BoxRec

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

gobbles wrote: 30-40% of people on here?
1. I think it's far less, 2. A lot of people on here approach Calzaghe's fights with an agenda. 3. Most people on here watched it with the surprisingly negative John Rawling commentary (which even claimed that Sylvester Stallone was angry at Calzaghe's bum-wiggling, when he was clearly angry at Hopkins taking a dive (and he thought Skelton-Chagaev was a coin toss)). A quick survey of people who watched the HBO coverage would tell a completely different story.

Only Lewis Holyfield, I thought Lewis clearly won the first but the second could have gone either way, although the controversy of the first meant he was never going to lose.

I would also point out that I don't need to go with the supposed majority on here. I am adult enough to make my own judgements, rather than go along with the traditional bullying mob rule.

On Stu's point. I do not think Calzaghe is among the greatest fighters of all time. I believe he should be top ten this century. I believe that he is in top 2 or 3 Brits of all time, very possibly top.

I also think it would be easier to judge his achievements in a couple of years. Should Kessler go on and clean up the division, beating Bute, Froch and maybe moving up to beat Dawson, Calzaghe's achievements will look pretty special. Likewise, should Jones or Hopkins box on with a degree of success, as they both plan to carry on, that will reflect well on him.

No allot of people on here, myself included saw Hopkins land the cleaner shots that did the most damage, jolting , most of Calzaghes shot missed, hit shoulders or were simply scuffing slaps. Hopkins without a doubt landed the cleaner shots. And this isn't bias, check my old posts on here, I said before the fight Calzaghe would win on workrate but hopkins would bring down his connect percent and score telling counters.

Lennox landed the cleaner better, bigger shots against Holyfield and controlled the action/pace in both fights. I haven't heard anyone call it controversal but it takes all sorts and people score on different things.

Your right Calzaghe's resume is very reliant on what Kessler does, the Dane has already turned down fights with Chad Dawson and Miranda though. Hopefully he takes on Taylor or Froch. I don't think Bute's a huge scalp anymore

As for top British fighters, Lennox is number 1 and definite 1, Calzaghe is in a group below with Wilde, Buchanon, Hamed, Honeyghan, Lynch, Eubanks, Benn. Dice then anyway you fancy, each has their unique achievements.

Calzaghe is a great fighter but to pretend hes head and shoulders above those greats with all the ducking and diving, smokes and mirrors games hes pissed about with over the years is bullshit

Obviously, the punch stats against Hopkins (and they do actually count the punches, including power punches, that land) were hugely in Calzaghe's favour. It's an old argument, but I only gave Hopkins one round after the fourth I think. All Hopkins did was butt in the second half, while Calzaghe landed a lot of good shots. I don't think Hopkins landed man clean shots after the 5th, your interpretation of the fight is a total generalisation based on Hopkins whinging. The reality is Hopkins held non stop and mashed up Calzaghe's face with his head, but there was a very poor ref, who let Hopkins get away with everything. Hopkins is a spoiler and was at his worst in that fight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9SfWjk00cs

I wouldn't put Lynch in that group, his best win was over Peter Kane and he would get nowhere near that list. Honeyghan basically had one great win, rather like Turpin. Wilde is interesting, incredible winning record, although he had fewer big names on his record than Calzaghe. Ted 'Kid' Lewis should be up there, because he went up and down the weights fighting some real greats.

I've thought about this a bit more and when comparing both fighters "outstanding" wins they are about equal. Its just that inbetween Joe faced a lot more stiffs whilst Lewis foughts guys like Tua, Mavrovic and Bruno weren't what you would call great but definitely posed somewhat of a threat. Heres how I compared their outstanding wins:



Lacy - Great win as he was undefeated and the favourite but ultimately he has exposed as a bit limited and so I would make the Lacy win comparable to Lewis's win over Tyson who is a great fighter but was a bit past it when he fought Lewis. Not completely shot as some have suggested - A LOT of people were picking Tyson over Lewis.

Kessler - Great win as he was undefeated and a WBC/WBA champ. Comparable to Lewis's win over Klitshcko who although had one loss it was due to a freak shoulder injury in a fight he was winning.

Jones Jr - Great win as although Jones Jr was past his prime and maybe a bit shot when facing Joe he is, in my mind, an ATG fighter whose skills even past his prime would trouble all but the best fighters. Comparable to Lewis's win over Tony Tucker who although not as good a fighter as Jones was in his prime(which levels it out IMO), a former world champ and had given a prime Tyson a few problems whilst losing a decision.

Hopkins - Arguably Calzaghe's best win as Hopkins was the recognised no.1 Lightheavy and with 20 defenses of the middleweight title need I say more? A bit past his best? I'd say so and thus comparable to Lewis's win over Holyfield another HOF fighter who was probably past his best as well but again well preserved like Hopkins.

I would broadly agree that Lennox is "better" but!...

the biggest names on his slate were similarly faded and past prime and, in the case of Holyfield, an argument could be made for Lewis losing the second fight (a very convincing one at that).

Tyson was beyond unable at that point, so much so that it was just the name and not the fighter that counted. You really think even the Tyson that faced Holyfield would have let himself be manhandled that way?

Then you look at Lennox's resume of decent but unspectacular opposition: Briggs (nearly got put out early on), Morrisson, getting out-boxed by Bruno early on, losing to McCall and Rahman (despite avenging it later these taint him badly because both were so mediocre).

So, it's closer than people would have you believe.

And you can't use Bowe since they only fought at amateur level.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

Max Molyneux wrote:Lewis definately had the better career.

Calzaghe was a better boxer though and didn't drop his disipline to lose to average guys like Lewis did with McCall and Rahman.

Calzaghe may have been ko'd 4 times if he was a HW taking a punch from a 240lb brick shithouse instead of the old, smaller, weaker Hopkins/Jones/Mitchell/Salem. HW boxing is just more dangerous

And what do you mean better boxer? He was more open to right hands, his jab wasn't as good and his punching technique was well down on Lennox's

Jones hit him with his forearm, It wasn't a legit punch kd. Hopkins held after the punch when supplemented the KD, otherwise he would of just taken the punch flush. I don't doubt the other two KD's though and he got up from all of the KD's un hurt. Even when having lots of money he didn't take things light like Lewis did, yeah guys are 240lbs but when he was In shape Lewis took the shots without being laid out.

Calzaghe's jab Is good when he's not cuffing, It's quick snappy. Lewis's arms were very long which helped give him his good jab.

Yes he's cuffs the punches but Isn't that because of his bad hands? There are moments when there not cuffed either though.

Yes, Joe gets hit with right hands when he gets over eager, a ton of boxers are open to right hands. Thats the main weakness people focus on like It's a big deal.

Calzaghe has better workrate, footwork and better speed.

They both fought Tua like opponents and Joe made his look worse and you never saw Lewis barehump a champion. Hopkins deserved being barehumped like the bitch he is for his shameful cheating.

I still said Lewis had the better career but Joe was a better boxer for his volume, workrate speed and his Jab was as good as Lewis's and faster than Lennox's.

I am a big Lewis fan still too.

fluxstuff wrote:I would broadly agree that Lennox is "better" but!...

the biggest names on his slate were similarly faded and past prime and, in the case of Holyfield, an argument could be made for Lewis losing the second fight (a very convincing one at that).

Personally I had the rematch at 115-113 in favour of Lewis but the rematch should never have taken place anyway if they'd had proper judges for the first bout.

As for Lewis' defeats it is quite clear he was badly conditioned against Rahman when you look at the shape he came into the rematch and convincingly destroyed Rahman to regain his title. The McCall fight was a premature stoppage IMO and as the champion he should have been given the benefit of the doubt, and lets face it there's been fighters in worse condition than Lewis was who were allowed to fight on.

Lewis beat Holyfield both times. I had 9-3-1 1st fight and 7-4-1 2nd fight. Evander was stuck on the outside too much to be able to sustain enough pressure to win.

There is virtually zero doubt that Lewis won. The problem was in both fights he did as little as he could get away with. That really is almost unacceptable when you consider he had Holyfield looking like he was in shock from the right hands in the fifth rd (first fight). When you consider how long he had to wait for this, it is puzzling.

Calzaghe never had that problem in there, but his career went along with utmost caution i.e. went to America for the big names at the end of his career, when they were old. Unified only when he'd been super middle titlist for 9 yrs as well. I think Joe needed one more win. If he's the top Yank spanker, he should have beaten Dawson as well. Joe left it all to the end and he wasn't impressive v Hopkins. Therefore for longevity, for being unbeaten, he's a top fighter but his career relies on gimmicks like that because of the lack of names on his record, and these can be challenged by narrow/controversial bouts with Reid and Hopkins. If being unbeaten is his biggest achievement, then it's only normal to bring up Reid/Hopkins and lack of rematch; if 20 defences is the best thing he did, then fair enough but look at 70% of the guys he was fighting.

gobbles wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:The final opponent of each fighter speaks volumes IMO

What an utterly bollocks remark!

Lewis got lucky against Klitschko and was behind on the scorecards when Klitschko got stopped on cuts. Prior to that he fought Tyson, who could barely move his arms he was so gone.

Who was more shot, Tyson or Jones? Tyson obviously.

Yet he took stepaside money to avoid Tyson, wouldn't take the short end of the purse to face Bowe when Bowe was champion and didn't face Holyfield until he was well on the slide and, many would say, got lucky in the second fight. The genuine top fighters Lewis faced at their peak are few and far between and he was dull too.

Calzaghe had the better career. he had fewer opportunities and finished with a flawless record.

Ye Gods, this nonsense again?

Lewis, obviously.

Someone do another poll. 8)

gobbles wrote:
Tell me James, as I take it you are the same that occasionally writes on there, why did britishboxing.net not do a tribute to Calzaghe, other than publishing Froch's comments slagging him off? On the site now, they have best fighter of the past as Naseem Hamed (while Rob norton has been changed to be boxer of the week), while they put up Peter Buckley as best boxer of the past the day after he retired.

Listen you little f*cking troll, don't be bringing up BBN in this. And if you do, you can ask the editor - me.

I'll tell you why there hasn't been anything loaded up on this yet. I loaded plenty of other stuff up to the site on Thursday night and the Joe piece needed to be done properly which I didn't have time to do.

Then, I was away with work all day Friday and Saturday.

I came back and looked after my two little kids because the wife was tired out. I've two Joe pieces to go up and will put them up this afternoon. Arsehole. Mind your own f*cking business.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

gobbles wrote:
Tell me James, as I take it you are the same that occasionally writes on there, why did britishboxing.net not do a tribute to Calzaghe, other than publishing Froch's comments slagging him off? On the site now, they have best fighter of the past as Naseem Hamed (while Rob norton has been changed to be boxer of the week), while they put up Peter Buckley as best boxer of the past the day after he retired.

Listen you little f*cking troll, don't be bringing up BBN in this. And if you do, you can ask the editor - me.

I'll tell you why there hasn't been anything loaded up on this yet. I loaded plenty of other stuff up to the site on Thursday night and the Joe piece needed to be done properly which I didn't have time to do.

Then, I was away with work all day Friday and Saturday.

I came back and looked after my two little kids because the wife was tired out. I've two Joe pieces to go up and will put them up this afternoon. Arsehole. Mind your own f*cking business.

Excuses, excuses, Mr Mac. Calzaghe comes first, he is the be all and end all, and don't you forget it.

Lewis by a long way. Cazalghe had periods of his career where the quality of opposition was poor. ALso haow many times did he pull out of fights.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

gobbles wrote:
Tell me James, as I take it you are the same that occasionally writes on there, why did britishboxing.net not do a tribute to Calzaghe, other than publishing Froch's comments slagging him off? On the site now, they have best fighter of the past as Naseem Hamed (while Rob norton has been changed to be boxer of the week), while they put up Peter Buckley as best boxer of the past the day after he retired.

Listen you little f*cking troll, don't be bringing up BBN in this. And if you do, you can ask the editor - me.

I'll tell you why there hasn't been anything loaded up on this yet. I loaded plenty of other stuff up to the site on Thursday night and the Joe piece needed to be done properly which I didn't have time to do.

Then, I was away with work all day Friday and Saturday.

I came back and looked after my two little kids because the wife was tired out. I've two Joe pieces to go up and will put them up this afternoon. Arsehole. Mind your own f*cking business.

F*cking troll is probably a bit harsh. Was surprised when boxer from past was changed to Bunny Johnson. Personally am a big fan of BBN, so was quite alarmed to see Froch slagging off Calzaghe as a lead, whereas a simple, calzaghe has retired, tribute to follow later could have sufficed. Anyway this board exists on conspiracy theories. Looking forward to reading it.

Hugs and kisses

Your loving @rsehole

gobbles wrote:
Hugs and kisses

Your loving @rsehole

Nice come back. Perhaps I was getting a bit protective.

Anyway, there's a couple of bits up now, although we're still lacking an in depth career overview.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

gobbles wrote:
Hugs and kisses

Your loving @rsehole

Nice come back. Perhaps I was getting a bit protective.

Anyway, there's a couple of bits up now, although we're still lacking an in depth career overview.

Thanks, sorry for insulting the website, didn't mean to.

gobbles wrote:Thanks, sorry for insulting the website, didn't mean to.

No problem. And hey, you can obviously write so if you feel like having a go yourself...feel free.

gobbles wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

Max Molyneux wrote:Lewis definately had the better career.

Calzaghe was a better boxer though and didn't drop his disipline to lose to average guys like Lewis did with McCall and Rahman.

Calzaghe may have been ko'd 4 times if he was a HW taking a punch from a 240lb brick shithouse instead of the old, smaller, weaker Hopkins/Jones/Mitchell/Salem. HW boxing is just more dangerous

And what do you mean better boxer? He was more open to right hands, his jab wasn't as good and his punching technique was well down on Lennox's

That doesn't make any sense at all and is possibly the worst anti-Calzaghe argument so far. If he had been hit by a heavyweight, the punch would have been slower, so the chances are he might not have been hit at all. You can't just transfer the same punches landed at a lower weight to being heavyweight shots.

Heavyweights fight heavyweights, flyweights fight flyweights. Are there more knockouts and stoppages in heavyweight fights? Doubt it. The punches Calzaghe was caught by were very different to the ones Lewis was knocked out by. Heavyweights are also bigger, so withstand bigger punches logically. That's like saying Sugar Ray Leonard would have been knocked out by Larry Holmes if he had been a heavyweight.

By your argument, any boxer who has ever got off the floor to win was just rubbish, because if a heavyweight had hit them, they would have been knocked out.

HW punchers simply hit harder and there is more danger of a 1punch KO in a HW fight. As it is Calzaghe didn't face many big punchers, no murderous punchers and coudl be argued to have avoided most fighters with 1 punch power anyway.

Prime versions of Rahman and McCall are arguably better than anyone Calzaghes faced. Which maybe stretching it a bit but McCall beat Larry Holmes, starched Akiwande, starched Maskeev and gave Tyson hell in sparring. Rahman beat a prime Corrie Sanders which is still Vitali's best win and Sanders was old then

Theres nothing wrong with having a couple of KO losses if you face everyone in your division instead of avoiding all the dangers in your division for the majority of your career.

Some of you Calzaghe fans need to have a reality check and stop dismissing any kind of criticism of Joe as "anti-Calazghe nonsense"
I rate Joe, as I have said above he is top 10 British all time and that is an amazing achievement.
He had the talent to go and mix it in the States a lot earlier than he did and against the big names and real talents at the weights around him.
Unfortunately he didn't and that will always take away from his legacy.
He had fantastic hand speed and workrate, even if he didn't exactly throw perfect punches and was a little too over-eager at times.
Every fighters record can be picked apart(apparently)and as proved here, it is only degenerating into something which would fit in well over on the Current Scene!

Both great fighters, in my opinion Lewis achieved more and was the better Boxer, certainly the better technical boxer. Sure he got stopped twice, so what? Jack Johnson got stopped as did Joe Louis as did Joe Frazier...as have current top dogs like Pacman and countless other future great fighters will be.
If Joe had been knocked out by Mario Veit back in 01 for example, then immediately landed a fight with Jones Jnr and then Hopkins afterwards, emerging victorious, he would have a much better legacy than what he currently has.

gobbles wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

gobbles wrote: 30-40% of people on here?
1. I think it's far less, 2. A lot of people on here approach Calzaghe's fights with an agenda. 3. Most people on here watched it with the surprisingly negative John Rawling commentary (which even claimed that Sylvester Stallone was angry at Calzaghe's bum-wiggling, when he was clearly angry at Hopkins taking a dive (and he thought Skelton-Chagaev was a coin toss)). A quick survey of people who watched the HBO coverage would tell a completely different story.

Only Lewis Holyfield, I thought Lewis clearly won the first but the second could have gone either way, although the controversy of the first meant he was never going to lose.

I would also point out that I don't need to go with the supposed majority on here. I am adult enough to make my own judgements, rather than go along with the traditional bullying mob rule.

On Stu's point. I do not think Calzaghe is among the greatest fighters of all time. I believe he should be top ten this century. I believe that he is in top 2 or 3 Brits of all time, very possibly top.

I also think it would be easier to judge his achievements in a couple of years. Should Kessler go on and clean up the division, beating Bute, Froch and maybe moving up to beat Dawson, Calzaghe's achievements will look pretty special. Likewise, should Jones or Hopkins box on with a degree of success, as they both plan to carry on, that will reflect well on him.

No allot of people on here, myself included saw Hopkins land the cleaner shots that did the most damage, jolting , most of Calzaghes shot missed, hit shoulders or were simply scuffing slaps. Hopkins without a doubt landed the cleaner shots. And this isn't bias, check my old posts on here, I said before the fight Calzaghe would win on workrate but hopkins would bring down his connect percent and score telling counters.

Lennox landed the cleaner better, bigger shots against Holyfield and controlled the action/pace in both fights. I haven't heard anyone call it controversal but it takes all sorts and people score on different things.

Your right Calzaghe's resume is very reliant on what Kessler does, the Dane has already turned down fights with Chad Dawson and Miranda though. Hopefully he takes on Taylor or Froch. I don't think Bute's a huge scalp anymore

As for top British fighters, Lennox is number 1 and definite 1, Calzaghe is in a group below with Wilde, Buchanon, Hamed, Honeyghan, Lynch, Eubanks, Benn. Dice then anyway you fancy, each has their unique achievements.

Calzaghe is a great fighter but to pretend hes head and shoulders above those greats with all the ducking and diving, smokes and mirrors games hes pissed about with over the years is bullshit

Obviously, the punch stats against Hopkins (and they do actually count the punches, including power punches, that land) were hugely in Calzaghe's favour. It's an old argument, but I only gave Hopkins one round after the fourth I think. All Hopkins did was butt in the second half, while Calzaghe landed a lot of good shots. I don't think Hopkins landed man clean shots after the 5th, your interpretation of the fight is a total generalisation based on Hopkins whinging. The reality is Hopkins held non stop and mashed up Calzaghe's face with his head, but there was a very poor ref, who let Hopkins get away with everything. Hopkins is a spoiler and was at his worst in that fight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9SfWjk00cs

I wouldn't put Lynch in that group, his best win was over Peter Kane and he would get nowhere near that list. Honeyghan basically had one great win, rather like Turpin. Wilde is interesting, incredible winning record, although he had fewer big names on his record than Calzaghe. Ted 'Kid' Lewis should be up there, because he went up and down the weights fighting some real greats.

Did you know Punchstats are registered as a fight takes place and are not highly accurate? In terms of real punchstats Calzaghe was missing most of his shots, watch the fight in slow mo if you don't believe me. But I don't think you really want to be objective or see anything wrong in your hero

That video you posted is made by a Calzaghe nuthugger (probably Max) showing all Joes best moments, and even then theres loads of missed/scuffed shots and nothing particularly impressive, now compare that to Hopkins best moments - a KD, loads of right hands flush on the button hurting Joe, theres no contest in who landed the better quality shots throughout.

I agree with your points on those other fighters. Except Honeyghan and Turpin had good careers outside of their huge wins. Turpin was a MW and LHW champ at Brit/Euro level and back then thats certainly as good as a WBO belt as your fighting all the best Brit/Euro have to offer, ie Cockell who'd fight for the HW title. Honeyghan was Brit/Euro champ, dominated an arguably P4P no1 in Curry who was in his prime and was a good champ before fading and letting the good life take his toll on his ability. 1 thing Calzaghe has going for him is longevity, that doesn't necessarily make him better at his peak

"That video you posted is made by a Calzaghe nuthugger (probably Max)"

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:I agree with your points on those other fighters. Except Honeyghan and Turpin had good careers outside of their huge wins. Turpin was a MW and LHW champ at Brit/Euro level and back then thats certainly as good as a WBO belt as your fighting all the best Brit/Euro have to offer, ie Cockell who'd fight for the HW title. Honeyghan was Brit/Euro champ, dominated an arguably P4P no1 in Curry who was in his prime and was a good champ before fading and letting the good life take his toll on his ability. 1 thing Calzaghe has going for him is longevity, that doesn't necessarily make him better at his peak

Re: Honeyghan and Turpin.
Problem is with both, it's trying to find a next best win. I thought Honeyghan was lucky against Blocker, got beat by Starling and Breland - who were good, but not greats - and Vaca. You are possibly looking at Sylvester Mittee as his second best win, while the light-middleweight campaign knocks the legacy too. A poor end of career (even with someone like Robinson) can't just be swept under the carpet as they are knocking their own legacy.

Turpin - two great displays against Robinson, and beat Cockell (who was no great shakes at any weight), but lost to Bobo Olson, who was a long way off being a top class middleweight, and was knocked out in a round for the European title.

Honeyghan was an enigma, he was a tidy and decent fighter up until his world title win and following the Curry fight he decided to go out throwing bombs which while it was great for the fans, it probably shortened his career at the top and his decline was bad.

jesus....not even a sensible question this is it?

I' d have Lewis a country mile ahead.

46 fights and a handful of live opponents (say 40% chance of winning fights) as a champ 20 defences and how many against live opponents 5 or 6?

JC the most overated British boxer of all time.

No doubt. If hatton beats Pac Id say he has a call to superseed Joes career.

Would be below lewis, wilde, ted kid lewis by a long way imo.

gobbles wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:I agree with your points on those other fighters. Except Honeyghan and Turpin had good careers outside of their huge wins. Turpin was a MW and LHW champ at Brit/Euro level and back then thats certainly as good as a WBO belt as your fighting all the best Brit/Euro have to offer, ie Cockell who'd fight for the HW title. Honeyghan was Brit/Euro champ, dominated an arguably P4P no1 in Curry who was in his prime and was a good champ before fading and letting the good life take his toll on his ability. 1 thing Calzaghe has going for him is longevity, that doesn't necessarily make him better at his peak

Re: Honeyghan and Turpin.
Problem is with both, it's trying to find a next best win. I thought Honeyghan was lucky against Blocker, got beat by Starling and Breland - who were good, but not greats - and Vaca. You are possibly looking at Sylvester Mittee as his second best win, while the light-middleweight campaign knocks the legacy too. A poor end of career (even with someone like Robinson) can't just be swept under the carpet as they are knocking their own legacy.

Turpin - two great displays against Robinson, and beat Cockell (who was no great shakes at any weight), but lost to Bobo Olson, who was a long way off being a top class middleweight, and was knocked out in a round for the European title.

The thing you have to consider however, is that someone like Mittee would probably have been able to win a belt in this day and age, and even rack up a few defences. That is why you have to take Calzaghe's career with a pinch of salt. Having so many easy defences inflates his record, and confuses the mind.

Honeyghan went over to America, and absolutely annihilated Don Curry, who at the time was being touted as the future of boxing, the natural successor to Ray Leonard, and who had unified the Welterweight titles in brutal fashion. This would have been like Calzaghe going over and ripping Roy Jones to pieces in Vegas in the early 90's. Yes it is only won win, but it's a win the like of which Joe never achieved (Kessler is kind of close I guess).

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

gobbles wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:I agree with your points on those other fighters. Except Honeyghan and Turpin had good careers outside of their huge wins. Turpin was a MW and LHW champ at Brit/Euro level and back then thats certainly as good as a WBO belt as your fighting all the best Brit/Euro have to offer, ie Cockell who'd fight for the HW title. Honeyghan was Brit/Euro champ, dominated an arguably P4P no1 in Curry who was in his prime and was a good champ before fading and letting the good life take his toll on his ability. 1 thing Calzaghe has going for him is longevity, that doesn't necessarily make him better at his peak

Re: Honeyghan and Turpin.
Problem is with both, it's trying to find a next best win. I thought Honeyghan was lucky against Blocker, got beat by Starling and Breland - who were good, but not greats - and Vaca. You are possibly looking at Sylvester Mittee as his second best win, while the light-middleweight campaign knocks the legacy too. A poor end of career (even with someone like Robinson) can't just be swept under the carpet as they are knocking their own legacy.

Turpin - two great displays against Robinson, and beat Cockell (who was no great shakes at any weight), but lost to Bobo Olson, who was a long way off being a top class middleweight, and was knocked out in a round for the European title.

The thing you have to consider however, is that someone like Mittee would probably have been able to win a belt in this day and age, and even rack up a few defences. That is why you have to take Calzaghe's career with a pinch of salt. Having so many easy defences inflates his record, and confuses the mind.

Honeyghan went over to America, and absolutely annihilated Don Curry, who at the time was being touted as the future of boxing, the natural successor to Ray Leonard, and who had unified the Welterweight titles in brutal fashion. This would have been like Calzaghe going over and ripping Roy Jones to pieces in Vegas in the early 90's. Yes it is only won win, but it's a win the like of which Joe never achieved (Kessler is kind of close I guess).

One thing you also have to bear in mind when deriding the current day, is boxers in Mittee's age just had the old world to compete against. The professional boxing world these days includes the former Eastern Bloc. Sven Ottke, Markus Beyer and Mario Veit all came through the East German amateur system. If Calzaghe had been champion in the 80s, those sort of guys would not even have been considered.

After all, what was the state of German boxing (now among the strongest in the world) before the fall of the Berlin Wall?

Calzaghe became undisputed champion. Only two boxers have won WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO (he also won IBO) titles at same weight - Calzaghe and Hopkins. Saying someone probably could have won a title in this day and age, does not mean they would have. Winning the IBF title in Mittee's day was no great achievement, as Terry Marsh proved by beating a champion as poor as Jersey Joe Manley.

To be an undisputed champion these days is more difficult than it was in the Eighties. Although I realise there is still an obsession with America and the good old days on here. How good would Kelly Pavlik seem without Arthur Abraham and Felix Sturm out there?

One thing you also have to bear in mind when deriding the current day, is boxers in Mittee's age just had the old world to compete against. The professional boxing world these days includes the former Eastern Bloc. Sven Ottke, Markus Beyer and Mario Veit all came through the East German amateur system. If Calzaghe had been champion in the 80s, those sort of guys would not even have been considered.

After all, what was the state of German boxing (now among the strongest in the world) before the fall of the Berlin Wall?

Calzaghe became undisputed champion. Only two boxers have won WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO (he also won IBO) titles at same weight - Calzaghe and Hopkins. Saying someone probably could have won a title in this day and age, does not mean they would have. Winning the IBF title in Mittee's day was no great achievement, as Terry Marsh proved by beating a champion as poor as Jersey Joe Manley.

To be an undisputed champion these days is more difficult than it was in the Eighties. Although I realise there is still an obsession with America and the good old days on here. How good would Kelly Pavlik seem without Arthur Abraham and Felix Sturm out there?

Interesting comments there gobbles, i.e. winning all 4 belts and the German based fighters who as you say would have stayed amateur had it been a decade earlier. Without a mix of British, European and the odd Yank, super middle wouldn't be much at all.

Worth mentioning, Winky Wright held WBO, IBF, WBA and WBC belts at light middleweight, though never all at once.

Definitely the IBF was the British title of choice in the '80s (Marsh, McCrory, Duke).

Joe's obviously very good, the Yanks are giving him more respect for the Hopkins fight than the Brits. I just feel somehow "cheated", that there was maybe another fight in him to seal the legacy. All that speed and fluidity that he showed vs Jones. Could he have applied that in a Hopkins rematch - I'm sure Joe learned a fair bit about fighting defensive counter punchers in his 2 175-pound title fights - perhaps? or waited for the Dawson-Tarver 2 winner?

By leaving the Hopkins fight to almost the very end - and looking a bit shabby - feels a bit weird. That was supposed to be the "See! I am amazing aren't I! Look what you've been missing" fight. At light heavyweight Joe could have done with another really good performance. It will be interesting to see how well Carl Froch will do as it seems he will try to grab the fights, risking his title early on.

In my opinion, it would have to e Joe Calzaghe...

Lewis losses to McCalll and Rahman greatly invaldiate his status as a "legend" in my book.