who can calzaghe fight to shut up the doubters?

And the same posters that are lumped into the Dawson bashers post-Johnson are the same ones that think see him as a better trophy than Pavlik? I don't see how the two groups are connected at all.

 

Well, maybe because since there were many posters claiming Dawson lost or was exposed, it's quite possible some of those are who he was talking about. YOu can't say there wasn't any hypocrisy any more then he can say there was. You wanted him to prove it, maybe you can prove your point that it was only a couple bad apples.

However, due to their size differential, it's normal to expect Dawson to be more difficult for Joe C then Pavlik. Doen't mean Pavlik can't beat Joe while Joe can beat Dawson. Or vice versa.

I don't know, arguing iover semantics is kinda dumb.

 

HE BROUGHT IT UP.

Based on styles, Dawson stands more of a chance to beat Joe than Pavlik. That was true before the Dawson-Johnson fight, and it's true now. Not very difficult to understand. How the Johnson fight even gets brought into the Calzaghe-Dawson-Pavlik discussion I have NO idea. pipe wrenched BROUGHT IT UP by commenting that it was funny that the SAME people upping Dawson as a bigger stylistic threat than Pavlik were the SAME people trashing Dawson after Johnson. HE INTRODUCED THAT NOTION into the arena of discussion...plucked fresh out of left field...the onis is ABSOLUTELY on him to prove it.

 

I saw that. But you can easily trump HIS proof, or lack there of, by supplying your own to offset what he claimed. But as PW said, it's a waste of time digging that up. For both of you.

 

So what you're saying is it ought never to have been introduced in the arena of discussion, is ruled a NC, inadmissable evidence in this thread, and an overall invalid point? Cool. :good

 

No, that's not what I was saying at all. Please don't paraphrase me. I'm not cryptic and I don't speak in riddles.

If you are so adamant on proof, don't be so gunshy to supply some yourself. That's what I was saying.:thumbsup

 

You just said that would be a waste of time.

And as I said, the burden of proof is on him as the person to bring this up. Unless you think it's a valid enough point to warrant investigation. Which, again, you negated by saying it wasn't worth it.

You just dug yourself a very, very deep hole, one that will be difficult if not impossible to climb out of.

 

It would be a waste of time. Did I just now contradict that somehow? :huh

Sure, the burden of proof might be his. But if he doesn't give it, it doesn't mean YOU were right. But who really cares. Point is, there were many slagging on Dawson after his fight w/ Johnson. How he needs to give Johnson a rematch. Now if YOU CLAIM it was completly different posters who said that, compared to what PW claimed some posters daid, maybe YOU Can provide the proof now. Burden is on you to prove what you said was right. Otherwise you didn't supply any more proof of anything then PW did.

Deep hole? :huh Guess that's relevent to how tall one is. :hey

 

Godzilla, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Wlad

Maybe, just maybe it'll work. :yep

 

All you've served to prove is that the whole argument (the Dawson-Johnson angle being connected to the Dawson-Calzaghe-Pavlik discussion) is useless without evidence either way. Furthermore, you've claimed that it is a waste of time, indicating that IYO the argument is not important enough to warrant the effort of searching for such evidence. Am I right so far?

So, essentially, may I infer (since I don't want to risk offending you with another paraphrasing :scaredas that it is your opinion that the Dawson-Johnson angle is irrelevant in a discussion as to whether Dawson or Pavlik is the bigger stylistic threat to Calzaghe?

 

The ship has sailed, he wasted his career and nothing he can do now can change that.

 

Well, it's as useless as you begging for proof I would guess. But the only thing more useless is you trying to keep this going. What's the point? :huh

You didn't prove any more about those posters then PW did just so you know.

But I'll answer your question. I don't give a **** about who's perceived as the BIGGER STYLISTIC threat since the discussions of styles is pretty pointless at this juncture. Size would be the ultimate deciding factor. And only can the discussion on stylse be relevent if Pavlik WAS A 175er as Dawson is.

Anything else is just opinion backed by opinion.

 

Right, so let's just throw the whole PW-initiated conversation out as it has no bearing on whether Dawson or Pavlik is the bigger challenge. Right? That's what I've been driving at the last few posts...was that somehow not obvious? I'm trying to get us past that by deeming the entire conversation, starting with PW's assertion that there was a connection - a huge waste of time.

What gets me is that you agree that Dawson is the bigger threat and more creditable win. So why are you backing up PW's ridiculous left-field bull****? Why have you even chosen to involve yourself in this waste of time?

What are you trying to prove?

 

You son of a *****.

Give me that hour back.