Funny how they act like Pac's record is without it's blemishes, and I by no means am talking about the losses early. The loss to a past it Morales is not a horrible thing, but it's not a great thing either, even though he followed it up with two KO's over an even more past it Morales. The 2003 Barrera win is his best, that's a big standout for him. The Marquez fights are two he clearly lost, a draw officially vs. a better version of Marquez and then an undecisive SD against a more declined Marquez. So the competition is there, but is the performance? Against guys that his style is poison for, yes, against guys who he has a disadvantage against and needs to adjust? Not at all, relying solely on speed and power. Then you've got some odd things on his record like not being able to stop Larios and the draw to Sanchez and small things like that reveal a lot. I think he beats Barrera always, I think a prime Morales beats him always and I think he's always going to have close fights with Marquez and never be able to clearly edge them and deserve a decision. In other words, his 1 dimension is enough to get him to the elite level, but he's not comparable to multi-dimensional elite fighters about and the only reason he's still on his #2 p4p spot is on paper.
P4P if Pac and Calzaghe fought either between a 168 version of Pac or a 126-130 version of Calzaghe, Calzaghe beats him 10/10 times. Pac would have no advantages against him.
Why talk about things P4P? Do you see people talk about sportman being the best P4P tennis player, footballer, golfer etc? No. Joe Calzaghe is far better than Pacman and Mayweather. Oh, but lets rank Mayweather higher because he suffers from dwarfism? Dwarfism should be looked down upon in boxing, enough of the reverse discrimination.
I'd go with pac base on overall accomplishments, and the fact that he's on par with fighters that he defeated. Pac being the one dimensional that you people refer to has been in close fights with a multi dimensional marquez and marquez and barrera at their prime imo is much better than calzaghe. And the fact that he came from flyweight, bantamweight, featherweight up to now(jr. lightweight) and keep winning titles. Calzaghe on the other hand never even tried to move up or even leave his country and challenge the best(i'm talking about before), now that he's 35 he's only got a few more years left.
Jorge Solis was undefeated Erik Morales had only lost once prior to their fight Hector Velasquez was on 5 win streak Emmanuel Lucero was undefeated
I'm a fan of Calzaghe too, but let's face some facts here. Calzaghe's only true major test was against Kessler, and it happened to be Kessler's first true test also. Their division does not contain any big names except those two I've mentioned. Calzaghe doesn't have the same impact in his division as compared to Pac's impact at featherweight despite his undefeated record. Again, I am a fan of Calzaghe.
exactly, he never even bothered to move up unlike pacquiao. He has been super middleweight champ since 1997 and was silent until facing lacy. The difference pacquiao has against him was competition and achievement. He didn't even try to unify the titles before not until lacy and kessler. Ottke was wba and ibf champ, he could have move up back then at light heavyweight were RJJ was on his prime and p4p king.
pac edges joe in the power department... pac not only put people on seats but he puts his opponents on their ass...
Calz. is the better fighter. He's more adaptable (Kessler fight), much more skilled (Lacy fight) and he's tougher, yes tougher (shot's he took from Kessler and others). He also continuously raises his intensity level round by round unlike just about anyone else is capable of doing. Pac. has been ko'd twice and lost numerous times. Calz. is also smarter than Pac., throws a better variety and more unorthodox punches and p4p speed is very close. Pacs. slightly more exciting, and Pac. is more powerful, but this does not make up for all of Joe's advantages.