The 17 of Calzaghe's Era Who Were Better Than Him- are there more or less??

In what I've seen of him, he looked incredibly well schooled. And he was so dominant. But I think one has to consider a number of factors:

1) The lack of coverage the lower weights get. You may have seen his whole career, but I don't think many here have. I get a feeling that many (not you!) think that dropping the Lopez name makes them sound very well versed in boxing. Particularly the seventeen year olds here who never saw him fight.
2) THe perceived lack of talent at the very low weight divisions. It may be different in Mexico and America, but I think I may have seen five or six fights at bantam or less at any fights to which I've been here at home. I've only seen two or three guys at that fighting weight in gyms. I guess people make the heuristic that the lack of numbers means less talent.
3) The fact that they are small. They cannot unleash the same power as the higher weights, which, I think, makes people dismissive of them. THere's not the awe of the heavyweights, or the great skill AND power of the welters etc.

NOne of this takes away from Lopez's dominance, which was emphatic. You can only beat what they put in front of you, and he did it senstationally.

 

In fairness the risk reward for these fights for both fighters, Joe and opponent, has to be taken into consideration. Joe Calzaghe is an altogether different beast from Clinton Woods.

 

Johnny Tapia????? What the hell were you thinking. I put tapia on the same level as Gatti.

 

Risk, risking what?

What, losing the very lowly regarded (especially back then), WBO belt. A belt who's champions Ring magazine refuse to recognise because it's held in such very poor esteem.

Woods had his IBF "big three" title on the line against Johnson and Tarver. How is that less of a risk then Joe's WBO belt.

Going by your logic: eg Sugar ray Leonard, Hagler, Hearns, Duran should have never faced each other because they were "different beasts, and there was too much risk for reward in the fights."

 

Holyfield held a piece of the HW title until 2001 and held the Linear title until late 1999, so if we're talking 15 years he is an older guy who is part of this generation, ala Hopkins.

Michalczewski has a LHW resume equal to that of Jones, and is one of the top 2 LHW's of the past 20 years. 15 Linear title defences/23 WBO defences, titles in 2 weight classes, and wins over Hill (in his prime), Griffin (also prime), Barber, Rochigianni, and Hall are more than enough to warrant consideration. The fact that neither he nor Jones made their fight happen does not detract from what either man accomplished.

 

No, Clinton Woods against all these fighters is getting paid much less than joe would get/expect. For him (Woods) a payday against jones is a real shot at glory, a no lose situation.

For Joe and Jones back then is not a fight thats very easy too make. Joe thinks he is a big fish and would want a big payday to fight jones. Especially as its a fight he probably loses, so it takes a lot to get Joe in the ring. The fight is not massive for Jones. Jones can hand pick opponents and make the same money, why does he need to fight Joe? a dangerous undefeated champ? He dont need Joe back then.

Against Johnson Woods fought for the IBF vacant belt, draw first time and lost the rematch (won the third fight).
So both fighters are fighting for a title, Joe had a fight with Johnson but pulled out with injuries etc. Maybe joe thinks he is dangerous and dont want to fight him? Maybe joe thinks like jones, he is a dangerous opponent who I can make the same money fighting tomato can A?

And for Tarver, Woods probably got his biggest payday for passing the title to the new american champ. I think Joe can get a fight with Tarver no problem but went for Hopkins instead. I have no grudge for Joe taking on B-Hop instead of fighting Tarver, at the time Tarver would be a worse fight for Joe and everybody would be crying if he took that fight.

As much as I would like to argue that a boxer should do all he can to make these fights i.e. take less money and make the fights I think that is BS as first and foremost the boxer has too look out for himself and make his money the best way he can. Unfortunately these days the 0 is very important in the marketing game to the casual fan. So a loss can be seen as a disaster to a promoter. Cue any FW fighter being undermatched for 100 fights.

Joe C has bargaining power making these fights Woods can only dream of because he is a big draw. So if you want to fight him it has to be good for him as well. They really operate on different levels.

As for the hagler hearns etc I think those are superfights where both guys are well paid so they are happy to fight. The risk is the loss and legacy damage the reward is big payday (for both) and glory over a top opponent. If jones and calzaghe were offered 10-15m each to fight years ago then I think the deal is done. Really if the money is there I cant see any boxer turning down a fight. Money talks.

 

That would be a very solid list, but I'm with the majorty here, you'd have to take Tapia out for sure.

Regarding your definition of the term "generational"...fair enough, your defnitions are valid and you have some sound reasoning. However, I will say that Hopkins' best years were NOT 2001-2004, more like 1996-2000.

And frankly, I don't see why you'd cut Holyfields' peak off at Tyson 1, other than to prevent if from overlapping Calzaghe's peak (It definitely overlaps Hopkins' peak). Evander looked just as good in Tyson 2 and Moorer 2 in late '97, when Calzaghe had already beaten Eubank.

 

Which means that you have no idea what you're talking about. Anyone who thoroughly outboxes a boxer like Nana Konadu -even while the latter was past his prime and a weight above his best- is no Gatti level. He may not have been textbook, but he was very effective with his unorthodox tactics.

This came came from fighting at 115 in the late 80's to fighting Barrera in the early 2000's at 126. He also had a 4 year hiatus in the early 90's due to being suspended for drugs that set him back, and a successful comeback. Very good, possibly great fighter, one of the best ever at 115.

 

ROY JONES JR
MANNY PACQUIAO
LENNOX LEWIS
BERNARD HOPKINS
JAMES TONEY
ERIK MORALES
SHANE MOSLEY
MARCO ANTONIO BARRERA
JUAN MANUEL MARQUEZ
KOSTYA TSZYU
FELIX TRINIDAD
OSCAR DE LA HOYA
RICARDO LOPEZ
WINKY WRIGHT
FLOYD MAYWEATHER
JOHNNY TAPIA

I rank the highlighted fighters higher than Calzaghe, although I only slightly favour Lopez. Compared to most of the fighters on there his resume is relatively weak, containing a lot of B levels but lacking in A's (similiar to Lopez). Although I rank Joe fairly highly H2H, his disadvantage in resume really pulls him down when being compared to other greats. Him and Lopez are close, as they both had similiar careers and fought similiar level of opposition. I give Lopez the edge because of his H2H ability and dominance, he rarely lost a round in his prime. Both could have improved their legacy by fighting other greats in or around their weightclass, but for one reason or another things didn't happen. For example I would rate Lopez much higher had he fought and beaten Humberto Gonzales/Michael Carbajal, same with Joe had he beaten Jones/others (i'm not blaming anyone for why they didn't happen).

I rate Joe highly but I still feel his resume is a little to weak to be considered a true ATG. You can't base everything on H2H.

 

Not insane just very very VERY stupid. But that's not suprising coming from you.

 

yeah thats how I see it