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

[Fenster]

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.

Name them?

You just made his point. The fact that most people can't name the bums Calzaghe fought for the majority of his career...is perfectly indicative of his resume,

No it's not.

It means you're either too YOUNG to remember the time period.

or

Too ignorant to recognise class fighters exist OUTSIDE of the USA.

[Rantcatrat]

Name them?

You just made his point. The fact that most people can't name the bums Calzaghe fought for the majority of his career...is perfectly indicative of his resume,

No it's not.

It means you're either too YOUNG to remember the time period.

or

Too ignorant to recognise class fighters exist OUTSIDE of the USA.

Probably a worthy topic for a post: stateside bias v. european bias?