No Way Would Pac Beat Calzaghe If They Were the Same Size!!

hooligan · Dec 5, 2008

i'll pick someone who knows how to punch over someone who just slaps and doesnt even have a power punch....pac all day everyday over joe...

owell · Dec 5, 2008

DINAMITA is right...

Given the same attributes at theoretically the same weight, Pacman would plow into JC's slaps ala Margarito-Coto...

BadJuju83 · Dec 5, 2008

This thread needs deleted quick.

Blowing up a fighter decreasing his main strengths or shrinking a fighter which would increase his main strenghts but still coming coming up with Pac by KO. Great Stuff.

Pac Is the best P4P boxer on the planet. Leave it at that.

charlievint · Dec 5, 2008

Calzaghe #1 said: ↑

Just becasue the great hope in pavlik was systematically destroyed by BHOP you assume he would have beaten joe, the fact is BHOP knew he couldnt beat joe by boxing him so resorted to holding and making it ugly.
Your assumption that BHOP lifted his skills and performance for Pavlik is ludicrous.
What you should ask your self is was pavlik any good in the first place? JOe didnt think so and was proved right.
BHOP is clever he fought the only way he thought could nick a decision against calzaghe.
This rather tired assumption that the BHOP who fought Pavlik was somehow far better than against joe is very short sighted and very biased.
Hopkins made it a terrible fight to watch, but i give him some credit for respecting how good calzaghe is.
Click to expand...

:rofl Sure....B/c Joe is so much better than Hop at boxing! Classic....No way around it...Nard lost to Joe, but it was a close fight. Nard didn't look like he did with PAV...now that is also attributed to JOE! Joe is a very technical and intelligent fighter...one that Nard had to play chess with. But the fact of the matter still remains that Nard wasn't in his prime at 43 and he still made it a competitive fight against one of boxings best.

I do assume Nard would have beaten Joe had Nard faught like he did with PAV...I also assume that Nard would have beaten Joe in his prime. Given the preformance both men put on it's nothing but common sense. of course the unexpected could always happen but in boxing using logic normally puts you in a good position when making a prediction. logic points me in the direction of Nard beating Joe.

And it's not short sighted to say that the way Nard faught Joe and the way he faught PAV would have suggested a different outcome.....it's common sense...but like I said and like you said Nard felt the need to fight differently or use a different tatic to comabt with JOE. that is a compliment.

DINAMITA · Dec 5, 2008

owell said: ↑

DINAMITA is right...

Given the same attributes at theoretically the same weight, Pacman would plow into JC's slaps ala Margarito-Coto...
Click to expand...

I didn't say anthing like that! You can't agree with something I never said! I have not, never have and never will say who would win such a fight because it is illogical, impossible and pointless! If Pac was 12 1/2st or Calzaghe was 135lbs, they would be completely different, so this cannot be done, so I will never offer an opinion on who would win such a nonsense!

DINAMITA · Dec 5, 2008

BadJuju83 said: ↑

This thread needs deleted quick.

Blowing up a fighter decreasing his main strengths or shrinking a fighter which would increase his main strenghts but still coming coming up with Pac by KO. Great Stuff.

Pac Is the best P4P boxer on the planet. Leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Were you referring to me there? I repeat:

I didn't say anthing like that! That guy was agreeing with something I never said! I have not, never have and never will say who would win such a fight because it is illogical, impossible and pointless! If Pac was 12 1/2st or Calzaghe was 135lbs, they would be completely different, so this cannot be done, so I will never offer an opinion on who would win such a nonsense!

BadJuju83 · Dec 5, 2008

DINAMITA said: ↑

Were you referring to me there? I repeat:

I didn't say anthing like that! That guy was agreeing with something I never said! I have not, never have and never will say who would win such a fight because it is illogical, impossible and pointless! If Pac was 12 1/2st or Calzaghe was 135lbs, they would be completely different, so this cannot be done, so I will never offer an opinion on who would win such a nonsense!
Click to expand...

Chill mate, I'd quote if i was directing to you. It was directed to those taking part in the shrinking and blowing fighters up fiasco. I know your stance on P4P, it's the same as mine, i posted a definition on page 1.

borj · Dec 5, 2008

im not saying you're wrong

don't compare fighters based on what you think their skills are, base it on ring accomplishment

comparing boxing skills that are SUBJECTIVE are useless (because you never know all of the factors that make a fighter win). That's not how boxing works, boxing skills are worth nothing if it does not translate to ring accomplishment.

Otherwise, if boxing works that way, just rate every boxer and give the biggest purse to the one with "subjectively" best skills and we don't have to do the fights.

you're saying that pac is one dimensional, how do you know that? well, i don't know either but the fact that he beats people who are multidimensional makes me think that pac may not be really one dimensional.

tays001 · Dec 5, 2008

DINAMITA said: ↑

Yes, that was your original post alright - and it was wrong then and it's still wrong now. You really would do yourself some credit to admit you were wrong now, since it has been drummed into you and your rubbish attempts at debating the matter have fallen flat, as now you have the appearance of a stubborn child who refuses to acknowledge their amateurish error.

Your post on Robinson shows that you believe pound-for-pound means a subjective opinion on the skills that a fighter has.

I mean - are you actually ****ing serious?! Mate, I'm embarrassed for you to be honest. At first this was just a lack of knowledge on your part, but after all your "go off and die" nonsense, I'm not even sugar-coating it. You're a ****ing ******.

Do you seriously think that when deciding upon The Ring's pound-for-pound list, everyone involved meets up, gets round the table, and discusses in-ring skills only??

Of course they don't. Think how ****ing stupid that is, and how incredibly subjective. They could never agree on a ranking that way.

If that was the way they decided it, then a novice boxer who looked sensational hammering in tomato cans on the way up could conceivably be thought of as the world's pound-for-pound no.1 on the basis of the perception of his skills - of course it isn't purely about what you call:

"talent ,ring generalship,adaptability,skill set and style"

You cannot, absolutely cannot, take a heavyweight fighter in isolation, disregard his weight, rate these fighting qualities, and then compare him against a flyweight - the qualities and skills required by that division and the qualities and skills that it is possible for men of this size to have cannot be fairly or accurately compared in this way.

If you bother to actually read and think about the definition regarding Robinson, you may begin to understand:

Hence, Robinson was called the pound-for-pound best without being expected to beat much larger fighters, under the belief that he as a Middleweight was still a better quality fighter than any fighter fighting at heavier or lighter weights than him.

He was better "as a middleweight". That is how they decided he was the world pound-for-pound number 1, purely because of how good he was "as a middleweight". Are you still with me? Good.

Now, how did they know how good he was as a middleweight? They knew he was so good as a middleweight because he had fought at that weight for a substantial period of time, and had beaten the best fighters available at that weight, and was thus accepted to be better at his own fighting weight than any other fighter at any other weight in the world.

Pound-for-pound is NOT a group of people sitting around talking about fighting attributes, it is decided upon by considering how a fighter has proved how good he is at his fighting weight by taking on the best competition, beating them, performing well in doing so, achieving things like winning titles, going on undefeated streaks - in short, proving he is significantly better than all of the fighters that he is in direct competition with.

Proving is the key word. Pacquiao has proved he is a better superfeather/light fighter than Audley Harrison is a heavyweight NOT because we think he has better hand speed, better composite punching, a better chin, better reflexes etc etc etc - this is subjective opinion about attributes that cannot be compared because the qualities required by Pacquiao and Harrison are entirely different.

Pacquiao has proved he is pound-for-pound the better fighter by beating better fighters, performing better in doing so, by winning more world titles, by winning more world titles in more different weight divisions, by recently producing better wins.

This is how pound-for-pound is decided, not speculating over attributes, or discussing who is better in terms of:

"talent ,ring generalship,adaptability,skill set and style"

No, that's not correct. Perception of attributes do come into your thinking when deciding on pound-for-pound, but only in how a fighter has shown his attributes in fights at his own weight class, they are not compared directly to those of another fighter from a different weight class, and they are not the main area under consideration as you suggest - there is no comparison, it's all about how good each fighter has proven to be at his own weight, his recent form, his current status, his achievements.

Right now, Pacquiao is the world pound-for-pound number 1 because he has a slight edge on Calzaghe in beating and performing well against quality fighters over the last few years. Pac beat the world p4p#2 and won a world title at a 5th weight division with a KO and a beautiful performance in his last 2 fights. Calzaghe sneaked a decision over Hopkins purely on account of superior workrate v a 43-year-old, Calzaghe did NOT perform well by any stretch of the imagination, and then he took the easiest option available by humbling a legend who has been shot to **** for years - a sorry sham of a fight that should have impressed no-one.

In all-time terms, Pacquiao will rank above Calzaghe because (a) he has a better resume, (b) he has won more world titles, (c) he has won more world titles in more weight divisions, (d) he is the first man in history to win world titles at flyweight and lightweight - this is a remarkable achievement, one that Calzaghe has absolutely nothing to match (a 9-year WBO title reign fought out almost exclusively in Wales ).

Don't "go off and die" though, go off and think, and then come back and apologize for being an arrogant, dismissive dick who was wrong.
Click to expand...

half a page of bull**** you know ****

djtech2k8 · Dec 5, 2008

Why in hell would any person even discuss something like Calzaghe vs Pacman? It makes no sense. This is a stupid thread.

tays001 · Dec 5, 2008

DINAMITA said: ↑

Yes, that was your original post alright - and it was wrong then and it's still wrong now. You really would do yourself some credit to admit you were wrong now, since it has been drummed into you and your rubbish attempts at debating the matter have fallen flat, as now you have the appearance of a stubborn child who refuses to acknowledge their amateurish error.

Your post on Robinson shows that you believe pound-for-pound means a subjective opinion on the skills that a fighter has.

I mean - are you actually ****ing serious?! Mate, I'm embarrassed for you to be honest. At first this was just a lack of knowledge on your part, but after all your "go off and die" nonsense, I'm not even sugar-coating it. You're a ****ing ******.

Do you seriously think that when deciding upon The Ring's pound-for-pound list, everyone involved meets up, gets round the table, and discusses in-ring skills only??

Of course they don't. Think how ****ing stupid that is, and how incredibly subjective. They could never agree on a ranking that way.

If that was the way they decided it, then a novice boxer who looked sensational hammering in tomato cans on the way up could conceivably be thought of as the world's pound-for-pound no.1 on the basis of the perception of his skills - of course it isn't purely about what you call:

"talent ,ring generalship,adaptability,skill set and style"

You cannot, absolutely cannot, take a heavyweight fighter in isolation, disregard his weight, rate these fighting qualities, and then compare him against a flyweight - the qualities and skills required by that division and the qualities and skills that it is possible for men of this size to have cannot be fairly or accurately compared in this way.

If you bother to actually read and think about the definition regarding Robinson, you may begin to understand:

Hence, Robinson was called the pound-for-pound best without being expected to beat much larger fighters, under the belief that he as a Middleweight was still a better quality fighter than any fighter fighting at heavier or lighter weights than him.

He was better "as a middleweight". That is how they decided he was the world pound-for-pound number 1, purely because of how good he was "as a middleweight". Are you still with me? Good.

Now, how did they know how good he was as a middleweight? They knew he was so good as a middleweight because he had fought at that weight for a substantial period of time, and had beaten the best fighters available at that weight, and was thus accepted to be better at his own fighting weight than any other fighter at any other weight in the world.

Pound-for-pound is NOT a group of people sitting around talking about fighting attributes, it is decided upon by considering how a fighter has proved how good he is at his fighting weight by taking on the best competition, beating them, performing well in doing so, achieving things like winning titles, going on undefeated streaks - in short, proving he is significantly better than all of the fighters that he is in direct competition with.

Proving is the key word. Pacquiao has proved he is a better superfeather/light fighter than Audley Harrison is a heavyweight NOT because we think he has better hand speed, better composite punching, a better chin, better reflexes etc etc etc - this is subjective opinion about attributes that cannot be compared because the qualities required by Pacquiao and Harrison are entirely different.

Pacquiao has proved he is pound-for-pound the better fighter by beating better fighters, performing better in doing so, by winning more world titles, by winning more world titles in more different weight divisions, by recently producing better wins.

This is how pound-for-pound is decided, not speculating over attributes, or discussing who is better in terms of:

"talent ,ring generalship,adaptability,skill set and style"

No, that's not correct. Perception of attributes do come into your thinking when deciding on pound-for-pound, but only in how a fighter has shown his attributes in fights at his own weight class, they are not compared directly to those of another fighter from a different weight class, and they are not the main area under consideration as you suggest - there is no comparison, it's all about how good each fighter has proven to be at his own weight, his recent form, his current status, his achievements.

Right now, Pacquiao is the world pound-for-pound number 1 because he has a slight edge on Calzaghe in beating and performing well against quality fighters over the last few years. Pac beat the world p4p#2 and won a world title at a 5th weight division with a KO and a beautiful performance in his last 2 fights. Calzaghe sneaked a decision over Hopkins purely on account of superior workrate v a 43-year-old, Calzaghe did NOT perform well by any stretch of the imagination, and then he took the easiest option available by humbling a legend who has been shot to **** for years - a sorry sham of a fight that should have impressed no-one.

In all-time terms, Pacquiao will rank above Calzaghe because (a) he has a better resume, (b) he has won more world titles, (c) he has won more world titles in more weight divisions, (d) he is the first man in history to win world titles at flyweight and lightweight - this is a remarkable achievement, one that Calzaghe has absolutely nothing to match (a 9-year WBO title reign fought out almost exclusively in Wales ).

Don't "go off and die" though, go off and think, and then come back and apologize for being an arrogant, dismissive dick who was wrong.
Click to expand...

ok you ******ed ass stupid ball sucking scott. never once said who would win never once said this **** was right . b ut you deffinition of p4p is ****ed. it right in front of you the actuall meaning.

explianing it to you has been like explianing rocket science to a blonde.

go to a golf forum and stay the **** out of ESB.

this would probally increase your credibilt as a poster if you just stoped posting all together

BADINTENTIONS2 · Dec 5, 2008

southpaw1974 said: ↑

Hey Guys,

Why the hell are people labelling Pac #1 P4P when anyone with an educated eye knows goddamn well that if they were the same size, Calzaghe would beat him?
Click to expand...

unless this is a **** take i have to laugh when british posters compare a fighter who has never fought a world class prime fighter to a fighter who has fought and 'beaten' the 3 great modern mexican greats.

Sheehan · Dec 5, 2008

proevoyoda said: ↑

IM a BRIT....and no WAY CALZAGHE BEATS PACMAN!!!

O'rly??

heres WHY....

Its easy look great when you fight over the Hill guys etc JONES HOPKINS (he looked **** against)

jones one of the greatest ever and he did he did look good beating him, hopkins just ruled pavlik with ease..who have morales and barrera beat of note lately?

Calzaghe has never performed at the level Pacman has performed on.

ladies and gentlemen of the jury exzibit calzaghe vs lacy

Calzaghe fought at HOME 99% of the time.

not even gonna dignify that bollocks.

Pacman beat his his guys and KOS them, Calzaghe gets Knocked down by guys who cant even punch anymore.

so what ****ing what? its not all about ko power, getting by without it is more impressive to me.

....Pacman has shown and proved he can beat current P4P fighters.... and fight them in his prime..

calzaghe whooped hopkins who whooped pavlik

He has never been protected like Joe. Manny Kos his past prime Legends...Calzaghe cant even knock them down.!!!

as I stated -doesn't deserve dignification

Please dont compare Calzaghe, he the most masterfully created illusion ever! 20 defences of the bogus WBO against not one P4P guy
Click to expand...

....

VARG · Dec 5, 2008

charlievint said: ↑

:rofl Sure....B/c Joe is so much better than Hop at boxing! Classic....No way around it...Nard lost to Joe, but it was a close fight. Nard didn't look like he did with PAV...now that is also attributed to JOE! Joe is a very technical and intelligent fighter...one that Nard had to play chess with. But the fact of the matter still remains that Nard wasn't in his prime at 43 and he still made it a competitive fight against one of boxings best.

I do assume Nard would have beaten Joe had Nard faught like he did with PAV...I also assume that Nard would have beaten Joe in his prime. Given the preformance both men put on it's nothing but common sense. of course the unexpected could always happen but in boxing using logic normally puts you in a good position when making a prediction. logic points me in the direction of Nard beating Joe.

And it's not short sighted to say that the way Nard faught Joe and the way he faught PAV would have suggested a different outcome.....it's common sense...but like I said and like you said Nard felt the need to fight differently or use a different tatic to comabt with JOE. that is a compliment.
Click to expand...

Nard fought differently because he was trained by Roach...

When Nazim was back in his corner...the magic was back...

I believe if the greatest tacticians (B-Hop and Nazim) were to study and train for Calz...he would've been down and out within 10...or at least a points victory

VARG · Dec 5, 2008

tays001 said: ↑

ok you ******ed ass stupid ball sucking scott. never once said who would win never once said this **** was right . b ut you deffinition of p4p is ****ed. it right in front of you the actuall meaning.

explianing it to you has been like explianing rocket science to a blonde.

go to a golf forum and stay the **** out of ESB.

this would probally increase your credibilt as a poster if you just stoped posting all together
Click to expand...

I must admit that i was bored enough to read through this entire thread and only be concluded that you ARE IN FACT an ******* :hi:

He owned you in more ways than one and yet you sit there with this horse**** of a response and call yourself a credible poster...

You're SRR post of what p4p is was already included in Dinamita's original long ass post that explained that whole thing...

Had you took the time to read his post you might not look like sucha dick...

To disagree with HIS post would suggest that you disagree WITH YOUR OWN! :-(

Its okay though...keeping hitting the pipe :rasta It does wonders for your logic

Log in or Sign up

No Way Would Pac Beat Calzaghe If They Were the Same Size!!

hooligan Millionaire Bum Full Member

owell Active Member Full Member

BadJuju83 Bolivian Full Member

charlievint Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

DINAMITA Guest

DINAMITA Guest

BadJuju83 Bolivian Full Member

borj the Pacific Storm Full Member

tays001 ESB ELITE SQUAD Full Member

djtech2k8 Member Full Member

tays001 ESB ELITE SQUAD Full Member

BADINTENTIONS2 Boxing Junkie Full Member

Sheehan Guest

VARG Boxing Junkie Full Member

VARG Boxing Junkie Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

No Way Would Pac Beat Calzaghe If They Were the Same Size!!

hooligan Millionaire Bum Full Member

owell Active Member Full Member

BadJuju83 Bolivian Full Member

charlievint Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

DINAMITA Guest

DINAMITA Guest

BadJuju83 Bolivian Full Member

borj the Pacific Storm Full Member

tays001 ESB ELITE SQUAD Full Member

djtech2k8 Member Full Member

tays001 ESB ELITE SQUAD Full Member

BADINTENTIONS2 Boxing Junkie Full Member

Sheehan Guest

VARG Boxing Junkie Full Member

VARG Boxing Junkie Full Member