Modern Brit ATGs v pre-war Brit ATGs on the legacy list

no jimmy wilde kid lewis or lennox lewis?

 

Modern day from that list:

Joe Calzaghe
Ricky Hatton
Carl Froch
David Haye
Amir Khan
Ricky Burns

If Froch beats Kessler in a rematch I would put him above Hatton. If Lennox Lewis was in your list (which he should be) he would be clear second on mine.

I don't think you're going to get many people ranking pre-war Brits with much confidence.

 

Post war....

Lewis

Calzaghe/Froch

Hatton

The rest in any order you'd wish to place them.

Even though Calzaghe was better than Froch he fought way too many bus drivers and didn't really put it all out there until too late in his career.

 

Calzaghe as no1 ? that's absurd.

 

In your opinion it may be. You could only make a case that Lewis is above him but not for me. I think Lewis gets overrated on here and his two losses to McCall and Rahman go against him even though he avenged those losses.

 

It is only my opinion but I do feel strongly about this, Calzaghe as good a fighter he was, cannot be classed as number1 who the hell did he fight? he was a comfort fighter, a Uncle Frank fighter, him retiring without defeat means **** all to me, it's all smoke and mirrors.

 

I don't think it's 'all time' it's rank these fighters against these fighters.

Because Benny Lynch shits on all of these and isn't up there. Notice how Lennox ISN'T on chatty's list?!? Because he's in the upper echelon. As are the 'Kids', Fitz, Wilde, Driscoll etc etc etc

Here's a guy who ain't on there; Jackie Paterson. Who is going to argue that Carl Froch is greater than a man who was no.1 ranked by The Ring for about 7 years?!?! Was World, C'wealth and British flyweight champ at same time as C'wealth and European bantam' champ' at the same time.

It probably is arguable by the way :yep :tong

 

How about Lennox having many more significant wins, and taking on many, many superior punchers to Joe, and reigning in the far more prestigious division?

Anyway, this thread is not 'greatest British fighter'. Either state why you'd rank Calzaghe against the best of the pre-war list or do one.

 

From the list posted by the OP, IMO Calzaghe should be no. 1. Who would you have above him? He has the wins over Reid, Eubank and Kessler. Also, the win over Hopkins-although controversial is still a very good win. Hopkins may not have been at his peak, but he was still a damn good fighter at that point. People place too much importance on who fighters have fought, rather than just looking at who they have beaten. Froch's competition has been consistently very good, but he also has two losses. One of them to a guy Calzaghe beat with a UD. Same with Oscar DLH. His record is not "great" like people claim. He's just fought a lot of great fighters, but he lost most of his biggest fights. If you look at Froch's achievements, while the wins over Abraham, and Bute are good wins, Calzaghe's wins are better.


Hatton has the win over Tszyu, but again, it's not enough to place him above JC. He fought the two best fighters of this generation, but lost both times. He shouldn't be ranked highly just for fighting them.

David Haye would not be above JC either, and Khan and Burns haven't yet done enough.


From that list mine is:

Calzaghe
Froch
Hatton
Haye
Khan
Burns

 

Calzaghe has some good wins I won't take that away from him, but his competition for the most part was dire, lets say if he fought Jones Jnr or James Toney, even Hopkins for that matter earlier on in his career?

Would he have one them all? I have my doubts, even if he had fought them and lost, Id have more respect for him than I do now.

I hold Froch in much higher esteem.

 

Calzaghe has some good wins I won't take that away from him, but his competition for the most part was dire, lets say if he fought Jones Jnr or James Toney, even Hopkins for that matter earlier on in his career?

Would he have won them all? I have my doubts, even if he had fought them and lost, Id have more respect for him than I do now.

I hold Froch in much higher esteem.

 

Yeah the hardcore boxing fans I think do have much more love for Froch, because he takes the best, fight after fight. I also think he is better for boxing than Calzaghe who as you say did fight some poor competition, but as of now, I wouldn't rank him higher than JC. There's not much in it, but JC is just ahead of him for me.

Had JC fought a prime Toney or Jones jr he would have losses IMO, but you can only rank on what has actually happened. Froch does have the opportunity to become greater than Calzaghe though. For me, let's say he avenged the Kessler loss, beat Dirrell in a rematch moved up to light heavy and beat the likes of Dawson and Pascal, he would become greater than Calzaghe. Without doubt. I can't see this happening though.

 

I see your argument, the Froch/Calzaghe debate will wager on for years to come, it all depends on the viewpoint.

 

Meh, Jock would've sparked him.