Andre Ward's resume is amazing

what do you think i'm not looking at the full picture on?

a right fighter is someone who decides they are going to defend a fighter because they feel an affiliation to them and don't know how to separate fact from fiction

 

No doubt

 

What have I wrote that is fiction?

 

you said i'm not getting the full picture on something...still waiting for that reply
but in response to you, I know you like to use belts as "facts" to defend your posts, even though you know they are scandalous and misleading
andre ward has beaten a prime froch, Kessler and kovalev - which trumps anything Calzaghe did - but I know you have a different spin on that.

your turn

 

Just here is the full picture in that you think Ward with those 3 wins trumps anything Calzaghe did.
I agree belts can be misleading so not sure why you say I like to do something?
So is it me being a right fighter when I say
Calzaghe had already beaten prime undefeated Kessler before Ward faced the more rusty Kessler with eye problems?
Is it wrong of me that I feel Calzaghes win over Mitchell could be argued as good as Wards over Froch? Even if yiou disagree I would be shocked if you think Wards win over Froch is greater than Calzaghes over Eubank.
Now Kovalev is a good win for Ward on paper, but was it better to Calzaghes over undefeated unified SMW champ Kessler when Calzaghe beat him? Arguably Kovalevs best win was Hopkins that Calzaghe had beaten years previously. Is that being a right fighter or are you being a right fighter as you put it by disagreeing.
Then look at the rest of the body of Calzaghes work with Woodhall, Reid, Brewer, Lacy, Veit, Jones to name even just a few which isnt even near all and tell me how this is not factual.
Once again, I think it could be you either commenting on something you know little of or not looking at the full picture.
Tell me whats spin about that?

 

it's not the name that counts, it's when they fought him that does
ward's win over froch wins every time

 

How does that win anything?
Tell me if im wrong here
Froch was on a run of -
- debatable decision to some against Pascal who did nothing at SMW (we are looking at when he fought them)
- Late win against Taylor where he was behind (who had done nothing at SMW) (we are looking at when he fought them)
- debatable decision to some against Dirrell who has done little at SMW
- Lost to faded Kessler coming off a loss who had vision problems and who had already been beaten by Calzaghe years previous when a unified champ
- Convincing win over Abraham coming off a loss
- debatable decision to some against old, faded, boiled down G Johnson who had not done much at SMW
That was in the run up to Frochs fight with Ward. You say its when they were fought but Froch was arguably fatigued with so much time on the road at that time.
Johnson who Froch had a tough fight with was beaten when prime at SMW by Sheika to get a shot at Calzaghe which shows how SMW was a bit recycled at that time. You call this being a right fighter but tell me what is not correct.
So how do you feel Wards win over Froch is greater than Calzaghes over Kessler or Eubank. At SMW and if we are looking at when they fought as you put it. It could be argued to not be as great as Lacy or Mitchell, but im not arguing that as it is one that could be called either way but cant see how you would have it above Eubank or Kessler even for at that time.
Even if you somehow managed to call that a greater win it wouldnt trump the whole body of work Calzaghe had done. Thats like saying Buster Douglas is greater than some of the legends for a certain win. Either way that certain win Ward has over Froch isnt greater than some I note of Calzaghes.
Seems you are calling me names and when given facts showing yourself to be just what you name call

 

I've played your game, tell me what i'm not getting the full picture on

 

or to put it another way....
how old were froch, Kessler and kovalev when ward fought them (ward's best names on his resume). and how old were Hopkins, eubank, and roy jones (best names on Calzaghe's resume)

 

Read what was written.
If you havent read, Read again. If not then yes I will spell it all out for you

 

Just saw a real interesting factoid over at the scene- Ward, Danny Garcia, Bud Crawford, and Loma all have the same number of title fights (8).

 

Why do you note Kessler as one of Wards best but miss his name for Calzaghe? And you say im game playing.
You said it was when they were beaten and Kessler had eye problems when he fought Ward and Froch. Also do you not note Calzaghes age when he fought them either or ring career? Seems you are the one with the agenda for not looking at everything.
In answer to your question

When Ward fought Kessler, Kessler was 30, Ward was 25
When Calzaghe fought Eubank, Eubank was 31, Calzaghe was 25

When Ward fought Froch, Froch was 34, Ward was 27
When Calzaghe fought Hopkins, Hopkins 43, Calzaghe was 36

When Ward fought Kovalev, Kovalev was 33, Ward was 32
When Calzaghe fought Kessler, Kessler was 28, Calzaghe was 35

As you can see when you look at respective ages there isnt much to note. With Calzaghe and Jones Calzaghe was about 3 years younger so close in age, but you are not even looking at ring age and Calzaghe was at the end of his career when he beat Jones and Hopkins and Kessler

 

let me hear you say it with jones - Calzaghe
I know you're pro Calzaghe and everything you post has Calzaghe's legacy in mind.

are you saying that Calzaghe's wins over his best 3 fighters totals to over 100, while ward's were under 100?

 

You're so much of a ****en **** gobbler on these boards with your incessant dick riding of British fighters that it's an embarrassment to these boards.

 

Since when has boxing been judged like that? Still I will humour your ridiculous post...
Depends what you call best wins. It may do, but the fact that you are going to this level to say something far outweighs anything I have done and shows you to be what you preach and more the person with an agenda.
I would guess Calzaghes best wins could be Eubank, Kessler and Hopkins and that would add up to 102 but with Ward it would add up to 97 if you did the same thing and if you are going to be as daft to do such a thing then add up Ward and Calzaghes age respectively in that it would be that Calzaghes would be 96 and Wards 84, so Ward would have an advantage by your silly logic of 13 compared to Calzaghes of 6 so that makes it greater again for Calzaghe lol.


Notice you didnt answer my questions lol