I find it hilarious that people think Taylor can have success at SMW.

[brooklyn1550]

Originally Posted by lefthook31

Actually they are very similar. Both guys are really tough guys with big wills to win, and both are good solid boxer punchers. I think its a real good fight, but seeing Calzhage fight guys like Charles Brewer the way he did, leads me to believe he wouldnt dominate Taylor.

There's only one way to know for sure...hopefully we get to see this fight in the future

BTW, great avatar

[Amsterdam]

Originally Posted by Ramshall1

Lets see, Taylor fought Hops to a virtual draw in 24 rounds. . . but would have no chance against Joe "Little hands of Glass" Calzaghe?

Hopkins and Calzaghe are two different fighters Ramshall. In fact, at this point Hopkins has little to no chance against Calzaghe as well.

We are not dealing with a peak Hopkins, nor a man who fights anything like a boxer-swarmer with an absurd workrate and accurate shots from all angles.

[Ramshall1]

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

Hopkins and Calzaghe are two different fighters Ramshall. In fact, at this point Hopkins has little to no chance against Calzaghe as well.

We are not dealing with a peak Hopkins, nor a man who fights anything like a boxer-swarmer with an absurd workrate and accurate shots from all angles.

if you wanna say you think Cal would win, fine I disagree but its a reasonable opinion. . . Cal is a good fast fighter. . . but if you try to say "Taylor has no chance" thats just silly and makes you look bad.

[Amsterdam]

Originally Posted by Ramshall1

if you wanna say you think Cal would win, fine I disagree but its a reasonable opinion. . . Cal is a good fast fighter. . . but if you try to say "Taylor has no chance" thats just silly and makes you look bad.

Well, many impartial posters would agree, posters with advanced experience with boxing, including Brooklyn1550, who is an american and an outside observer of Calzaghe with no bias.

I don't feel I am being biased, I feel I am telling it like it is and most knowledge analysts agree.

[IntentionalButt]

Originally Posted by Ramshall1

if you wanna say you think Cal would win, fine I disagree but its a reasonable opinion. . . Cal is a good fast fighter. . . but if you try to say "Taylor has no chance" thats just silly and makes you look bad.

Taylor may be a bigger than average middleweight, but he would have a clear physical size disadvantage against Joe. His speed at middleweight doesn't come close to Joe's at super. His power at middleweight isn't enough to put away welterweights. His workrate is unremarkable; Joe's is phenomenal. In what area does Jermain size up against Joe? Typically when someone is outclassed in literally every determinable area - it is safe to say they have no chance.

[JAM Killer]

I for one do not like Taylor's chances at 168, for a lot of reasons, size not being one of them. Plus, 160 is a lot deeper anyway, there are a lot of guys to fight there.

[Ramshall1]

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

Well, many impartial posters would agree, posters with advanced experience with boxing, including Brooklyn1550, who is an american and an outside observer of Calzaghe with no bias.

I don't feel I am being biased, I feel I am telling it like it is and most knowledge analysts agree.

I dont think a handful of fanboys on ESB count as "most knowledge analysts"

[Ramshall1]

Originally Posted by IntentionalButt

Taylor may be a bigger than average middleweight, but he would have a clear physical size disadvantage against Joe. His speed at middleweight doesn't come close to Joe's at super. His power at middleweight isn't enough to put away welterweights. His workrate is unremarkable; Joe's is phenomenal. In what area does Jermain size up against Joe? Typically when someone is outclassed in literally every determinable area - it is safe to say they have no chance.

JT is a huge MW at 6'1". . . Cal is 5'11". Id say the overall size is about even. Cal would have the speed advantage, JT would have the Jab and Power advantage. Experience would be close but Id give it to JT since he's gone 36 rounds with Hops and Winky. . . .all three ranked higher p4p in my book than Cal.


4. Taylor
6. Winky
7. Hops
9. Cal

[Amsterdam]

Originally Posted by Blocky

Joe is 6'1 - don't let his boxrec record disserve you

Notice Amsterdam won't touch my posts? He talks about analysis and then when someone throws it back in his face, he spends the rest of the thread avoiding it like a little bitchfist.

I have already argued with you on the subject many times, you spin nothing new and there is no point since you will not agree with me on the subject of Taylor or send any opposing evidence to the theories that I present.

You're views on Taylor are that of any media fed tool, I argue with these views all the time and there is no point bothering with someone who is nothing but rude.

[Amsterdam]

Originally Posted by Blocky

Quite frankly, bitchfist - you couldn't reply to my post because it completely annihilated the premise of anything you've written and continues to annihilate the premise of anything you will write.

I'm simply all of your unpleasantaries towards a boxer that doesn't deserve it - then you turn around and praise Kessler?

I'm going to take you up on your three month Ban from ESB bet - When Taylor beats Pavlik's ass senseless - fuck off, and this time - don't come back.

3 months?

Deal, I hope you comply.

[Toopretty]

I find it hilarious that you think a prime Kessler could beat a prime Toney, Bhop and Hagler....maybe its just me..

[Executioner]

Originally Posted by Toopretty

I find it hilarious that you think a prime Kessler could beat a prime Toney, Bhop and Hagler....maybe its just me..

[Amsterdam]

Originally Posted by Toopretty

I find it hilarious that you think a prime Kessler could beat a prime Toney, Bhop and Hagler....maybe its just me..

He could. Just because those 3 are massive heralded names doesn't mean they beat everyone who is not a massively heralded name.

Kessler is a stylistic hell for Hagler outright, B-Hop would be a close fight and Toney shells up too much and is way to open for a jab to begin with. It's not like Toney was consistent either.

But Calzaghe beats all 3 with ease peak/peak, no question.

[Brickhaus]

Originally Posted by Amsterdam

I have already argued with you on the subject many times, you spin nothing new and there is no point since you will not agree with me on the subject of Taylor or send any opposing evidence to the theories that I present.

You're views on Taylor are that of any media fed tool, I argue with these views all the time and there is no point bothering with someone who is nothing but rude.

Yeah, I'm sure he's never actually WATCHED Taylor.

I hate to say it Amsterdam, but Blocky is owning your ass on this one. He's by far making the better arguments.

Nice to see you goaded people into the real argument, which is whether Taylor could beat Calzaghe. I personally think not, but it's a much more reasonable argument than the argument that Taylor would be outside of the top 10, or even the top 5, at 168. The only logical argument for him not doing well at 168 (which you haven't even made) is that his heart just isn't in the sport anymore, and he's going the way of Panchito. He's looked worse each fight lately, and that's probably the best explaination - lord knows he doesn't have that many ring miles on him. Still, he absolutely punked guys who were the quality of the guys 3 - 10 at SMW, even if he's regressed, he should still be able to beat that level of fighter.

If you think Taylor's overrated, fine, you're entitled to your opinion. If you think he's lost 4 of his last 5 fights, fine, but there's a reason you're in the minority there. If you think he's a C+ level fighter, well that's just plain dumb and ignorant.

[Amsterdam]

Originally Posted by Blocky

This clown knows fuck all about boxing, that's for sure.

Three month bet - you can fuck off - no returning for you during the Calzaghe victory either, you can just stay gone until the New Year, bitchfist.

Blocky, you show a lack of sensible knowledge with every post on these subjects. You cannot correctly analyse, the only thing you have down correctly is that Calzaghe is a stylistic hell for Kessler and one that will give him a one sided victory.

But you believe that Taylor is superior to Kessler, this is absurdity and only because Taylor fought bigger recognised names. You haven't even correctly assessed Kessler's ability.