Joe Calzaghe was not on the level of.....Jones, Hopkins, Toney

[P4P Opinion]

How about Antwun Echols? Why didn't Joe fight him? Instead of Brewer?

But that's neither here nor there. I don't really care who shoulda, coulda, etc. Your record is what your record is - and Joe Calzaghe's record is not on Bernard Hopkins' level, nor Roy Jones, nor James Toney. Pull out the names, tell me WHEN they fought, at what weight and let's compare. Ten best opponents for each: GO FOR IT.

Ok, but I'm leaving aside Roy because I don't claim Calzaghe matches or betters him.

Hopkins (in no order):

Trinidad - 2001 - middleweight
De La Hoya - 2004 - middleweight
Tarver - 2006 - light heavyweight
Pavlik - 2008 - catchweight (170)
Wright - 2007 - catchweight (170)
Holmes - 2001 - middleweight
Johnson - 1997 - middleweight
Echols - 1999 - middleweight
Joppy - 2003 - middleweight
Eastman - 2005 - middleweight

Toney (in no order):

Nunn - 1991 - middleweight
McCallum - 1992 - middleweight
Johnson - 1991 - middleweight
Jirov - 2003 - cruiserweight
Holyfield - 2003 - heavyweight
Littles - 1994 - super middleweight
Barkley - 1993 - super middleweight
Thornton - 1993 - super middleweight
Booker - 2004 - heavyweight
Guinn - 2005 - heavyweight

Calzaghe (in no order):

Hopkins - 2008 - light heavyweight
Kessler - 2007 - super middleweight
Lacy - 2006 - super middleweight
Eubank - 1997 - super middleweight
Jones Jr - 2008 - light heavyweight
Reid - 1999 - super middleweight
Mitchell - 2003 - super middleweight
Brewer - 2002 - super middleweight
Woodhall - 2000 - super middleweight
Sheika - 2000 - super middleweight

Judge what you will and dispute some of my choices if you like, but I don't see much difference in quality and in fact I'd take Calzaghe's over Toney's.

[bsrizpac]

Ok, but I'm leaving aside Roy because I don't claim Calzaghe matches or betters him.

Hopkins (in no order):

Trinidad - 2001 - middleweight
De La Hoya - 2004 - middleweight
Tarver - 2006 - light heavyweight
Pavlik - 2008 - catchweight (170)
Wright - 2007 - catchweight (170)
Holmes - 2001 - middleweight
Johnson - 1997 - middleweight
Echols - 1999 - middleweight
Joppy - 2003 - middleweight
Eastman - 2005 - middleweight

Toney (in no order):

Nunn - 1991 - middleweight
McCallum - 1992 - middleweight
Johnson - 1991 - middleweight
Jirov - 2003 - cruiserweight
Holyfield - 2003 - heavyweight
Littles - 1994 - super middleweight
Barkley - 1993 - super middleweight
Thornton - 1993 - super middleweight
Booker - 2004 - heavyweight
Guinn - 2005 - heavyweight

Calzaghe (in no order):

Hopkins - 2008 - light heavyweight
Kessler - 2007 - super middleweight
Lacy - 2006 - super middleweight
Eubank - 1997 - super middleweight
Jones Jr - 2008 - light heavyweight
Reid - 1999 - super middleweight
Mitchell - 2003 - super middleweight
Brewer - 2002 - super middleweight
Woodhall - 2000 - super middleweight
Sheika - 2000 - super middleweight

Judge what you will and dispute some of my choices if you like, but I don't see much difference in quality and in fact I'd take Calzaghe's over Toney's.

Just a quick glance but you left out Ruiz in toney's and put Guinn instead. Where is Roy Jones on there? Can't agree with that.

Or are you a guy who thinks resume is who you've beaten and not who you've faced?

[P4P Opinion]

LOL. The difference between the fights were:

There was a verbal agreement over a phone, what the nature of this agreement was we don't know - there were conflicting reports

Joe and Glen were signed and ready to go. Not once but twice.

You have excuses for Joe just like I have reasons why Bernard didn't go along with the phone offer. Now, 1. didn't you admit that you weren't even watching boxing back then? For a guy who says all that you sure do say with a lot of force that Bernard ABSOLUTELY ducked Joe.

As for your xenophobia comments, that's just your own insecurity shining through. I could honestly care less. As for "maybe if you'd taken Calzaghes side or been neutral about him" comments- just silly because I have. I have little time or patience to justify those moments to fanboys.

Realize that the guy supporting your posts on this thread- Scary is a shameless moronic nationalistic fanboy.

And seriously, 2. you have Haye beating Wlad but you call me a nationalistic guy? LOL

1. Wrong. I said I was only a fan of Calzaghe from then. I'd been watching boxing from about 2000.

2. Yes, I think Haye will take Wladimir Klitschko and yes, I'm partly a Haye fan because he's British. That bet in question was a bait to Wlad Owns anyway in about my 10th post. I do have a touch of nationalism about me. I admit it though and I haven't got an in-built arrogance that my nations fighters are the barometer. I don't like all British fighters anyway, in fact I have a strong dislike for Hatton for manipulating his image so much.

[P4P Opinion]

Just a quick glance but you left out Ruiz in toney's and put Guinn instead. Where is Roy Jones on there? Can't agree with that.

Or are you a guy who thinks resume is who you've beaten and not who you've faced?

My mistake, I thought he asked for who each fighter had beaten. In which case, I would have had Roy Jones in both lists and Ruiz in Toney's.

[bsrizpac]

My mistake, I thought he asked for who each fighter had beaten. In which case, I would have had Roy Jones in both lists and Ruiz in Toney's.

no biggie either way, I was honestly asking what your definition of a resume is, since there is always confusion about that around here.

[P4P Opinion]

I'm sick of having arguments with you to be honest. Just about the only thing we seem to disagree on is Calzaghe and believe it or not I'm a fan of your more technical threads, but I haven't posted in them because I can't honestly claim to have my knowledge down to that level. The only boxing training I have ever done was for about a year a while back, although I joined a gym fairly recently.

One final time for me, break down your problem(s) with Calzaghe (not with his fans). I just want to know your exact position.

[MANGLER]

It sucks we never saw him fight these guys in his younger days, but the debate is tired. Yea he'd probably have lost to all of em, although I'd give him a chance against prime Toney at 168. I don't like him, but I do respect him, and Joe gets hated on a lil too much. I guess it's better for him to have beaten Hopkins and RJ at the tail end of their careers than to never have fought them at all.

[IMDAZED]

Ok, but I'm leaving aside Roy because I don't claim Calzaghe matches or betters him.

Hopkins (in no order):

Trinidad - 2001 - middleweight
De La Hoya - 2004 - middleweight
Tarver - 2006 - light heavyweight
Pavlik - 2008 - catchweight (170)
Wright - 2007 - catchweight (170)
Holmes - 2001 - middleweight
Johnson - 1997 - middleweight
Echols - 1999 - middleweight
Joppy - 2003 - middleweight
Eastman - 2005 - middleweight

Toney (in no order):

Nunn - 1991 - middleweight
McCallum - 1992 - middleweight
Johnson - 1991 - middleweight
Jirov - 2003 - cruiserweight
Holyfield - 2003 - heavyweight
Littles - 1994 - super middleweight
Barkley - 1993 - super middleweight
Thornton - 1993 - super middleweight
Booker - 2004 - heavyweight
Guinn - 2005 - heavyweight

Calzaghe (in no order):

Hopkins - 2008 - light heavyweight
Kessler - 2007 - super middleweight
Lacy - 2006 - super middleweight
Eubank - 1997 - super middleweight
Jones Jr - 2008 - light heavyweight
Reid - 1999 - super middleweight
Mitchell - 2003 - super middleweight
Brewer - 2002 - super middleweight
Woodhall - 2000 - super middleweight
Sheika - 2000 - super middleweight

Judge what you will and dispute some of my choices if you like, but I don't see much difference in quality and in fact I'd take Calzaghe's over Toney's.

Toney and Hops both have wins that KO Joe's whole resume.

[bsrizpac]

I'm sick of having arguments with you to be honest. Just about the only thing we seem to disagree on is Calzaghe and believe it or not I'm a fan of your more technical threads, but I haven't posted in them because I can't honestly claim to have my knowledge down to that level. The only boxing training I have ever done was for about a year a while back, although I joined a gym fairly recently.

One final time for me, break down your problem(s) with Calzaghe (not with his fans). I just want to know your exact position.

I'm busy at the moment at work so this'll be quick, and also- don't take these arguments so seriously. I don't. People might think I do, but they are funny to me.

My problem?

One of my main ones is that he had a WBO belt, not a very legit belt in the 90's in a sub par division that has never had class A competition. What did he do with this belt? After he beat Old Eubank, his list of defenses from 1998 until Lacy borders on awful/offensive, to a few average people. During this time he was word of mouth calling out people left or right but never DOING anything to face any of these people. Once or twice he got unlucky with Bernard, but for the most part his resume is very bad.

When he did "step up" he never fought anyone of note other than Bernard. Lacy was old and shot but okay fine he needed that for a star making turn. Kessler was and is okay but hasn't beaten anyone so no one can tell how good he really is. He barely beats Bernard on a points olympic victory in an ugly fight where gets knocked on his ass and bernard fades due to age. Decent win again. Then he fights roy jones totally shot corpse and claims he's a legend killer and the best ever blah blah and his legacy is defined. Well he's wrong cause his legacy was already defined.

There are TON of excuses for all this, there always are. Fine. But who is to blame for this? In the end, Joe Calzaghe. Remember, the challenger chases the big challenges and takes the money hit or the prestige hit to GET THE FIGHT. If he doesn't do this, fine he has no one to blame but himself. I know people twist this around but the WBO SMW belt was for the most part a trinket. He was not in a position to be demanding more well known guys come to his backyard or his terms which he did ALL The time. See his supposed challenges to Roy Jones (always on HIS terms).

That's a quick off the top of my head review of my first point. I'm sure I missed some stuff, I'll add to it later today.

[hammerhiem]

I'm busy at the moment at work so this'll be quick, and also- don't take these arguments so seriously. I don't. People might think I do, but they are funny to me.

My problem?

One of my main ones is that he had a WBO belt, not a very legit belt in the 90's in a sub par division that has never had class A competition. What did he do with this belt? After he beat Old Eubank, his list of defenses from 1998 until Lacy borders on awful/offensive, to a few average people. During this time he was word of mouth calling out people left or right but never DOING anything to face any of these people. Once or twice he got unlucky with Bernard, but for the most part his resume is very bad.

When he did "step up" he never fought anyone of note other than Bernard. Lacy was old and shot but okay fine he needed that for a star making turn. Kessler was and is okay but hasn't beaten anyone so no one can tell how good he really is. He barely beats Bernard on a points olympic victory in an ugly fight where gets knocked on his ass and bernard fades due to age. Decent win again. Then he fights roy jones totally shot corpse and claims he's a legend killer and the best ever blah blah and his legacy is defined. Well he's wrong cause his legacy was already defined.

There are TON of excuses for all this, there always are. Fine. But who is to blame for this? In the end, Joe Calzaghe. Remember, the challenger chases the big challenges and takes the money hit or the prestige hit to GET THE FIGHT. If he doesn't do this, fine he has no one to blame but himself. I know people twist this around but the WBO SMW belt was for the most part a trinket. He was not in a position to be demanding more well known guys come to his backyard or his terms which he did ALL The time. See his supposed challenges to Roy Jones (always on HIS terms).

That's a quick off the top of my head review of my first point. I'm sure I missed some stuff, I'll add to it later today.

Lacy was Old and shot? I take it thats a typo since we pretty much agree on Mr Calzaghes place in boxing history and the reasons why he will be where he will be.