Whose greater...Andre Ward or Joe Calzaghe

Kessler headed into the fight against Calzaghe in his best run of opponents. He beat Siaca to take WBA Title from him, his first defence was against former WBA Champion Mundine, his second defence was against former WBC Champion Lucas, he then beat Beyer to unify the WBA and WBC belts, then defeated contender level Andrade before fighting Calzaghe.

Heading into the Ward fight the last noteworthy name Kessler had fought was Calzaghe two years previously - or Sartison if you want to be generous who he fought in June 2008. I think Kessler was better at the time he fought Calzaghe because he was fighting higher quality opponent regularly and the quality of his opposition had decline drastically between 2007 and 2009.

Ward also beat Kessler in a much dirtier fight than Calzaghe did and I will never rate a win in such a manner higher than a clean one - as clarification, I accept Ward is better than Kessler and deserved to the win the fight but less clinching and headbutts would have made me rate the victory higher.

As to Froch, Kessler wasn't much better than he was, but I think he was the superior fighter. It might be a toss up between the two and opinions vary.

 

Lacy was IBF Champion and highly rated at the time, Ward's fight with Kessler was much dirtier than Calzaghe's, Eubank was still a dangerous fighter and proved it against Calzaghe and Thompson, Ried lost a close fought contest against Calzaghe that some thought he won, Woodhall was a former WBC Champion defeated Malinga, Catley and Nardiello and gave Beyer a tough fight.

None of which is really relevant. The point was that Calzaghe's best wins at Super Middleweight match Ward's but Calzaghe has more second teir opponents than Ward, which gives his resume at the weight more depth.

 

Interesting.I think it is close between the two.As far as legacy, I think Ward has the edge.

 

IBF has never been an important belt. Tell me, who were Jeff's best wins? He was a yanky hype job.

Ward doesn't need second tier wins, because he is way way WAY above that level.

 

i think what you mean, Majr is that he was highly valued compared to joe. Joe was seen as a "ibo/wbf" hanger on at the time, so relative to that Lacy and his IBF belt were definitely better rated. As would be expected.

But Joe proved that they had got it in reverse - Lacy was in fact the minor, as has been shown in his subsequent fights getting beaten to death by forthysomethings and nobodies.

 

this is the important distinction, ward, or anyone of character, would be ashamed to have as title defences MOST of the opposition that Joe tried to pass off as valid opponents.

But he and Wassen were able to get away with it because the Welsh had been starved of boxing successful for a good while so they didnt care about being fed fakery. Fortunately joe managed a handful of Ward-level defences eventually. Whereas Ward topped joes level in his first title fight.

 

The IBF is the oldest belt in the Division and was held by James Toney, Roy Jones Jr and Sven Ottke - two of the greatest fighters the division has ever seen, and one of the most successfull - it is not credible to say that it was never an important belt.

Lacy's best wins were Vanderpool, Sheika and Ried. They're not impressive names but I'm not trying to argue he was a great fighter, only that he was well thought of at the time he fought Calzaghe - as the predictions for the fight show with the majority of people expecting Lacy to beat Calzaghe well before the 12th round.

Sure, Ward doesn't need second tier wins to prove he's a great fighter, but he does need them if you want to say his resume at Super Middleweight is stronger than Calzaghe. With his individual victories at the weight being against no better quality of opponent than Calzaghe's and without matching the amount of former/future/current World Champion that Calzaghe has his resume as Super Middleweight is just not as strong.

 

What I mean is that at the time people thought Lacy was going to be a world beater and most people were backing him to stop Calzaghe. Fewer people thought Calzaghe would win that fight than thought he would lose it and nobody foresaw him beating Lacy as easilly and one-sidedly as he did.

 

totally, only a fool would back joe at that point. Noone had heard of him, and few respect the wbo at that time. Its like dont respect IBO today, but 3G as shown that an ibo titleholder can replicate their work at the true belt level.

Lacy had better amateur pedigree, having been an olympian loser, and genuine power, whereas joe appeared to be getting fake stoppages in his cardiff ko reel. lacy just seemed better compared to a noone.

 

Bud, it goes likes this in terms of belt rankings (minus the Ring)..

WBC
WBA
WBO







Everything else.

No, just no. His top tier wins are better than Joe's. That's all that matters.

Kessler? Bust him up (and that is Joe's best win at SMW, and it was very competitive)
Bika? Beat him.
Froch? Joe refused to face him. Had he beat him it would have done a LOT for his resume.

Ward has more big names. That's all that counts.

 

Who decided that? Is that official? Anyone else back this up?

The "big names" Ward beat at Super Middleweight are Kessler, Abraham, Bika, Froch and Dawson.

The "big names" Cazlaghe beat are Eubank, Reid, Woodhall, Brewer, Mitchell, Lacy, Bika and Kessler.

Calaghe has more. It's just reflective of the fact that Calzaghe spent a hell of a lot longer in the division than Ward did.

You can legitimately make the case the Ward's more impressive because he established himself as one of the division's greatest and most accomplished fighters after only 3-to-4 years fighting at the world stage - a fraction of the decade it took Calzaghe - but that doesn't change the fact that Calzaghe has more depth to his resume at the weight than Ward does.

 

ibf came out in 70a or early 80s. it carries more weight than wbo historically, and abouteven today with it.

true but chances were froch would steamroll 36 year old joe who was getting knocked over by 40somethnigs now, and if joe picked up a loss, would that have helped or hnidered his resume?

at the time i guess hinder but as time went on it would help, seeing as froch confirmed his elitedom.

 

Having Reid, Woodhall, Brewer and Mitchell would not enhance Ward's resume a single bit.

You just see more victories = better resume. I'm going for quality, not quantity.

It's a shame that Goosen & Ward got into a legal mess, because Ward's resume would have included Groves, Jack & Degale - but you'd still argue it wouldn't be enough. Joe's record is inflated, period. Tocker Pudwill? Mate, if you saw who Joe faced in his prime you'd laugh your head off at this argument. He fought many nobodies. I cannot remember the last time Ward had an easy fight.

 

having an injured woodhall who should have been retireed would have made wards resume worse.

reid was worth something surely, but mitchell we will never no given the fake stoppage made when joe was in danger of getting stopped.

 

I was a draw at worst for Reid.