Today ATG Joe Calzaghe turns 42

http://undependentmedia.com/Images/ArticlePics/CalzagheLovinHopkins.gif http://oi33.tinypic.com/2zqv2bc.jpg

Calzaghe an ATG?!? :rofl: :rofl: Well done TS, this is a funny ass thread!

Yeah the wbo joke title that he defended against a monumental amount of bums the previous era had watson, benn, and eubank. well calzaghe's era had calzaghe, thornberry, and starie! guess who came out on top? calzaghe! this era had the super six. calzaghe was in his own super six. the euros were calzaghe, mger mtchkian, and branko sobot. the americans were manfredo, tocker pudwill, and will mcintyre. guess who won? calzaghe!

"for a while" Longest reigning champ at the time - something like 12 years. I've clearly covered that in this thread. Simply holding the title doesn't make him a legend though.

"for a while" Longest reigning champ at the time - something like 12 years. Yeah the wbo joke title that he defended against a monumental amount of bums

Like Calzaghe, underrated and hall of famer.. yes. "ATG", that depends on your definition of the term. Happy bday Joe

You're really going down the 'beating Dawson at 168' was better than Joe's whole resume? Really? Man, I don't see a point in this debate any longer. I can see it's a futile battle as I realize there's no way you can really see this subject objectively. Take it easy. i never even said that. i said beating dawson is ten times better than eubank and i think anyone would agree. eubank was a nobody at that time. eubank wasn't ranked in any division while dawson was the linear champ at 175.

Grats to a former champ, avoided Dawson and Pavlik but took some really great wins, like for example Bernard Hopkins and Chris Eubank. He defended his crown so many times it's in the books. Jeff Lacy might not have been the biggest cat out there, but he was never the same again and Joe was such a big underdog, so in my book it's still a good win. Proved everyone wrong, even more than daggum will care to admit. I can't understand why all the early stoppages is used against Joe, as if it's his fault or like he wouldn't have won anyways. But I see they're kinda funny some of them. how was eubank a great win? he wasn't even ranked, hadn't beaten anyone legit in years, never won another fight, and was coming down 2 divisions. its similar to canelo's win over mosley if mosley had dropped 2 divisions in order to make the fight. the odds were nearly even. joe a slight dog some places and a slight favorite others. revisionist history makes it sound like tyson-douglas.

Legend? Nah. Legends dare to be great when it counts. HOF'er? Certainly. He had that title for a while. "for a while" Longest reigning champ at the time - something like 12 years.

Grats to a former champ, avoided Dawson and Pavlik but took some really great wins, like for example Bernard Hopkins and Chris Eubank. He defended his crown so many times it's in the books. Jeff Lacy might not have been the biggest cat out there, but he was never the same again and Joe was such a big underdog, so in my book it's still a good win. Proved everyone wrong, even more than daggum will care to admit. I can't understand why all the early stoppages is used against Joe, as if it's his fault or like he wouldn't have won anyways. But I see they're kinda funny some of them.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/754845/calzaghe-slaps-hopkins-o.gif http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/natas206/accuracy.gif You show me 2 clips, one a fight in which Calzaghe won and won clearly against a decent contender and another against a man who is notoriously hard to hit clean. What do you want to prove?

You're really going down the 'beating Dawson at 168' was better than Joe's whole resume? Really? Man, I don't see a point in this debate any longer. I can see it's a futile battle as I realize there's no way you can really see this subject objectively. Take it easy. You can't have a rational debate with daggum. He is clearly a little slow and probably a homosexual.

so holding the title for a long time is the only thing that matters? artur grigorian alert! he literally didn't fight at a top guy for almost ten years. eubank wasn't good or relevant when he fought him. ward beating dawson is ten times better. both guys were drained but dawson was at least the reigning linear champ at 175. lacy wasn't even as good as berto or abraham. kessler is a good win but ward easily beat him. ward's resume is just better. bums really don't matter to me. especially when you are getting gift stoppages against most. You're really going down the 'beating Dawson at 168' was better than Joe's whole resume? Really? Man, I don't see a point in this debate any longer. I can see it's a futile battle as I realize there's no way you can really see this subject objectively. Take it easy.

actually ottke beat glen johnson who is a more accomplished fighter than kessler. kessler beat mundine and froch while johnson beat roy jones and tarver. i'll take johnson's wins. Now, you're grasping. Johnson only beat a badly faded Jones and lost bad to Tarver in the rematch. Johnson also lost to a host of B rated fighters. To each their own opinion I guess.

His opposition was not always the greatest but he held that title for a long, long time and did beat Eubank , Lacy and Kessler at 168. I agree, a 168 lb Roy Jones would have wasted him and Toney & Hopkins is debatable. so holding the title for a long time is the only thing that matters? artur grigorian alert! he literally didn't fight at a top guy for almost ten years. eubank wasn't good or relevant when he fought him. ward beating dawson is ten times better. both guys were drained but dawson was at least the reigning linear champ at 175. lacy wasn't even as good as berto or abraham. kessler is a good win but ward easily beat him. ward's resume is just better. bums really don't matter to me. especially when you are getting gift stoppages against most.

Ottke never beat anyone close to Kessler's caliber. actually ottke beat glen johnson who is a more accomplished fighter than kessler. kessler beat mundine and froch while johnson beat roy jones and tarver. i'll take johnson's wins.

sven ottke was dominant during his era...oh wait it was the same era that calzaghe was in. well this is awkward... :rofl::rofl:

simply holding the title and fighting bum after bum impresses you? sven ottke didn the same exact thing at the same exact time. how impressive does that make it if ottke can do the same exact thing? Ottke never beat anyone close to Kessler's caliber.

agreed. manfredo, mger mtchkian, will mcintyre, tocker pudwill, juan carlos giminez ferrari, branko sobot, mario veit twice, evans ashira, miguel angel giminez, david starie, rick thornberry. His opposition was not always the greatest but he held that title for a long, long time and did beat Eubank , Lacy and Kessler at 168. I agree, a 168 lb Roy Jones would have wasted him and Toney & Hopkins is debatable.

Fack off yer fackin bender! That fackin cab driver yer love is a the biggest fackin joke in fackin boxing 'istory! your vocabulary says it all... definition of vocabulary is words btw..