So if Calzaghe retires, Were does he stand in the All-Time list ?

Tito may be a bit too high, but he is certainly above Calzaghe :deal
McCallum is as well IMO

 

Hahaha... Incredible will to win maybe - and that's at the great expense of the craft, art, and all around aesthetics of what it means to be a boxer. Incredible talent and ability? LMAO! Shortening up your punches and alternately schoolyard windmilling and pecking away with amateur style poking shots does not translate to "incredible." Calzaghe is a first rate competitor, and perhaps one of the ugliest, sloppiest, least genuinely talented top flight operators ever. He gets the job done. Strictly.

 

He would be the greatest super middleweight ever, with 20 defenses and also a succesful short career at light heavyweight. He would have wins over old Eubank, Lacy, Kessler, old Hopkins and old Jones.

Top75 ATG.

 

Top 75-80

 

in 50 years time if calzaghe retires undefeated watch him shoot up the lists

marciano when he retired in the 1950`s was ranked the 7th best heavy of all time by nat fleicher`s ring.

now 50 plus years later and who knows how many boxers later and he is ranked 13th all time from any weight.

 

why dont we just agree to disagree and put it down to the subjectivity of boxing scoring.
P.S if you notice i have it a fight of two halves with hopkins bossing the first half of the fight and calzaghe the second. I onyl thought calzaghe scored more consistently (or more than he was in the initial rounds) from round 8 when bernard was visibly fatigued i do think you should watch rounds 1 through 6 again because hopkins was clearly in control. The first four he was dominant and 5 6 and 7 he was walkign calzaghe onto shots as calzaghe was coming in

 

As usual, your desperation to defend Joe means you haven't paid attention. I stated quite clearly that (a) I thoroughly disagree with the order of the 80 (one example: I prefer McCallum who is #79 to Trinidad who is #51), and (b) this list is of the last 80 years and was written a couple of years ago at least. Thus, there are a substantial number of fighters who would be in an all-time list that are outwith those 80 years.

Therefore, no-one is suggesting that because Trinidad is #51 that Calzaghe is not in a top 100, I merely presented 80 fighters who can conceivably and realistically be ranked above Joe, and that when you consider fighters from before that time-period (Langford, Gans, Dempsey, Walcott, etc) and recent fighters not in that list (Pacquiao, Barrera, Morales, Toney, Mosley etc) then it is not ludicrous that Calzaghe may not make it into many top 100s.

I have no idea if he would make it into mine, I doubt it but I genuinely don't know, he very well may do, but it is perfectly valid and conceivable that he could be left out on the basis presented.

 

agreed:good

 

13th all-time at any weight? That's ludicrous.

 

Giving rounds you couldn't see, eh?... Apparently you didn't see Hopkins almost knock Calzaghe down, again, at the end of the 7th round - since you claim that Hopkins landed "barely anything" after the 4th. That's HILARIOUS. And yet "joe hit Hops cleanly loads." Fascinating how you didn't see things that DID happen, and claim to have seen things that DIDN'T happen. I smell HORSE****. Setanta scored it for Hopkins, huh? Go ****ing figure..

 

its a sad state of affairs when your own network thinks you lost and looked like shite int he process

 

i read the ring ratings all time from a few years ago to quick.

marciano is now up to 12th.

time has always been kind to boxers with impressive records on all time lists in boxing.

many boxers of this era will eventually overtake boxers from yesteryear given long enough periods of time.

 

Most agreed.

 

Fighters don't have both a "physical" prime and a "mental" prime, same as they don't have an "emotional" prime, a "spiritual" prime, a "healthy" prime and an "appearance" prime - they have a prime.

That prime is when they perform best in the ring, and fighters' best performances are when they, yep you guessed it, perform best against the best opponents.

You say Calzaghe's prime was at the turn of the century. Let's look at his performances 1999-2001 then.

1999: Gave one of his worst performances against Robin Reid, SD. Next fight, taken to 12 rounds by... Rick Thornberry. Poor performance.

2000-1: Next fight, taken to 12 rounds by David Starie. Again, Calzaghe was poor.

Next 3 good wins over Sheika, Woodhall and Veit - is this his "peak" then? Compare this to the peak of truly great fighters - is this it? Really? I don't think so. The level of opposition and standard of performance just isn't good enough.

Compare that to the wins over Lacy and Kessler 2006-7, the quality of performance and the quality of opponent, it simply cannot even be debated that this period wasn't Calzaghe's peak.

The idea that the guy who struggled with Robin Reid could live with Mikkel Kessler is laughable, Calzaghe's strength and nous improved as he got older. His punch power evaporated, but every other aspect has improved.

And FYI, the reason Calzaghe is only p4p#3 is not some global conspiracy, it's because Joe's resume and career don't deserve it. Only naive part-time fans are fooled by a zero.

 

See i can see why you say calzaghe walked onto some shots - but 1-2 times per round when the other guy is doing far more work - landing, but not actually really hurting the other guy either - i dont think 1-2 clean shots beat another guys entire worth of effort - when the other guy is still landing as well - and by that point, i dont think hop was really landing anything significant. Also - I wouldnt say the first 4 dominant - right when Manny Steward noticed that Joe had started to move Hop into his own rhythm and pace - you could see a difference in the fight from the first round til then - (3rd i think).

Also - Hop was fatigued due to the work rate of joe, not his age - this needs to be taken into some consideration - it wasnt just workrate, it was the speed, frequency, the movement as hop was unable to land shots he was landing initially, and the angles Hops was being hit from - too much for anyone really.

However - the subjectivity of boxing scoring is very apparent in this fight - two guys saw it comfortably for Joe, one girl (i'm not making a sexist comment - i'd already wrote two guys, and i refuse to change it for P.Correctness) saw it for Hop close.

I could see the arguments for a rematch of principle - but I cannot see any hope in hell that Hopkins can win or do better - he wont get the KD (most likely), which means he'll lose that cushion he had in the first fight.

Agree to Disagree though