Is Calzaghe HOFer worthy and is he an ATG??

[garryd]

im guessing you haven't seen him fight. you can name all his accomplishments but when you watch him do actual "boxing" you will **** your pants in laughter.

Wasnt you one of the old members that picked Lacy to beat Calzaghe???
What happend did you have to get a new account ??? shame on you !

[BetterCallSaul]

Calzaghe dominated a weak division against nobodies and is LHW for beating a 43 year old man not a prime fight at LHW but his SMW is not questionable.

People forget that Calzaghe isnt in his prime either. I would argue Calzaghes prime was around 1998 - 2003.

As far as I'm concerned, the opportunitys for big fights did not present themselves until late on in Calzaghes career. In that time he has beaten Lacy, who at the time was being heralded as the new Mike Tyson. He beat Kessler, who was a double belt holder. And he beat Hopkins, who had previously beaten Wright and Tarver in UD's. The fact is, Calzaghe is the best light heavyweight, and the best super middleweight, and he is a ten year world champion.

In the stage of Calzaghes life when was beating Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins. Hopkins and Jones were losing to the likes of Johnson, Tarver, and Taylor. Calzaghe would beat all of the aforementioned. I dont think the thread question should be aimed at Calzaghe.

[SkilledB]

HOF, yes. 20+ title defenses in over 10 years as a titlist, unified the division, then moved up in weight to beat the linear champion.

ATG, not sure.

man i can get 20+ defense against sub par fighters, and the hopkins figth was widely disputed, imo he lost, he diddnt really land a solid punch all fight, atg SMW deff ill vote him in on that. no question

[daggum]

Wasnt you one of the old members that picked Lacy to beat Calzaghe???
What happend did you have to get a new account ??? shame on you !

i still pick lacy by ko in the rematch.

[garryd]

man i can get 20+ defense against sub par fighters,

Maybe you should take up boxing then???
Five TITLEs with 21 defences against 8 world champions over 10 years ,gets you in any where in my book!

[Silencers]

man i can get 20+ defense against sub par fighters, and the hopkins figth was widely disputed, imo he lost, he diddnt really land a solid punch all fight, atg SMW deff ill vote him in on that. no question

They weren't all sub par fighters, he most certainly did have some fighters who didn't deserve a shot at him but it wasn't like that all the time, he did beat some top contenders and past titlists.

I think there are more people that think he won the Hopkins fight than those who think he lost.

[Kilrain]

Um, I don't really think so. I mean, he has a brilliant unbeaten record but he's never had that defining fight. He beat 43-year old Hopkins (who even Calzaghe admitted was old with his frequent grandfather jokes in the build-up, devaluing the entire fight and the achievement of victory in the process) and didn't look particularly golden doing it...he didn't go the States and seek out the big fights until he was 36, and big fights with other top opponents at their best (DM, Roy Jones for example) slipped by while he fought trumped-up challengers in his own backyard. Beating a faded Eubank and Hopkins doesn't make you HOF regardless of your record. Beating Roy Jones at 39 without a significant win in like 4 or 5 years doesn't either. Screw that. The Kessler win is important, but lets see what Kessler can do now, because he hasn't exactly passed the litmus test either.

[daggum]

Maybe you should take up boxing then???
Five TITLEs with 21 defences against 8 world champions over 10 years ,gets you in any where in my book!

why are you acting like the wbo was a legit sought after belt? it wasn't for most of his defenses making them irrelevant. he's a fraud. WINDMILL TIME

[Pugilistic™]

HOF, yes. 20+ title defenses in over 10 years as a titlist, unified the division, then moved up in weight to beat the linear champion.

ATG, not sure.

good post.

[KostyaTszyu44]

i think he is probably going to be a HoFer


to me he just doesnt have the resume to be a shoo in, but i can understand his inclusion

as for ATG....you have to be joking

NO WAY should joe be mentioned in the same breath as robinson, leonard, ali, duran etc