The WBC are absolute mugs

Who did he not beat that was around in his time. Sven Ottke thats it.

 

Dominant isn't a word I'd use to describe Calzaghe's first 8 or so years as ''champion'' at 168.

He beat some decent names but aside from faded versions of Eubank, Woodhall and Reid there ain't a right lot of note unfortunately. There's too many ''former world champions'' and ''never been stopped but....'' guys.

Plus he allowed too many fighters to co-exist as champion throughout his reign, that counts for plenty for me.

Calzaghe was very good, but his slate is pretty thin. Take Kessler and Hopkins out and it's not much better than Ottke's I'm afraid.

Not in the top 100 for sure, even though I've never done a list.

 

Its only Ottke thats missing. He won every belt possible to win and then steped up and beat the no.1 guy.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

Four guys that would have added plenty to his slate..... as opposed to Jones, Manfredo etc etc.

It's not a question of winning titles or ''so and so was fighting at so and so weight'' - these guys were better fighters than many that he faced and there was ample opportunity to make these fights.

Rankings must go on who you beat, not what titles you win. Floyd Mayweather is a five weight world champion but he's only proven himself to be the best in the world in two of those weight classes, 130 & 135.

 

Ernesto Marcel>>>>Joe Calzaghe

And Marcel isn't in my top 100.

 

Hardly Duran-Leonard 1 though is it? ;-)

 

Adding brian magee and glen johnson to his resume would make it better

those are two fights warren basically said Calzaghe bottled for whatever reason


If he took those, along with a win over Froch and Woods (all 4 guys he would have beaten) his record would be much better imo

 

Johnson would have been nice on the record but he is not better than Kessler which was around the same time. and he beat hopkins who beat pascal who beat dawson.

the other pic didnt come out?

I still think proving your the best in two divisions is quite an achievment.

 

Why Brian Magee???

 

Yeah I don't get Magee either

But Johnson for sure. Fact is even if Joe did 'dominate for ten years' his opposition was, for the better part, abysmal.

Not a historically strong division either.

 

The frustrating thing about Joe, is that I'm sure he would have beat the guys Beeston mentioned, but just didn't fight them for whatever reason. It's not like he ducked them as it was a bad stylistic match-up for him.

(I saw Joe out having a few beers Friday night, top bloke :good )

 

Surely didn't top speaking to me on the phone?!?! ;-)

 

Just a smidge. :yep

 

I don't see how the "who else should he have faced" argument comes into a discussion about whether Calzaghe is an ATG or not. Sure he might have faced more or less the best available at the time, but that doesn't change the fact that his standout wins are a level below what you would need to considered an ATG.

 

I disagree.