Calzaghe says he will stay at 168 for Pavlik!

I was under the assumption that Joe was born in London?:think
Anywho, I think we should thank Europe for providing us with a helluva dust-up come November 3rd. I'd have to see the Joe/Mikkel fight before making judgment on a possibole Joe/Kelly matchup...seeing clips of his Lacy fight, and the entire Manfredo debacle, just doesn't give one enough information...on second thought, ignorance has never stopped me before!

 

More money? Maybe. An easier alternative to fighting Hops, Dawson, Bute, Diaconu? Yes.


Well Hops would just be a technical battle, not so much blood and guts.

 

Yeah, almost destroyed. Walking around on ***** street. On a different planet. Out to lunch. Pick your metaphor. He was very nearly destroyed in the second round against his very first serious opposition.

Neither Kessler nor Calzaghe have been there yet.

You state Calzaghe fights bums. Yes he has. Every top boxer ever has fought bums. But Calzaghe has , in addition to the bums, fought the best of the 168 crop over the past 10 years (10-12 top contenders).

Kelly has fought bums too. Difference is, he hasn't anywhere near as many non-bums on his resume as Joe.

Calzaghe is getting on in years, and sometime he's going to be past it. But until that happens, he's head and shoulders above Pavlik in terms of skill, grit and experience.

Pavlik has the potential to become great and I've already given him kudos for getting up and finishing, where Jermain couldn't, but he's not at Calzaghe level just yet.


Accept that and live with it. Try to internalize it. Don't fight it. Let sense have a chance to act on your noggin. Think with your head, not your gut.

Avoid cheap drugs, you only get what you pay for. Let the truth set you free. You'll feel so much better when the mist lifts from your eyes.

You can do it!

 

Hopkins wanted no part of Calzaghe until a month or so ago. Now he's looking for one last big payday. The irony is, if BHop had pursued that matchup 6 years ago, he would have had a chance. Now, Joe would embarrass him.

BTW, Nice classy post.

 

As I mentioned to the other fella, Kelly is a good young prospect with loads of guts and potential.

Calzaghe is an established 10-yr champion with a proven track record against far better competition than Kelly has faced.

I see you joined the forum 9 days ago. Judging by your extensive knowledge of resumes and such, it appears that might be when you began your interest in the sport.

 

According to boxrec, which uses a purely algorithmic rating system, Pavlik has a better resume. The rating is cumulative for their careers since points are only deduced for losses/draws/close decisions vs tomato cans/inactivity for 180 days. Just throwing it out there...

 

I'm not saying that Pavlik has the better resume. Boxrec ratings are a bit bloated since BHop has an obscene number of points, so since Taylor beat him twice and Pavlik beat Taylor, they got passed on to Pavlik.

My point was that their resumes are closer than you might think.

 

According to Boxrec:

Joe is ranked number one of all active super-middleweights with 1215 points.

Kelly is ranked number one of all active middleweights with 1492 points.

(The number of points only matters WITHIN each weight division)

Alltime, they have Joe at #1 (super-middle) and Kelly at #185 (middle).

But as you mention, this is a purely algorithmic system which might work for chess or tennis but doesn' mean much in boxing.

 

joe would spank pavlik

 

Well, the editors use points as the sole criteria for their P4P list, and Pavlik is #7 on that.

Yes, there are many anomalies such as point bloating (i.e., BHop bloated Taylors points), and gift decisions are scored the same as real decisions. Also, age advantage doesn't come into play - anyone who beats BHop now scores more points than they would against a prime BHop.

But, it is still an interesting rating system and is not completely worthless. The correlation between ring magazine rankings and boxrec rankings are usually pretty accurate within-division.

The point is, if you ranked fighters purely quantitatively, you'd get something like the boxrec ratings. The fact that Pavlik is close to Calzaghe (being above him on the p4p list), combined with the fact that boxrec ratings usually within 5 places of the "real" ranking, implies that their resumes have a good chance of being similar.

Edit: removed some unintentional hyperbole

 

Where did that come from?
I haven't commented on your writing till now, but since you ask, I'll oblige.

Your comma is NOT in the RIGHT (write is what you do with a pen) place. It should have followed immediatelly after the s of yes.


And if you know that Pavlik only has one big fight, why would you write:

The writing stuff, I can put down to typos.

The resume stuff, well.... ?