Where have I downgraded it? This is you trying to duck the questions I posed. I rated Nunns wins over Tate and Kalambay. It just looks as if you are nervous of the questions I posed. Look at where Curry was in his career when they were fighting and try and sell the win, or the Starling win. I think it shows a lack of knowledge for you to rate a fighter without knowing the details and just noting that others rate them. Learn to get an opinion for yourself, so as not to be as blunt as your name suggests
What at LHW? Calzaghe only had 2 LHW fights and they alone look greater than Toneys LHW resume, then you look at the other division where they both fought, SMW, and once again Calzaghe looks the greater
I responded to your question by saying that it is easy to pick apart anybody's record. Kessler's lack of top skills became evident against Ward.Prime Nunn would probably have schooled Kessler even worse.:rasta Certainly 34 year old Mc callum was closer to his prime than 40 year old Hopkins.just a minor point;Mc Callum threw close to 1000 punches against toney in their first fight.How busy was Hopkins against Calzaghe or in his fights later??:deal
uhghhhh. so dum. someone help me. I'd rather stab my eyes out with my freshly lopped off penus than have to look at such dumb post content again.
bailey, Seriously, I just can't be bothered to take this any further. It's a complete waste of my time. When you want a serious debate, let me know. I've told you I'm not playing your silly games, regarding who beat who and if the fighters were 'natural' at the weight etc. I also don't debate in statistics. You struggle to put Nunn over Kessler? Brewer beat Herol? Herol was almost 39. But the most ridiculous part of your post, is where I'd asked you to compare Kessler's attributes to Mike McCallum's and Michael Nunn's, and you've replied with: Stronger, unbeaten, and unified. atsch That's quite possibly the silliest thing I've ever read from you. Ha! I don't even know where to begin. Kessler wasn't in their league. Not even close. Look what you've listed. Stronger - So what? Undefeated - So what? That was due to circumstances. Unified - So what? Again due to circumstances. Again, who'd he really beaten? How good is/was he, really? You've got no argument. Both Nunn and Mike were on another level to Kessler. And now you've dragged me into debating about resumes, instead of discussing what we both think would have happened if Joe and Toney had fought. That was the purpose of the thread. To read people's thoughts on the outcome, not who'd got the better wins etc. Now we've all gone off topic. So I'm out. I'll come back when you, or anyone else wants to talk specifically about what you think would have happened had Joe and Toney fought each other.
bailey, I appreciate the time you've given up, to reply. But I'm now on 11/12 threads and my girlfriend is going nuts. Again, you've just compared Nunn and Kessler, by using numbers. I don't care about statistics. Nunn was a much better fighter than Kessler. But we'll agree to disagree.
Dear Failey, There is hardly anybody who would agree with you that Kessler was more skilled or had a better record than Nunn. That fact alone shows that your opinion is truly biaised and therefore arguing with you is a complete waste of time.:deal
I understand the strain you are under, so no worries. Comparing Nunn wasnt about stats, it was about removing the hype, and before a loss, both looked impressive, but Kessler overall (not every time) was fighting more natural fighters at his weight and at better times in their careers
Between I would also say that Reggie Johnson and Prince Williams stand out in Toney's record. Both would have beaten calzaghe's ass tonly Toney would have done it more easiliy.:deal