Who ranks higher on your ATG list?

De La Hoya, no question. I don't see how anyone could pick Calzaghe over DLH, when you look at Calzaghe's career it looks very handpicked.

The golden boy for me. moved up weights, won titles at diferent divisions and even tho he might not beat them he still fought quality fighters.

the Calzaghe nuthugging on NSB is ridiculous I know right.... I guess you can make an argument for Calz being a better champion because of his record defenses against euro-bums, medocre fightrs, and past their prime legends, but Calz aint a better competitor than DLH.

Vote. Personally I don't thik it is really that close. calz hasn't done shit but reign a weak division and beat 2 past their prime fighters. dlh has taken on everyone with a name (except winky) from 140 to 160 (and now from 106 lbs LOL). Yeah, dlh lost against the best competition, but that's less shameful than doing nothing ur whole career and then getting brave when the best of ur generation are old or shot.

Oscar and Calzaghe are two of my favorite fighters ever, but there's no question who is better. Oscar at his best was never anywhere near Joe's level. It's not close, they;re like five levels apart. Calzaghe is the much better competitor and champion. the Calzaghe nuthugging on NSB is ridiculous

calzaghe not even on my list

Vote. Personally I don't thik it is really that close. u are right its not even remotely close oscar higher atg by a mile

Dude I know he was a little past it but does Pernell not even warrant a mention? A little? I think he won one fight after that. And it wasn't quite a great performance by Oscar either.

let me see hum!!!you're the one who keeps mentioning bhop..you have to be dumb saying a 43 year old man is prime..hes still above average but far from prime hopkins...that just how good he is I wouldn't bother with that fool. He is about 9 years old and knows practically nothing about boxing.

imagine if oscar had stayed at welterweight and defended his wbo belt against 20 michael jennings type fighters then moved up to 154 and "Beat" 2 old legends. should have done that oscar! Through your usual Calzaghe-hating dribble you actually may raise a reasonable point here. Oscar took risks. He fought the "Roy Jones" of his division in Felix Trinidad and he was prepared to move up several weight classes to get big challenges.

Danc - this is a real good question but I want to preface my opinion with something that I think people on these boards are forgetting: A resume consists of accomplishments, not attempts. Yes, we know he fought everybody but did he beat everybody? When poring over a resume, you look at the quality of the accomplishment. In boxing that means who they beat and when they beat them. Joe Calzaghe's best wins are over: 1. Bernard Hopkins. Not a prime version but still a damn good one. However, the fight could've gone either way. Close as it was, I felt the decision was just and proof that that the Welshman was not a game. 2. Mikkel Kessler A solid win over a fighter who has beaten decent opposition. We still don't know what we have in Kessler but he's better than the usual suspects and was the best fighter available for Joe in a division where both had a strong case to be declared the man. Oscar's are: 1. Ike Quartey Quartey was an undefeated champ (whether he had the belt or not) who, despite coming off a coming off a 14-month layoff, was still his best opponent to date. They fought nip and tuck throughout and though the one point victory I had for Ike was too close to be called a robbery, I thought the rounds I scored were pretty clear. I can't argue with who closed the fight like a champ. 2. Fernando Vargas Vargas was still solid though no longer the warrior who outboxed Quartey. He gave Oscar a tougher time than most expected but I also remember not many people picking Oscar to stop him either. And it was a thrilling bout. I think those accomplishments are pretty close. The difference is when you look at the rest of their resumes. Oscar's list of solid wins are in no way ATG IMO but there are HOF. Calzaghe's are as well but not quite as impressive. Molina, Hernandez, Ruelas, and even tough victories like Oba Carr (though Oscar fought his ass years late too!) are a tad better than Lacy, Eubank, Sheika, etc. Calzaghe can easily switch that around by cementing his legacy and beating Chad Dawson while Oscar continues to pick on kids in the sandbox. Dude I know he was a little past it but does Pernell not even warrant a mention?

Oscars best wins are over Mosley Tito If DLH had gotten the decision over Mosley in the rematch, I don't know if it'd still be ranked that high. I guess it helps that Mosley injected his body with EPO and steroids, but still. He was at a low point in his career. He hadn't won a fight in over 2 years. He hadn't been in top form like he was before the first fight with Forrest.

imagine if oscar had stayed at welterweight and defended his wbo belt against 20 michael jennings type fighters then moved up to 154 and "Beat" 2 old legends. should have done that oscar!

oscar has more money than Joe C just saying

Topic creator is a joke, he swears bhop is a shitty old 43 year old. Bhop looks like a better fighter now then he ever was. Bhop destroyed tarver, pavlik... Wow... what an old man!!! Hilarious ****, I probably only hate Oscar because of posters like this who swear bhop is an oridnary 43 yr old.

Danc - this is a real good question but I want to preface my opinion with something that I think people on these boards are forgetting: A resume consists of accomplishments, not attempts. Yes, we know he fought everybody but did he beat everybody? When poring over a resume, you look at the quality of the accomplishment. In boxing that means who they beat and when they beat them. Joe Calzaghe's best wins are over: 1. Bernard Hopkins. Not a prime version but still a damn good one. However, the fight could've gone either way. Close as it was, I felt the decision was just and proof that that the Welshman was not a game. 2. Mikkel Kessler A solid win over a fighter who has beaten decent opposition. We still don't know what we have in Kessler but he's better than the usual suspects and was the best fighter available for Joe in a division where both had a strong case to be declared the man. Oscar's are: 1. Ike Quartey Quartey was an undefeated champ (whether he had the belt or not) who, despite coming off a coming off a 14-month layoff, was still his best opponent to date. They fought nip and tuck throughout and though the one point victory I had for Ike was too close to be called a robbery, I thought the rounds I scored were pretty clear. I can't argue with who closed the fight like a champ. 2. Fernando Vargas Vargas was still solid though no longer the warrior who outboxed Quartey. He gave Oscar a tougher time than most expected but I also remember not many people picking Oscar to stop him either. And it was a thrilling bout. I think those accomplishments are pretty close. The difference is when you look at the rest of their resumes. Oscar's list of solid wins are in no way ATG IMO but there are HOF. Calzaghe's are as well but not quite as impressive. Molina, Hernandez, Ruelas, and even tough victories like Oba Carr (though Oscar fought his ass years late too!) are a tad better than Lacy, Eubank, Sheika, etc. Calzaghe can easily switch that around by cementing his legacy and beating Chad Dawson while Oscar continues to pick on kids in the sandbox.

First off, anyone who knows me on here will testify that I have ALWAYS given Joe credit as a great fighter. I am not at all "bitter" over the Roy JOnes fight either. I predicted Joe to win by semi-wide UD and he did. I hold no animosity towards him whatsoever. This thread is not meant to be a criticism of Calzaghe, I am more trying to highlight that Oscar's resume and accomplishments are massively understated on here. BOTH fighters receive unsupported and unfair criticism in here. Although not by all, thank heaven. I just don't see how Joe's resume can be considered better than Oscar's. Joe's best win, IMO, is over Mikkel Kessler, followed by a win over a 43 year old BHop. Then there is Lacy, Roy Jones and Eubank. I just don't think that that resume compares with the guys Oscar has beaten. 1. ATG status (at least, "official" ATG status) has NEVER been granted solely on the strength of resume. A good example is Barry McGuigan who is recognised as much for his achievements outside the ring as a bridge-builder in the social, cultural and political cauldron that was Northern Ireland in the 80s as inside. 2. Let us say for a moment that Joe hasn't faced the same number of greats that Oscar has. The obvious counterargument to this is his success ratio against them in comparison to Oscar's ... the fact that BHOP has recently defeated the undisputed MW P4P listed champ ... Lacy was an excellent fighter made mediocre by Joe ... Kessler is highly underrated etc. etc. etc. It's just too tough to split them IMO.

You can't judge fighters only in terms of 'resumes'. That;s no0b shit and NSB caca. You have to look at other things too, and judge primarily from how they perform in the ring. In that sense Joe is much much better than Oscar. Resumes is where it is at. When all is said and done it is who you fought and who you beat that primarily defines you as a fighter. I expect Calzaghe fans to fall back on that kind of argument though given that Joe's best (or second best) win currently holds a signature name of Anthony Mundine on his resume.

I think these two articles answer the question quite well. http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=16920 http://www.boxingscene.com/index.php?m=show&id=17277

You can't judge fighters only in terms of 'resumes'. That;s no0b shit and NSB caca. You have to look at other things too, and judge primarily from how they perform in the ring. In that sense Joe is much much better than Oscar.