you are a fool, its not just bout being a power puncher. ask ivan calderon, one of the most technically gifted boxers in history.
I think any reigning world champion openly stating he does not want to take on the best fighter available is indeed controversial. Maybe that's just me, but I think that's a bizarre attitude for a champion boxer. Also, Calzaghe had held a major world title for two years by 1999, roughly the same length of time as Hatton had held a major world title before he fought the p4p#1 Mayweather. Though again I must say this is not a particularly interesting or purposeful debate to have. Hatton got the biggest fights when available, Calzaghe did not. That's the reality. But that doesn't change the fact that Calzaghe was indeed a superior fighter to Hatton, which is the subject of this thread.
Calzaghe was better than Hatton. It's really quite obvious. The difference.... could box, stick to a gameplan and stay relaxed on the big stage. Hatton couldn't. That's what seperates the likes of Pacquiao, Mayweather, Marquez or Calzaghe from the likes of Hatton. Lets not forget Calzaghe has a better chin and his wins against Hopkins, kessler, Eubank and Lacy are more impressive than Hattons wins over Tzsyu and Castillo. Hatton may of fought Floyd and Manny but he lost. Simple as that really.
Calzaghe wins hands down. In every department he beats Hatton, except on power and body hitting, and even then Calzaghe had to pitter pat because of the state of his hands. Like some else has mentioned, getting battered against top class opposition does not make you a good fighter, and lets also remember Pac-Man started as a Flyweight, and fought Hatton at 140, but Hatton still got KTFO bang smack in the middle of the ring. Also, in regards to RJJ I have not seen quotes to say Calzaghe did not want a fight, but in regards to B-Hop the fight was a go until B-Hop pulled himself out, not exactly Calzaghe's fault, and consider if he did get that fight then, then he would have got his dues much earlier. Calzaghe for me is an example of a excellent natural fighter given bad advice who did not have much confidence in his own ability.
IMO, Hatton deserves A LOT more respect than Calzaghe, because he stepped up, went to America and fought two P4P Kings - something Calzaghe would never have had the balls to do. But at the end of the day, Hatton got destroyed by the two great fighters he fought, whereas Calzaghe narrowly beat the only great fighter he fought (Hopkins). Calzaghe was the better fighter, with the better career.
Hatton and Calzaghe are the best boxers ever to come out of GB. But the best performance ever by a Briit - was Calzaghe exhibition versus Lacy. Calzaghe took everything away from the American - even his future.
You are wrong here. Naseem Hamed was the best by far. Sure he got beat by barerra but he was past his prime by then, in his prime Hamed not just beats, but destroys anyone he's in with. Second to him is Lewis who had the best career by far, defeated everyone he fought and took on every rated heavyweight bar ruiz (but he beat tua), byrd (he beat vitali) and bowe (destroyed him in the olympics). Calzaghe and hatton should be under these two.
British boxing didn't begin 15 years ago you know. To even suggest Hatton and Hamed are in the same league as Ken Buchanan or (going further back) Jimmy Wilde is ****ing blasphemous. Lennox Lewis and Joe Calzaghe are the best Brits of the era, and both can sit comfortably in a top 5 or 10 of all-time depending on your viewpoint. But Hatton and Hamed are not in that class, they just didn't have the all-round quality of guys like John Conteh.
lmao you need to chill out lol. Hamed in his prime was unstoppable and beat every champion in his division. Obviously it didn't start fifteen years ago you silly billy. doesn't mean older boxers are any better just cos of their era.
I don't think Hamed beat anyone good enough to be rated as a great boxer. And I don't think he was technically good enough either. His lack of jab and defence were always going to see him beaten the first time he fought an elite level opponent. And he was. Don't get me wrong, the guy was great entertainment and had stunning power, but he wasn't a great boxer, and nowhere near the Buchanan or Conteh level. He wasn't as good ability-wise as Calzaghe or Lewis from his own era. He looked better than them blasting out low or mid level opposition because he was unorthodox and had great physical attributes, but Calzaghe and Lewis proved their games against high-level opponents, Hamed never did. He lost.
Hamed cleaned out his divison. beat every belt holder, bar the WBA and the guy gave his belt up to fight Hamed, then got knocked out.