Joe Calzaghe under the micoscope

[Mikkel_K]

Everytime Calzaghe is debated, we see the same arguments, and quite frankly I just dont get them. One side is saying that Calzaghe is the motherf****** man for beating 45 guys, while the other side tries to point out that most of these guys werent, well, all that great.

Yet what I fail to understand is 1) how people can say, he beat Will McIntyre, he must be an ATG (which is the consequence of touting the numerical argument), and 2) why people seem to think that because he beat the likes of Will McIntyre, he is not a great fighter. Surely, for any fighter out there, to win - and win in style even - is better than not doing so, and 45 wins must be better than, say, 25 wins? On the other hand just beating 45 guys do not make you an ATG, as witnessed by Sven Ottke.

[As for Bilbo's first since Rocky Marciano-statements, I'm pretty sure Ricardo Lopez would disagree]

Thomas Damgaard had a GREAT record fighting in Europe. Are you also ready to crown him?

Here are some of the top guys from 160-175 during Calzaghe's tenure:

Winky
Tito
Hopkins
Taylor
Tarver
Toney
Pavlik
Johnson
Dawson

Many people just find it odd that Calzaghe hasn't found his way into the ring with ANY of those guys during their primes.

I respect your views and your love for CalSlappy. I just wish Joe would stop hanging around nursing homes looking for opponents. it's unseemly.

First of all Damgaard never had a GREAT record. He had a couple of good wins at European-level, and a very entertaining style, but fought mostly bums, and was obviously on the decline for a few years before crossing the pond. But I guess that is way off-topic, as far as this thread is concerned...

I do think however you're clutching at straws here. I have never ever heard anyone suggest that Calzalghe should have fought Tito in his prime -he was a welterweight, remember? Toney, as Bilbo pointed out, was hardly in Calzaghe's division during Calzaghe's prime either. And if he had fought Dawson or Pavlik before 2007, it (too) would have been against a very untested opponents (and while you can knock Calzaghe's career, you simply cannot knock his recent opposition).

You're left with a list of Winky (who is also smallish, compared to Calzaghe), Hopkins (who he did fight - and who may have been past his prime, but certainly not shot), Taylor, Tarver and Johnson. Those three would surely be good additions to his resume, but does anyone really doubt that Calzaghe would beat them?

[Dark Lord Al]

Everytime Calzaghe is debated, we see the same arguments, and quite frankly I just dont get them. One side is saying that Calzaghe is the motherf****** man for beating 45 guys, while the other side tries to point out that most of these guys werent, well, all that great.

Yet what I fail to understand is 1) how people can say, he beat Will McIntyre, he must be an ATG (which is the consequence of touting the numerical argument), and 2) why people seem to think that because he beat the likes of Will McIntyre, he is not a great fighter. Surely, for any fighter out there, to win - and win in style even - is better than not doing so, and 45 wins must be better than, say, 25 wins? On the other hand just beating 45 guys do not make you an ATG, as witnessed by Sven Ottke.

[As for Bilbo's first since Rocky Marciano-statements, I'm pretty sure Ricardo Lopez would disagree]

Thomas Damgaard had a GREAT record fighting in Europe. Are you also ready to crown him?

Here are some of the top guys from 160-175 during Calzaghe's tenure:

Winky
Tito
Hopkins
Taylor
Tarver
Toney
Pavlik
Johnson
Dawson

Many people just find it odd that Calzaghe hasn't found his way into the ring with ANY of those guys during their primes.

I respect your views and your love for CalSlappy. I just wish Joe would stop hanging around nursing homes looking for opponents. it's unseemly.

First of all Damgaard never had a GREAT record. He had a couple of good wins at European-level, and a very entertaining style, but fought mostly bums, and was obviously on the decline for a few years before crossing the pond. But I guess that is way off-topic, as far as this thread is concerned...

I do think however you're clutching at straws here. I have never ever heard anyone suggest that Calzalghe should have fought Tito in his prime -he was a welterweight, remember? Toney, as Bilbo pointed out, was hardly in Calzaghe's division during Calzaghe's prime either. And if he had fought Dawson or Pavlik before 2007, it (too) would have been against a very untested opponents (and while you can knock Calzaghe's career, you simply cannot knock his recent opposition).

You're left with a list of Winky (who is also smallish, compared to Calzaghe), Hopkins (who he did fight - and who may have been past his prime, but certainly not shot), Taylor, Tarver and Johnson. Those three would surely be good additions to his resume, but does anyone really doubt that Calzaghe would beat them?

Does it matter ? if he didn't fight them then its irrelevant.
He spent the lions share of his career fighting bums , beat an old hopkins past his best , and fought RJJ when he had already been KOED on 2 occasions. which leaves Kessler , so what's your point ?