Fight series Lacy - Bika - Manfredo

lvlarc · Post by **lvlarc** » 10 Nov 2006, 17:31

lvlarc_uk wrote:Joe may get hurt early on, but will battle back in the later rounds.

Calzaghe UD

lvlarc_uk wrote:
Pundit wrote: You're overdoing it. Calzghe and Lacy are no more than two out of 6 or 7 contenders at super-middleweight, and super-middlweight is a relatively weak division.

Pundit what you gonna say when Calzaghe schools Lacy?

Talking nonsense as usual Pundit.

ferocity wrote:
lvlarc_uk wrote:You guys are gonna have the shock of your life when Calzaghe schools Lacy.

Calzaghe will eventually exchange pucnhes and this is exactly what Lacy needs to win.

mr cool breeze wrote:
lvlarc_uk wrote:The fight will definetly happen, and Calzaghe will win, mark my words.

I have paypal there matey, how bout u??

wanna make that statement a cash bet???

LMK if you do...

My personal favourite..

lvlarc_uk wrote:If you think Lacy will win, then send $10 to [email protected] via paypal.

If he wins I'll send you $50 back.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 10 Nov 2006, 17:34

lvlarc_uk wrote:I think your trouble with reading may be playing apart again.

Hey Deram you do know that that poll proves jack, people could have voted after the fight occurred In PTBF, the poll is 50/50 but if you count the picks it's more like 65/35 Lacy.
Notice no mention of polls? Stick to the script bud. As I've said I'd take the stats over your dodgy memory.

I was spot on with my pick, Calzaghe avoided the bombs early and schooled Lacy, if you look for more of my posts you'll notice I only became more vocal after all the morons were saying Lacy was going to batter Joe.

Yeah, spot on...

It's a hard fight to pick, that's what makes it such a great matchup. Will Lacy land a bomb early and KO Calzaghe. Will Calzaghe use his boxing skills well enough to counter and evade Lacy's left hook. I'm edging towards a decision or late TKO for Calzaghe.

It's sooooooooooo hard to pick, because Calzaghe may win, but he may also lose....

This was a spot on pick - mine.

As for the result: Calzaghe TKO. I reckon his grit and handspeed will be too much for the strong but rough and unexperienced Lacy. I see a replay of the Mitchell fight, except that Lacy may endure a bit longer. I have no doubt that the fact that Lacy's style suits Calzaghe is the reason why team Calzaghe chose him for a "unifier" - after 10 years. All previous beltholders had been too risky for Calzghe. And Lacy must have a rather poor management.

As for the original question: just admit that the forum was evenly split between Lacy and Calzaghe before the fight. You'll feel bettter afterwards.

lvlarc · Post by **lvlarc** » 10 Nov 2006, 17:37

No offense, but the fight was nothing like the Mitchell fight. Most of my takes were alot more solid, go and read em

I wasn't talking about the forum, I oringinally mentioned the PTBF poll.

Pundit how do you explain this post.?

lvlarc_uk wrote:
Pundit wrote: You're overdoing it. Calzghe and Lacy are no more than two out of 6 or 7 contenders at super-middleweight, and super-middlweight is a relatively weak division.

Pundit what you gonna say when Calzaghe schools Lacy?

Were/are you really that stupid?

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 10 Nov 2006, 17:44

lvlarc_uk wrote:No offense, but the fight was nothing like the Mitchell fight. Most of my takes were alot more solid, go and read em

If 58/42 (in poll) is evenly split, sure.

Pundit how do you explain this post.?

lvlarc_uk wrote:
Pundit wrote: You're overdoing it. Calzghe and Lacy are no more than two out of 6 or 7 contenders at super-middleweight, and super-middlweight is a relatively weak division.

Pundit what you gonna say when Calzaghe schools Lacy?
Were/are you really that stupid?

You're backpaddling in vain, my friedn, and trying to get off the topic....

The facts:

a) Polls: pundit KO1
b) Pre-fight analyisis Lacy-Calzaghe: pundit KO2

Well, what else, after all you aren't even good for sparring...

Cheers,
P

lvlarc · Post by **lvlarc** » 10 Nov 2006, 17:46

Hehehe look at Pundit avoiding the question.

Here is what you said..

lvlarc_uk wrote:
pundit wrote:
lirva33 wrote:

That's hilarious!!

Handselected, mediocre opponent.
Should have fougth Kessler for a real challenge instead of ducking him.

But Calzaghe won't school Lacy. The most one could expect is that he slaps slaps slaps Lacy into submission a la Mitchell.

Cheers,

You are definetly on Kess's payroll.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 10 Nov 2006, 17:48

lvlarc_uk wrote:Hehehe look at Pundit avoiding the question.

Here is what you said..

lvlarc_uk wrote:
pundit wrote:
Handselected, mediocre opponent.
Should have fougth Kessler for a real challenge instead of ducking him.

But Calzaghe won't school Lacy. The most one could expect is that he slaps slaps slaps Lacy into submission a la Mitchell.

Cheers,

And so he did..... 2000 free slaps and still no real impact.

FAR better prognosis than Calzaghe could lose but also win an it's soooo hard to pick...."

lvlarc · Post by **lvlarc** » 10 Nov 2006, 17:52

So to sum up.

lvlarc_uk proves Pundit wrong about the betting odds, and the PTBF stats and poll (which he later said himself was 58/42, not "evenly split down middle")

P avoids the question, and typically resorts to the hand selected opposition statement, hey atleast you weren't as bad as the fools picking Lacy.

Ok entertainment is over, cya!

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 10 Nov 2006, 17:59

lvlarc_uk wrote:So to sum up.

lvlarc_uk proves Pundit wrong about the betting odds, and the PTBF stats and poll (which he later said himself was 58/42, not "evenly split down middle")

A new whiny falsification to cover up your total defeat

This wasn't about BETTING ODDS but about the view of the FORUM. And the forum was evenly split, as the above proves beyond doubt.

[You of course cite only mattyp's assessment of the general forum and not the overall picture, which can only serve one purpose: distort the simple facts. Well, what else would be left for you.... this is how one has to act if one is placed inside FWarren's arse.]

P avoids the question, and typically resorts to the hand selected opposition statement, hey atleast you weren't as bad as the fools picking Lacy.

Or as the fool (called lvlarc_uk) who wrote:

Ooooooohhhhh this is soooooooooooooooo hard to pick, Calzaghe could win but he could also lose and I'm just about edging to one side or the other"

lvlarc · Post by **lvlarc** » 10 Nov 2006, 18:19

Honestly, I don't know why people give you their time. Like I do, it must be out of pitty. You see you have to twist everything to try and make a point.

Seriously if you can act your age for 5 minutes (which you'd think was possible for a guy yapping about pubertarian discussion in another thread)
Can you explain this as it's truly mind boggling.

lvlarc_uk wrote:
Pundit wrote: You're overdoing it. Calzghe and Lacy are no more than two out of 6 or 7 contenders at super-middleweight, and super-middlweight is a relatively weak division.

Pundit what you gonna say when Calzaghe schools Lacy?

Would that be another one of your twisted opinions?

A simple YES or NO will suffice.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 10 Nov 2006, 18:51

lvlarc_uk wrote:Honestly, I don't know why people give you their time. Like I do, it must be out of pitty. You see you have to twist everything to try and make a point.

Seriously if you can act your age for 5 minutes (which you'd think was possible for a guy yapping about pubertarian discussion in another thread)
Can you explain this as it's truly mind boggling.

lvlarc_uk wrote:
Pundit wrote: You're overdoing it. Calzghe and Lacy are no more than two out of 6 or 7 contenders at super-middleweight, and super-middlweight is a relatively weak division.

Pundit what you gonna say when Calzaghe schools Lacy?
Would that be another one of your twisted opinions?

A simple YES or NO will suffice.

And poor little lvlarc_uk tries another comeback after all his previous attempts have ended in ridicule...

Mate, this gets boring. On the topic everything has been said that there was to say; and otherwise your unbound adoration of your spindposterboy FWarren is simply not interesting enough to prolong this discussion.

Hope you make a couple of round-by-rounds this weekend.

Cheers,
P

lvlarc · Post by **lvlarc** » 10 Nov 2006, 19:01

I'll take that as you avoding the simple question ..again. More like ridiculing yourself P.

For the record, I've never met Fwank, yet you have played that typical card before, over and over.

We may prolong this discussion only if you can muster up some worthy answers/replies

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 10 Nov 2006, 19:16

lvlarc_uk wrote:I'll take that as you avoding the simple question ..again. More like ridiculing yourself P.

For the record, I've never met Fwank, yet you have played that typical card before, over and over.

We may prolong this discussion only if you can muster up some worthy answers/replies

Poor fella.

Axe · Post by **Axe** » 10 Nov 2006, 20:19

Mattyp151 wrote:When did Bika become a top ten SMW? The guy has yet to win at SMW, and I'm sorry, but a 4 round draw against whoever doesn't prove much other than you can come out and fight early.

Bika wasn't, and imo Manfredo isn't either (although it's close, as the bottom few slots at 168 are rather open).

Deram · Post by **Deram** » 11 Nov 2006, 01:28

this is a top 50 made a couple of weeks ago.. I think it is fairly correct. And no Bika and Manfredo are definitely not top 10. Loosing to alfonso gomez and then beating "the mummy" Pemberton and Spina doesn't get you very far.

1. Joe Calzaghe / Mikkel Kessler
3. Librado Andrade
4. Anthony Mundine
5. Jeff Lacy
6. Markus Beyer
7. Robert Stieglitz
8. Lucien Bute
9. Allan Green
10. Denis Inkin
11. Carl Froch
12. Jean Paul Mendy
13. Danny Green
14. Mario Veit
15. Jürgen Brähmer
16. Vitali Tsypko
17. Anthony Hanshaw
18. David Gogiya
19. Mger Mkrtchian
20. Jackson Chanet
21. Victor Oganov
22. Alejandro Berrio
23. Brian Magee
24. Gysmyl Perdomo
25. Karoly Balzsay
26. Sakio Bika
27. Jean Pascal
28. Otis Grant
29. Yusaf Mack
30. Joszef Nagy
31. Malik Dziarra
32. Lolenga Mock
33. Peter Manfredo
34. Sergej Tatevosyan
35. Roman Skhrarupa
36. Henry Buchanan
37. Dimitri Sartison
38. Rudy Markussen
39. Jaidon Codrington
40. Rubin Williams
41. William Joppy
42. Peter Ngateri
43. Willie Stewart
44. Danilo Häussler
45. Martin Bruer
46. Lajuan Simon
47. Eric Teymour
48. Stjepan Bosiz
49. Peter Mashamaite
50. Ricardo Cortes

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 11 Nov 2006, 02:14

Deram wrote:this is a top 50 made a couple of weeks ago.. I think it is fairly correct. And no Bika and Manfredo are definitely not top 10. Loosing to alfonso gomez and then beating "the mummy" Pemberton and Spina doesn't get you very far.

You can't expect that we would agree with this list.....

Deram · Post by **Deram** » 11 Nov 2006, 02:37

pundit wrote:
Deram wrote:this is a top 50 made a couple of weeks ago.. I think it is fairly correct. And no Bika and Manfredo are definitely not top 10. Loosing to alfonso gomez and then beating "the mummy" Pemberton and Spina doesn't get you very far.
You can't expect that we would agree with this list.....

Let me know what you think isn't right and let me hear your arguments. But please don't just say "this fighter should be higher" - let me hear why that fighter has done better than the ones you want him to jump.

K?

fist · Post by **fist** » 11 Nov 2006, 17:09

lvlarc_uk wrote: P avoids the question, and typically resorts to the hand selected opposition statement, hey atleast you weren't as bad as the fools picking Lacy.

Ah Pundits favoured topic, such a consise yet thorough and diverse analysis, rhetorical gold...here's an example of his work:

"He blasted a hand-selected, clumsy, limited opponent as I said he would"

"Lacy was overhyped and handpicked before as much as after the fight. No excuses there, just simple facts."

"Feeding overhyped and handselected fighters to Calzaghe - while avoiding the true challenges - is all F.rank Warren has done for the past 10 years."

"He has - and forever only will- fought exclusively handselected opponents who suit his style."

"Handpicked, handpicked, handpicked."

"For beating a hand-selected, taylor-made, over-hyped opponent?"

"it was clear to me from day one that Lacy was taylor-made and hand-selected, and that his limitations would feed perfectly into Calzaghe's highspeed-slapping style."

"He proved himself agasint a hand-selected, taylor-made opponent."

"The fact of the matter is: Calzaghe can only beat tomato cans and limited ring-bullies, handselected by Frank W.arren."

"it doesn't show more than that Joe Calzaghe can beat a hand-selected, taylor-made, limited, over-hyped opponent - in line with what he's done the 10 years before that fight."

"Joe fought a limited, hand-selected slugger"

"Of course Lacy was handpicked"

"Joe LOOKS LIKE world class against hand-selected, limited, over-hyped sluggers. Noone is better than him in annilihating walking punching bags."

"Mundine is a better figher than every single of the hand-selected opponents Calzaghe has clobbered in his entire career"

"JC prefers, as we all know, to fight handselected, unskilled sluggers with the right passport"

"All he did was taking a cheap fight against a handlsected slugger."

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 11 Nov 2006, 17:16

Sadly, there is a lot of truth in this.

Calzaghe's career isn't satisfactory.

Come on, he pissed us all off BADLY between the Mitchell and Lacy fights. We only like him now because he battered Lacy, but now he's lost his lustre, with that horrid & imature showing against Bika.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 11 Nov 2006, 17:43

fist wrote:
lvlarc_uk wrote: P avoids the question, and typically resorts to the hand selected opposition statement, hey atleast you weren't as bad as the fools picking Lacy.
Ah Pundits favoured topic, such a consise yet thorough and diverse analysis, rhetorical gold...here's an example of his work:

Well, with more than 5000 posts and stubborn, emotionally attached believers like lvlarc, taki and Max as discussion partners, some repetition is unavoidable.

But to be honest: this type of dispute has become rather boring to me. If these folks absolutely want to believe that Lacy was a superfight and that Joe has already secured ATG status with his resumee of over-carefully selected opponents, so be it. After all it's them who make fools out of themselves (at least in the case of lvlarc - who otherwise seems a competent guy -- this is a pity).

At the same time, I note that many knowledgeable folks here -- such as viciousmaussa, nickd -- who sounded not unlike the hardcore gang after the Lacy fight have markedly modified their views, and pursue a line of argument that could be confused with mine. Well, with reasonable people reason normally takes over, sooner or later.

I believe btw that taking a truly credible fight -- which at this stage can only mean Kessler really -- is more crucial for Joe than winning so as to save his reputation. Hence, every true Joe fan should be pressing for this matchup and accept neither other opponents (except as tune ups) nor excuses why the fight can allegedly not be made.

But I'm afraid the hardcore gang is simply not getting it, and never will.

Best
P

lvlarc · Post by **lvlarc** » 11 Nov 2006, 17:51

Yes Pundit would love us all to post 5 times a day on Boxrec demanding Calzaghe to fight Kessler, like that's even going to make a fornicating difference.

For the record, if you actually used the search feature you would find out that Pundit, by far has the most posts on BoxRec regarding Calzaghe. All of which you could probably summarise in a few words, like fist has just proven.

Btw, I'll be avoiding most of this school yard stuff in the future.

Cheers

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 11 Nov 2006, 17:54

lvlarc_uk wrote:Yes Pundit would love us all to post 5 times a day on Boxrec demanding Calzaghe to fight Kessler, like that's even going to make a smeg difference.

Well, at least don't come up with umpteenth excuses obliterating all of Frankie Warren's efforts to explain why he is ducking this fight.

Btw, I'll be avoiding most of this school yard stuff in the future.

Fine with me. We've tried a few times, maybe it works at some point....

P

fist · Post by **fist** » 11 Nov 2006, 20:05

pundit wrote:
fist wrote:
lvlarc_uk wrote: P avoids the question, and typically resorts to the hand selected opposition statement, hey atleast you weren't as bad as the fools picking Lacy.
Ah Pundits favoured topic, such a consise yet thorough and diverse analysis, rhetorical gold...here's an example of his work:
Well, with more than 5000 posts and stubborn, emotionally attached believers like lvlarc, taki and Max as discussion partners, some repetition is unavoidable.

But to be honest: this type of dispute has become rather boring to me. If these folks absolutely want to believe that Lacy was a superfight and that Joe has already secured ATG status with his resumee of over-carefully selected opponents, so be it. After all it's them who make fools out of themselves (at least in the case of lvlarc - who otherwise seems a competent guy -- this is a pity).

At the same time, I note that many knowledgeable folks here -- such as viciousmaussa, nickd -- who sounded not unlike the hardcore gang after the Lacy fight have markedly modified their views, and pursue a line of argument that could be confused with mine. Well, with reasonable people reason normally takes over, sooner or later.

I believe btw that taking a truly credible fight -- which at this stage can only mean Kessler really -- is more crucial for Joe than winning so as to save his reputation. Hence, every true Joe fan should be pressing for this matchup and accept neither other opponents (except as tune ups) nor excuses why the fight can allegedly not be made.

But I'm afraid the hardcore gang is simply not getting it, and never will.

Best
P

Agreed that Joe should be focussing on Kessler, though a fight early next year is not possible even if Warren wanted to make it?? Maybe Im wrong. Anyway, if Joe doesnt fight Kessler next I just hope it is a decent and credible challange to at least provide a platform for Joe to continue proving himself.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 11 Nov 2006, 20:23

fist wrote: Agreed that Joe should be focussing on Kessler, though a fight early next year is not possible even if Warren wanted to make it?? Maybe Im wrong. Anyway, if Joe doesnt fight Kessler next I just hope it is a decent and credible challange to at least provide a platform for Joe to continue proving himself.

You may well be right, Kessler may feel he has to take Andrade first. At the same time, our Danish friends here tell us Team Palle made a record purse offer to Joe -- USD 3.4 million -- although for what date I do not know. While Warren first talks Hopkins and then Taylor rather than Kessler, while making a fight with Manfredo. I for my part am utterly unconvinced that they are seriously working on making this fight.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 12 Nov 2006, 04:48

Kessler-Andrade is a REAL title defence.

I'd rather watch Mundine-Soliman 2, for the 'WBA regular' title, than Calzaghe vs 'handpicked rough bastrard', 'rookie American' or 'dull mandatory'

Andy Mac · Post by **Andy Mac** » 12 Nov 2006, 08:51

I would say in fairness that Pundit is hung up about Welsh Joe somewhat, and massively with regards to Fwank. Personally I dont give a toss about either of them.
I mean there have been American Pitbulls, a couple of Alsations, that turned out to be useless, and now Pundit is hanging on to the nuts of a Great Dane. What next a French Poodle?
I have no idea whether or not he posts on Mayweathers feathered fists, but he maybe prefers textbook punches that cant dent blotting paper, to slaps that put people on the floor.