What's Calzaghe's best win?

He fought twice in two years, not good for an older fighter. Mitchell has a glass jaw, he was never really tested in that fight. I'd suggest watching him against Judah, Urkal and Mitchell I, the difference is noticeable

Hatton will never be the next Calzaghe. His resume is no way near as good.

 

He hasn't done well since then.

 

I DON'T like the way your mocking him in this thread. Lacy is his best win, not becasue of who lacy was but because of how he beat him

 

Right in essentials mate, this fight was all but signed but Hopkins backed out at the last minute requesting double the amount offered but it was in 2002.

Slezenation does his best to spin when this is brought up but its undeniable face, Hopkins avoided JC. *prepares for inevitable automated response that everyone will counter but he will persist with anyway* JC wasn't a big enough name but Carl Daniels was more signficant legacy wise :nut

 

You make it sound so straight forward. You know boxing is politics. Mayweather agreed to fight Hatton because he was confident of whipping him, maybe RJJ didn't fancy taking the risk of fighting Calzaghe.

 

His resume isn't that much different to be honest - substitute a WBO belt for a WBU one and they are quite similar.

OK, many of Hatton's earlier 'challengers' weren't up to much, but could you really say that all Calzaghe's 20 odd were brilliant either.

At the end of the day, you could pick holes in either of their careers, but why bother - they are two top British fighters and we should be proud of what they have done. Why is it we hate winners, yet love ****ing losers - in all sports, like Gazza etc - yet winners like Steve Davis and Nick Faldo (for instance) are less popular, as was Linford Christie.

 

But, but he fought Mayweather he fought Mayweather hes better than Calzaghe on that basis alone of course.

Every shrewd boxing fan knows that given the fact that Hatton ducked Mayweather in 2005 at JNR Welter that there are two main reasons for Hatton taking the fight when he did:

1. He knew that a loss against Mayweather wouldn't hugely damage his marketability and credibility.

2. He could claim that whilst he loss at 147, it wasn't even his division and could cite the Collazo fight as proof that he wasn't at his most effective at this weight...a good excuse to dupe the fan boys for when he lost.

He realised this and took the plunge. Make no mistake Hatton is a money boy first and legacy a distant second. Hes a businessman and the reason he avoided Mayweather the first time round was that he knew there and then he could very well lose thus halting his momentum in 2005 and of course stripping him of his status as world champion which he obviously can still claim now even after his loss to Mayweather. Other big money pay days would not have materialized had he lost to Mayweather at that juncture, he at least would not have earned as much.

He doesn't fight Witter not because of some lame 'one day' comment that Junior made but more because he realises that should he lose this fight(a realistic possibility) then even his moronic fan base would be somewhat put off as he would have lost his 'best in Britain at 140' status and also of course any claim to being world champion. His legacy would be in tatters with people no doubt claiming rightly or wrongly that he was overprotected businessman who chose his fights on the basis of how much he could make first and legacy second.

The risk reward ratio isn't good in Hattons view. So instead he fights legends like Urango and Lazcano for the fans of course :yep

 

I don't hold Jones to task for not fighting Calzaghe. JC at that time was all risk and very little reward for the p4p king. He should have been coming and going with the linear LHW champ DM.

 

I hate to do these resume comparisons, but they are NOT similar

Hopkins > Tszyu - Both past their best, Hatton needed the help of the ref and was also at home with a partizan crowd behind him. Calzaghe was up against a ref that allowed Hopkins ****, and the Las Vegas judges

Kessler > Collazo? - I don't even know Hatton's second best win they are so poor. Anyway, this fight was extremely close, it was life and death for Hatton against a fringe welterweight. Calzaghe wins competetive and clear to unify division against undefeated fighter

Eubank > Castillo - Castillo the former lightweight is shot to bits. I'm not sure he could have been any more shot. Green Calzaghe wins against past his best, but still competetive (as Carl Thompson will testify) Eubank

I don't even have anybody to compare Reid, Mitchell and Lacy to. Perhaps when he decides to actually prove he is the best 140lb fighter rather than just saying it eh?

 

He didn't beat Mayweather you moron. If you only had to fight fighters to get regarded then Chuvalo would be the best heavyweight of all time.

 

Please explain how Kostya 'Vince Phillips whooped my ass' Tszyu is better than Bernard Hopkins.

 

To be honest if you look hard enough you could pick holes in most boxers careers - if you are that way inclined.

I don't understand the need to constantly hit the rewind button to discredit certain boxers and revisit the same debate over and over again.

There just seems to be an awful lot of negativity on the forum at the moment which is odd considering a british boxer just emerged the victor over in the States.