Can you be an all time great if your best win is against Jeff Lacy?

[BIG H]

I dont consider Joe Cal an all time great but he is definitley closer than Kostya.

Well, I have to disagree there, never lost, close to Marciano's record, schooled the Viking Kessler, which nobody has see coming (for the schooling, not the win), won against B-Hop... you have to place him with the all time greats even if might not be on the top of the top.

Yes i agree Mikkel Kessler is a good win on his belt, but Mikkel Kessler isn't as great as some people make out. He won IMO a very close decision to Anthony Mundine, which is his best win. A fighter that hasn't stepped up in class for years.

And to be honest the Super Middleweight is stronger now than it was a few years ago, when Mikkel Kessler was ruling. And Mikkel Kessler hasn't stepped up since losing to Joe Calzaghe. So we actually don't know how good Mikkel Kessler really is yet.

Because the only really elite opponent he has fought is Joe Calzaghe, Librado Andrade is a goodish fighter but is one dimensional, and Anthony Mundine is a good fighter. But not really elite either, and he hasn't stepped up in years.

I actually didn't think Joe Calzaghe beat Bernard Hopkins, i thought he lost by one point. Yes Bernard Hopkins is still very good at 43. But i have no doubt in my mind that the Bernard Hopkins, that took Glen Johnson apart, or took Felix Trinidad apart, would beat Joe Calzaghe IMO.

I think Joe Calzaghe is a very good champion, but despite all his achievements. I honestly just don't see him as an ATG. But thats just my opinion.

You may be right, but remember neith JC or Nard were at their peak. Picture the Hopkins you mention above against the Calzaghe that fought Lacy, that' a better comparison

[ICB]

Well, I have to disagree there, never lost, close to Marciano's record, schooled the Viking Kessler, which nobody has see coming (for the schooling, not the win), won against B-Hop... you have to place him with the all time greats even if might not be on the top of the top.

Yes i agree Mikkel Kessler is a good win on his belt, but Mikkel Kessler isn't as great as some people make out. He won IMO a very close decision to Anthony Mundine, which is his best win. A fighter that hasn't stepped up in class for years.

And to be honest the Super Middleweight is stronger now than it was a few years ago, when Mikkel Kessler was ruling. And Mikkel Kessler hasn't stepped up since losing to Joe Calzaghe. So we actually don't know how good Mikkel Kessler really is yet.

Because the only really elite opponent he has fought is Joe Calzaghe, Librado Andrade is a goodish fighter but is one dimensional, and Anthony Mundine is a good fighter. But not really elite either, and he hasn't stepped up in years.

I actually didn't think Joe Calzaghe beat Bernard Hopkins, i thought he lost by one point. Yes Bernard Hopkins is still very good at 43. But i have no doubt in my mind that the Bernard Hopkins, that took Glen Johnson apart, or took Felix Trinidad apart, would beat Joe Calzaghe IMO.

I think Joe Calzaghe is a very good champion, but despite all his achievements. I honestly just don't see him as an ATG. But thats just my opinion.

You may be right, but remember neith JC or Nard were at their peak. Picture the Hopkins you mention above against the Calzaghe that fought Lacy, that' a better comparison

Its not an easy win for Bernard Hopkins at anytime in his career, i just think the big thing that was missing from Bernard Hopkins was workrate. In his prime he could sustain a very good pace, he would also take more risks. And his punching power was pretty good aswell, just look at his early KO's.

All these extra things were missing when he fought Joe Calzaghe, even though Bernard Hopkins is still a very good fighter. I just think he would take more chances and have the workrate and power, to beat Joe Calzaghe over 12 rounds in his prime which was probably between 1997-2001.