Yes, but I wasn't the one saying a guy is great regardless of his resume, I wasn't declaring anything. My point is a guy has proven his quality by beating quality opponents, then he is proven quality. The other dude's point is you can still be quality if you showed quality no matter who you fight. He is the one claiming something can be stated with certainty with no proof of it, not me.
My point was that resume isnt the be all and end all. A guy with a **** resume can still beat a guy with a great one. I'm not arguing one way or the other
Calzaghe is really coming off like an *******. Pavlik was challening Calzaghe when Calzaghe and himself both DID NOT have opponents. And it was Calzaghe who kept saying Pavlik REALLY didn't wnat to fight him. And instead Calzaghe chose to fight someone he said would be pointless now. I've always like calzaghe, but he's been saying some flat out lies and bull**** in regards to Pavlik. Now he's coming off really bitter about him considering it was CALZAGHE who pretty much kept them from fighting. Maybe he's jealous of Pavlik's growing mainstream appeal.
he would probably beat pavlik, and it would prove nothing, so he is just talking **** now and hopes that will be enough not to have him questioned by anyone who cares to call out his legacy
Amazing isn't it?? Kelly was a viable opponent when is best win was Zuniga. Now, 2 years and 7 fights (6 KO's) later Kelly is nobody.
I've never seen a single shread of evidence to support Joe's claim that he offered Pavlik a fight in 2006. Joe fought Lacy in March and Bika in October. During roughly the same period Kelly was out of action for 9 months due to a hand injury, and then defended his NABF title against Bronco McKart. The time line just doesn't add up.