Who ranks higher ATG, Tyson or Calzaghe?

calzaghe and it's not really that close when you think about it. tyson had an impressive early career then it came to the point where he was exposed for what he truly was. calzaghe on the other hand, destroyed legends while still keeping an undefeated record. calzaghe has look dominant through his entire career whereas tyson only did early in his. no one has figured out calzaghes awkward yet so effective style. the numbers and stats speak for themselves. it's sad that calzaghe doesn't get the proper recognition. truly one of our modern era legends and all time greats. Lol from a Mayweather hater. That is hilarious. Everyone knows Mayweather>JOE

Tyson is around top 50 of all time. Calzaghe is around top 125 of all time. :rofl: keep dreaming.

Thanks for the answer EDIT: I had to lol at the 512 lbs commentyeah maybe I should proof read before pressing the post button lol

I understand that Atg lists are entirely subjective, so I would never critisize someones list, but why do you have Holyfield, Hopkins and Hagler so high? Holyfield is a cruiserweight, he's never really been a heavyweight, 212lbs thats bearly what a cruiserweight would be after rehydrating and yet he managed to be a force in the HW division for years and years, hell he SHOULD have won another title against Valuev only the judges robbed him aged 46... Unified World Cruiserweight Champion Unified World heavyweight Champion who hasn't he fought, ultimate warrior in a division he shouldn't have been in. Hopkins IMO has the second best current Resume, he's fought A list after A list after A list opponent and has only been clearly beaten once, he unified the middleweight division aged 36 and utterly obliterated the best MW in the world aged 43 and if you want boxing lessons you can't go far wrong watching the Hopkins pavlik fight, it's a masterpiece of knowing your opponent and removing his strengths and exploiting his weakness. Impressive enough in your prime but at 43? outstanding. Hagler was the best of the golden foursome of SRL, Hagler, Hearns and Duran, the best four boxers of the modern era imo and IMo he beat them all, sure SRL has teh W but i believe Hagler won the fight. His 15 sucsessful defences of the MW titles resulted in 14 KO wins and the only man to stay on his feet was another top 10 ATG in Duran. Happy?

i don't remember tyson taking a highly controversial split decision over holmes. or spinks. even though he lost to lewis and holyfield i don't remember him waiting till they were in their 40's and on the slide to fight them. he also had 11 fights in a row against top ten fighters or former champs. much better than only fighting 8 top ten fighters over a 10 year period like calzaghe did as he stalled fighting bums. also when tyson knocked someone out he usually knocked them out. he didn't have those disgraceful early stoppages that helped calzaghe "win" so many of his fights. tyson had to earn his victories. perhaps that's why tyson is better. excellent post. Tyson cleaned out the division, albeit in not a great era of HWs, in the space of a couple of years, capturing all titles......Joe fought in his backyard for his lone WBO belt for like a decade

Top atg yeah, but not that high. Im interested where would you rank Hopkins and Jones?Jones In the 40's and Hopkins in the 20's http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6027007 there is full 100 if you're really interested, but i've moved Pac into the teens at the expence of De Jesus since that was before the Hatton and Cotto fights.

Tyson. His era at the top of the HW was utterly dominant, plus you have to factor in his aura and what he brought to the sport over a long period and his skills Resume wise he might have only a slender advantage but ATG ranking are about more than just resume. I rank Tyson in the 60's and Calzaghe in the 80's All time.

calzaghe has beaten the better fighters

Iron Mike...resume wise not by much...but he'll always be held higher than Joe on almost any list...

Ice cold dude. That fight broke my heart when I was a kid Same here lol. Just having a laugh

Undisputed heavyweight champion of the world, knocking out fully fledged heavyweights at 21 years old. That is simply amazing....the keyboard warriors will nitpick, but if you were put in the ring with fully fledged heavyweight boxers when you were 21 you'd wither and die. What Tyson did was amazing.

Calzaghe never had the balls to fight someone of the calibre of a prime Buster Douglas....lol

tysons resume takes a shit on calzaghes any day of the week. nobody is denying the flaws in tysons legacy, but its there cuz he took on all the best. he has some losses but with the number of quality wins he has he is still far above calzaghe, its not even close. joes resume is weak.

ok, to everybody who seriously post a REASON why Mike is higher in this disputed ATM-list is a clown.

Who do you have in mind? I think he means top fighters when he fought them. Only big one I can think of that he fought that was a top fighter of recent is Hopkins. Fu(k the age excuses, that dude was STILL a top fighter.

Looking at the comparison its actually quite close. Tyson is obviously the more popular figure but in boxing terms its close. Look at Tyson: A great short blaze for a few years and then 15 bad years even though he won 2 world titles during the 15years. He was youngest world champion Look at Calzaghe: 11 year reign as champ, undefeated. Unified his divison If you look at the opponents.. Tyson: Spinks - Great lightheavyweight, undefeated. First man to beat Holmes Holmes - Heavyweight legend... Tucker - Undefeated, beaten good fighters and dont forget the HBO tournament. Ruddock - feared dangerous heavyweight of late 80s and early 90s Calzaghe: Hopkins - old but proven to be dangerous since he beat a young Pavlik after Calzaghe fight. Jones - Tbh, he was washed up.. only well I dont know who would think this is a good win. He is a legend like Holmes Kessler - Undeafeted, dangerous like Tucker but Calzaghes win tarshied since Kessler lost recently Lacy - Dangerous, Undefeated and was hyped up to the next IRON Mike Tyson.. LOL. This was a good win, no doubt I would favour Tyson but its close because Tyson offers only a short few years but they were great few years and Calzaghe offers 11years but were they solid 11 years? Holmes was still doing damage and almost beat a prime Holyfield years later. He was past it, but was not shot like Jones was.

Calzaghe couldn't hold Tyson's jock strap. Tyson is easily the better ATG, its not even debatable.

Bad spelling, lol At the end of the day its a case of who are your best wins and most noticable losses.I would say that Tyson has the better wins, but how would you factor in his losses? Put it like this, Tyson had the bad 15 years while Calzaghe had the good 15 years. But Tysons first 3 years can accumulate to Calzaghes 9 years of fights with Tyson unifying the titles in that span. That's how I do it. Calzaghe is good and I enjoy him, he's a good fighter with good heart.

W Im interested in why you didnt dissect Tysons best wins? Tyson's best wins were clear cut. With Joe's the big names Hopkins, Jones and Eubanks were on the canned fight side. I felt that at the times the fights were fought,that is why I dissected them . I never had the same feeling with Tyson. I always had the niggling feeling with Joe that he always left something in the bag and never fully stepped up to the plate and took on the best when they were in their prime. This isnt about who had the most potential, but rather who achieved the most, If I remeber correctly Tyson only took the Holyfield fight because he believed he was over the hill and didnt he pay Lewis step a side money?[/QUOTE That is your definition of ATG not mine. If you go by record and wins to losses of course by "THAT" definition Joe's record is better. But if you build that record by virtue of cautious selection some call it cherry picking but I don't go that far,where you deliberately choose opponents that you "should " beat without taking on real challenges this undermines the credibility of that record. That is my opinion of Joe,that is how I see his career and that is not a criticism but an observation and I have a lot of respect for Joe. In my original piece I defined Tyson's career in two parts the Holyfield fight is in the less impressive second part and I agree with you. Joe's career is in two parts also the Warren part which is full of canned fights after the Eubank fight and Lacy on-wards where he took on good opponents but I have aired my thoughts on those already.I also feel had Joe not been with Frank Warren we would have seen a far more exciting career, there may have been a loss or two on his record but his career would have been more complete and credible. Joe is a good guy ,people don't level the cherry picking accusation against him for no reason and no amount of trying to prove otherwise is going to change people's views that have that opinion.

I would favour Tyson but its close because Tyson offers only a short few years but they were great few years and Calzaghe offers 11years but were they solid 11 years? In Tyson's resume you also have proven heavyweights who operated at a world class level,some of whom also captured world titles like- frank bruno bonecrusher smith tyrel biggs Carl Williams Pinklon Thomas Tony Tubbs Trevor Berbick Tyson consistently fought top heavyweights throughout his four and a half year run at the top.There were so many top fighters who Calzaghe didn't fight.