Your opinion of Joe Calzaghe's willingness to fight the best

[lvlarc]

I'm sorry, but Kessler's win over Beyer, good as it was, is not as significant as Calzaghe's win over Lacy. Not that I'm trying to defend Calzaghe, because I'm fed up with him. But Lacy was a young Champ on the way up, coming off some good KO wins, and he was expected to beat Calzaghe. Beyer was on his way out, and next to no-one gave him a chance against Kessler.

Pundit has a thing for Germans

[pundit]

a discussion you started to sell the middleweight Taylor as a great opponent in anticipation of Calzaghe's expected ducking of Kessler.

Wrong, I think Taylor's resume speaks for itself

Well, this thread suggests strongly that you believe the opposite -- the resumee of the 160 fighter Taylor needs a lot of massaging to sell him as Calzahge's instead-of-Kessler opponent at 168.

Mate, if you're not on Sports Network's payroll already you should ask whether they wouldn't pay you a few bucks for your hard work.

[Taki...]

Well the one huge difference between Lacy and Beyer is that Jeff Lacy came to win. Lacy was confident of victory going in and when he was close to being stopped he had the heart and pride to continue on. The only significant similarity was that both fights were unifications where the younger man was favoured to win.
Kessler's win over Mundine is more impressive than beating Beyer, but only because Mundine wasn't over the hill and was actually looking to win the fight. Tony Mundine, unlike Jeff Lacy, had been exposed in the past and has never really had what it takes to mix with in the highest class at 168. Remember, beating the limited Green proves a lit less than losing to the limited Siaca.

[lvlarc]

Why because I had a debate with Vic about his absurd claim that top 5 is "absolute bullshit" Apples n garage doors n all

If anyone is on a payroll it's Danish bacon loving Pundit. Just count how many threads you have started about Kess. One might think that you are Kessler himself Now go and make another.

[pundit]

Well the one huge difference between Lacy and Beyer is that Jeff Lacy came to win.

And in 2007 Easter and Christmas are on the same day, as the easter bunny and Santa Claus have decided to team up

And now, folks, I'll leave you alone here -- otherwise you'd use me again as an excuse for your deeply emotional obsession with Joe Calzaghe....

Cheers,
P

[lvlarc]

Well the one huge difference between Lacy and Beyer is that Jeff Lacy came to win. Lacy was confident of victory going in and when he was close to being stopped he had the heart and pride to continue on. The only significant similarity was that both fights were unifications where the younger man was favoured to win.
Kessler's win over Mundine is more impressive than beating Beyer, but only because Mundine wasn't over the hill and was actually looking to win the fight. Tony Mundine, unlike Jeff Lacy, had been exposed in the past and has never really had what it takes to mix with in the highest class at 168. Remember, beating the limited Green proves a lit less than losing to the limited Siaca.

And that's all there is to it.

[Taki...]

Well the one huge difference between Lacy and Beyer is that Jeff Lacy came to win.

And in 2007 Easter and Christmas are on the same day, as the easter bunny and Santa Claus have decided to team up

And now, folks, I'll leave you alone here -- otherwise you'd use me again as an excuse for your deeply emotional obsession with Joe Calzaghe....

Cheers,
P

Once again you show a complete lack of anything approaching rationale. Perhaps one day when you're over the Kessler/Calzaghe obsession you might start to make sense...

[Autobarn]

Kessler's resume isn't half as good as you make it out to sound.

His best win is over a 35 year old Beyer who suddenly decided to cash-in, just prior was getting beat by Bika. I seen both fights.

You say Mitchell was no better, yet he beat Siaca twice, once was a stoppage. Now I know you think the first fight was controversial but you also thought Marquez was "robbed" against John.

The only reason anyone would talk up Siaca would be to credit Kessler with not 1 but two of his wins, since Siaca beat the fragile Mundine. Hey atleast Byron went the full 12 rounds with Ottke..

I'm not sure if I can take you serious tho since you think having Taylor in top 5 P4P is "absolute bullshit"

Do you think I care if YOU can take me seriously?

Okay, I shall rephrase: Taylor in the top p4p 5 is more than generous. & in the next 18 months, if talents like Guzman, Caballero, Parra, Kessler, Casamayor etc score an outstanding win, then chances are Jermain will start falling behind in the lists. If anyone's paying attention.

If you can't accept that, more fool you. Taylor has it all ahead of him. He also has it all to prove. & he has a fine crop of middleweights to prove it against, which will make or break his name. Taylor has been given a free pass with Ouma, and will probably fight Mora afterward.

A lot of people feel that Marquez did enough to beat John. Are you suggesting that I'm in an isolated minority on this?

Yes, I do want to credit Kessler. Just as you want to disregard anything he's done (threat to Calzaghe?). I don't have to "talk up" Siaca. He was a pretty good fighter once. People are going out of their way to say that Kessler's last 4 opponents are no good whatsoever. To me that is extremely negative and derisory. & it is a bit absurd to knock Mundine, when Mundine has been boxing so well of recent.


And Mundine is a way better fighter than ppl think. But God Forbid, he actually lost some fights, so I suppose that makes him nothing.

[Autobarn]

So, Beyer came to quit, Mundine was "already exposed", Lucas was shot and Siaca a whiiping boy.

They were all handpicked by Mogens Palle to con the world that Kessler is the business at super middle.

It's a damn shame Calzaghe didn't make Beyer quit, expose Mundine, shoot Lucas & whip Siaca.

Imagine the stick Kessler would get if he'd been fighting the Salems, Veits and Bikas of the world? My, it would be unforgivable.

Yet Kessler isn't going after Salem & co. & he didn't go running to today's equivalent of Branco Sobot, after picking up his WBA title. He's trying to get a fight with Calzaghe, who's turning the other cheek. He's ready to face unbeaten 6'2 puncher Librado Andrade & then Mundine - who gave him a very difficult time. If the Andrade fight is in Canada as rumoured, he could end up fighting unbeaten young powerhouse Lucian Bute.

Anyone wonder why people are excited by Kessler?
If these fights come off, & he wins them, look at his schedule starting Nov 2004:

Siaca, Lucas, Mundine, Beyer, Andrade, Mundine, Bute.

I actually think that's pretty impressive. Mundine, Bute and Andrade are on the up, certainly. One thing is certain: that list will be nothing to be ashamed of.

Unlike the record belonging to a certain Mr Calzaghe.

[lvlarc]

Kessler's resume isn't half as good as you make it out to sound.

His best win is over a 35 year old Beyer who suddenly decided to cash-in, just prior was getting beat by Bika. I seen both fights.

You say Mitchell was no better, yet he beat Siaca twice, once was a stoppage. Now I know you think the first fight was controversial but you also thought Marquez was "robbed" against John.

The only reason anyone would talk up Siaca would be to credit Kessler with not 1 but two of his wins, since Siaca beat the fragile Mundine. Hey atleast Byron went the full 12 rounds with Ottke..

I'm not sure if I can take you serious tho since you think having Taylor in top 5 P4P is "absolute bullshit"

Do you think I care if YOU can take me seriously?

Okay, I shall rephrase: Taylor in the top p4p 5 is more than generous. & in the next 18 months, if talents like Guzman, Caballero, Parra, Kessler, Casamayor etc score an outstanding win, then chances are Jermain will start falling behind in the lists. If anyone's paying attention.

If you can't accept that, more fool you. Taylor has it all ahead of him. He also has it all to prove. & he has a fine crop of middleweights to prove it against, which will make or break his name. Taylor has been given a free pass with Ouma, and will probably fight Mora afterward.

A lot of people feel that Marquez did enough to beat John. Are you suggesting that I'm in an isolated minority on this?

Yes, I do want to credit Kessler. Just as you want to disregard anything he's done (threat to Calzaghe?). I don't have to "talk up" Siaca. He was a pretty good fighter once. People are going out of their way to say that Kessler's last 4 opponents are no good whatsoever. To me that is extremely negative and derisory. & it is a bit absurd to knock Mundine, when Mundine has been boxing so well of recent.


And Mundine is a way better fighter than ppl think. But God Forbid, he actually lost some fights, so I suppose that makes him nothing.

Fair enough Maussa. I agree that the guys you have mentioned are climbing the ladder but conversely all Taylor would need is another solid win against the likes of Abraham/Winky/Casstilejo/Pavlik/Sturm/etc to remain above them imo

Saying Kessler's last 4 opp were not good whatsoever is a bit daft.

I know some people had Marquez beating John, but the word robbery is used too frequently on these forums.


Terry, I moved to the land of big sausages because I got fed up of the British weather & warm beer. Nah I just wanted to see if Pundit would start humping my cyber leg.

[Autobarn]

Taylor would be considered awesome if he blew some of those fighters out like he did Edouard.

Some ppl agree with JMM-John verdict. I agree with Cliff Rold, Doug Fischer, Steve Kim that Marquez won 8 of the rounds.

[Andy Mac]

Ivlark,,,, some might say you are a proper pisshead with those big stein glasses they have over there. Not that I would, of course. lol

[lvlarc]

Taylor would be considered awesome if he blew some of those fighters out like he did Edouard.

Some ppl agree with JMM-John verdict. I agree with Cliff Rold, Doug Fischer, Steve Kim that Marquez won 8 of the rounds.

I can see maybe 7 rounds going to Marquez, but with the 2 points docked the scoring is going to be close, even if Juan was winning those rounds. A rematch is abit overdue also John should have cashed in on that win by now.

I've been teetotal for like 6 weeks,bday on 9th though

[Andy Mac]

Taylor would be considered awesome if he blew some of those fighters out like he did Edouard.

Some ppl agree with JMM-John verdict. I agree with Cliff Rold, Doug Fischer, Steve Kim that Marquez won 8 of the rounds.

I can see maybe 7 rounds going to Marquez, but with the 2 points docked the scoring is going to be close, even if Juan was winning those rounds. A rematch is abit overdue also John should have cashed in on that win by now.

I've been teetotal for like 6 weeks,bday on 9th though

Best wishes for your b/day m8. Will you be taking leeks before the booze, or leaks after it? lmao

[pundit]

Doesn't look good for Calzaghe -- 75 percent think he is nothing special or worse....

Now it's 76 percent -- and 67 percent think his opposition has been sub-par.....

Poor fella. Seems Frankie Warren's career mangement convinces only a few loud hardcore "fans"....

[Taki...]

So, Beyer came to quit, Mundine was "already exposed", Lucas was shot and Siaca a whiiping boy.

They were all handpicked by Mogens Palle to con the world that Kessler is the business at super middle.

It's a damn shame Calzaghe didn't make Beyer quit, expose Mundine, shoot Lucas & whip Siaca.

Imagine the stick Kessler would get if he'd been fighting the Salems, Veits and Bikas of the world? My, it would be unforgivable.

Yet Kessler isn't going after Salem & co. & he didn't go running to today's equivalent of Branco Sobot, after picking up his WBA title. He's trying to get a fight with Calzaghe, who's turning the other cheek. He's ready to face unbeaten 6'2 puncher Librado Andrade & then Mundine - who gave him a very difficult time. If the Andrade fight is in Canada as rumoured, he could end up fighting unbeaten young powerhouse Lucian Bute.

Anyone wonder why people are excited by Kessler?
If these fights come off, & he wins them, look at his schedule starting Nov 2004:

Siaca, Lucas, Mundine, Beyer, Andrade, Mundine, Bute.

I actually think that's pretty impressive. Mundine, Bute and Andrade are on the up, certainly. One thing is certain: that list will be nothing to be ashamed of.

Unlike the record belonging to a certain Mr Calzaghe.

If Calzaghe had beaten Siaca, Lucas and Mundine we'd still be hearing it was subpar opposition. You can easily make a case (as I have) that all of those fighters are not top drawer opposition.
People can be as 'excited' by Kessler as they like, but pretending his recent record is out-standing, or superior to Calzaghe's is just plain hyperbole.
It's also rather pointless trying to talk-up possible future opponents. If (important word that) Kessler fights Mundine, Bute or Andrade next would that be anymore impressive than if Calzaghe fights Taylor? I'd like to see Calzaghe fight Kessler, and in all probability Calzaghe wouldn't care who he fought next (subject to $$$ of course). We all know the real stumbling block is Warren... if Warren (and no-one else) doesn't want that fight then it's not going to happen.

[pundit]

If Calzaghe had beaten Siaca, Lucas and Mundine

Well he hasn't.

we'd still be hearing it was subpar opposition.

So give me an honest answer -- has Calzaghe's opposition in the past 10 years been sub-par or not?

Here is my take: if you say "yes" you are a Calzaghe fan but critical of Warren.
If you say "no" you are the opposite of a Calzaghe fan -- you defend the guy who is mishandling Calzaghe's career, Frankie Warren.

People can be as 'excited' by Kessler as they like, but pretending his recent record is out-standing, or superior to Calzaghe's is just plain hyperbole.

It's not hyperbole but a FACT. OR has Calzaghe EVER fought four current or former 168 champions in a row?

Come on, put the stuff on the table: WHERE, WHEN and WHOM. No coulda shoulda woulda. If you can, fine. If you can't - sorry, the facts are simply against you.

But you would have an easy way out: you could blame all of this on Frankie Warren (although the quesiton would remain why Calzaghe is still with this guy).

[nickd]

Is this thread still going?

http://ninja250.kingston.net/board/butt ... y/yawn.gif

[jamesmcdonnell]

Whilst it is undeniable that Calzaghe has almost certainly passed up a lot of opportunities that came his way, I think we shouldn't inflate Kessler's achievements too much.

His record is far from exceptional, and his recent victories, whilst generally convincing were not against unassailable opposition. I do believe that Beyer came to collect a cheque, and we already knew the limitations as well as talents of Siaca, Lucas and Mundine, so therefore Kessler is not the SMW collossus some would make out here.

Calzaghe has sadly pissed a lot of his career away fighting crap mandatories, but his overall body of work is not too bad and I think he's certainly proven more than Kessler.

I personally think Calzaghe would beat Kessler, but I'd much rather find out for sure, and if Calzaghe chooses not to fight the Dane, then he deserves to be criticised. Too many opportunities have gone begging, and it's time Calzaghe realised, if he cares of course, that he doesn't have long left to cement his legacy.

My guess is that Joe will be content to be remembered as an undefeated WBO champ who won the IBF title and then hopped on to get a belt at 175, or beat a middleweight great in making (if that is indeed what Taylor is).

[pundit]

Is this thread still going?

http://ninja250.kingston.net/board/butt ... y/yawn.gif

No. We're just repeating ourselves, what else do you expect?

[Taki...]

If Calzaghe had beaten Siaca, Lucas and Mundine

Well he hasn't.

we'd still be hearing it was subpar opposition.

So give me an honest answer -- has Calzaghe's opposition in the past 10 years been sub-par or not?

Here is my take: if you say "yes" you are a Calzaghe fan but critical of Warren.
If you say "no" you are the opposite of a Calzaghe fan -- you defend the guy who is mishandling Calzaghe's career, Frankie Warren.

People can be as 'excited' by Kessler as they like, but pretending his recent record is out-standing, or superior to Calzaghe's is just plain hyperbole.

It's not hyperbole but a FACT. OR has Calzaghe EVER fought four current or former 168 champions in a row?

Come on, put the stuff on the table: WHERE, WHEN and WHOM. No coulda shoulda woulda. If you can, fine. If you can't - sorry, the facts are simply against you.

But you would have an easy way out: you could blame all of this on Frankie Warren (although the quesiton would remain why Calzaghe is still with this guy).

Well he hasn't! Well Kessler hasn't fought Lacy or Veit, but so what?

Calzaghe opposition has been on the most part, with a few noteworthy exceptions, ordinary. There have been some guilt edged missed opportunities, Calzaghe could have unified with Glenn Catley and Richie Woodhall at various points in his career, but instead his management (for who knows what reasons) chose to put him in against the likes of Branko Sobot and Juan Carlos Gimenez Ferreyra. There's no doubt in my mind Calzaghe could've handled Catley and Woodhall, both fights would have been in the UK and importantly he would not have needed to go to Germany to unify. I can easily forgive Calzaghe and Warren not wanting to go to Germany, but there was no excuse for missing out on Catley and Woodhall (when they held titles).

Whether or not Calzaghe has fought 4 current or former champions in a row is not the issue. The issue is the relative quality, at the time of fighting, of those boxers.

Well one could blame Warren for the early part of Calzaghe's career. But in recent times we've seen (thanks to Ricky Hatton) that Warren can be cajoled into providing top rate opposition. It's obvious that Calzaghe is far happier than Hatton was fighting Warren's choices; one could certainly call that a flaw.
Lacy was clearly a huge coup for Warren, and one can take the (rather pointless) Bika fight IF Warren manages something special again (Adamek, Erdei, Kessler, Taylor, Wright, Hopkins would all do very nicely and leave little room for criticism) next year.

[Andy Mac]

If Calzaghe had beaten Siaca, Lucas and Mundine

Well he hasn't.

we'd still be hearing it was subpar opposition.

So give me an honest answer -- has Calzaghe's opposition in the past 10 years been sub-par or not?

Here is my take: if you say "yes" you are a Calzaghe fan but critical of Warren.
If you say "no" you are the opposite of a Calzaghe fan -- you defend the guy who is mishandling Calzaghe's career, Frankie Warren.

People can be as 'excited' by Kessler as they like, but pretending his recent record is out-standing, or superior to Calzaghe's is just plain hyperbole.

It's not hyperbole but a FACT. OR has Calzaghe EVER fought four current or former 168 champions in a row?

Come on, put the stuff on the table: WHERE, WHEN and WHOM. No coulda shoulda woulda. If you can, fine. If you can't - sorry, the facts are simply against you.

But you would have an easy way out: you could blame all of this on Frankie Warren (although the quesiton would remain why Calzaghe is still with this guy).

Who the f,uck are you? Saddam Hussien, Hitler, Stalin, or some other dictatorial sex case? "Here is my take say yes and your a kunt, say no and your a wanker". What makes you so special that you think you can ask people questions, and tell them ALL the possible answers? You are a f,ucking numbskull sunny boy. Try getting some manners.

[Max Molyneux]

Whilst it is undeniable that Calzaghe has almost certainly passed up a lot of opportunities that came his way, I think we shouldn't inflate Kessler's achievements too much.

His record is far from exceptional, and his recent victories, whilst generally convincing were not against unassailable opposition. I do believe that Beyer came to collect a cheque, and we already knew the limitations as well as talents of Siaca, Lucas and Mundine, so therefore Kessler is not the SMW collossus some would make out here.

Calzaghe has sadly pissed a lot of his career away fighting crap mandatories, but his overall body of work is not too bad and I think he's certainly proven more than Kessler.

I personally think Calzaghe would beat Kessler, but I'd much rather find out for sure, and if Calzaghe chooses not to fight the Dane, then he deserves to be criticised. Too many opportunities have gone begging, and it's time Calzaghe realised, if he cares of course, that he doesn't have long left to cement his legacy.

My guess is that Joe will be content to be remembered as an undefeated WBO champ who won the IBF title and then hopped on to get a belt at 175, or beat a middleweight great in making (if that is indeed what Taylor is).

Good post, can't disagree with anything on it, except I still think the Kessler fight could happen if enough noise is made.

And Pundit. Me= Godly words of wisdom. You= Kessler love train.

[jamesmcdonnell]

If Calzaghe had beaten Siaca, Lucas and Mundine

Well he hasn't.

we'd still be hearing it was subpar opposition.

So give me an honest answer -- has Calzaghe's opposition in the past 10 years been sub-par or not?

Here is my take: if you say "yes" you are a Calzaghe fan but critical of Warren.
If you say "no" you are the opposite of a Calzaghe fan -- you defend the guy who is mishandling Calzaghe's career, Frankie Warren.

People can be as 'excited' by Kessler as they like, but pretending his recent record is out-standing, or superior to Calzaghe's is just plain hyperbole.

It's not hyperbole but a FACT. OR has Calzaghe EVER fought four current or former 168 champions in a row?

Come on, put the stuff on the table: WHERE, WHEN and WHOM. No coulda shoulda woulda. If you can, fine. If you can't - sorry, the facts are simply against you.

But you would have an easy way out: you could blame all of this on Frankie Warren (although the quesiton would remain why Calzaghe is still with this guy).

Well he hasn't! Well Kessler hasn't fought Lacy or Veit, but so what?

Calzaghe opposition has been on the most part, with a few noteworthy exceptions, ordinary. There have been some guilt edged missed opportunities, Calzaghe could have unified with Glenn Catley and Richie Woodhall at various points in his career, but instead his management (for who knows what reasons) chose to put him in against the likes of Branko Sobot and Juan Carlos Gimenez Ferreyra. There's no doubt in my mind Calzaghe could've handled Catley and Woodhall, both fights would have been in the UK and importantly he would not have needed to go to Germany to unify. I can easily forgive Calzaghe and Warren not wanting to go to Germany, but there was no excuse for missing out on Catley and Woodhall (when they held titles).

Whether or not Calzaghe has fought 4 current or former champions in a row is not the issue. The issue is the relative quality, at the time of fighting, of those boxers.

Well one could blame Warren for the early part of Calzaghe's career. But in recent times we've seen (thanks to Ricky Hatton) that Warren can be cajoled into providing top rate opposition. It's obvious that Calzaghe is far happier than Hatton was fighting Warren's choices; one could certainly call that a flaw.
Lacy was clearly a huge coup for Warren, and one can take the (rather pointless) Bika fight IF Warren manages something special again (Adamek, Erdei, Kessler, Taylor, Wright, Hopkins would all do very nicely and leave little room for criticism) next year.

Bear in mind that unification fights are not easily made, and who is to say Woodhall or Catley wanted to fight Calzaghe. After all, WBO champs were not rated by the other organisaions, and therefore as WBO title holder it's doubtful the organisations would have sanctioned the boutl.

[Taki...]

Well he hasn't.
So give me an honest answer -- has Calzaghe's opposition in the past 10 years been sub-par or not?

Here is my take: if you say "yes" you are a Calzaghe fan but critical of Warren.
If you say "no" you are the opposite of a Calzaghe fan -- you defend the guy who is mishandling Calzaghe's career, Frankie Warren.
It's not hyperbole but a FACT. OR has Calzaghe EVER fought four current or former 168 champions in a row?

Come on, put the stuff on the table: WHERE, WHEN and WHOM. No coulda shoulda woulda. If you can, fine. If you can't - sorry, the facts are simply against you.

But you would have an easy way out: you could blame all of this on Frankie Warren (although the quesiton would remain why Calzaghe is still with this guy).

Well he hasn't! Well Kessler hasn't fought Lacy or Veit, but so what?

Calzaghe opposition has been on the most part, with a few noteworthy exceptions, ordinary. There have been some guilt edged missed opportunities, Calzaghe could have unified with Glenn Catley and Richie Woodhall at various points in his career, but instead his management (for who knows what reasons) chose to put him in against the likes of Branko Sobot and Juan Carlos Gimenez Ferreyra. There's no doubt in my mind Calzaghe could've handled Catley and Woodhall, both fights would have been in the UK and importantly he would not have needed to go to Germany to unify. I can easily forgive Calzaghe and Warren not wanting to go to Germany, but there was no excuse for missing out on Catley and Woodhall (when they held titles).

Whether or not Calzaghe has fought 4 current or former champions in a row is not the issue. The issue is the relative quality, at the time of fighting, of those boxers.

Well one could blame Warren for the early part of Calzaghe's career. But in recent times we've seen (thanks to Ricky Hatton) that Warren can be cajoled into providing top rate opposition. It's obvious that Calzaghe is far happier than Hatton was fighting Warren's choices; one could certainly call that a flaw.
Lacy was clearly a huge coup for Warren, and one can take the (rather pointless) Bika fight IF Warren manages something special again (Adamek, Erdei, Kessler, Taylor, Wright, Hopkins would all do very nicely and leave little room for criticism) next year.

Bear in mind that unification fights are not easily made, and who is to say Woodhall or Catley wanted to fight Calzaghe. After all, WBO champs were not rated by the other organisaions, and therefore as WBO title holder it's doubtful the organisations would have sanctioned the boutl.

Benn and Eubank attempted to unify the WBO and WBC SM titles a few years before, so I doubt (given a nice big incentive) there would have been an issue from either org.