Comments Thread For: Joe Calzaghe examines the places of Canelo and Crawford in boxing history

[Jack_sh*t]

Slappy Joe simply runs his Welsh mouth way too much. Not one fan or pundit ever said Bud was one of the greatest jr. middles or super middles. Calzaghe dies inside his soul whenever he's asked to acknowledge the greatness of other fighters ~ a very insecure Brit.

What a strange way to sign yourself, had no idea you were a fellow Brit. Hope you're getting the support you need.

[ultravividscene]

Calzaghe unified at the weight but was never able to get a shot at the IBF belt.

Does this writer watch boxing? What belts were on the line when he trounced Lacy?

[champion4ever]

Joe is right. Canelo has been the beneficiary of many questionable, controversial and dubious decisions in bouts that he actually lost.

However, I disagree with his assessment that Canelo didn’t properly prepare or turn up in the fight. He reached his ceiling.

He couldn’t because Crawford is just the better fighter. Also, Bud was never trying to be an all-time Super middleweight great. He just wanted to fight Canelo.

[SouthpawRight]

Dang, before I even opened this up those were the EXACT numbers I was gonna throw out there (great minds, right?) Though the more I chew on it, I could see Bud being a bit higher.

Sad thing is, people will read that as an insult. In a sport with the long history of boxing....thats a heck of a compliment.

Top 30 would be incredible for a guy with only 1 hall of fame opponent

TBud saving grace is that's a top 3, top 5 win of all time

How many people know the long history of boxing? I suggest excruciatingly few.

People go to YouTube for information

problem is boxing YouTubers are all young and know little about the history

so the future generation are a legion of teens who think TBud manny Usyk et al are goat

[PRINCEKOOL]

Canelo Alvarez still has a better overall resume than Terrence Crawford 'whether he has won or lost, Alvarez has fought at a higher level. Those are the facts'.

Terrence Crawford is the best fighter of his generation, but really? The divisions he has been competing in have not been great divisions 'In terms of pure talent and boxing ability. Crawford's best wins are all against fighters, in the latter stages of their careers and clearly miles outside of their peak'.

Canelo Alvarez in comparison, came into to the sport 'during the latter stages of debatably, the second greatest Welter Weight era of all-times. And he did fight all-time great fighters such as Floyd Mayweather Junior, Shane Mosely and Miguel Cotto. That was Alvarez's introduction to top level boxing, and it was at a miles higher level than Terrence Crawford's introduction to Elite level boxing'.

Note: Man for man, fight for fight Canelo Alvarez does have a overall better resume than Terrence Crawford 'before they fought, I don't really think any serious boxing historian or analyst would be able to disagree with this point of mine and back it up with hardcore evidence'.

Terrence Crawford beat Canelo Alvarez over the distance on points 'he did no beat him up, or at any point in the fight was he close to ever forcing the stoppage. It was a great win to have on his resume, and a great feat achieved. But skill for skill? I have stated this many times before? I dont rate Terrence Crawford's win over Canelo Alvarez better than Floyd Mayweather Junior's win over Alvarez'.

Floyd Mayweather Junior's win was more historically significant, and many respected experts in the game 'were backing Canelo Alvarez to beat Floyd Mayweather. One of those was Douglas Fischer'.

Floyd Mayweather Junior was not at his peak, but clearly beat Canelo Alvarez more systematically and easier than Terrence Crawford 'Mayweather never really went through all the gears, and in my opinion if he did? He could have forced a stoppage vs Alvarez. It was a commanding performance, one were the difference in levels was very apparent between the two fighters'.

Terrence Crawford and Canelo Alvarez skill for skill, are very close in terms of ability 'it was just that Alvarez at 168 pounds, no longer had the optimal conditioning and endurance levels to beat a fighter with the attributes of Terrence Crawford. In the aftermath of the fight, from my analysis of the action? I think Canleo Alvarez was dead at the weight of 168 pounds, and for the remainder of his career? It would be a wise move for him to move up into the 175 pound divisions if he has the desire to fight again'.

To conclude: So overall, I can only rate Terrence Crawford amongst fighters of this modern boxing era 'I don't think anybody can rate him up against fighters from the past who fought during a way different competitive landscape. Crawford has for the most part of his career, avoided fighting at his natural fighting weight. And he has only been able to do this, because of the weigh in rules being altered post - 1980'.

I have stated this many times before? If Terrence Crawford was competing in any great boxing era pre - 1980, he would really struggle to duplicate his career back during those times. Most likely he would be forced to choose one weight class to compete in, which would probably be the Middle Weight Divisions. I think Crawford would still be a solid and dangerous fighter, but I don't think he has the wins on his resume against great fighters that suggest he could just dominate'.

Terrence Crawford is one of the greatest fighters of his generation, but I don't think his rating his high enough to start comparing him to Sugar Ray Robinson, Sugar Ray Leonard, Henry Armstrong or even still Floyd Mayweather Junior' etc.

[BlackRobb]

What a strange way to sign yourself, had no idea you were a fellow Brit. Hope you're getting the support you need.

Who said I was British? I'm not, thank God. Are you offended that I see Slappy Joe for what he truly was, a guy with an extremely inflated resume filled with Euro cans?

[BlackRobb]

Roy Jones himself said, "Bud is one of the top 10 most skilled boxers ever, maybe top 5.". That was Roy's opinion. Roy was the coldest ever, the fastest, the most talented, but anyone can be timed. In Roy's prime, he was timed, dropped and stunned by Lou DelValle from the Bronx. But they sparred a lot together. I think Roy was messing with his sister at one point, who was a good boxer herself. So Roy and Lou DelValle had some kinda grudge against one another when they fought, it was a bit personal. But Bud has the timing and the skills to land clean on anyone he boxes. So I can't say how that fight would've went but it would be incredible to see. Bud against any all time great would have been amazing to see, including against Calzaghe, even though he came in the ring looking damn near 200 lbs. I still wanna see Bud at 160.

Joe never looked big at 168 or 175. He had a dad bod, kinda like Al Bundy.

[daggum]

Top 30 would be incredible for a guy with only 1 hall of fame opponent

TBud saving grace is that's a top 3, top 5 win of all time

People go to YouTube for information

problem is boxing YouTubers are all young and know little about the history

so the future generation are a legion of teens who think TBud manny Usyk et al are goat

35 year old canelo? please. just because he moved up in weight doesnt make canelo a great win. he hasnt beaten anyone near the top of a division in almost 5 years, lost to bivol(another top 3 win?) and ducked the crap out of benavidez.

[Jack_sh*t]

Who said I was British? I'm not, thank God. Are you offended that I see Slappy Joe for what he truly was, a guy with an extremely inflated resume filled with Euro cans?

You signed off with 'a very insecure Brit'

Obviously your insecurity is on display for all to see, in constantly stating your opinion as fact, not to mention the simplistic nationalism you subscribe to, so I get why you're identifying yourself with that adjective.

What I don't understand is why you chose to identify as a Brit? Wishful thinking?

[BlackRobb]

You signed off with 'a very insecure Brit'

Obviously your insecurity is on display for all to see, in constantly stating your opinion as fact, not to mention the simplistic nationalism you subscribe to, so I get why you're identifying yourself with that adjective.

What I don't understand is why you chose to identify as a Brit? Wishful thinking?

I wasn't identifying as British. I use the "~" to highlight a point I'm making. I'm American, born in Manhattan may years ago. I've never been to the UK, but if the food is as bad as many claim, that's a good thing.