touch and go. calzaghe rarely stepped up to level of griff. gotta be montell since he has the better form at lhw.
There is no basis in this argument. Montell was an excellent counter puncher and had very long arms for his height. Calzaghe could outwork him, but as much as he throws and the fact that he throws arm punches Montell would land the cleaner shots. Fight is 50/50 but I'd say Griffin as it is his natural division from amateurs through professional. My decision isn't a knock on Calzaghe either, but Montell from 95-98 beats him
Hey Loudon, tell me other than a DQ win, what are Griffins big LHW wins.....?......Joke Though Loudon I did see you trying to argue by using stats recently, which you dont like others doing. I was quite shocked
Ha! There's nothing wrong with using stats, if it's done in the right way, allowing for all circumstances. You don't work in that way though.
You see its double standards Loudon. Your opinions are not facts Loudon. This has been explained to you by several posters now
There are no double standards. Facts are facts, and my opinions are always based on logic. There's nothing wrong with listing statistics. A site like Boxrec is a great tool. It's great for looking at a fighters weight, height, reach, record, and the date of the fights etc. But you use it an a certain way. You'll spin the stats to criticise a guy like Ward, and to hype a guy like Mario Veit. You'll try and spin the stats to make the SMW division of the late 90's, appear as though it was a great, strong, thriving division. You told me a few weeks ago that if Joe had've beaten Thomas Tate instead of Tocker Pudwell, it would have been a relevant win, on the basis that Tate was ranked in the top ten. Those are the kind of stats that you try and spin. But in the real world, it doesn't matter that Andre Ward has never beaten a top, undefeated fighter. Mario Veit was not a great fighter. The fact that a past his best, end of career, 37 year old former MW was ranked in the top ten at SMW, just highlights how weak the division was at the time. Just yesterday, you said that Joe would have beaten Ward and Dirrell, without a doubt. Your opinion was based on the following stats: Ward - has never beaten any top, undefeated fighters. Dirrell - has done nothing since the Super Six. That's how you debate. You don't look at Ward and Dirrell's speed and skills, and the clash of styles etc. You just look on boxrec, and then it's a foregone conclusion. That's how you always debate.
