Which of these fighters faced the worst calibre opposition?

Calzaghe never faced a prime elite fighter

 

How some people have voted for guys like Pac or Mosley baffles me

 

I sort of agree with you but there is a chance that Kessler could become an elite fighter and enhance JC resume.

Victories over past prime elite fighters = BHOP, Eubanks and RJJ

 

you really put Eubank as one of his best wins? Eubank was a mere shell of his former self, drained and took the fight on short notice.

 

how can anyone say Calzaghe has faced worse opposition than Cotto

its impossible.

And Hatton? He fought Tszyu and Floyd Jr. that rules him out of this right off the bat


the correct answer is Cotto, no debate about it.


and who are the 10 morons who voted RJJ?

 

I think you're actually right about cotto over Calzaghe, but I think most people don't vote Cotto is because he is still fighting and is taking on Clottey soon, and will probably fight many more great fighters before his run is over..Calzaghe on the other hand is content in retiring after never really challenging himself.

 

Not sure how Hopkins is on there he beat Trinidad,De La Hoya,Pavlik,Wright "for the most part" all in thier primes ....And gave Taylor a good run for his money..

 

Joe Calzaghe, without a doubt.

 

You'd have to take out Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pac as well. 21 people have voted Hatton - he's faced Tszyu, Mayweather, Castillo, and Manny; how bias?

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

"you really put Eubank as one of his best wins? Eubank was a mere shell of his former self, drained and took the fight on short notice."

Eubanks was only 31 and would go on to lose a very tight decision to Carl Thompson for the cruiserweight belt a year later. Joe was only in his 4th year as a pro as well. A very solid and impressive win for Joe.

 

Eubank may have been past his best but at that stage in Calzaghe's career it was a good win, a young fighter on the way up beats an old fighter on his way down is the usual scenario for fighters at that stage in their career. However, the Eubank win should have been a stepping stone to bigger and better things, but it wasn't.

Lacy was an unproven hype job but the way Calzaghe beat him was a masterclass.

Kessler is a very good fighter and this was a very good win for Calzaghe., but I think some people go a bit over the top when rating Kessler's abilities just because he gave Calzaghe a tough fight.

Hopkins may have been 43 but was still a dangerous opponent. However Calzaghe was dropped and taken to a split decision that many feel should have gone the other way. Also, for many people, myself included, all the fight showed was that a younger, slightly more active Hopkins would beat Calzaghe.

So there you have Calzaghe's best wins, four of them in a 46 pro fight career isn't much to go at is it really

 

Do you know much about the career of Shane Mosley? Are you aware that he was too small to perform effectively at 154, and was well beaten by Vernon Forrest, a clearly inferior fighter?? He was also the smaller man against Winky Wright, a man who recently gave Bernard Hopkins a very tricky evening up at 170lbs.

Over the two fights with Oscar, Mosley got the better of it. He was the winner of that duel.

Of course Hopkins is a greater fighter than Mosley, but that doesn't mean Calzaghe's ugly and hotly disputed SD was a better win than Cotto's win. It's a matter of personal opinion, but I was really impressed by Cotto's ability in outboxing a ww as strong and experienced as SSM. The only people impressed by Calzaghe's performance against Hopkins were Enzo Calzaghe and the ESB Rule Britannia brigade.

The value of a win is determined by two factors: Quality of Opposition and Quality of Performance. Both factors must be considered before you have which is the better win.

A random example:

In my opinion, Antonio Tarver is a better fighter than Jeff Lacy ever was. However, I rate Joe Calzaghe's win over Jeff Lacy as a better win than Roy Jones's win over Antonio Tarver because although Roy was facing a slightly better opponent, Calzaghe's performance was so much better than Roy's that it tips the balance.

Thus, the past-prime Hopkins that Calzaghe "beat" is a slightly better fighter than the past-prime Mosley IMO. But, even though Cotto-Mosley was very close and hard-fought, Cotto's win has a slight edge because I think he performed more impressively than Calzaghe did. JMO!

That point doesn't make sense. I had Cotto winning by 2 points. It's not double standards to call fights as you see them, and go with your own judgement.

Besides Mosley?

Margarito
Judah
Malignaggi
Quintana
Torres
Maussa
N'Dou
Corley
Branco
Urkal

Clottey?

This is not an Ezzard Charles style resume, but it is a solid succession of good fighters over two weight divisions wracked up in only a few years. Once Cotto has fought Clottey, he will have a clear edge on Calzaghe in terms of competition fought.

And the coup de grace...

And you're coming across as a poster of rather low intelligence, yet again. Why did I? Because I was responding directly to your post, which I have pasted below:

Make sense now?? Goody.

 

At the moment I think it's Cotto. But I'm pretty sure when his career is over or even after another few fights it will be Calzaghe. Cotto still has a few years left yet. Bit unfair to put Cotto in there I feel.

 

Good post. I can well see the argument for Calzaghe having fought better comp than Cotto, but once Cotto has fought Clottey I think he'll have an edge, and by the end of his career he will be light years ahead.