who's greater joe calzaghe or winky wright

[Weebler I]

Calzaghe retired as the greatest, undefeated home and away, a legend-killer and a legend!

[IronDanHamza]

I'm not quite sure beating Mosley then is quite as good as it may seem to be but yes, it's a pretty good win. Better than Kessler? Certainly debatable but I'll agree that it is (barely). But that is all Winky has. He has the win over Tito, which falls somewhere around the level of Calzaghe's win over Chris Eubank. I don't count Vargas as a win because it wasn't and I agreed with the decision. In fact, I'm not sure how that helps Winky's case. Vargas was out of shape and still managed to throw 100 punches in each of the last two rounds which, in my opinion, won him the bout in a see-saw battle. That's it. Other than that, you can count Winky's solid performances in losses - and some not so solid ie. getting dropped five times versus Vasquez.

I'm not a fan of Joe Calzaghe by any means but I think his resume is significantly better than Wright's. He holds a win over Hops that trumps Wright's career. I understand that win doesn't automatically make him better but the rest of his resume is superior to the rest of Wright's resume, if you remove Wright's best win (Mosley) as well. Using ratings isn't always a good idea. The #2 rated HW is a lot worse than the #2 rated welter. While Mullings and McKart were rated high, Mullings wasn't a better opponent than Charles Brewer. Kessler is better than both. And Calzaghe has a slew of wins over contenders on par and better than Wright's long list of opponents. Plus, Calzaghe was a top pound for pounder for years. And dominated one (weak) division for years. Heck, even head to head he wins (see: Wright's struggles with Sam Soliman). In my opinion, the difference between Calzaghe and Wright is the difference between a first ballot Hall of Famer and a fighter who may have to wait forever. Although given the recent voting trends that may not necessarily be the case.

I just simply cannot see how Mosley being a better win than Kessler is barely debatable. I mean, Mosley, especially the first one was absolutely a good win. I'm a fan of Kessler and I consider Kessler (Pre-Froch) to be the 2nd best SMW in the World but I cannot see how it's barely debateable that he's better than a pretty much prime Shane Mosley. I understand that he was never too good at 154 but still, Shane was obviously still capable at that time. And although coming off so not so great performances was still considered up there with the best fighters in the world.

I also agree that the Vargas fight was close but I felt Wright won it close but clear.

You say that you feel Calzaghe's resume is significantly better but in your semi breakdown in your post does that sound significantly better to you?

You named Hopkins and Kessler and say they are better than anything Wright did and whilst I agree that's absolutely debatable are two single wins (One against a fighter who will never see the HOF, and another great and still capabale fighter who was approaching his mid 40's) are better than anything Wright did I can't see how that a siginifcant difference in greatness.

You say without Mosley, Wright would have no resume but the exact same logic applies for Calzaghe without Hopkins and/or Kessler.

I know rankings isn't the be all and end all. I just find it funny that Calzaghe onyl beat a 3 fighters who were ranked in the Top 5 in his entire career. That HAS to be close to an all time low for an apparent First Ballot HOF'er. I merely use it as a mesuring stick. But, Charles Brewler to be honest is hardly a better win than Kieron Mullings.

Like you say; "Calzaghe had a slew of wins on par and better than Wright's list of opponents'".

That's the point, most of their wins are pretty much on par with each others.

Calzaghe was a Top P4P'er for years...Not too many. And as was Wright, and not too much of a shorter duration either.

The fact of the matter is here, Joe Calzaghe's win's really don't completely blow Wright's out the water.

Calzaghe has 2 very good wins, as does Wright.

Calzaghe has a mere handful of wins over Top opposition, as does Wright.

Take Wright's 2 best wins away from him (Mosley x2) he has nothing, neither does Calzaghe.

Anyway you look it, it's very difficult to justify that their resume of wins is significantly better than the other.

Like I said, I'm not saying Wright is the greater fighter. I'd probably rank Calzaghe above him.

But, I can't see how it's not at the very least debatable.

The only thing that seperates the 2 is Calzaghes title defenses, in which the majority of them were literally worthless.

[Treaxey]

Looking at the comments here, people seem to hate on Calzaghe lmfao butthurt yanks?

[Weebler I]

Looking at the comments here, people seem to hate on Calzaghe lmfao butthurt yanks?

absolutely, he killed their legends

[daggum]

I'm not quite sure beating Mosley then is quite as good as it may seem to be but yes, it's a pretty good win. Better than Kessler? Certainly debatable but I'll agree that it is (barely). But that is all Winky has. He has the win over Tito, which falls somewhere around the level of Calzaghe's win over Chris Eubank. I don't count Vargas as a win because it wasn't and I agreed with the decision. In fact, I'm not sure how that helps Winky's case. Vargas was out of shape and still managed to throw 100 punches in each of the last two rounds which, in my opinion, won him the bout in a see-saw battle. That's it. Other than that, you can count Winky's solid performances in losses - and some not so solid ie. getting dropped five times versus Vasquez.

I'm not a fan of Joe Calzaghe by any means but I think his resume is significantly better than Wright's. He holds a win over Hops that trumps Wright's career. I understand that win doesn't automatically make him better but the rest of his resume is superior to the rest of Wright's resume, if you remove Wright's best win (Mosley) as well. Using ratings isn't always a good idea. The #2 rated HW is a lot worse than the #2 rated welter. While Mullings and McKart were rated high, Mullings wasn't a better opponent than Charles Brewer. Kessler is better than both. And Calzaghe has a slew of wins over contenders on par and better than Wright's long list of opponents. Plus, Calzaghe was a top pound for pounder for years. And dominated one (weak) division for years. Heck, even head to head he wins (see: Wright's struggles with Sam Soliman). In my opinion, the difference between Calzaghe and Wright is the difference between a first ballot Hall of Famer and a fighter who may have to wait forever. Although given the recent voting trends that may not necessarily be the case.

eubank was completely finished when he fought calzaghe. eubank had lost like 6 out of his his last ten title fights but was gifted many many wins, wasn't even fighting in his proper weight class and was just brought in as a name. trinidad had 1 loss, was highly motivated and was climbing the rankings again till he ran into winky. plus trinidad was a far better fighter than eubank ever was. not even a close comparison.

[turbotime]

Looking at the comments here, people seem to hate on Calzaghe lmfao butthurt yanks?

Most likely, Wright's best wins are against Mosley, who had already been exposed and upset by good jabs twice by Forrest, (should have lost to Oscar as well) and a shut out over barely fighting Trinidad. I just don't see how Wright can be better.

[deejd]

Fighting and winning are two different things though. And at 135 there was some sturdy opposition. Cesar Bazan and Stevie Johnston were pretty damn good. I agree that at 147 Mosley certainly made a name for himself with a huge win over Oscar and yet another years later versus Margarito. However, at 154 Mosley never looked good. That could've been because of the quality of opposition. But with all due respect, De La Hoya wasn't a great fighter at 154 either. And he lost to Winky, although gave a far better account in the rematch.

We could even throw Manfredy and Mitchell in there by the time Mosley jumped to '47. So you're right in that '35 he probably could have done more although I still think his resume at '35 is good because he just happen to be that much better than the rest [more so physically, though]. I grew up a Mosley fan so there's a slight bias, but Winky having him on the resume is still as good a look as most of Calzaghe's.

As far as fighting and winning being different... of course. The problem is that Calzaghe didn't fight the best opposition. If Mayweather's getting the shaft [which I actually disagree with], isn't it only right that we look at Calzaghe and say he didn't fight the Dawson's, Pavlik's, Pascal's, Ward's, Froch's, Dirrell's, etc. of the world as opposed to padding his resume in his backyard? And the main difference between the two undefeated fighters is that one of them actually fought whom the public wanted them to fight while active.

[IMDAZED]

I just simply cannot see how Mosley being a better win than Kessler is barely debatable. I mean, Mosley, especially the first one was absolutely a good win. I'm a fan of Kessler and I consider Kessler (Pre-Froch) to be the 2nd best SMW in the World but I cannot see how it's barely debateable that he's better than a pretty much prime Shane Mosley. I understand that he was never too good at 154 but still, Shane was obviously still capable at that time. And although coming off so not so great performances was still considered up there with the best fighters in the world.

I also agree that the Vargas fight was close but I felt Wright won it close but clear.

You say that you feel Calzaghe's resume is significantly better but in your semi breakdown in your post does that sound significantly better to you?

You named Hopkins and Kessler and say they are better than anything Wright did and whilst I agree that's absolutely debatable are two single wins (One against a fighter who will never see the HOF, and another great and still capabale fighter who was approaching his mid 40's) are better than anything Wright did I can't see how that a siginifcant difference in greatness.

You say without Mosley, Wright would have no resume but the exact same logic applies for Calzaghe without Hopkins and/or Kessler.

I know rankings isn't the be all and end all. I just find it funny that Calzaghe onyl beat a 3 fighters who were ranked in the Top 5 in his entire career. That HAS to be close to an all time low for an apparent First Ballot HOF'er. I merely use it as a mesuring stick. But, Charles Brewler to be honest is hardly a better win than Kieron Mullings.

Like you say; "Calzaghe had a slew of wins on par and better than Wright's list of opponents'".

That's the point, most of their wins are pretty much on par with each others.

Calzaghe was a Top P4P'er for years...Not too many. And as was Wright, and not too much of a shorter duration either.

The fact of the matter is here, Joe Calzaghe's win's really don't completely blow Wright's out the water.

Calzaghe has 2 very good wins, as does Wright.

Calzaghe has a mere handful of wins over Top opposition, as does Wright.

Take Wright's 2 best wins away from him (Mosley x2) he has nothing, neither does Calzaghe.

Anyway you look it, it's very difficult to justify that their resume of wins is significantly better than the other.

Like I said, I'm not saying Wright is the greater fighter. I'd probably rank Calzaghe above him.

But, I can't see how it's not at the very least debatable.

The only thing that seperates the 2 is Calzaghes title defenses, in which the majority of them were literally worthless.

I think we're looking at this all wrong. I don't view Mikkel Kessler as Calzaghe's best win. However, Mosley's is Shane's. So whether we agree or not on which is better (and I do believe it is debatable), you should be comparing the Mosley win to the Hopkins win. Wright loses by UD there. Kessler, Calzaghe's second best win, trumps Wright's second best win, which is...? And then we continue down the line. And even at the bottom, as you yourself note, Calzaghe's title defenses separates him there as well.

[IMDAZED]

We could even throw Manfredy and Mitchell in there by the time Mosley jumped to '47. So you're right in that '35 he probably could have done more although I still think his resume at '35 is good because he just happen to be that much better than the rest [more so physically, though]. I grew up a Mosley fan so there's a slight bias, but Winky having him on the resume is still as good a look as most of Calzaghe's.

As far as fighting and winning being different... of course. The problem is that Calzaghe didn't fight the best opposition. If Mayweather's getting the shaft [which I actually disagree with], isn't it only right that we look at Calzaghe and say he didn't fight the Dawson's, Pavlik's, Pascal's, Ward's, Froch's, Dirrell's, etc. of the world as opposed to padding his resume in his backyard? And the main difference between the two undefeated fighters is that one of them actually fought whom the public wanted them to fight while active.

I wouldn't say his resume at 135 is pretty good. Holliday and Leija? Throw in Gomez maybe. He won a title and made several defenses, never facing any of the other top fighters in the division. But we're not comparing Calzaghe to Mosley though.

[IronDanHamza]

I think we're looking at this all wrong. I don't view Mikkel Kessler as Calzaghe's best win. However, Mosley's is Shane's. So whether we agree or not on which is better (and I do believe it is debatable), you should be comparing the Mosley win to the Hopkins win. Wright loses by UD there. Kessler, Calzaghe's second best win, trumps Wright's second best win, which is...? And then we continue down the line. And even at the bottom, as you yourself note, Calzaghe's title defenses separates him there as well.

Whether you think Kessler is his best win or not, I still can't see how it's significantly greater.

Hopkins > Mosley 1
Kessler > Mosley 2 (Debatable)

And the rest of their wins are pretty much on par or debatable.

Again, not seeing the significant amount difference in Calzaghe's resume.

Calzaghe has the title defenses, but most of them are worthless.