calzaghe was a good fighter, he gave hopkins a tough fight even though i thought hopkins won and ofcourse he was past his prime at the time. same thign applies to eubank except joe acctually deserved that decision, kessler was a good win too.
it doesnt hold up against frochs resume though. froch fought much stiffer competition which is why he isnt undefeated. thats really all clazghe has on him and he really doesnt even have that since he really lost to hopkins. and he would lose even more if he went through frochs opposition.
frochs legacy is much stronger than calzaghes.