How would prime Calzaghe have done in THE SUPER SIX??

How is it desperation to agree with someone who picked up that you seem to want keyboard arguments? What you wrote there alone sounds more like desperation and maybe you feel that way after Todd exposed you for what comes across as trolling

What have I not refuted? You have jumped on to a comment to another poster.
You do seem to act as if your opinion on whats logical is the deciding factor and have said so much in you respect others opinions if they are logical. That says it all and you are either trolling or so self absorbed that you are oblivious to your own comments

He tied you up by showing you up with how you appear to think your opinion on logic is the deciding factor to debates

Why are you talking about someone else?
A sensible debate is a two way debate where points are noted and answered without a long essay of waffling. I have asked before for you to try and bullet point things more but you hide behind waffling and your opinion as a way out of doing that

Straight away, you have shown that they have to be in your agreement only.

Calzaghe upped and lowered his game, often to the level of his opposition and if he felt threatened.
Once again, I noted how Bradley/Provodnikov would be a tough battle which could go either way years before they fought. Provodnikov lost and people dissed the thread. Later when they fought it proved that the opinion wasnt illogical even though Provodnikov had lost to a boxer and Bradley was riding high. Other predictions have shown as

I dont know where people get this Hopkins/Ward similarities based on a bit of holding. I think Ward is more brawler than boxer whereas Hopkins I think more boxer. Calzaghe against Hopkins was end of career Calzaghe at a new weight and Ward in his last fight struggled against a jab

That is just your opinion. do you not understand that???

What excuses? I said it was a bit long to reply to on a phone. Im not on a phone now.
Still that comment indicates what Todd said about you liking computer arguments

Its not about sides. Its opinions as you put it and you respect the opinions of others dont you! Or do you not?
I agree that you are coming across as if trolling and as if you have the belief that your opinion decides over all what you think is logical.
remember how I have said to you before not to post saying what fighters were thinking? This is a similar thing where you think you are the decider on logic

 

I have said before that posts need to be shortened and wrongly I have engaged too much. I think he waffles to get the last word in rather than a sensible debate, which is what Todd said about liking keyboard arguments. I think I have been trolled by Loudon. Fair play to him. I was taken in hook line and sinker

 

Ludicrous.
Calzaghe wasnt concerned about Hopkins, was having his first title fight at LHW not SMW where the fight would be, had not adjusted to that weight, was at the end of his career, had badly damaged hands and Hopkins is a different style to Ward and Calzaghe handled Hopkins style.
Prime nervous Calzaghe would box and win in style in my opinion.

 

1. ward
2. froch
3. joe cal or mikkel kessler

 

Hiya mate, how's things?

I can't remember this thread.

I had no idea you and Bailey had messaged me. I must have been busy at the time.


Regarding the thread, I think it would have been an extremely hard fight for Andre. Just a horrible match up stylistically. But I think Joe would also have found it extremely tough.

Although I couldn't envisage Joe stopping him, I could definitely envisage him winning.

I would have liked to have seen Joe fight a guy like Andre Dirrell. He was my pick to win the Super Six. What a waste of talent. If he possessed more mental strength, he could have had a great career.

 

Why do you still persist with this nonsense?

Are you really that desperate?

Trying to make something out of nothing which has already been explained to you on numerous occasions?

Joe.Boxer's opinion on anything is beyond worthless. The man is a joke. He writes 5 paragraphs of hate fuelled nonsense, before disappearing for 6 months. He then comes back and does the exact same thing.

This is the very last time I'm going to explain it to you. I wrote out what Roy's thoughts were when he was interviewed in his camp whilst preparing to fight Montell Griffin in March of 1997. I then posted the actual link to the interview.

Now read this post again. Hopefully it will sink in.

 

An intelligent person who doesn't possess an agenda, knows what's logical and what isn't.

 

I have repeatedly said that Joe could have beaten Andre Ward.

I can envisage it.

What I said, was that it's illogical to say that Joe would have beaten him with absolute ease, like he was nothing. Guys like Todd think he'd have "mutilated" him.

So please enlighten me.

How is that a logical opinion?

It isn't.

It's a fantasy, because he hates Andre.

That's what he would have wanted to have happened.

Yes, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. But that opinion holds no water.

I could say that I think Amir Khan would have knocked out SRL and Hearns. And I would be entitled to make that opinion. But no knowledgeable poster on here would respect it. Because it wouldn't be logical.

Now it's a stone cold fact that Joe struggled with lesser fighters than Andre, some of whom who shared similarities with him.

As great as he was, Joe could not mutilate Reid, Kessler, Bika and Hopkins.

They were tough fights for him. Yet we're supposed to believe that he'd have just rocked up and smashed Andre up like he was some nobody? No.

It's completely unrealistic.

There's no evidence to support that theory.

If you can't see why that opinion is illogical, then you have some serious issues which need to be addressed.

 

he would have won.

 

bailey,

Serge didn't shut down anything. You only wish that he had.

He posted links and excerpts, and then I countered them with links, videos and book excerpts of my own.

It was a great thread, but it just fizzled out.

I will try and find it myself for you.

Yes, I did.

Again, I will try and find it.

Serge gave links where Eubank reminisced about his past, which included his fight with Joe.

I then posted links where he said that Ronnie Davies wouldn't have let him take the fight had he have been in his corner at the time. They were followed up by other links where he spoke of not being able to pivot properly due to his knees, and that he had no southpaw sparring, as well as being unable to do his usual roadwork routine.

I said he was somewhat faded.

As above.

I don't dismiss the win.

It was a great win for Joe. But I hate the fact that you dismiss all of Eubank's circumstances, whilst at the same time, you'll gladly highlight similar circumstances when discussing Kessler's career.

I don't know how you have the gall to accuse anyone else of being biased.

You told me last month that Andre only has a decent win over Froch because he was faded.

Yet you believe that Joe and Collins possess these great wins over Eubank and Benn.

When I call you out on it, all you can do is give me statistics. Yet if I did the same, it wouldn't wash. I could say that after losing easily to Andre, Carl blitzed Bute and then avenged the Kessler defeat, before going on and beating Groves. But no. Froch was faded. Yet somehow Benn wasn't? Again, even Benn admitted that he was faded.

You can't be taken seriously.

You are completely incapable of having an objective debate.

It's highly entertaining to see you desparately cling on to something that never happened.

Regarding Eubank's interview, if he thinks he could have fought for another 3 years after Joe, then I respect that. But the fact is, he didn't. And if he had've done, what level and what weight would it have been at? We don't know. But it doesn't alter the things that he'd said which I posted. What can't be disputed, is that he was somewhat faded after Watson, and he had very poor preparations going into his fight with Joe. Which means that you have to rate Joe's win after taking those two things into consideration.

 

bailey,

Ha!

Please.

This guy is heading down the road that Shockmaster was on when he obsessed over hating on GG.

I've already covered this.

It's illogical to say that Joe would have mutilated Ward.

Again, if you don't understand why, you've got issues.

No.

I've been a member for 5 years, and I'm still yet to see you have a sensible debate with anyone.

The above text is the very definition of waffling.

Joe upped and lowered his game?

Oh. Thanks for clearing that up.

He obviously just had 4 off nights against Reid, Kessler, Bika and Hopkins. I never realised.

It's never illogical to predict a tough battle based on styles. That's the point I'm making.

Now did Joe ever humiliate a guy with Andre's abilities who possessed any similarities? No.

It would be equally foolish for anyone to suggest that Andre would have humiliated Joe like he was nothing.

If I were to put forward that opinion, you would jump straight on me, asking how I could be so stupid, and demanding to know who Andre ever beat who was on Joe's level etc. Everyone knows that you'd react in that manner. And understandably so. Yet you've got an issue when it's vice versa? Why?

Again, an intelligent person can quickly decipher what is logical and what isn't.

I'm sorry if you are unable to do that.

 

It's bad enough that you've sided with a guy fuelled by hate, but you're now siding with a guy who has fantasies regarding men having sexual encounters with grizzly bears.

 

He wasn't concerned by Hopkins?

He hadn't adjusted to the weight?

You don't even want to debate.

 

Thanks for the info.

It's greatly appreciated.

You truly are a credit to the forum.

Keep up the good work.