P4P Greater: Hamed or Calzaghe

Tough question, I feel there pretty even, but if I had to side towards either Hamed or Calzaghe, I will go with Hamed at this time. He won belts in two different divisions, at Super Bantamweight and at Feather, in which he unified in that division. He had wins over alot of top dogs, off the top of my head, Sotto, Medina, Molina, Alicea, Kelly, Vasquez, Ingle, and McCullough, I know I'm forgetting a few, but the man was a beast until he met Barrera.

 

I say Joe only because he's more of a conventional boxer ..Hamed for all his natral ability had a short career because he lacked basic fundimentals !

 

Calzaghe

 

He only won World Titles at FW.

 

Joe Calzaghe by far

 

Calzaghe's opinion.

"I came through at the same time as Naz [Naseem Hamed]. I was knocking out good fighters, good journeymen, at the same time he was. But he had the exposure. Why? Because I was with the wrong promoter. I was with Mickey Duff. Old school. I wasn't getting much exposure, until I signed with Frank Warren. I never had any terrestrial TV exposure, not like Eubank, Collins, Benn, Bruno, Naz." Warren is on record as saying that he is a better fighter than Naz. More skilful. And Calzaghe couldn't agree more.

"He can't take a shot, which I can. He's one-dimensional. He can punch. He's a tremendous puncher, and that's got him to where he is. But he can't box. He's got no boxing ability whatever, as he showed in the [Marco Antonio] Barrera fight. Unless he can land his big shots, he's lost. Everyone thought Barrera would come forward and that Naz would pick him off. But Barrera kept his distance, kept counter-punching. Jab, jab, move, move. Naz was completely outboxed. He loads up every shot to knock your head off, but he has no defence. His hands are down here. He throws punches from all over the place."

 

I'm pretty sure he won the WBC belt at Bantamweight, but I will look it up and see what I could find, either way he beat better opposition in his career, and was more known around the world than Calzaghe, who is not very popular in the states.

 

Ill compare them at their highest points of there careers like Calzaghe now and Hamed before he lost to Barrera. Hameds level of oppostion was very much superior then Calzaghe which is what sets him ahead of Calzaghe at those respective points in there career. No doubt the best fighter Hamed ever faced was Barrera and he was cleanly beaten and Calzaghes best opponet is Hopkins we dont know whats going down there but a desisive win would do him wonders.

 

hamed, he clearly face the best fighters in his prime. Just like joe said he didn't have any exposure so he kept on fighting low level opposition, but thats things right now though..it could change as he's still active

 

Is it even comparable?

 

I actually thought this was an April Fools thread!
Hamed should not be in comparsion in any PFP listing ever, for any reason!
I wouldn't even list him in a top 10 of all time British fighters!

 

yeah. except that he was a universal top ten p4p fighter in his prime. **** off and learn, then maybe you will be accepted among us.

 

Hamed fought won his world Title geuinely beating steve Robinson,

He beat long reaigning Tom Johnson who held the IBF title for 13 defences Koing him.

Calzaghe beat Chris Eubank who had 2 weeks notice ....WBO sanctioned that fight.

Hamed fought in the US, he ofugh Kelly in his back yard he beat SOTO for WBC in the US.

Hamed was the better fighter, Hameds only loss was to a genuine ATG, Calzage has never faced an ATG in his prime.....and never will. Hamed would have made 20+ defences of his title facing the p4p level of guys Calzaghe fought.

Calzaghe is the more likeable.

Hamed was also the more talented.