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

[BIG H]

It matters and it is relevant because it reflects the quality of their legacy. A fighter's standing in history depends largely on who they beat. Just the fact that people are comparing Calzaghe's record, at age 37, to records of fighters who are 10 years younger should be indicative enough. Cotto has already fought at least 4 accomplished fighters in their prime. Pavlik took a risk fighting Hopkins, and Jermain Taylor for that matter, whereas when Calzaghe was at that age he was content to fight British clubfighters. Whether taking the risk was justified is another story (ask Pavlik or Cotto). Moreover, Calzaghe only "wiped the floor" with one prime accomplished fighter, Kessler. Pavlik and Cotto can already make that claim, at age 26.

And you are dead-on about PBF. Good comparison. PBF was an amazing pound for pound fighter, but when he left the game he had never fought any accomplished prime welterweight. He left the game when Sugar Shane, Miguel Cotto, and Antonio Margarito were all in their primes. It will always be a knock on PBF.

What four acomplished fighters in their prime has Cotto beat?

Certainly not Judah (he hasn't one a big fight in about 4 years) , certainly not Mosely (people on here saying he should retire after the Mayorga debacle) , maybe Margarito but he got battered by Margarito.

I guess you mean Quintana and Malignaggi?

Dangerous fighters indeed

I'm not criticising Cotto here, I think he's a fantastic fighter but he hasn't faced 4 elite prime fighters like you suggest.

And Eubank was a million miles away from being a British 'club fighter', even weight drained he'd have beaten Jermain Taylor that's for sure.

No way would have Eubanks beaten Taylor, thats bs. Taylor is twice the fighter the Eubanks that stepped into the ring against Calzaghe was.

In all seriousness I thought that Eubank's performance against Calzaghe was one of his best performances