Who ranks higher on your ATG list?

[daggum]

calzaghe is undefeated and oscar has 5 losses doesn't that say it all? also zsolt erdei and sven ottke are better than oscar using this method.

[Dan...]

Ok, I'll indulge this. You imply that there is considerable distance between Joe & Oscar. I can see no evidence to support this argument. As mentioned earlier, I find it extraordinarily difficult to place any substantial distance between most ATGs (the exclusions being those fighters who go "beyond" ATG i.e. Ali, Robinson, Duran etc.) - (the main) reason being the many and varied reasons for labelling fighters such).

It's impossible to make like-for-like comparisons between Oscar & Joe. They are completely different fighters fighting at different weights, under different politics, working within different social and cultural environments and constraints, with different fighting styles and facing different opponents etc. etc. What makes them both ATG is the fact that they have con****uously and unequivocally triumphed in the face of all this.

If you had attempted to address these complexities instead of offering little more than a sweep-of-the-hand proclamation I might not have seen you as a bitter Roy Hugger desperately seeking consolation in the opinions of others.

First off, anyone who knows me on here will testify that I have ALWAYS given Joe credit as a great fighter. I am not at all "bitter" over the Roy JOnes fight either. I predicted Joe to win by semi-wide UD and he did. I hold no animosity towards him whatsoever. This thread is not meant to be a criticism of Calzaghe, I am more trying to highlight that Oscar's resume and accomplishments are massively understated on here.

I just don't see how Joe's resume can be considered better than Oscar's. Joe's best win, IMO, is over Mikkel Kessler, followed by a win over a 43 year old BHop. Then there is Lacy, Roy Jones and Eubank. I just don't think that that resume compares with the guys Oscar has beaten.

[insipiens]

You can't judge fighters only in terms of 'resumes'. That;s no0b **** and NSB caca. You have to look at other things too, and judge primarily from how they perform in the ring. In that sense Joe is much much better than Oscar.

[Silencers]

I think these two articles answer the question quite well.

http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=16920

http://www.boxingscene.com/index.php?m=show&id=17277

[larryx]

calzaghe is undefeated and oscar has 5 losses doesn't that say it all? also zsolt erdei and sven ottke are better than oscar using this method.

to make it worst his 5 loses were to better comp than all 46 of joes wins..go figure

[Dan...]

You can't judge fighters only in terms of 'resumes'. That;s no0b **** and NSB caca. You have to look at other things too, and judge primarily from how they perform in the ring. In that sense Joe is much much better than Oscar.

Resumes is where it is at. When all is said and done it is who you fought and who you beat that primarily defines you as a fighter.



I expect Calzaghe fans to fall back on that kind of argument though given that Joe's best (or second best) win currently holds a signature name of Anthony Mundine on his resume.

[Mugwump]

First off, anyone who knows me on here will testify that I have ALWAYS given Joe credit as a great fighter. I am not at all "bitter" over the Roy JOnes fight either. I predicted Joe to win by semi-wide UD and he did. I hold no animosity towards him whatsoever. This thread is not meant to be a criticism of Calzaghe, I am more trying to highlight that Oscar's resume and accomplishments are massively understated on here.

BOTH fighters receive unsupported and unfair criticism in here. Although not by all, thank heaven.

I just don't see how Joe's resume can be considered better than Oscar's. Joe's best win, IMO, is over Mikkel Kessler, followed by a win over a 43 year old BHop. Then there is Lacy, Roy Jones and Eubank. I just don't think that that resume compares with the guys Oscar has beaten.

1. ATG status (at least, "official" ATG status) has NEVER been granted solely on the strength of resume. A good example is Barry McGuigan who is [rightly] recognised as much for his achievements outside the ring as a bridge-builder in the social, cultural and political cauldron that was Northern Ireland in the 80s as inside.

2. Let us say for a moment that Joe hasn't faced the same number of greats that Oscar has. The obvious counterargument to this is his success ratio against them in comparison to Oscar's ... the fact that BHOP has recently defeated the undisputed MW P4P listed champ ... Lacy was an excellent fighter made mediocre by Joe ... Kessler is highly underrated etc. etc. etc.

It's just too tough to split them IMO.

[IMDAZED]

Danc - this is a real good question but I want to preface my opinion with something that I think people on these boards are forgetting:

A resume consists of accomplishments, not attempts.

Yes, we know he fought everybody but did he beat everybody? When poring over a resume, you look at the quality of the accomplishment. In boxing that means who they beat and when they beat them.

Joe Calzaghe's best wins are over:

1. Bernard Hopkins.
Not a prime version but still a damn good one. However, the fight could've gone either way. Close as it was, I felt the decision was just and proof that that the Welshman was not a game.

2. Mikkel Kessler
A solid win over a fighter who has beaten decent opposition. We still don't know what we have in Kessler but he's better than the usual suspects and was the best fighter available for Joe in a division where both had a strong case to be declared the man.

Oscar's are:

1. Ike Quartey
Quartey was an undefeated champ (whether he had the belt or not) who, despite coming off a coming off a 14-month layoff, was still his best opponent to date. They fought nip and tuck throughout and though the one point victory I had for Ike was too close to be called a robbery, I thought the rounds I scored were pretty clear. I can't argue with who closed the fight like a champ.

2. Fernando Vargas
Vargas was still solid though no longer the warrior who outboxed Quartey. He gave Oscar a tougher time than most expected but I also remember not many people picking Oscar to stop him either. And it was a thrilling bout.

I think those accomplishments are pretty close. The difference is when you look at the rest of their resumes. Oscar's list of solid wins are in no way ATG IMO but there are HOF. Calzaghe's are as well but not quite as impressive. Molina, Hernandez, Ruelas, and even tough victories like Oba Carr (though Oscar fought his ass years late too!) are a tad better than Lacy, Eubank, Sheika, etc. Calzaghe can easily switch that around by cementing his legacy and beating Chad Dawson while Oscar continues to pick on kids in the sandbox.

[ACHlLLES]

Topic creator is a joke, he swears bhop is a ****ty old 43 year old. Bhop looks like a better fighter now then he ever was. Bhop destroyed tarver, pavlik... Wow... what an old man!!! Hilarious

****, I probably only hate Oscar because of posters like this who swear bhop is an oridnary 43 yr old.

[larryx]

BOTH fighters receive unsupported and unfair criticism in here. Although not by all, thank heaven.



1. ATG status (at least, "official" ATG status) has NEVER been granted solely on the strength of resume. A good example is Barry McGuigan who is [rightly] recognised as much for his achievements outside the ring as a bridge-builder in the social, cultural and political cauldron that was Northern Ireland in the 80s as inside.

2. Let us say for a moment that Joe hasn't faced the same number of greats that Oscar has. The obvious counterargument to this is his success ratio against them in comparison to Oscar's ... the fact that BHOP has recently defeated the undisputed MW P4P listed champ ... Lacy was an excellent fighter made mediocre by Joe ... Kessler is highly underrated etc. etc. etc.

It's just too tough to split them IMO.

how come everyone with a black and white or an old fighter in their avator..think they can kick knowledge!!!!!!!!!!lol