Quote Originally Posted by Dizaster View Post
It's great stuff... I suppose people will throw random comments out there regarding different parts..

With the Calzaghe thing, I know what you mean... He so desperately wanted to take all the glory from beating 2 of our era's greatest fighters in Jones and Hopkins, but when Jones couldn't even pull the trigger anymore, and Hopkins is not in his prime days (granted Hopkins then went onto destroy Pavlik to show he still has something left to be beaten), but i'll give him credit for the Hopkins one... You just can't take all the glory from those wins... When you look at Jones OR Hopkins highlight reels,,,, Calzaghe never faced that.... It's just a fact... And it's up to speculation now whether he could have beaten that. That's the whole problem..

Sometimes a boxers legacy when it's all said and done, can come down to what fighters were around at the time, what fights a fighter was prepared to take at certain times of their career etc.. Sometime it doesn't come down to ability or their potential, it usually always comes down to who they beat.... And critics who are actually really trying to give Calzaghe the credit he deserves, will point to his opponents..

Anyone who gets to that many wins with zero losses and does fight some quality is obviously a champion no doubt... But when people look back 10 years, 20 years from now, they want to point to the quality of opponents he knocked off.... And if people are still questioning whether he could have beat the top guys in their prime, then how will it be 20 years from now..
Thanks.

I agree with your comments, I believe there will be questions asked 20 years from now.