie (not great even now) Mundine topped by beating Glen Johnson.

Sure the stats look good for Joe, he WAS the best SM of the era, he did rule for 10 years and had 20+ title defenses. He retired undefeated with wins in MSG and the MGM. Its a good career guys that cant ought not to be argued but with a guy with a 46-0 career there shouldnt be debate about its legitamacy. There, as per this thread, is and that means he did not fight the men he needed and we wanted to secure his name amongst the worlds all time elite.

In summary, the unbiased amongst us will give Calzaghe credit for his career, a couple of performances in particular. It gets a C+ but a man who claims to be the best British fighter of all time ought to have answered all the questions us cynics that will now remain unanswered... hopefully i guess!!

 

Not a historically deep division.