I'm a brit and i dont rave over calzaghe

[Kris Silver]

It is all about the resume people. It is who you beat not how you look that defines you as a fighter. I'm not saying that Joe doesn't have a good resume, it may not be as good as Roy's but I still rate it. Other things do come into consideration for sure but in the end it is all about the resume.

Totally disagree. Boxers can't help whom is at the top of the game in their division at the time, whose willing to fight them, which fights can work, how to get a bigger name and more opportunities.

Boxing is a sport. I judge sportsmen yes on their record, but largely on their talent for the sport and very game itself.

Again Roy wins here which is saying something. But pushing the boundaries and performing very well, displaying skills and entertaining is what it's about for me.

[majestiC]

Totally disagree. Boxers can't help whom is at the top of the game in their division at the time, whose willing to fight them, which fights can work, how to get a bigger name and more opportunities.

Boxing is a sport. I judge sportsmen yes on their record, but largely on their talent for the sport and very game itself.

Again Roy wins here which is saying something. But pushing the boundaries and performing very well, displaying skills and entertaining is what it's about for me.

Exactly, the world bodies are so corrupt, they do anything just to get the most amount of money. I mean how many world champs are there that can just hold there belt for like a year without fighting anyone.....people who try and make a name for themselves have no chance, Froch is a prime example of that. Its about time they get rid of them and have one championship with a harsh system where fighters are forced to fight the no2 contender or lose there belt.

[cosmichorn]

Exactly, the world bodies are so corrupt, they do anything just to get the most amount of money. I mean how many world champs are there that can just hold there belt for like a year without fighting anyone.....people who try and make a name for themselves have no chance, Froch is a prime example of that. Its about time they get rid of them and have one championship with a harsh system where fighters are forced to fight the no2 contender or lose there belt.

agreed, revamp needed

[Dan...]

Totally disagree. Boxers can't help whom is at the top of the game in their division at the time, whose willing to fight them, which fights can work, how to get a bigger name and more opportunities.

Boxing is a sport. I judge sportsmen yes on their record, but largely on their talent for the sport and very game itself.

Again Roy wins here which is saying something. But pushing the boundaries and performing very well, displaying skills and entertaining is what it's about for me.

Yeah I think it needs to be a combination of the two, but sometimes I think people weight the impressiveness of performances a little too high. Mikkel Kessler is my favourite current example. As you would know to date he has looked super impressive in several of his wins. However, in his one step up to the top level he was comprehensively, IMO, outclassed. Admittedly this was by one of the top p4p guys going around at the moment but still, it confuses me that people can say a guy is borderline top 10 p4p when his best win is over Anthony Mundine.

Several fighters going back have had their legacy tarnished by a lack of top quality opposition, it is just unfortunate sometimes. Guys like Pryor and Marciano present reasonable examples. In the end, it is your resume that mostly defines your legacy, in my view.

[Kris Silver]

Yeah I think it needs to be a combination of the two, but sometimes I think people weight the impressiveness of performances a little too high. Mikkel Kessler is my favourite current example. As you would know to date he has looked super impressive in several of his wins. However, in his one step up to the top level he was comprehensively, IMO, outclassed. Admittedly this was by one of the top p4p guys going around at the moment but still, it confuses me that people can say a guy is borderline top 10 p4p when his best win is over Anthony Mundine.

Several fighters going back have had their legacy tarnished by a lack of top quality opposition, it is just unfortunate sometimes. Guys like Pryor and Marciano present reasonable examples. In the end, it is your resume that mostly defines your legacy, in my view.

Kesslers in a funny place at the moment for sure. Coming off a loss to the top guy and p4p #2 is nothing to be embarrassed of, similar to with Hatton. He's since fought guys below his level which isn't really his fault. I think he learnt tactically from the Joe loss, and needs to start getting stuck in to tough top level fights again otherwise he might lose some fire. But otherwise, I think only good things are ahead for him which is good for Calzaghe's record. And that's what it comes to, looking at things in retro spect, and there's many things over the coming years that determine that.

I think we need less belts, and more forcing of top ranked fighters to face one another, mandatories, and 3 fights a year. As it stands without those things very often, it takes forever to maybe get anything done or concluded - leaving comparing and assessing an endless inconclusive debating/rowing area.

Years ago the top guys would be facing each other twice a year, it was clear whom was ranked what and deserved as much, plus overally comparing of ability and record was just vastly easier than now.

[them_apples]

just bull**** that he says fighters ducked him, complete bull****. Beating Calzaghe back then would have done nothing for their resumes..especially with him sitting in his own bathtub.

[Dan...]

Kesslers in a funny place at the moment for sure. Coming off a loss to the top guy and p4p #2 is nothing to be embarrassed of, similar to with Hatton. He's since fought guys below his level which isn't really his fault. I think he learnt tactically from the Joe loss, and needs to start getting stuck in to tough top level fights again otherwise he might lose some fire. But otherwise, I think only good things are ahead for him which is good for Calzaghe's record. And that's what it comes to, looking at things in retro spect, and there's many things over the coming years that determine that.

I think we need less belts, and more forcing of top ranked fighters to face one another, mandatories, and 3 fights a year. As it stands without those things very often, it takes forever to maybe get anything done or concluded - leaving comparing and assessing an endless inconclusive debating/rowing area.

Years ago the top guys would be facing each other twice a year, it was clear whom was ranked what and deserved as much, plus overally comparing of ability and record was just vastly easier than now.

I agree that the future greatly determines the light in which Calzaghe's win over Kessler will be viewed. Kessler's career could go one of two ways from here. He could either continue along his current route and beat guys well below his level or start doing what he needs to to get big fights against top guys. The second option may mean moving up to LHW which I think he is more than capable of doing. As a big fan of Kessler'sI just hope he doesn't piss away his prime knocking out 2 or 3 Sartison's a year.

[IMDAZED]

Yeah, it's hard to say how good a guy really is basing on what they appear to be in the ring. This is why resume trumps all - because you can look like a world beater facing a guy several notches below and then get totally outclassed when you step up (Kessler).

Kris, you point out that while Jones has the better resume, Calzaghe has outclassed the top ten in his division rather one-sidedly. I will note that against the best opponent he's fought (albeit an ancient version) he edged a victory. Jones, on the other hand, not only outclassed the top ten in his division (even easier than Joe C.), he outclassed fellow pound for pounders and champions in various divisions - all through heavyweight. The difference is significant.

I'll say it for the last time, Joe Calzaghe is a Hall of Famer but he is not on the level of Hopkins or Jones. He might want to start beating some fellow pound for pounders and taking some risks in order to do that. But it seems as if he's satisfied with legacy. His fans should be as well.

And finally, while boxers can't help who they fight, they don't get credit for NOT being able to do things. So if Joe C. was unable to secure fights against the big names when they were in their prime, that doesn't automatically mean we should rank him right up there with them too. You have to fight the fight.

[Tuggers1986]

I'm a Brit and I hate the Cob-Web-Fighting-What-A-****ing-Joke-Calslappy!!!!!!!

I can't stand it when he tries to showboat like roy in the ring, it doesn't suit him and makes him look like a ****in' idiot

I'm the same and I agree. I cant stand his style. It's horrible to watch.

[The Surgeon]

Agreed the guy is a Minge! His style is ****in Hideous and down right amaturish at times, his showboating is cringey and im brittish too!