Tweet
This is actually a tremendous thread. On the resume thing, I think its a perfect way to judge how successful a boxer has been in his career because beating the champ, winning belts, etc etc is how you get glory in boxing, its a measure of achievement. The truth is though, that it doesn't say anything about how good a boxer actually is in terms of skills and it is perfectly legitimate to say X is better than Y so long as you acknowledge that this is your opinion and that you are not talking about status.
As regards Calzaghe and comparing him with Hopkins/Jones etc, I believe his resume, taking into account his undefeated status is comparable with either, I think actually better than Hopkins but not better than Jones. Again, in terms of skills, for my money Joe was, is and always has been better than Hopkins, but is not as good as Jones talentwise by some distance. As I've said before though, I think Calzaghe is actually a technical boxer of the very highest quality, along with being exceptionally tough and exceptionally smart in the ring.
As regards Calzaghe and comparing him with Hopkins/Jones etc, I believe his resume, taking into account his undefeated status is comparable with either, I think actually better than Hopkins but not better than Jones. Again, in terms of skills, for my money Joe was, is and always has been better than Hopkins, but is not as good as Jones talentwise by some distance. As I've said before though, I think Calzaghe is actually a technical boxer of the very highest quality, along with being exceptionally tough and exceptionally smart in the ring.
Comment