I dont think Ward is a top boxer. That doesnt mean not a top fighter.

Calzaghe biggest win is against a guy tooled by Jermain Taylor. His second biggest win is against a guy 5 years past knockout loses against Tarvar and Johnson. you're right, Ward must be jealous of Calzaghe's illustrious career filled with wins against pfp all time great fighters at the height of their careers.

 

bailey,

If anyone should be accused of trolling, it's you.

Some of the things you write are just too stupid to be taken seriously.

I'm still awaiting the evidence of the supposedly TERRIBLE low blow.

No. You were high on him, and you heavily criticise Andre for not facing him. You classed Bute as a top, undefeated fighter, and you use it as a stick to beat Andre with whenever someone creates a thread comparing Andre and Joe. You have constantly asked: "What top, undefeated fighters did Ward fight?"

Your posts are pitiful.

They're a joke.

Accusing other people of bias and having an agenda.

If either Eubank or Joe had demolished Bute in the way that Carl did, you'd have stained your pants and we'd never have heard the end of it.

The above would also have applied if either Joe or Eubank had easily beaten Froch whilst being injured.

Of course. I've no issue with that. But seeing as though you rate Kessler so highly, you've also got to give Froch credit for beating him. And if you won't, by noting that he was faded and injured, then that means you can't give Joe huge credit for beating Eubank, who was also faded and injured. It's double standards.

Maybe on the PS4 or the Xbox.

Kessler and Froch were on a similar level.

Again, if Joe or Eubank had beaten Froch, you would have classed it as a great win.

If Froch wasn't a top level boxer, then how did he:

Demolish Bute who you thought was a top boxer?

Beat Kessler?

Have a close fight with Andre? (You think it was close)


Basically: Froch is a top level fighter when it suits your agenda, but he isn't when it doesn't.

No. There is no: "job done"

You rate wins on where each guy was at the time of the fights.

You don't rate Joe's win over Eubank, based on Eubank's overall career accomplishments, you rate the win based on where he was at in 1997.

Danny Williams doesn't get huge credit for beating Mike Tyson. Because he didn't beat the versions of Mike who'd beaten: Tucker, Spinks, Holmes and Bruno etc, he beat the version who'd just beaten Etienne, and who would go on to lose to McBride.

Joe doesn't get credit for beating the versions of Roy who'd iced Hill and Griffin, he gets credit for beating the versions who'd beaten Hanshaw and Tito etc.

The above means that Joe also doesn't get credit for beating the versions of Eubank who'd beaten Benn and Watson etc. He only gets credit for beating the version who was coming off of 2 losses to Collins, and who went on to give great efforts against Carl Thompson.

If you want to give Joe huge credit for beating Eubank, you have to give credit to Andre for easily beating Carl with a fractured hand, who then went on to crush Bute and beat Kessler.

You cannot rate one win extremely highly, whilst dismissing the other one.

You either rate them both, or not at all.

The fact that you rate one, but not the other, just shows what a weak and biased poster you are.

I didn't understand the Foreman point.

Tell me again and I'll reply to it.

The above is the very definition of yourself.

Again, you don't rate Andre's win over Carl as he was faded, yet you rate Joe's win over Eubank highly, even though he was faded, injured, ill prepared, and he hadn't a win at the weight for 3 years. Yet you'll conveniently dismiss all that, just because he was ONCE a great fighter.

So: You're either completely biased, you're a troll yourself, or despite the knowledge that you claim to possess, you're actually clueless.

Which one is it?

 

And that's all you can respond with, because you are completely incapable of providing a proper answer to any of my points.

Tragic.

 

If your testicles are in the same place as where you think Sergey's were in that fight, then life must be very hard for you.

 

If the mods weren't as lenient, you'd have been gone back in 2010.

 

I don't where to start with this mess.

First of all, I only bring up Joe and Eubank, as examples to highlight your bias.

Since we've been members here, you have repeatedly told the forum how highly you rate Joe's win over Eubank. Yet you don't rate Andre's wins over Kessler or Froch, on the grounds that they were injured and faded. But when I or others point out that Eubank was also injured and faded, you completely dismiss those factors, only focusing on what Eubank did as a whole, and not where he was at the time of the fight. Again, it's double standards, double standards which accuse others of.

Eubank only had 2 debatable losses? He was lucky not to have gone into his fight with Joe with 5 losses on his resume. By his own admission he should have had 4 losses at that point.

I actually agree with your points regarding Carl's wins over Taylor and Pascal etc, but again, you only focus on what suits you at the time of writing.

The issue I have, is not that you rate Joe's win over Eubank highly. It's that you rate the win highly whilst completely dismissing Andre's win over Carl. Again, you cannot rate one highly whilst dismissing the other one, conveniently turning a blind eye to Eubank's circumstances, but then also going on to highlight Kessler's circumstances which were similar, when trying to devalue Andre's win over him. It's a joke.

If you rated both wins, then I would have no issue whatsoever.

Again, the issue is that you have the audacity to claim other members have got agendas, despite the fact that you clearly possess one yourself.

Andre wasn't aware of his hand injury and it didn't cause him any problems? Really?

http://www.espn.co.uk/boxing/story/_/id/7384318/andre-ward-had-broken-hand-win-carl-froch

 

No, I'm highlighting your bias, by using your favourite fighter as an example.

It's Simple, just like yourself.

Regarding the rest of your post, words fail me.

 

Great, except that to anybody with any understanding of the sport, not all of those blows were low.

 

Ha!

 

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?img...TWAhWMIsAKHZW5BR4QMwicAyhMMEw&iact=mrc&uact=8

 

You seriously think that Ottke has a better resume than Andre?

Please!

 

You did.

 

The ref didn't just wave it off you fool.

He'd seen enough.

Kovalev had nothing left.

How on earth is that akin to what happened with Bowe?

You need to be locked in a secure unit for your own well-being.