[quote And evans link=topic=37709.msg447968#msg447968 date=1161214008]
And, this week, the same dogma was the support system behind lunatic claims that Joe Calzaghe (whose otherwise disappointing, stop/start career was apparently "defined" by his win over Jeff Lacy in March) could well be the best British fighter ever.

Joe Calzaghe is a very fine fighter, no question. But writing as a man who was penning articles championing the Welshman's world beating potential eight years ago (check old issues of BM or search the archives of this very site for evidence I'm not a Calzaghe-come-lately), proclaiming Calzaghe to be self-evidently superior in the history of British boxing is rank nonsense.

Best British fighter e-v-e-r? All because he beat Jeffrey from Florida? Yes, it seems so because no-one was calling Calzaghe the best active British fighter (much less the best EVER) before March 2006 and, let me be blunt, it is revisionist and ridiculous to claim Calzaghe's win over the powerful but inexperienced 'Left Hook' is even in the top five best wins for a British fighter.
[/quote]

guess he didn't do much research on calzaghe then, coz in 2003 most major british boxing pundits had Calza as the best british fighter.... So already i find my self questioning what other things has he overlooked?

He fails to mention also calzas devorce that made joe suffer inside and outside of the ring.

another point he 'overlooked' is how little sparring Calza has done in the last 4 or so years due to the hand problem., but yet has always dug deep and put on a matching winning proformance, when needed.

And only a B for the first veit fight? how can u only give him a B for smashed to pieces inside one round... ? nearly 10 years ago, but i don't remeber veit landing a clean shot, and calza missing with many

Over all, a good write up, but to me with some key information missing, but we all have our own opinions:P