WHAT ABOUT TARVER.....Calzaghe is a fraud!

Well, ****, I guess that meant Ivan Drago was in line to fight for the heavy title after Rocky as well eh? Mr T? Where was his shot?

How many fights has Calzaghe had there? One?
And he beat Hopkins, who beat what was that guys name again....Wright? No, not that guy, the other one.....

I don't think it is a legit belt to be honest. I hope you had that opinion when it was the only belt Tarver had, you know, when he fought Johnson. Or was it different then????

 

ha ha ha ha nice

Pavlik and Dawson are the far bigger challenges anyway

 

Ouch.

 

Its already been said but it bears saying again.

**** Tarver.

 

He might have not enough people on his record but his skills in the ring can't be denied, who was able to make Hopkins look confused apart from Roy Jones?, who expected him to smash Lacy the way he did?, who thinks Pavlik will KO him but will be set to watch a very similar Lacy fight?
The man deserves respect.

 

Tarver vs Joe would be a really good fight. Tarver and Pavlik are the two i would most like Joe to face

 

You brits are funny. The same ones saying Joe C. shouldn't fight Tarver because he doesn't have a name, are the same ones who get mad at Floyd when he says Cotto doesn't have a name.

Tarver is the top LHW folks

 

brits say that? or are you just talking out your arse? cotto-floyd is very much an american and PR thing, don't see too many brits getting caught up in those flame wars.

oh and calzaghe just beat the man who beat the man, milkdud is in that chain somewhere isn't he?

 

look at the post that i quoted..he stated that tarver was not a name unless you missed that. You know mr. T and ivan drago so that means tarver is a name

so..its like fighter A beats fighter B so that does mean he is better than fighter C who was beaten by fighter C. Styles makes fights, tarver beat jones twice who also beat hopkins, does it mean that tarver also beats hopkins? Wrong/failed logic.

you already said it was not a legit belt means you agree, no i don't have that opinion for the ring belt as a legit belt in any point of time.:hi:

 

So what? Boxing doesn't have the commutative property. Hopkins beating Tarver doesn't mean Calzaghe beats Tarver. Joe is doing a nice job of having the Euros buy into his "greatness" but he fails in my view. He isn't the LHW champ and he hasn't fought good competition in the SMW division.

If he wants to try to make him legacy mean something, I see no reason not to fight a peer, someone his own age, who has actually accomplished something in his career. If he wants to say he is something at LHW the guy has to fight, Dawson, Johnson, Jones, or Tarver

 

accusing Calzaghe of avoiding tough fighters by using Tarver as an example makes you quite possibly the most ******ed poster esb.....ever

 

i really don't agree with this kind of logic, its kind of a chain thing but the lowest part of the chain could have beaten the highest part of the chain

for example hearns lose to barkley, then barkley lose to duran, but hearns won against duran..

jones lose to tarver, tarver lose to hopkins, but jones won against hopkins

 

I'm not a brit.

Tarver is the top LHW based on exactly what?

Beating Clinton Woods? Or Muqiri or whatever the **** he was called?
I thought he lost recently to Hopkins too, but that's just me.

If you'd said Tarver was one of the better LHW's, I would have agreed. But the best? Be realistic. He's old, and always been near or at the top, but in a 'win one, lose one' kind of fashion. He's never ever dominated the division.

According to another poster here Sylvester Stallone is not far off a heavyweight title shot because everybody has heard of him.

Oh, and for a second time.

**** Tarver.

 

If A beats B,
and B beats C,
this doesn't always mean that A will beat C.

Brendan Ingle classic quote.

Timothy Bradley beats Junior Witter (fact)
Timothy Bradley loses to Ricky Hatton (probably)
Ricky Hatton loses to Junior Witter (don't think so - never have either)

 

perhaps to you, but i've seen a lot of his movies and he was known to me at least.

I also think tarver loses to calzaghe but at the end of the day ITS JUST OUR OPINION.. So what happens if calzaghe retires? It doesn't surely say he beated tarver because we think he beats him.. its the same thing as oh he'd beat ottke anyway, oh he'd beat pavlik anyway.

Its the same as floyd fans, saying so what he'd beat cotto anyway, margo looks slow not in the level of floyd he'd beat margo anyway. PW got outboxed by quintana, floyd would beat him anyway.

Its about proving things..