He beat up on a lot of crappy fighters other than Hopkins who had a close fight with that I had him winning. That is why many people don't give Calzaghe much credit. His best wins are Hopkins, Eubank, Reid, and Lacy(overrated fighter). Did I miss anyone else on Calzaghe's so called great resume? I also don't know if Calzaghe would have won a rematch against Hopkins. I believe Hopkins may have had a better game-plan in the rematch and thats why Calzaghe ran from the Rematch.
It was a close fight that Calzaghe won only because of his activity. If the rematch had happened like I believe Hopkins tried to make then Hopkins may have adjusted a bit better and landed even more cleaner punches. Hopkins landed clean at times on Calzaghe but the problem is that Hopkins work-rate was really low in that fight. Don't get me wrong that was credit to Calzaghe large Activity but wasn't it Calzaghe that didn't want the rematch? As I said I had Calzaghe beating Hopkins in the first fight, but it wasn't like it was a dominate win. Chad Dawson dominated Hopkins for the most part and made it clear he was the winner. I know styles make fights but Calzaghe is a bit of hype. I was one of his bigger fans when younger, but why is his resume so dookie? I am more impressed by Hopkins resume to tell the truth. There was rumors that people ducked Calzaghe for many years but I do not know if these rumors had any real hard cold facts to them.
When the History books are written who do you think will have the better long-term Legacy? Calzaghe or Hopkins? My bet would be Hopkins because experts can look past that deceiving 0. Having that 0 to a fighters name is negative because people believe that 0 means many cherry-picked opponents.
He is mention quite a lot. Probably not as much as other champs like you say though. I guess it is because he wasn't heavyweight and therefore there was not much talk about his weight class when he was fighting. A lot of people say that he had pretty weak opponents as well. That is correct if you look at boxers in the past were much better and some nowadays are better, not then Calzaghe, but his opponents. Joe Calzaghe is a great champion and i give him credit for everything he has done, but he definitely fought some weak opponents.
Because he's a white European guy who destroyed every American there was! They discredit the Klitschkos, Dariusz Michalczewski and currently GGG, Kovalev and so on. Some will go as far as discrediting even their "fellow" Americans as Rocky Marciano, Jack Dempsey and Harry Greb, simply because they are white.
The answer is THAT simple and don't look for any further explanation. American sports and soon American society as a whole is the most racist and anti-white in the world at the moment. England is following slowly but surely.
Most of the people who don't give him credit didn't watch boxing back then.
They seem to think Arthur Abraham or Andre Dirrell are better boxers than the likes of Robin Reid or Byron Mitchell, purely because they haven't heard of them, because they didn't follow boxing back then. They give Ward more credit for beating an old Sakio Bika than they do Calzaghe for beating a prime version of him. You can't reason with that kind of logic.
If he was American he'd get much more credit from American fans, who don't tend to give credit to boxers from outside the US.
Roy jones and Hopkinks was past their prime when he beat them. His resume is padded and he will not be mentioned among the greats. That is what he get for cherry picking hehe.
He has a heavily padded record. Hell, he beat an over the hill roy jones and a green hopkins whom he ducked for a rematch.
Wins over weak Competition, and old men, will def. hurt and undefeated record.
Because of the poor quality of his competition.
What andrewn024 and Auto said!
Why does nobidy give him crwdit for whst he's done..... he never mentioned among other champs as much maybe in the uk only.....
