since you decided that "facts" are so cut and dry if you're prepared to dish it out, you better be prepared to take it
Didnt know I dished out anything but yes facts are cut and dry and I have stuck to them, so it seems you who is troubled by them. Also you will see that I humoured what you now seem to agree as ridiculous and you got clowned again
fishing for brownie points won't work with me, princess froch, Kessler and kovalev trumps anything Calzaghe did - especially since ward is ante-ing up again against kovalev...and ward's career isn't even over yet anything anti-Calzaghe burns you I've read your posts
Got banned again for cuss words. Not even sure which one I used this time Thanks Aussie! Don't get me wrong, it's a damn good win. But when people toss out stuff like "Legacy win", or "Legacy fight'...I have to stop and let my eyes roll back to normal. If I allow that type of comment to somewhat short change Ward on the win, than that's my bad.
How am I looking for brownie points? I have answered your questions and kept to facts and details. You seem to be doing what you accuse me of doing and posting on emotion and with that fail. The subject has no reason to burn me, but I do like for the facts to be correct with anything and the fact that you cant answer any point shows that it actually burns you. When you said add up the age of the Calzaghe opponents, well if you add up the ages of the top 3 Kovalev wins it could be higher, depending on who you choose, so are you not crediting Ward for beating Kovalev? You have tied yourself up. Interestingly you write froch, Kessler and kovalev trumps anything Calzaghe did, yet also say its when the opponents were beaten. Well Kessler was beaten by Ward when he was faded with vision problems and already beaten by Calzaghe. That same version of Kessler beat Froch, so neither of Wards wins over Kessler or Froch were as good as Calzaghes in beating a prime, undefeated Kessler. The Froch win, you cant say how it was better than several of Calzaghes that I have noted, but for reference, I have said that I wouldnt rate it as good as Calzaghes win over Eubank. I asked how the Kovalev win was supposed to be so much better than Calzaghes over undefeated prime Kessler. You cant answer these things. So I struggle to understand how you can think Ward beating a faded rusty version of Kessler with vision problems is better than Calzaghe beating a prime undefeated Kessler on good form. I cant see how you can rate Wards win over Froch as greater than Calzaghes over Eubank and think you will have a problem trying to explain that. Then following your format of where fighters were in their careers when beaten and Calzaghe at the end of his career went up in weight and beat Hopkins as the LHW champ who went on to reign again and is arguably Kovalevs best win years later and arguably one of the fighters who Hopkins beat is one of Kovalevs best opponents, so cant see how you can really call one as much greater. Then look at the rest of Calzaghes career which is long and including Reid, Veit, Woodhall, Jones, Brewer, Bika, Lacy, Mitchell who all were or became SMW champs and top 10 rated when beaten and then there are the other top SMWs he had beaten which from your posting doubt you are familiar about. I doubt you will be able to answer and will once again duck what is written showing yourself to be what you call a "right fighter"
I will always rate Calzaghe's win over Kessler higher than Ward's win over Kessler because Calzaghe beat him clean while Ward beat him dirty. I'm not taking away credit for the win, and I fully admit Ward is better than Kessler, also I think the ability to fight dirty when needed can be the mark of a great champion, but as stand alone wins go I cant rate a dirty victory over a boxer higher than a clean one.
It's simple. In 1997 Eubank was two fights into a Light-Heavyweight comeback after retiring following his second loss to Collins when he agreed to step in at 12 days notice to drop down to Super-Middleweight and fight Calzaghe for the vacant WBO title. Heading into the Super Six final in 2011 Froch was in the middle of his best run of opponents with wins over Jean Pascal, Jermain Taylor, Andre Dirrell (disputed), Arthur Abraham and Glen Johnson, while his only defeat to that date came in a close fight against Mikkel Kessler which could have gone either way. It is clear that Froch was at the pinacle of his career when he met Andre Ward where as Eubank was past his best - still a game, dangerous, tough old fighter but not the same as the Eubank of 1990/91/92/93. Taking on a fighter at their prime is always going to be a better win than taking on a fighter past their best - you yourself have made this argument about why you think Calzaghe's win over Kessler better than Ward's.
Yes I am well aware that Eubank had fought at LHW, but he also said he could fight at SMW and went to LHW to win try and win a world title to lure Collins. It was a change of opponent for Calzaghe also at 12 days notice You say about retiring but Floyd retired at one point. Eubank said the rest had done him good after fighting around every 7 weeks and in 97 said he could fight at SMW, LHW and CW see below This content is protected And except for the Abraham fight none of the points win were clear and also none were top SMWs. If you say Eubank was a LHW, then look at G Johnson who pushed Froch and was in his 40s and not done anything at SMW yet was very competitive and that fight was Frochs fight going in against Ward. Eubank was rested, younger than Froch at that time with a far greater pedigree Froch at that time was talking of injuries and saying he felt like an old man, wanting to get home for xmas as well as having been on the road for 5 of his last 6 fights. Eubank was rested and younger. Froch at that time hadnt beaten any top SMWs and lost to the only top SMW he had fought who was faded and coming off a loss. Eubank had beaten far greater SMWs and had a greater pedigree. If you are saying about Eubank then consider when Degale beat Bute. Bute had not been a SMW for 3 years, had been brutally beaten by Froch, lost to Pascal, had less fights between a loss than Eubank, was older than what Eubank was, had not looked overly convincing but was considered a big decent fight for Degale that people credit.
of course wards is better, most long term champions have better ones than joe, its hard to think of one who doesnt. one of the things calzaghe is known for is having a weak resume.
Kessler wasn't that good. Eubank is a better win for Calzaghe, then Kessler was. Kessler is only even mentioned because Calzaghe's 168 pound Division was devoid of talent. Calzaghe ducked Froch also. Ward's easy win over Kessler is no more meaningful than Calzaghe's. Ward did beat Kessler easier though.
You are comparing young Ward to old end of career Calzaghe having his final fight at the weight and prime Kessler that Calzaghe beat to faded rusty double vision suffering Kessler that Ward beat. also it was Calzaghe that first beat Kessler not ward and if you really do look at like for like wins so much then you could also say Calzaghe beat Bika more impressively than ward. As for Froch. Froch was an unknown British champ and Calzaghe chose to face a far bigger fight in LHW Hopkins than an unknown British champ. Also Froch had said he didnt want to face Calzaghe until he won a world title so he would have something to bring to the table and Froch didnt win a SMW title until Calzaghe had left SMW, gone up to LHW and had 2 fights and then retired. http://www.boxingnews24.com/2013/06/warren-froch-wouldnt-have-beaten-joe-calzaghe/
eubank would have been a better win arguably IF eubank had been active in the division. Being a late stand-in, and close to retirement, from 2 divisions away takes the mick on shows what a sham the wbo was at a time when they used to, based on their appraisal of performace, raise the ranks of someone who died 6 months ago. but yeh joes got kess... lacy.. draw against reid.... after that.... bika and then what for 11 years. without kess and lacy, one of the thinnest smw resumes in title history. Shouldnt be mentioned relative to wards.
ROFLMAO !! Ward has fought only ONE!! top tanked fighter in nearly SIX YEARS !!! He arguably lost that . How in the heck does that make him an ATG ???? C'mon get real