Better Top 5 Wins at SMW: Froch or Calzaghe?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by horst, Oct 20, 2011.


  1. BatTheMan

    BatTheMan Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,416
    0
    Jun 6, 2008
    The thing is that we've seen, over and over again, how Bailey gauge fighters value only on what they've done at a particular weight. He puts immense emphasis on that.

    Now it is clear that he apparently does not think that the measure is to be used on all fighters.

    But I personally have never seen him distance himself from the method, but that is not the same as saying that he has done so, as I haven't been through his posting history.

    And now we have this thread and he has been given the chance to enlighten us all on when to use and when not to use this method, but he has elegantly sidestepped this chance of giving an explanation. A shame. I'd like to learn.
     
  2. general zod

    general zod World Champion Full Member

    6,744
    51
    Apr 7, 2010
    He uses the criteria so he can dismiss Froch's wins. His opponents didnt do anything at smw so they dont really count.
     
  3. BatTheMan

    BatTheMan Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,416
    0
    Jun 6, 2008
    Bailey biased?

    Are you serious?

    :deal
     
  4. general zod

    general zod World Champion Full Member

    6,744
    51
    Apr 7, 2010
    :lol::lol:
     
  5. BatTheMan

    BatTheMan Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,416
    0
    Jun 6, 2008
    I'm surprised. He claims to be unbiased himself. You could be right though.
     
  6. Joe.Boxer

    Joe.Boxer Chinchecker Full Member

    7,586
    1,085
    Jan 8, 2011
    .........
    :lol::rofl:patsch
     
  7. general zod

    general zod World Champion Full Member

    6,744
    51
    Apr 7, 2010
    If he was unbiased he wouldn't be using the didnt do anything at smw so we can dismiss criteria.
     
  8. knockout artist

    knockout artist Boxing Addict banned

    6,846
    9
    Sep 24, 2011

    In all seriousness, how is Taylor regarded as a good win? In his next fight he got brutally stopped by the crude and limited Arthur Abraham.

    Arthur Abraham was exposed in the Super 6 tournament, his best win at SMW is also Taylor, who was clearly well past it at that point (The Taylor from the Hopkins fights beats Arthur Abraham hands down).

    Andre Dirrell is yet to accomplish anything as a pro, that should warrant the hype, and make him a good win.

    Glen Johnson has lost more fights at SMW than he's won, he's a gatekeeper.

    Jean Pascal was a good win

    The Bute win was very impressive, similar to Calzaghe-Lacy

    He lost to the two best fighters he faced in Kessler and Ward.

    There's a lot of weight in Bailey's argument. Some fighters simply aren't the same at certain weight classes. Glen Johnson is a good example, Taylor was never a SMW and was past his best when he fought Froch and Abraham. I give credit for travelling and taking these guys on, however much of it is overstated.

    Look at Ricky Hatton when he fought Collazo at 147, was he the same fighter as he was at 140 when he beat Kostya Tszyu?

    Look at the difference between Amir Khan at 135 and 140.

    If Jean Pascal was natural and at his best at 168, why did he move up? Why not stick around for the money spinner that was the super 6 tournament
     
  9. horst

    horst Guest

    None :good
     
  10. horst

    horst Guest

    I've called him on it many times, but he's too much of a ******ed bitchboy to understand.

    By Bailey's logic, if Miguel Cotto had knocked out Floyd Mayweather to take his zero, it wouldn't have meant much since Mayweather had only ever had 1 fight (an SD) at 154 before.

    And that's just one example. There are about seven billion others which thoroughly disprove that tadger's points on anything and everything.

    Logic and knowledge are Bailey's enemies. :lol:
     
  11. horst

    horst Guest

    Top post.
     
  12. leaduppercut

    leaduppercut Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,878
    0
    May 23, 2012
    If Froch can add kessler to his list then there's no debabe.. froch hands down
     
  13. bailey

    bailey Loyal Member Full Member

    39,943
    3,076
    Dec 11, 2009
    Of course I would have rated Cottos win. Floyd was a former 154lbs champ unlike the others you are arguing for. Also Floyd is coming off a fantastic resume and win run, but Pascal, Dirrell, Abraham, Johnson were not. You talk to me about logic then compare those fighters to Mayweather :lol::patsch:oops:
     
  14. general zod

    general zod World Champion Full Member

    6,744
    51
    Apr 7, 2010
    ????
    I have never claimed that win as a good win, so i dont understand why you are bringing it up
    I never claimed the Abraham win as anything special so again I dont understand why you are bringing it up
    history will place it in its proper place
    No one is classing that as a great win either
    Kessler has also lost to the two best fighters he has faced, should we now dismiss him as well?
    Bad example. There is a massive difference between moving up and moving down to a division you havent fought in in over 5 years
    Of course he was. He was a massive mw who boiled himself down to fight at mw. The problem for Taylor was that he was on the slide of his career before he moved up. Debateable wins over Spinks and Wright. Back to back losses to Pavlik and that was before he moved up.
    ????
    Because he struggled against Collazo that meant he shouldn't be fighting at 147? How about the fact that Collazo was one of the best fighters that Hatton had faced?
    Khan had no business boiling himself down to fight at lww. As I said before theres a difference between moving up and putting you health at risk to fight at a lower weight
    Maybe he didn't like boiling himself down. Some fighters prefer to fight close to their fighting weight.
     
  15. general zod

    general zod World Champion Full Member

    6,744
    51
    Apr 7, 2010
    He fought the wrong fight last time. He needs to be more agreesive to improve his chances this time around.