Who has the best Resume in SMW history?

You have been made to look silly where people have bumped old posts recently, as you fly the flag and get shown up, rather than just enjoy boxing as a sport

 

why do you project the way objective posters feel about you, rather than addressing the faults and becoming a better poster from it?

 

bailey,

The ring was one example.

Did you need the WBO back then to be the unified champ?

No.

It wasn't as prestigious as the other three back in the 90's.

I'm not arguing about it's history, and the big fights that it held.

All I'm telling you, is that it wasn't highly regarded.

What agenda?

It's a fact that you didn't need the WBO to be the unified champ back then.

So how could it have been held in the same regard?

You don't know who they are?

The two documentaries on Joe are still available on YouTube, and it shows exactly how he was perceived in the U.S. and the mindset that he had at the time.

You're trying to big up Joe's belt, because two legends had fought for it at some point.

But again, who was bothered about the actual belt for Leonard and Hearns?

People wanted to see the rematch, and they probably wouldn't have been bothered if no title was at stake.

Now they fought their rematch in 1989, and TEN YEARS LATER, it still wasn't needed to unify.

What does that tell you?

Ten years after two ATG's fought for it, it still wasn't needed.

That speaks volumes.


Stop making it out to be something it wasn't.

Joe won a vacant belt, beating a faded, underprepared Eubank at a weight he hadn't hit for a long time, and then he defended it against mainly substandard opposition for ten years.

How was a relatively unknown Calzaghe going to make the title, fighting the opposition he was fighting, in what was perceived to be a weak division?

You're missing the point.

If an established fighter wins a belt, who's popular with a big fan base etc, he can make the belt more popular over time.

But Joe wasn't established, nor did he have a big fan base.

Which meant that outside of Europe in the 90's, Joe wasn't making waves globally, by fighting the guys he was, even though he was a great fighter.

Joe could have fought every few months in the 90's, building a record of 40-0 etc, but it wouldn't have made him or the belt any popular in the U.S.

You need something more than skill to be recognised.

You need the opponents, the exposure, the fan base etc.

I doubt there was many U.S. fans clamouring for Joe to fight the likes of Roy back in the 90's/early00's, because they wouldn't have known much about him.

He only got global recognition after the Lacy fight.

Joe staying in Europe and continuously defending a belt that wasn't held in high regard, cost him bigger fight opportunities.

Because like it or not, for the big fights, you needed to impress the U.S.

They have the biggest promoters and networks etc.

In the end Hopkins wasn't interested.

Why would he have been?

Why would a MW, want to fight an unknown SMW?

He wasn't interested in back then, yet was happy to fight him after Lacy and Kessler.


Likewise, Roy wasn't interested enough to sign for a fight back then, yet was was happy to fight him after Lacy and Kessler.

Joe didn't appeal to those guys back then.

What was in it for them?

With Hopkins it was different, because Joe was part of a three fight deal.


But what would Roy have gained?

It wouldn't have been a mandatory defence for him.

There wouldn't have been huge money at stake.

Roy wouldn't have been interested in Joe's SMW title, because he'd already relinquished the one he'd won at the weight years earlier, and he was also the unified LHW champ of the world.

So you tell me?


No title, no money, and no recognition on offer, because Joe was unknown.

It was a complete non starter.

They were talks and nothing more.

Because again, he brought nothing to the table.

At least when Roy fought substandard mandatory opposition, it was for decent money, and he got to keep hold of his belts.

We know that Joe wouldn't fight for the amount of money that Roy's opposition was being paid, because he was earning decent money with Frank at home.

Therefore, the fight was never realistically going to happen.


Again, Joe was proud of his WBO belt, and his number of defences that he made.

But the more defences of it that he made, the less chance he had of fighting the likes of Roy.


Now I'm at a complete loss, as to why you can't see this.

Fighting the guys that he fought, in a different division, wasn't going to appeal to best fighter in the world.

 

Serge,

It's sad isn't it, but a lot of the blame as to be put at Riath's door also.

I don't know what relationship they had, and if Naz really looked up to him etc, but it was Riath who steered him away from Brendan.

We don't know if he was jealous of Naz's popularity etc, but he told him to cut Brendan out, to make more money.

But how much money did they want to make?

There's so many questions that I'd love to know the answers to.

Because I would have thought that Riath, their Dad Sal and all the rest of the family, would of held Brendan in such high regard, for what they'd done for him.

You would assume that they would have thought of Brendan as a hero, and they'd have had an enormous amount of respect for him.

This was a guy that took Naz all around the country when he was ten years old, and made him part of his own family.

Yes. It was the beginning of the end.

The ego had landed.

Ha! Like I say, I was screaming at the TV for that fight.

I'd watched Naz since I was 13/14, but I never wanted anyone to lose as much as I did him that night.

Yes, he showed no remorse at all, and he lost the respect of a lot of people from Sheffield.

I think he moved down south not long after, and he's still there now.

I just thought that was outrageous.

Ha!

It could be true, but having watched Naz for a long time, I'm wondering why he didn't mention it after the fight?

Btw, what do you think his best fight/performance was?

I always think that his win over Robinson was his best win.


Thanks.

 

Ha!

If me and bailey are still members on here in ten years, we'll debating the exact same points.

 

I live in hope
I think bailey has tried to move ahead, but I don't think he realizes how transparent his manipulation is

 

Why have I argued against what Roy has said?

I said that Roy was destroyed by Tarver and Johnson four years before he fought Joe.

He felt great for the Tarver rematch, when he re hired Mackie Shiltstone.

He also said he felt as though he was 27 years old after he'd beaten Tito.

He was up for the fight against Joe, and trained very hard.

Mentally, he was in great shape.

He thought he could beat Joe.

But the body and the mind are two very different things.

He hadn't got the reflexes, he didn't commit to throwing combinations, and he'd lost his punch resistance.

Only you and a handful of others see it as a great win for Joe, even ignoring what Joe had said about Roy before they fought.

 

I've not mentioned anything with regards to Kessler.

What has that got to do with me saying that in my opinion, Ward's best win was against Froch?

 

:good

 

bailey,

How can you write the above, when you have only taken into account their SMW resumes, and NOTHING else?

If that's not having an agenda, I don't know what is.

You haven't taken into account what Eubank had done just prior to facing Collins, the manner of Collins' victory, what he went on to do after etc.

Roy beat Toney easily and Collins had a SD against Eubank, but you think Collins had a better win than Roy, just because Eubank had a better SMW resume than Toney.

Nothing else seems to matter.

I haven't ducked anything.

I think Toney was better overall, based on his attributes as a fighter.

But you analyse a resume more than you do a fighters defence and footwork etc.

You try and win every debate based on stats.

I never purposely avoid any questions.

If you remember what it was, I'll answer it.

I used a fantasy fight between Chad and Joe as an example to prove a point. Which was, that in a fantasy fight, you'd analyse Joe's whole career, and not just what he'd done or hadn't done at LHW, when offering your opinion on the outcome.

Let's get this straight, Joe beat a near 40 year old Roy Jones, and the win was no better than Tarver's, Johnson's and Green's win over him.

He also scraped past Hopkins.

Are you telling me that his debated win against Hopkins was better than Chad's?

No, you just try to set me up.

I say that I think Toney was a better overall fighter than Eubank, and Roy beat him easily, therefore I believe that Roy's win over him, was better than Collins' SD win over Eubank.

Then you reply, by asking who had the better resume at the weight.

As soon as I agree that it was Eubank, it's case closed.

Because Eubank had a better resume at SMW, you won't take anything else into account.

Which is why I keep asking you hypothetical questions.

Which you won't answer, on the grounds that the hypothetical scenario obviously didn't happen.

Ha! So we're just going around in circles.


But even though Eubank has a better SMW resume to Toney, that doesn't prove that Eubank was the better fighter, and that Collins' win was better than Roy's.

No, you don't take all factors into account.

There's no point debating this with you.

McCallum, Nunn and Reggie were all close fights, but they were world class opposition.

Any guy who could beat those guys, was world class.

Styles make fights.

The Barkley win was a good win. It was a great performance, picking him off with beautiful boxing.

You don't think beating Sosa and knocking out Littles were deemed as good?

Roch was a good fighter, but I don't hold the Nunn win in high esteem, because Nunn was past his best at that point.

Roch didn't fight the guy who Toney had fought.

Eubank beat Benn, and got a draw, which he's admitted should have gone to Benn.

But just because Eubank beat Benn, who'd beaten Barkley, it doesn't mean that Toney's win against Barkley wasn't good.

It doesn't work like that.


Triangle theories aren't an objective way to rate a win.

Eubank beat Roch, who'd beaten Nunn, who Toney had struggled with.

But that's an extremely poor example, for obvious reasons.

Plus those examples were at different weights, at different times, which are factors that I haven't been allowed to use in this debate.

I'm not trying to use any magazine.

Toney was highly regarded throughout the whole of the boxing world, as being one of the best fighters in the world at the time.

That's because he'd beaten world class fighters.

You can't even give a straight answer to my question.


Again, do you think that Toney was unfairly regarded as one of the best fighters in the world when he fought Roy?


When discussing Joe's fight with Roy, you like to point out that Roy was rated in the top ten at LHW.

You've also mentioned Joe being a two weight champ in the past, and I bet you had no issue when Joe was regarded by the boxing world as being one of the best fighters in the world.


Like I say, you only debate on your terms.

 

bailey,

How does it blow my opinion out of the water?

When has Bernard ever had weight issues?

He had to hire Mackie Shilstone to build him up to go to LHW.

There's no evidence that the Taylor defeats were down to him struggling with wright.

Why would he have dropped back down to MW, when he'd achieved everything he could at the weight and he'd built himself up fight at LHW?

Of course he called fighters up for catchweights.

He wasn't going to go down, just for the odd fight.

There would have been no point in that.

:good

No, that just shows how dedicated he was, it was nothing to do with weight.

:good

It's relevant to this debate.

In your opinion, you think that Taylor caught him at the right time.

Which you're entitled to.

But again, there's no evidence whatsoever that he struggled to make weight, and the DiBella lawsuit gave him huge motivation.

So I don't see how he caught him at the right time, apart from his obvious age.

?

Why would he have stayed after those two defeats?

His reign was over, and there was nothing else to achieve.

And the fact that Bernard was 41, and Taylor was 26/27.

You can't compare score cards from different judges, for different fights, at different weights, at different times.

Joe's fight against Hopkins was truly awful, and nobody deserved to win.

What did Joe land on Hopkins?

It was quality over quantity in my opinion, and I think a draw would have been fair.

Although I'm glad it wasn't a draw, because nobody wanted to see that again.

Hopkins was exhausted, because he was 43, and he couldn't and still can't fight guys at a high pace.

Joe had great volume as well as speed, and he's always had problems with that.


Are you telling me that you think Joe's win over Bernard, was better than Taylor's win over him?

 

The Cowardzaghe method to beating a legend.

wait till he gets beat the **** out of (jones vs tarver.) then wait FOUR YEARS have passed and hes much much worse.

Its the equivalent of if Larry Holmes had watched trev berbick pound out ali, and then FOUR YEARS LATER smacked Ali's 43 year old diseased hospitalised parkinsons ridden ass.

But to add to that Calzaghe would then showboat and ridicule the poor guy.

 

you have an agenda, and you're also transparent.
if you want to be credible, take your heart out of it