Quote Originally Posted by Fenster View Post
Ignoring the fact Calzaghe was from the same era/age group as Roy and Hopkins, to claim they were geriatric shadows is complete and utter revisionist rubbish. Nard's best wins came either side of his Calzaghe loss and Roy, although evidently past his best, wasn't the "shot" dinosaur everyone now makes out.

Young Hopkins (middleweight) vs young Calzaghe is a totally different fight. Either way, neither is leaving the other for dead. And prime Roy never fought anyone like Calzaghe and didn't always wipe the floor with everyone. And I don't care what anyone says - Calzaghe's final performance against Roy was awesome.

The same people who slag off Calzaghe's record boast about Bhop's middleweight defences. Nothing but American bias/nationalism. The other former champs and top ten Ring contenders Calzaghe defeated don't exist. Why? Calzaghe's career started with Lacy for the vast majority of Americans and salty Brits.

Solid post, and let me be the first to say here: I detest to the back teeth American bias/nationalism, in sports, in politics, in military. Detest I say.

Geriatric shadows that made me laugh, I don't know if you coined it that, but its a good one. No I wouldn't say they were that far gone, but a prime RJJ would dominate Joe, maybe not leave for dead as you say (hell Primo just scolded me for using the same term "dead" "kill" whatever when saying that Bivol may "kill" Callum, jeez @Primo Carnera it was figurative FFS) but he would shellack him.

Now BHop yes had great nights before and after so yeah, good point there as well. In the end, Joe Calzaghe was an exceptional fighter, undefeated, amazing hand speed and combos, and got up off the canvass to come back and win. The question really is: could he have fought better comp? Was that better comp even out there and available at the time? If not, then its all he could be expected to do.