Unrelated note. Did you know the cowardly lion was based on a person that challenged the author to a dual and then turned tail and ran? You think in a similar circumstance these posters would be declaring themselves 'the winner' if this happened to them? What would they then be saying about the other guy? :think
Once again, dependance on your version of events and an effort to determine the outcome of a fantasy match up based on your version of the outcome of said events doesn't = Pavlike beats Calzaghe. So solly dewd, real life doesn't work that way, and I think you'll find your version of who called who out isn't 100% correct. However, it's about the only saving grace for Pavlik in this whole scenario, which is why you guys are grimly clinging onto it.
Let me just get this straight while Pavlik lovers slag Calzaghes resume' off, Calzaghe had: Eubank Lacy (Undefeated feared unified champion version) Kessler (Same applies) Roy Jones Jr Bernard Hopkins (who made Pavlik look like a B class fighter) Pavlik had: Taylor x2 .......im struggling Calzaghe is far superior, Faster hands, faster feet, could adopt a pan B or C if the fight wasnt going his way (Kessler for instance) had a really good chin, better boxing brain, Better resume' and beat far better fighters than Pavlik yeah he fought bums but forgive me if im wrong Pavlik defended his title's against Gary Locket, Rubio and Espino??? there his 3 defenses, at least Calzaghe had legitimate champions on his resume' in Lacy, Kessler, Eubank (won title) as well as B-Hop and RJJ I can't even beleive were having this descussion Pavlik is way too slow and a class behind Calzaghe to compete with him simple as that, Pavlik arse lickers talking about the facts well ive just laid some out for you up there you want to disagree with them?
Jeezus, you guys have got it bad. You're carrying on as if Pavlik vs Calzaghe is the only fight that ever fell through in the history of boxing "The fans, the fans, oh the humanity!!!" :|:|:| Calzaghe never 'ran away' from Pavlik, he was trying to get a big $$$ fight in the US and Pavlik was mentioned as a possible opponent, as was RJJ and Hopkins. He ended up fighting the latter 2, one of whom spanked your boy silly in his very next fight, and you clowns have got the temerity to suggest Calzaghe was scared of Clanker the Robot Ghost? Why don't you stop spinning your wheels focussing on claims of Calzaghe ducking Pavlik, and offer your insight on what the fight would have panned out like if it had happened.
About the Taylor fights - first fight was a rallying comeback from nearly being KOd in the second round, the rematch was against a gunshy Taylor after he'd tasted Pavlik's power in the first fight. Taylor has been on the decline for a while, and his desire to be in the ring has been questionable of late. Apart from that, who has Pavlik beaten? Miranda.
These two lads are the laughing stock of the forum. (See poll). Boo fits Churchill's definition of a fanatic perfectly. One who CAN'T change his mind, and WON'T change the subject. Everybody knows what Calzaghe would have done to Pavlik. And everybody knows which Calzaghe fights were most in demand.
Do Pavlik fans even enjoy boxing as a whole? They go to insane lengths to rip apart any fighter from 154-168. They bash Showtime because Pavlik fights on HBO. They bash other promoters & praise Arum like he's some stand up guy. Hermit must make a 100+ posts on here every day about Pavlik. Good thing he has no job like everybody else in Youngstown. **** seems ******ed to me.
hmmmmmm, ok still no proof. Threads do not count as proof either unless it is actual reported news or video of the said boxers. Votes actually do count- that is the point of a poll. Boxing opinion forum + boxing poll = the general boxing public's view on what would have happened. Its soooo funny, almost like saying a Baldomir/Margarito would beat Mayweather- no chance
Ran? He took the bigger money fight. Deny history? It's not like we are denying the holocaust here. All this is speculation. If you twist every little detail in your favor, you can make it sound almost factual, but that is 1) extremely subjective and 2) still not factual. Just the fact that half of your posts are: you are denying facts. denying history. all is factual and other stuff like that makes it even clearer that you don't have that much of a case. If you really did you could just say: i think Calzaghe (no, not slappy joe or whatever you feel clever by calling him) was trying to avoid a fight with Pavlik, because of this: ..., instead you throw out some bad nicknames, some THIS IS FACTS talk, and some interviews from here and there that really isn't proving anything. I am not a Calzaghe fan by any means, btw, i just feel you need to reason alot better if people are going to take any interest.