Who do you rank higher: Andre Ward or Joe Calzaghe

Jones Jr has no meaning to being on Joe C's resume...at all.

William Joppy beat roberto Duran...means nothing, just like Joe c's win over Jones jr.

 

I think if Ward fought the 90's version of Joe, he'll be able to spoil his game too much for Joe to really take control of the fight. That would be a close competitive fight. 00's Joe, is a different story, he beats Ward quite convincingly, there's no game-plan, and Ward would be facing a much faster opponent than himself so will not be able to do much countering. Hopkins best work was working off the ropes, I'm not sure Ward has that in his arsenal. He's certainly not doing that in the centre of the ring because he's not got Joe's stamina to keep up.

The reason Ward likes to spoil is to get fighters to his pace of the fight, he's not doing that to Joe with a couple of hugs.

 

Froch opted for better opposition as opposed to Joe? Really? He faced the best opposition available as did Joe in their respective eras. Joe fought everyone who was the top guys at 168, so did Carl. So I'm perplexed as to how you came up with this moot point to argue?

Joe wasn't part of the super six kid....So he fought mandatories and legends who called him out. Having to move up in wieght, outside of his natural weight class. Bhop is better than any opponent on Froch's resume, including Ward.

If you're older than me then the "kid" label could sting a bit, understandably. I figured you were a kid based on the simplistic depth of your arguments. If you're not a kid then you are well out of your wheelhouse trying to debate me on anything, especially the sweet science. Just take this as a learning experience and not to heart

 

It's like Shane Mosley on Floyd's resume. Shane and Jones were past their primes, pretty much at the end of their careers...even though both continued to fight on well past their expiration dates...but it looks good on their ledgers

 

That's debatable. The old mongoose was still physically viable when Joe beat him and from a skill perspective...Ward wasn't as crafty. The Ward that beat Froch in the super six was physically at his peak, but still gaining experience and honing his craft as an elite boxer. I don't smoke anymore Rums...but if I did you know I'd gladly share

 

No, not on mine. For the simple fact that i recognize them as no longer being the scalp they once were. If the only thing they provide is a recognizable name on a ledger, then that's all it should be. Otherwise meaningless wins IMO.

 

I hear ya....I agree with that. But all greats have faced and scalped older ring legends that are merely just names to spruce up their resumes. Does it really add much to their overall legacies? Not really but it looks good. DLH has Whitaker and JCC...Marciano had Jersey Joe and Joe Louis, Floyd had Shane and DLH...Tyson had Holmes etc. I wouldn't call them meaningless, it's part of their legacies.

 

Look, I do get that most everyone has faced a faded former champ. But I will call them what they are, meaningless wins. You are welcomed to look at them however you want.

But this goes back to your post on Joe C having Hops and Jones jr, as good wins. Hops, yes. Jones jr., no.

 

I think hop was a great win all things considered. Nard went on to compete at an elite level afterwards validating his status within the sport. Jones, not so much. That's why I compared him to Shane for what he was to Floyd and his legacy. I consider those good wins based on dominating those versions of Shane and Jones. I just wouldn't call it meaningless. The one comparison you made with the Joppy win over Duran.....that was meaningless! Duran was old as dirt

 

Johnny, if you're not trolling, you're talking complete nonsense.

You can't just rate someone's resume based on name value.

It doesn't matter that Roy's an ATG. He wasn't a great fighter when Joe beat him. He wasn't even a top level fighter. He'd been knocked out by Johnson over 4 years earlier. It's not even one of Joe's top wins.

His fight with Bernard was close, but you can have that one.

Regarding Eubank, not many people would class him as an ATG, and he was faded, injured, and he'd had awful preparation going into his fight with Joe.

Andre's wins over Froch and Kovalev are superior to Joe's wins over Roy and Eubank.

 

Joe isn't ahead by a decent margin.

He's got the stats in his favour because he obviously had more fights, but look at the level of most of his competition.

If you look at the best guys they fought, taking into account all circumstances, then it's close.

 

It's based on FACTS. Something that a Ward supporter wouldn't know anything about. You just eat up his propaganda. You watch him lowblow a guy to KO him and you think he is P4P #1.

It's well known that Wards best opponents like Kessler, Bika etc were RUINED by Joe by the time they fought.