I think that Joe Calzaghe will be loved by every boxing fan, years from now

[Bad Boy Dazza]

Emmanuel Steward on Calzaghe - "In my mind he should be in the, AT LEAST, top 2 or 3 for the POUND FOR POUND".

Post fight comments at Calzaghe v Kessler.

[BennyST]

Yep.

Statistics play a big part in any sports.

Years from now, fans will see the 46-0 record and say 'wow what a beast this guy was'.

No one will yap about his quality of opposition.

Look at Hagler fighting a SRL who came out of retirement and who's last fight i believe was at WW? if i'm not mistaken.

You see everyone praising Hagler nowadays. Hearns fought midgets his whole life and he's praised too.

Duran lost 16 times and he's looked at as a boxing god by many.

I believe that Joe Calzaghe will be forgiven for going through life and death with a 43 year old Bernard Hopkins, and using a 39 year old Past prime Roy Jones Jr as his career defining fight.

Besides, staying undefeated in 46 fights it's not an easy task. He'll be ****ed on today but i predict that over the years, fans will say 'man if only there were more fighters like Joe Calzaghe'.

I'm sure it has happened in the past, where a fighter gets ****ted on while they're active then all of a sudden in 20 years they are seen as the saviors of Boxing.

While you may be true in one respect, in another you are completely off. During the times of those aforementioned fighters by yourself they were considered among the greatest fighters ever during their primes.

Most 'experts' and fighters had Duran as the number one P4P fighter during the seventies and his lightweight reign and when he was at WW as well. After that everyone had Leonard as the best fighter and after he beat Hearns, many also considered him one of the great WW's. Hagler was seen by many as the king to Monzon and by the end, before he fought Leonard, there wasn't a single expert that didn't consider him among the great middleweights of all time. Hearns was of course the first ever four division champion and did it by having great runs against incredible opposition winning those titles in big fights.

Calzaghe is rightfully considered the best 168 pounder ever, as it has quite a short history and he is certainly its best and longest reigning champion. He was a great fighter and though he doesn't get the respect he deserves he will get it one day, though he will never be up there close to those guys you mentioned. The difference was they were fighting HOF fighters from the moment they started fighting until they finished their careers. That's the big difference. Calzaghe fought two, and his only two HOF'ers, as the last two fights of his career. It's somewhat possible that Kessler may be seen as a candidate for the HOF if he wins this tourney.

But, the big difference is that all the guys you mentioned fought big names from the start of their careers until the end. All time great fighters, not just good champions for the times. All of them did.

[daggum]

While you may be true in one respect, in another you are completely off. During the times of those aforementioned fighters by yourself they were considered among the greatest fighters ever during their primes.

Most 'experts' and fighters had Duran as the number one P4P fighter during the seventies and his lightweight reign and when he was at WW as well. After that everyone had Leonard as the best fighter and after he beat Hearns, many also considered him one of the great WW's. Hagler was seen by many as the king to Monzon and by the end, before he fought Leonard, there wasn't a single expert that didn't consider him among the great middleweights of all time. Hearns was of course the first ever four division champion and did it by having great runs against incredible opposition winning those titles in big fights.

Calzaghe is rightfully considered the best 168 pounder ever, as it has quite a short history and he is certainly its best and longest reigning champion. He was a great fighter and though he doesn't get the respect he deserves he will get it one day, though he will never be up there close to those guys you mentioned. The difference was they were fighting HOF fighters from the moment they started fighting until they finished their careers. That's the big difference. Calzaghe fought two, and his only two HOF'ers, as the last two fights of his career. It's somewhat possible that Kessler may be seen as a candidate for the HOF if he wins this tourney.

But, the big difference is that all the guys you mentioned fought big names from the start of their careers until the end. All time great fighters, not just good champions for the times. All of them did.

sven ottke had 21 defenses before calzaghe. strange how 2 guys can rack up 21 title defenses at the same exact time in the same exact division and never fight each other. true champs!

[BennyST]

So what? it doesnt make Hopkins younger or suddenly become prime again just because he beat pavlik. Hopkins beating pavlik is more of a referendum on pavlik as a fighter than how fresh hopkins is.

43 is 43.

In any sport let alone boxing.

You damp douche.

Like it or not, you still must admit that it was a great win. It doesn't matter what age Hopkins was because he was fighting incredibly before and after that fight. His three biggest wins, apart from Tito and Oscar came right before and after his fight with Calzaghe. He was still a freakish fighter and while it does lesson it a little his being 43, he would still have probably only lost to Calzaghe and no one else at that time.

Antonio Tarver W
Winky Wright W
Joe Calzaghe L
Kelly Pavlik W

That's pretty good. Whatever else you think about that fight and who won it and how, the simple fact of it is that Hopkins was still considered the best fighter in and around those weights, he was at the top of the P4P lists, hadn't lost a fight at LHW and had just come off two of his biggest wins in his career and went on to have without a doubt one of the greatest wins and certainly one of his top three performances of his career straight after it. You might not like it, but it was a great win and Hopkins was in fine shape.

While 43 is certainly old by sporting standards Hopkins is one of the greatest genetic examples in sports history. I personally believe that he is the best 'old' fighter that has ever fought. Though unlike many of the past fighters that were great at older ages and achieved great things in their late thirties, early forties, Hopkins actually didn't even peak until his mid-thirties and was still in his prime and fighting as well as he ever had in his forties. He was just a very late peak fighter whereas many of those older fighters had had very long careers and had mosy likely been considered shot and past it by that stage before coming back and having great wins. You could still make a case for Hopkins being in his prime now though in the latter stages of it obviously. Most people forget that he is still the consensus number 3 P4P right now.

[BennyST]

sven ottke had 21 defenses before calzaghe. strange how 2 guys can rack up 21 title defenses at the same exact time in the same exact division and never fight each other. true champs!

I know! I've always wondered why Calzaghe's people didn't desperately get him that fight. He would have won it without any trouble and I don't think he would have been robbed considering he was also big in Europe.

Though, if we're talking in other terms, Ottke's biggest wins were against Calzaghe's second tier champions that he put a whooping on. Ottke struggled mightily with guys like Brewer, most thinking he lost those fights, while Calzaghe knocked him out and others that Ottke struggled with with relative ease.

Still, it was a fight that really should have been made. Two guys in the same division, both undefeated, both from Europe, both fighting at the same time and both having very long title reigns. They also both had quite a few common opponents. But, unlike Calzaghe, Ottke's reign is littered with shocking decisions and looked upon with a lot of sourness by most outside of Germany.

[cyutetrick]

I actually kind of liked Joe before he mocked RJJ and tried claiming he was one of the best ever after beating a 40 year old Roy.

[Allucard]

Yep.

Statistics play a big part in any sports.

Years from now, fans will see the 46-0 record and say 'wow what a beast this guy was'.

No one will yap about his quality of opposition.

Look at Hagler fighting a SRL who came out of retirement and who's last fight i believe was at WW? if i'm not mistaken.

You see everyone praising Hagler nowadays. Hearns fought midgets his whole life and he's praised too.

Duran lost 16 times and he's looked at as a boxing god by many.

I believe that Joe Calzaghe will be forgiven for going through life and death with a 43 year old Bernard Hopkins, and using a 39 year old Past prime Roy Jones Jr as his career defining fight.

Besides, staying undefeated in 46 fights it's not an easy task. He'll be ****ed on today but i predict that over the years, fans will say 'man if only there were more fighters like Joe Calzaghe'.

I'm sure it has happened in the past, where a fighter gets ****ted on while they're active then all of a sudden in 20 years they are seen as the saviors of Boxing.

hahahaha only if they somehow manage to hide the contents of his resume. Boxing fans are more educated than ever now and the failure by the matchmakers to realize that is part of the reason MMA is growing on boxing's expense. I doubt that very much, sorry.

[BennyST]

Btwm by SRL's last fight at WW i mean by his last fight before fighting Hagler

His fight directly before Hagler was in the JMW division. Not that size ever mattered much if you talking about supposedly smaller opponents moving up to fight Hagler. The two WW's that moved up to fight him were both bigger. Leonard being taller with the same reach and Hearns being considerably taller and having much longer reach. So, unlike say Hopkins biggest wins against Tito and Oscar where they were both very obviously smaller, the size difference against Hopkins was simply not a factor in either fight. Both guys were bigger than him, even though he had fought at MW his whole career. They were both absolutely huge WW's and were bigger than any WW fighting today apart from maybe Margarito. But, they would be the same size as Marg easily and he would have no problem moving up to MW in terms of size.

[Walter Kovacs]

Dream on motherphuckin biatch. Nobody likes a slapper. Take that calslappy **** off yo mouth

[#1Assassin]

Yep.

Statistics play a big part in any sports.

Years from now, fans will see the 46-0 record and say 'wow what a beast this guy was'.

No one will yap about his quality of opposition.

Look at Hagler fighting a SRL who came out of retirement and who's last fight i believe was at WW? if i'm not mistaken.

You see everyone praising Hagler nowadays. Hearns fought midgets his whole life and he's praised too.

Duran lost 16 times and he's looked at as a boxing god by many.

I believe that Joe Calzaghe will be forgiven for going through life and death with a 43 year old Bernard Hopkins, and using a 39 year old Past prime Roy Jones Jr as his career defining fight.

Besides, staying undefeated in 46 fights it's not an easy task. He'll be ****ed on today but i predict that over the years, fans will say 'man if only there were more fighters like Joe Calzaghe'.

I'm sure it has happened in the past, where a fighter gets ****ted on while they're active then all of a sudden in 20 years they are seen as the saviors of Boxing.

duran lost 16 times cuz he took on all comers, not to mention fought way past his prime against much bigger men. at 135 he only lost once and avenged it.

hearns won titles at Lt.HW ffs. and not against some bum eighter, he beat virgil hill who was undefeated and considered one of the best fighters p4p at the time. hearns fought guys like hill, shuler, hagler, barkley etc who all were bigger than him. the man fought at CW ffs, u really couldnt have less of a clue what the hell u are talking about. although comparing calzaghe to hearns, hagler and duran more than shows that in the first place.

hagler fought leonard for a payday, much like hopkins did DLH. haglers legacy is built on the hard road he had to a title climbing the ranks, unifiying the titles when given the chance, and defending them against the likes of hearns, roldan, hamsho and mugabi. all of which would dethrone pavlik with little difficulities had they been around today might i add.

more fighters like calzaghe is the last thing boxing needs. duran hagler and hearns who u compared him to all fought any man on the planet. nobody can deny that calzaghe cherrypicked his oponents to protect his 0, and those tactics are exactly why boxing is dying according to some.

some ppl will look at his 46-0 record and think "wow what a fighter". but ppl who followed his career, and followed the careers of the true greats of his era will always know joe wasnt amongst them. he probably couldve been but he was to scared to lose his 0 and never took the risks necessary to be considered an ATG.