Who do you rate higher?

Unless your name is Anarci.

 

Calzaghe because of his resume. But they both fought pretty lame opponents, generally speaking (and stating the obvious).

 

Then he seems to move up a spot yearly.

 

I will go with Lopez.. :good

 

Hopkins is still a better win by far than any on Lopez' resumé. Yes he may be past his prime, but he's still proven himself to be one of the top 10/15 fighters around today regardless of weight-class.

Calzaghe has never shown an ability to counter punch or control range? I suggest you watch more of his career. And so what? Those are only a range of skills designated by style? I could quite easily sit here and claim that Lopez hasn't shown any skill because he's not darted in and out with combinations against an opponent or closed that down and outworked them inside. Doesn't make him any less skilled, does it?

Calzaghe's overall level of opposition - despite being poor in ATG terms - has been superior to Lopez', which has been dreadful. Again, see the above post. Not displaying those skills - which is nonsense anyway - doesn't impact on his overall skill whatsoever, it's a styles thing.

You really are clutching at straws here. Calzaghe has been one of the most versatile and adaptable fighters in recent years. You clearly haven't seen much of him, so what point is there me debating with you on the subject?

 

Anarci's rating would imply that Lopez moved up and beat Carbajal, Arbachakov and 'Too Sharp' Johnson. His rankings must quite literally be based on ability and resumé about 90/10 in favour of the former.

 

Tommy, I have seen all of Calzaghe's fights from Eubank onwards, and I honestly do not understand how you or anyone else can buy into this myth at all. On what basis, because he was behind at the halfway stage vs robo-Kessler then managed to pull out the win? :huh To be honest, I think realsoulja's comment on him being a "mid-range slapper/slugger" is a lot closer to the truth than your own rather outlandish statement quoted above. The guy basically overwhelmed each and every opponent with volume/activity (in a more cerebral way than volume punchers like Jirov or McCullough of course, but the principle remains the same), and he did not possess anywhere near the well-roundedness in his game to be able to be truly versatile, ie to be able to fight outside or inside, to be able to jab and outbox from the backfoot or to be able to fight on the ropes, or on the inside, etc etc. I just do not see anything resembling that level of well-rounded versatility at all in Calzaghe. Of active fighters, Mayweather is a much, much better example of versatility/adaptability than a volume machine like Calzaghe. Upping your tempo mid-fight is not really versatility as I see it. And as with everything with Calzaghe, he never proved it time and again against genuinely top-class opponents, so every attribute he ever displayed must be taken in the context of it being much easier to look good against overmatched competition. JMHO mate.

 

I think he showed constant adjustments and an ability to adapt. Kessler, Hopkins, Byron Mitchell, Bika to name a few fights where he was at time struggling and managed to adapt and pull things round.

Saying Mayweather is more versatile and adaptable than Calzaghe isn't saying much, given Mayweather is probably the most adaptable fighter around today. I really don't get the point of bringing Mayweather up or how that in any way proves that Calzaghe wasn't adaptable.

 

Because I have seen examples of Mayweather changing his gameplan within a fight, and to me that is genuine versatility/adaptability. When did Joe Calzaghe ever do likewise? Did Calzaghe ever fight a fight on the ropes/inside like an infighter, then switch to jabbing and outboxing off the back foot? Other than very slight adjustments to negate one particular punch which was causing him a problem, which is what sets him apart from more basic volume punchers like Jirov and McCullough, I have never seen him show the ability to switch styles like that (because he doesn't have well-roundedness to his skillset which would allow this), and for me that is true adaptability/versatility.

PS: Your last sentence ends: "..proves Calzaghe wasn't adaptable", but bear in mind that you were acclaiming him as someone of exceptional versatility/adaptability, not merely saying he was adaptable.

 

I seen every Calzaghe fight available on youtube, aswell as I watch nearly every live fight of his since Mario Veit II.

You say Calzaghe was versatile?

Someone like Tommy Hearns, Sugar Ray Leonard are fighters that are considered vesatile:

Hearns outbrawled Cuevas, Duran. Showed he can brawl with Hagler. Then showed his boxing skills by outboxing SRL and Virgill Hill.

SRL fights with Duran shows his versatility.

Against Hopkins he ate lead right hands from round 1 till the end. What adjustment did he make to avoid them lead rights?

Against Mitchell he got put on ***** street, and then just slugged it out. That aint a great adjustment.

Bika roughed Calzaghe up, Calzaghe was happy the fight ended coz Bika is a rough customer.

Adjustments is what Hearns did vs SRL, or what Toney did vs Nunn.

Those examples you mentioned is just examples of Calzaghe having the better work rate.

 

This echoes what I have just said. Calzaghe often made minor adjustments within a fight and this made him a more cerebral volume-puncher than someone like Vassily Jirov, but to say he is one of the most versatile fighters of recent times is wholly unjustifiable IMO.

 

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=92045

Point of interest for Addie

 

Hozumi's Hook's logic is flawed

 

I definitely respect the points that Hozumi's Hook and Popkins make on Calzaghe given their locations. Wish more folks on here were just as unbiased.