OK, so if (when) Kessler beats them you will own up again. (and yes, let me make that clear - that if he doesn't of course I wil own up to it).shoutout2u wrote:your presumption that just because i underrrated calzaghe means i automatically rate ALL EUROS is A BIT OF A STRETCH, to say the least...if & when kessler proves to be able to "wipe the floor with tarver & taylor"or anyone of similar caliber, i will be glad to own up to my mistake...question is will you be able to own up to it if & when HE DOESNT?!?Deram wrote:So you admit you once again overestimated an american on behalf of a european while in fact the american was extrodinarily overrated.shoutout2u wrote:joe calzaghe proved that he is far better than i gave him credit far & clearly showed his best years are not behind him!!
his domination of lacy was comprehensive in every sense of the word & altho lacy may have been a bit overhyped, this takes nothing away from joe's sensational performance...
my only regret for joe is that time is not on his side & i hope he can make up for lost time by fighting the joneses, johnsons or tarvers that will get him the big bucks he deserves instead of wasting his time with the likes of kessler & the ridiculously mentioned markus beyer!!
the only thing that keeps me from being totally embarrassed is the fact that many brits expected him to lose to lacy as well (47% based on poll i posted last week). they say misery loves company, so i guess embarrassment does too!!
and then you continue doing the same with Kessler?
Have you learned NOTHING from this? As others will tell you too, Kessler would wipe the floor with Tarver, Taylor etc. Only serious opponent in 168-175 is indeed ... Calzaghe.
there are just as many "OTHERS" who would tell you that kessler is still unproven & overrated, so i am not alone in that!! kessler has never beaten anyone NEAR the caliber of chris eubank & one of the reason i underrated joe was because...to quote myself--"his best years are behind him" & i was wrong...he is still at the top of his game...
in vast contrast, kessler has feasted on the likes of lucas, siaca & other mediocre super middles & this is why MANY share my opinion that, while he may yet yet prove to be very good...he has done NOTHING to prove it so far!!!
However, wouldn't it be smarter - instead of owning up all the time - to look at the past and learn from it?
Let's take a few recent fights:
Wlad-Peter: I said Wlad was going to win by UD and I put quite a bit of money on it.
Calzaghe-Lacy: I said Calzaghe would win and probably by a wide UD, and again I puit money on it.
What was your prediction in those fights?
Now, let me tell you - Kessler is super skilled, and I an not really in doubt that he is the only one that could beat Calzaghe in the 168-175 divisions. I think your attitude is probably for lack of knowledge of Kessler. Therefore I suggest that you watch some fights of his - at least 4-5.
Good thing that you own up, but I think once you get those fights from Kessler, you will see that he is light years from a Beyer and Tarver/Johnson would really be hard pressed to bother him. Everything can happen and untill they have actually share the ring noone knows how the fight will end, but I'll be interested in hearing your oppinion once you see some more Kessler fights. People said that Calzaghe had never been tested and bla bla bla before the Lacy fight. I KNEW what I could SEE, namely that Calzaghe was soo much more skilled than Lacy that it would be difficult for Lacy to win. I know the same about Kessler.