sorry calzaghe your resume is weakest ever.

Well Hopkins hasn't actually beaten many "very good middleweights" that are prime and undefeated. Glen Johnson, and thats about it. He wasn't prime either.

 

Hopkins & Eubank: good names but nowhere near their best when Joe fought them

Lacy: good fighter when Joe fought him, but cannot be considered a great name, what has he ever done?

Kessler: yes, a good name on the resume.

So that's one, maybe two, four if you count two guys on the slide.

What an 11-year championship career that is.

 

Calzaghe: Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins, maybe Eubank (not in my opinion though)

Hopkins: Johnson, Trinidad, Tarver, Wright, maybe De La Hoya

I genuinely give Hopkins a slight edge in resume terms, a greater edge in ability terms.

 

though I agree Kessler was better win for Joe than say De La Hoya and Winky I don't know about Glen Johnson, Tarver or Tito

 

Let me help you with your continued struggle with reading comprehension, usually taught in primary school. "It doesn't matter if you are undefeated if you fought no good names". If Joe Calzaghe has four good names on his record, this would meet the requirement of "any", which in this cases infers 0.

So the actual point you were trying to make is a crock of shite, and the quote has no relevance to the thread.

 

To anyone with even a vague interest in boxing or a brain cell, a couple of good names in 11 years is dreadful.

Joe obviously had strong feelings about the quality of his undefeated record at some stage. He has done very little about it.

 

Fine, thats your opinion, but if you want to be considered as serious as you claim to be don't infer things that turn out to be horse**** upon further inspection. This is by your own admission too, he has 2-4 good names, rather than the 0. So he's delivered on his quote.

There are good names. Enough for a top 50 ATG? Certainly not. Enough to make it into the lower reaches, along with h2h ability, there is certainly a case to be argued for it. Some will agree, some like you probably won't, but thats life.

 

I don't agree with you, I agree with others who think his resume is not good enough for top 100 OAT. You disagree with me, thats life.

2, maybe 4 at the most but I don't think so, is not a good resume for a 36yrold with 20-odd title fights, and that's that. :hi:

 

Well do let us know your 90-100 since you've given it such balanced and fair consideration with not a hint of bias.

Should be interesting.

 

Many put Tszyu in the 90s, which I feel is very fair. Yet Calzaghe is undefeated and has a better resume on top of it, interesting isnt it?:yep

 

I've never written a top 100. Would be a mammoth task. Maybe Joe would be in it if I ever done it. I wouldn't know til I did. But if I had to guess, no I don't think he would make the cut due to resume. He has the ability, not the proof though. If you check my thread called 'the best H2H only rankings', those are guys I think are truly great fighters (Joe Cal would obviously do a lot better by me in that ranking system as his resume doesn't matter in there, I'd have him #2 in my supermiddle category).

 

So what you are actually saying is you've never actually given it any thought, therefore have no basis for comparison against his actual resume, and are shouting your mouth off on little more than whim?

After all these great claims you make, I thought you'd have something of substance to back it up.

This content is protected

 

I don't think Joe Cal's resume is necessarily better. Tszyu beat Ruelas, Miguel Angel Gonzalez, Chavez, Sharmba Mitchell, Urkal, Tackie, and Leija amongst others, and crowned it all by KO'ing Judah (27-0 at the time, top 10 P4P). It's close between the 2 of them tho, I'd have those two close p4p.

 

What are you, a schoolteacher? Well, sorry sir. I haven't done a Joe Calzaghe project with a bibliography so I can't have an opinion on his ATG placing. Does everyone have to have a copy of their all-time top 100 in their hand to comment on top 100 status? That is talked about all the time on here. If someone says "is Floyd Mayweather a top 100 P4P OAT fighter?" I can say automatically yes, without giving a placing because I have my 100 in my pocket. If someone asks the same question about Chris Eubank, I feel confident enough to say no, without scribbling down 100 names. Don't be so idiotic.

Sorry sir.

 

You don't neccessarily have to know the exact names, just a rough idea of who would be in that sort of region, and its quite apparent you have not the foggiest idea. How the hell can you make a claim about his resume when you have no idea what to compare it against? It's just illogical.

You are getting close to being that hater you claim not to be.