Winky Wright vs. Joe Calzaghe -- better career & resumé?

No no, I just meant to illustrate that Kessler is yet to really do anything of note and, up until that point in time, didn't seem that interested in doing so. Things have changed now, though, since this thread was posted almost 2 months ago (especially with the super6 tournament announced).

Now, he has a chance to add some nice names to his resume .
The thing with Andrade is.. yes he got outclassed but he rose back to the top of the heap & deserved the shot. S'all I was saying, really. But Kessler was almost turning into a new-Joe with ultra-reluctancy to give a re-match... & starting to act as if he will camp out in his home nation. That was then, though !

Trinidad while above his natural weight-class was still a beast at middleweight and better than almost all .mw's out there except a very select FEW despite being under-sized!

And Mosley is a big welterweight & has always said so.
Plus, while he beat Mosley at 154... this big-man argument is stupid.
It's not as if Winky is a bully kind of fighter who will even use his size-advantage.. nor is he a big puncher / was he going to gain any power-advantage by landing on a fighter coming up from welterweight.
He outboxed Mosley, that simple.
Was almost nothing to do with size, mate.

Oh and failing to realize that there are decent-to-good cases for Winky having beaten both Vargas & Taylor would be ignorant!

Good post but the last paragraph is extremely poignant & sums it up.
In deciding who had a better career 'maximising monetary rewards & returns on investment' don't really mean ****, now, do they!

it's funny because it's true.

Indeed. Calzaghe was an excellent boxer, I just don't think his career matched the talent or was as good as the hype it got & now gets in many places.

I'm from the UK!
However, that SHOULD be irrelevant.
We should all just be analytical and form our own unbiased-as-can-be opinion.

As I replied to the other dude, it's more about the mentality which Kessler was displaying... almost as though he would become Denmark's Calzaghe (super-mw king but not willing to really leave Denmark much if at all)

Mitchell is the only one who's omission from under 'Good' is actually notable and fair (long post, forgetting ppl in a debate which runs & deep as this is bound to happen -- forgive me!).

It's true Woodhall, Reid & Brewer should be there under Mediocre . I like Richie Woodhall but he was never actually that great....
Reid never did anything post-Calzaghe and would go on continuing to beat decent fighters but lose to 'good' fighters. He was fed to Lacy a year or two before Lacy met Calzaghe iirc.
Charles Brewer... who was what.. 35-7 or 37-8 or something like that going into the JC fight? You really think someone like that deserves a mention under even 'good'. Come on!

Also re: Sheika beating Johnson. While Sheika is underrated... he's not 'good' in his own right by the scale of these kinda threads when how a fighter is in adding to legacy. He'd come under Mediocre.
Also, JC took 5 rounds to finish Sheika... while like I said, washed up Roy did it in 5 this past year hah!

As much as I like Glen Johnson, truth is.. he wasn't no-one back then. He was a journeyman! It wasn't until he came up to light-heavyweight & beat Clinton Woods that he really started to look good and a hugely improved, consistent fighter! & then once he beat Roy + then Tarver... it was cemented.

They WERE controversial and even amongst fans here they are still questioned and debated both ways.


There were good cases for him winning both.

And maybe Calzaghe's problem is the way he, his father & Frank Warren went about his career?

Calzaghe should've done more to face B-Hop & Roy Jones, especially, earlier... and same with the other Light-Heavyweights.

Plus, he should've been baiting MWs to come up a long time ago.
The likes of Winky (yes, even though he is not a big mw.. more of a light-middle) & Jermain, especially.

There were many fighters at 160 & even 154 who would've given Joe a better fight than he was getting (or than he & Warren were having made) for much of his career.

That too is debatable. As a Prime Winky Wright had never lost decisively (unless we count B-Hop in a fight where that cut clearly bothered the hell out of Winky after the head-butt. The fact that Winky went up to 170 to fight B-Hop just shows how he ducks no-one & will fight anyone... + also sheds light on just how avoided he was at 154 & 160.. that he went all the way up there!)

Even if Joe was a better overall fighter.
His career wasn't better than Winky's apart from in being undefeated, I'm afraid.

Biggest wins already compared.
But also look at clearing out their divisions & fighting the best AROUND their weight (i.e. 1 above or 1 below). Winky kept doing it & unified the belts.. and was always trying to get after it... joe on the other hand was happy to sit back + just rack up wins in easy fight after easy fight!

Aye, he does.
However I only consider someone a "hater" if they're hating on someone through prejudice & being unreasonable.

I always used to say when speaking to ppl across the pond in America that they're vastly underrating Joe as they often have many British fighters.

However, I don't believe he had a better career than Winky overall!

While Joe may be better remembered in 10-20-25 yrs to come by virtue of being undefeated, that doesn't automatically mean he had the better career! It just shows how rare going out undefeated at the top-level is in the sport of boxing.

Tbh, when I made this.. I felt it was kinda close... with Winky just about winning despite having a few losses (many of them which could have easily been decisions going his way)... however, the deeper I went into this & the more I thought... (like DINAMITA posted before) I began to wonder -- why did I even think this was very close. It ain't THAT close!