If Calzaghe's record is so bad, whose is better?

[match]

Thing is fighters such as Pavlik and Cotto are both young fighters but they are willing to take risks now Pavlik lost to Hopkins and Cotto to Margarito but at least these young fighters are going for it. Calzaghe is in his late 30's unbeaten in 45 fights but he has only just started taking risks and is last 2 risks have been against fighters past there best Hopkins and Jones even if Hopkins has just beaten Pavlik he still isn't at his best. Calzaghe could have learned a lot from fighters like Pavlik and Cotto risk takers wanting big fights tough fights not clinging on to there unbeaten records.

Calzaghe beat Eubank as a young fighter let's not forget that.

Also look at B Hop. He didn't get his first signifcant fight until he fought the welterweight Trinidad in 2001 at the age of 36, the same age Calzaghe is now!

Calzaghe is actually ahead of Hopkins. At this age Hopkins had only fought Trinidad, Calzaghe already has wins over Eubank, Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins and is fighting another legend in Roy Jones next month.

Hagler didnt' get any big fights until he was past 30 either.

Trinidad was regarded as the best fighter in the world when hopkins destroyed him. The same can not be said of anyone on joes resume. Also, hagler was dying to get huge fights his entire career and eddie futch famously told him, you have 3 things going against you, 1 your left handed, 2 your black, 3 your good. Hagler was avoided, plain and simple. Joes a hall of famer but the criticism laid on him is no different than what jones and mayweather received as well, he did not take as many risks as he could have.