Better Resume: Calzaghe or Mayweather?

this is such an easy poll . . . mayweather without a doubt or second thought.

At least they were in their Primes...also keep in mind thats floyds 4th-5th jump in weight..calzaghe moved up once. Floyds a little overated but Calzaghe is the epitome of overated, picking a shot Jones was just discraceful..especially after he himself said he was shot. Why doesn't he stop picking and choosing and fight a legit prime champion. Two out of his last six opponents have been prime champions. Three out of his last six opponents have been champions. Can't think of too many fighters hitting that ratio or better at the moment.

Like Floyd ducked Cotto, Marg, Williams and Clottey and fought Judah,Baldomir,Mitchell and Hatton? Please... "peeleft:"peeleft: At least they were in their Primes...also keep in mind thats floyds 4th-5th jump in weight..calzaghe moved up once. Floyds a little overated but Calzaghe is the epitome of overated, picking a shot Jones was just discraceful..especially after he himself said he was shot. Why doesn't he stop picking and choosing and fight a legit prime champion.

Mugwump;4382112Joe was always going to needle Hopkins over a loss - even if that loss had been to Jesus Christ Almighty fighting the fight of his life. It was certainly dismissive of Taylor. Either Joe genuinely believes Taylor's no good (in which case I think he's got it wrong)* or the needling served a dual-purpose as the opening salvo in the build-up to a fight with Taylor. Losing to Taylor just showed Hopkins was past it. Even before that, he hadn't fought like he used to. Robert Allen also pointed to Hopkins decline and he should know, he fought Hopkins a few times. It was if the last time Hopkins was oiled was for Tito and after that; he was running on whatever oil he had left. He became as stiff as the tin-man when he wasn't oiled. Speak for yourself. I don't think Hopkins is boring at all. I find there are a million subtleties to appreciate about his fighting. The guy is a model of economical exertion in service to peerless boxing aptitude. If he doesn't go on to become a great trainer I'll be amazed. Hopkins is boring. If you watch all his fights leading up to Tito you would know what I'm talking about. I forget how Larry Merchant put it in one of his fights...something like: Hopkins used to be a Lion that hunted down his prey, now, he is a Lion that waits behind the bushes. I think perhaps his fans have been guilty of overrating him. Outside of them I'm not too sure. Pretty much all the smart journos I read had him tagged pretty well: heavy-handed, high-work rate, brave and limited beyond plan A. I don't believe he was unwise to take on Hopkins. As Hatton said to Larry Merchant - "What are we in this business for?" Fans tend to overrate everybody they like. I don't think he sucks, far from it, but I don't think he has had the proper training to be that "elite" fighter people were talking about. Elite as in: once he moves up can he handle being the same size as everybody else. I'm for what Hatton said; a great comment. Agreed. Although Pavlik is young and not unathletic LOL; you got me :) This I don't agree with at all. "Decent" is a guy who wins as many fights as he loses - a journeyman. Decent compared to his original self. Decent compared to being "Great." It's like one of those great athletes that has been on the slide and somebody asks you, "How is he now," and you say "Eh, Decent." Basically, better than most, but not the same as he once was; just good enough. Sure. But that is no substitute for the real thing. If it were Tyson wouldn't have needed to bother with the dubious ilk of McNeeley. Tyson wasn't allowed to box, let alone train in boxing. He started to recondition himself in jail, but he wasn't boxing. HUGE difference. * I still rate Taylor. Or at least I rate the potential of Taylor. Even now I don't think Joe would have it easy against him. Perhaps when Jermaine looks back on his career in years to come he'll think he let himself down pretty badly. Beating Hopkins should have signalled a long reign at the very top. I don't want to dump on Kelly's achievements (because I still feel he's a very good fighter) but I think JT was partially the architect of his own downfall. Pity. I don't think Taylor has the stamina to keep up with Joe. I also don't see Taylor as a crafty fighter. Taylor's problem may be mental more than anything else. I think that was what Emmanuel may have alluded to as well. Taylor has many physical gifts, but he doesn't connect the Mental and Physical to make a complete fighter.

Bernard wasn't good enough to beat Taylor. That's what Calzaghe brought up prior to their fight. Joe was always going to needle Hopkins over a loss - even if that loss had been to Jesus Christ Almighty fighting the fight of his life. It was certainly dismissive of Taylor. Either Joe genuinely believes Taylor's no good (in which case I think he's got it wrong)* or the needling served a dual-purpose as the opening salvo in the build-up to a fight with Taylor. Bernard had become a boring fighter for a reason; he was on the decline. Speak for yourself. I don't think Hopkins is boring at all. I find there are a million subtleties to appreciate about his fighting. The guy is a model of economical exertion in service to peerless boxing aptitude. If he doesn't go on to become a great trainer I'll be amazed. I think it says more with Kelly being overrated and should always stick to fighting at MW and never go into a fight with a crafty fighter. I think perhaps his fans have been guilty of overrating him. Outside of them I'm not too sure. Pretty much all the smart journos I read had him tagged pretty well: heavy-handed, high-work rate, brave and limited beyond plan A. I don't believe he was unwise to take on Hopkins. As Hatton said to Larry Merchant - "What are we in this business for?" Hopkins prime ended 8 years ago and ever since he was on the decline...but yes, he has always been smart enough to make up for it to a point...except when he had to go up against a young athletic type like Taylor. Agreed. Although Pavlik is young and not unathletic He is still a "decent" fighter, but not what he once was. His biggest problem has been his stamina. This I don't agree with at all. "Decent" is a guy who wins as many fights as he loses - a journeyman. This version of Hopkins doesn't stand a better chance at beating the Roy that beat the younger more athletic Hopkins. Roy wins both for sure. But this version would pose a completely different set of problems for him. People act like Hopkins was so green, but the truth is, he had been fighting in prison and was the prison Champ. Sure. But that is no substitute for the real thing. If it were Tyson wouldn't have needed to bother with the dubious ilk of McNeeley. * I still rate Taylor. Or at least I rate the potential of Taylor. Even now I don't think Joe would have it easy against him. Perhaps when Jermaine looks back on his career in years to come he'll think he let himself down pretty badly. Beating Hopkins should have signalled a long reign at the very top. I don't want to dump on Kelly's achievements (because I still feel he's a very good fighter) but I think JT was partially the architect of his own downfall. Pity.

Mayweather.

calzaghes win over jones says maybe a bit more than floyd over baldomir... but not much Baldomir at least had a heart-beat...as well as a size advantage and a title. Seriously, take Jones off the resume. It is admitting to someone you beat your Grandfather up.

calzaghes win over jones says maybe a bit more than floyd over baldomir... but not much

floyds biggest wins: corrales, castillo, de la hoya, judah, hatton, baldomir calzaghes biggest wins: b-hop, kessler,eubank, lacy, mitchell, jones corrales was a big win for floyd at 130, although corrales' head wasn't there still big win for floyd castillo was close but he still got the win and won a rematch - in castillos prime de la hoya - very underrated win for floyd, although he didnt dominate not on p4p judah - no longer on p4p - was on downside of his career - not on p4p hatton - beat one of the best 140 lbers in a long time - on p4p list baldomir - beat judah and thats it for his career Calzaghe Hopkins - big win as it came in between hopkins wins over winky, tarver and pavlik. higher than any floyd opponent on p4p lists Kessler - awesome 168 lber beat in unification - in top 15 p4p eubank - had only lost to collins by 1 round, nobody else - big win for calz - was he still on p4p lists then? im too young Lacy - ruined his career - not on p4p mitchell - this fight would have been for wba, ibf and wbo if not for horrible german judges overall calzaghe has beaten better opponents in his best 6 fights after his best 6 calzaghe didnt face too much competition at all where floyd beat a whos who of lower top 10 fighters from 130-147.

who did mayweather beat better than jones jr, hopkins. no1. Ignorance isn't that funny....

Let's try to introduce a bit of rationality here. I can't see how anyone can seriously argue that Floyd - a four (five?) weight world champion's resume is inferior to Joe's. Some would go so far as to say winning belts at so many divisions obviates any questions about the standard of opponent when evaluating the fighter's true worth. And they'd have something of a point. Look at how tough Ricky Hatton finds jumping ONE division - and Hatton is no bum by any stretch of the imagination. Floyd deserves all the plaudits he receives. No question. The man is a living legend and one of the greatest fighters of all time. The above said, I can't see any justification for claiming "miles of difference" either. Calzaghe's resume is good. Very good. 1. Hopkins. It's just stupid to claim Hopkins is nowhere near his best. Kelly Pavlik mightn't be the most gifted fighter in the world, but gifts alone have never equalled world titles in the history of sport. A wheezing, geriatric, arthritic Hopkins could not have beaten Pavlik. He's too good for that. No, Hopkins isn't the fighter he was when ... say ... Roy Jones put him away. But then that Hopkins made a lot more mistakes than the current version. Bernard is one of those rare breeds whose fighting style doesn't require a heart that can beat at 140 per minute for 12 rounds without exploding like watermelon with a dum dum shot through it. If we were living in China 1000 years ago he'd be the Kung Fu master who patiently watches the young upstart spend ten minutes trying to impress him with his moves and then drops him into an embarrassed heap with a lazy sweep of the arm. Sweet science. A win over Hopkins today - no matter how close - is a GREAT achievement. The only greater being a win over Floyd I imagine. Bernard wasn't good enough to beat Taylor. That's what Calzaghe brought up prior to their fight. Bernard had become a boring fighter for a reason; he was on the decline. I think it says more with Kelly being overrated and should always stick to fighting at MW and never go into a fight with a crafty fighter. Hopkins prime ended 8 years ago and ever since he was on the decline...but yes, he has always been smart enough to make up for it to a point...except when he had to go up against a young athletic type like Taylor. He is still a "decent" fighter, but not what he once was. His biggest problem has been his stamina. This version of Hopkins doesn't stand a better chance at beating the Roy that beat the younger more athletic Hopkins. People act like Hopkins was so green, but the truth is, he had been fighting in prison and was the prison Champ. Roy at the time also only had 21 fights and had an injured right hand. And Jones Jr was shot...we should just stop talking about that fight since it is an embarrassment to have him on your resume.

Let's try to introduce a bit of rationality here. I can't see how anyone can seriously argue that Floyd - a four (five?) weight world champion's resume is inferior to Joe's. Some would go so far as to say winning belts at so many divisions obviates any questions about the standard of opponent when evaluating the fighter's true worth. And they'd have something of a point. Look at how tough Ricky Hatton finds jumping ONE division - and Hatton is no bum by any stretch of the imagination. Floyd deserves all the plaudits he receives. No question. The man is a living legend and one of the greatest fighters of all time. The above said, I can't see any justification for claiming "miles of difference" either. Calzaghe's resume is good. Very good. 1. Hopkins. It's just stupid to claim Hopkins is nowhere near his best. Kelly Pavlik mightn't be the most gifted fighter in the world, but gifts alone have never equalled world titles in the history of sport. A wheezing, geriatric, arthritic Hopkins could not have beaten Pavlik. He's too good for that. No, Hopkins isn't the fighter he was when ... say ... Roy Jones put him away. But then that Hopkins made a lot more mistakes than the current version. Bernard is one of those rare breeds whose fighting style doesn't require a heart that can beat at 140 per minute for 12 rounds without exploding like watermelon with a dum dum shot through it. If we were living in China 1000 years ago he'd be the Kung Fu master who patiently watches the young upstart spend ten minutes trying to impress him with his moves and then drops him into an embarrassed heap with a lazy sweep of the arm. Sweet science. A win over Hopkins today - no matter how close - is a GREAT achievement. The only greater being a win over Floyd I imagine. 2. Eubank. Who said Calzaghe has no "recognisable names" on his resume prior to Lacy? What sport are you a fan of did you say? Granted, Eubank wasn't in his prime* and took the fight at short notice, but it was still an excellent win - especially when you consider how green Calzaghe was at the time. It's also worth making the oft-repeated point that Calzaghe claims this to be the hardest fight he's had. Harder than B-Hop. Harder than Kessler. 3. Reid. Anyone who claims Robin Reid was some "Eurobum" can't have watched him fight very often. The guy was a very smart technician with a rock solid chin and more than useful power (the sickening - strangles-your- heart kind as opposed to the coma-inducing type). He won an Olympic bronze medal and would - I'm sure - have been far more widely recognised had he not been robbed of a world title by Sven ****ing Ottke, or I should say those judges with their dicks in Ottke's mouth. 4. Kessler. Top fighter. P4P easily. It's a pity he's been so inactive since losing to Calzaghe because had he not been I am certain he would have justified all the praise that's been heaped on him over the years. Fearsome power. A stone for a chin. A howitzer for an uppercut. 5. Jeff Lacy. How many rediscovered threads with embarrassing claims of greatness made by knowledgeable members of this message board will it take for people to understand that the lumbering labouring journeyman we see today was MADE SO by Calzaghe? Seriously. But let's say for a moment that Lacy was a touch overrated (a touch, mind. Anything more than that and he'd never have won a belt). Calzaghe's PERFORMANCE that night ALONE is worthy of special praise. Floyd himself would have been proud of that one. 6. Jones. I'm not going to try and turn lead into gold with this one. Jones is nothing like the fighter he once was. That much is obvious. However, I don't believe he's so far gone that winning in such fashion (a drubbing after round three) is of no merit. Many a good fighter has been dazzled by the bright lights of MSG and failed to perform. Similarly, many a good fighter has held a living legend in awe and lost the fight because of it. Considering his atrocious start, Joe performed as well as he could ever have hoped. 7. Veit/Mitchell/Brewer/Woodhall/Bika - Again, I won't attempt to claim any of these guys are P4P. They aren't. What they are are good quality fighters/belt holders. The kind of hard-night's-work-for-modest-pay all long-reigning champions must face and defeat. They're included to counter the claim that Calzaghe had nothing but easy fights prior to Lacy. All these guys - and some I've not included - would rather die before they gave anyone an "easy night". No. It's not Floyd's resume. But that doesn't mean it's a bad one, or even an average one. Over the years Calzaghe has mixed it with some rough tough characters. World champions. ATGs. HOF. P4P. In the main he's fought without the bright lights and glamour, which can make it all the more difficult to stay motivated. As for the comment that winning past your 30s doesn't make those wins any better. I don't believe that. Yes, some fighters - like Hopkins - are capable of compensating for their declining physical abilities with experience and wisdom so to be better at 40 than they were at 30. But Joe's game has ALWAYS been built on physical ability - being fit enough to overwhelm an opponent with 100+ punches per round - every round. For Joe to STILL - at age 35(?) - be able to outwork guys ten years his younger in arguably the most physically demanding sport in the world means he is a very special fighter indeed. Certainly he's a lot better than he's given credit for by many. Joe's resume is that of a multiple-weight and great world champion. Floyd's is that of a multiple-weight and great world champion. Floyd has the edge (mainly because he's done the business at more weights) and that's fine. I'm sure Joe would be the first to admit Floyd's position at the top of the tree. Both fighters have earned every penny and plaudit they've received. Both fighters have given the sport more than they've taken and both will be sorely missed when gone. * Eubank wasn't past prime in the usual sense. The truth is that ever since the Watson tragedy Eubank (with the exception of the Thompson fights in which he felt justified because of the weight disadvantage) refused to a) hit full tilt and b) finish off an injured opponent. Against Steve Collins he threw away a certain victory by flat out refusing to follow up a heavy knoockdown. So, it's not a simple issue of Calzaghe rolling over a faded champ. Eubank remained highly competent in all areas other than finishing. The fact that Eubank won many fights after Watson II is testament to his abilities in other areas of his game.

Floyd Mayweather Jr. Floyd has the better wins against the better caliber opponets!

Like most calzaghe fans, obviously only a few years ago. lol good one

mayweather but calzaghe isnt far off plus mayweather has never beaten a prime undefeated fighter. When did you start watching boxing?

JC has a better record. JC is beating people in his mid thirties. Could PBF still be succesful at that age? beating people in your mid thirties doesn't make your record better.

mayweather but calzaghe isnt far off plus mayweather has never beaten a prime undefeated fighter.

i dont think its even close floyd has by far the better resume

Hopkins fight was very close could have gone either way and Hopkins is 43 RJJ is shot, name his last good win Thats why i said at this stage RJJ and B-hop are just names...

Mayweather, it's not even close. Calzaghe beat two fighters who already have a foot in the retirement home. Lacy is a nobody, and Kessler is still unproven. You can try and argue that Joe wanted the big fights but because he was in Wales, couldn't get them, but the fact is whether that's true or not, he doesn't have any recognizable names on his resume before Lacy. Mayweather has beaten more recognizable and credible names than Calzaghe has, and he's held more titles in more divisions than Joe has. In terms of resume? There's no contest here. I personally think Joe is overrated and overhyped, but I admit he's got great skills. Still he's not better than Mayweather at anything. Except being white... and having a hot wife... and being from Europe...