Calzaghe v Kessler 1am Sunday fight time

[Deram]

DLH was a belt chaser who beat on Tito victims and fought once In 2 years yet the supposed best In the world struggled. Taylor Is shit and Is a HBO poster boy who struggles with smaller fighters and lost to Spinks. Hopkins best wins are over Welterweights with limited skill like Tito and DLH who were just strong and had good chins. Plus Hopkins ducked Joe.

You don't half talk some nonsense when it concerns Calzaghe.

Hopkins x 2, Wright, Ouma, Spinks and now Pavlik beats Lacy, Bika and Manfredo easily.

I'm not a huge ODH fan but the guy beat Hernandez, Chavez, Gonzalez, Whittaker, Quartey and Vargas.

Even his losing resume beats most other fighters. Shane x 2, Hopkins and Mayweather.

You can say Hopkins ducked Calzaghe but Calzaghe offered very little until recently and we are still waiting to see if he can become #1 in his weight division after a ten year span. That is really poor.

Taylor might have looked unimpressive but his fledgling resume is better than Joe's on paper. Oscar's pisses on Joe's, even his contender type fights are better than Joe's.

Joe has beaten fringe P4P fighters in Lacy and, we presume, Kessler. The fighters you disparage went for it early and put Joe to shame in this sense.

Even his losing resume beats most other fighters.

How can a losing resume beat ANYTHING?

A lost fight is a lost and it is just a matter of how much should be deducted for the loss.

If one could make a resume by losing then we can just take some crappy gatekeeper and his resume will beat most people's resume's. That is a complete misconception to count loses as something positive.

[m1kee50]

I think you are nitpicking a bit there.... Hes talking about level of competition, and that DLH has stepped up to the plate more than a lot of so called 'elite' fighters.

[MightyWarrior]

I am possibly looking forward to Kessler-Calzaghe more than Hatton-Mayweather if i'm honest.

Yeah me too. If I were betting the house I'd back JC in this one - give Warren credit, he's delivered Joe vital home ground in a 50/50 fight.

Only worry is, the superfight has come far too late in Joe's career.

[Autobarn]

but he has also fallen short a lot, made a lot of tactical errors and picked on top fighters at bad parts of their careers a fair bit. DLH has had a very big career, but it's one loved by name droppers.

It can be argued Calzaghe-Kessler is the best fight around at the moment because you have two unbeaten guys in unification, both of whom have been pretty dominant against world class opponents.

Kessler's going to win it.

[Shirow]

Oh, in case anyone still needs central Cardiff accommodation or (accom & tickets) drop me a pm or email before i run out.

Jon

[jamesmcdonnell]

DLH was a belt chaser who beat on Tito victims and fought once In 2 years yet the supposed best In the world struggled. Taylor Is shit and Is a HBO poster boy who struggles with smaller fighters and lost to Spinks. Hopkins best wins are over Welterweights with limited skill like Tito and DLH who were just strong and had good chins. Plus Hopkins ducked Joe.

You don't half talk some nonsense when it concerns Calzaghe.

Hopkins x 2, Wright, Ouma, Spinks and now Pavlik beats Lacy, Bika and Manfredo easily.

I'm not a huge ODH fan but the guy beat Hernandez, Chavez, Gonzalez, Whittaker, Quartey and Vargas.

Even his losing resume beats most other fighters. Shane x 2, Hopkins and Mayweather.

You can say Hopkins ducked Calzaghe but Calzaghe offered very little until recently and we are still waiting to see if he can become #1 in his weight division after a ten year span. That is really poor.

Taylor might have looked unimpressive but his fledgling resume is better than Joe's on paper. Oscar's pisses on Joe's, even his contender type fights are better than Joe's.

Joe has beaten fringe P4P fighters in Lacy and, we presume, Kessler. The fighters you disparage went for it early and put Joe to shame in this sense.

Even his losing resume beats most other fighters.

How can a losing resume beat ANYTHING?

A lost fight is a lost and it is just a matter of how much should be deducted for the loss.

If one could make a resume by losing then we can just take some crappy gatekeeper and his resume will beat most people's resume's. That is a complete misconception to count loses as something positive.

Bullshite

It depepends on the manner of the loss, you're talking crap. It's not like Oscar got smashed to bits my Mosley or Trinidad is it. In fact the only guy to stop him was Hopkins, which was no big frigging crime was it.

The first Mosley fight could have gone either way, it was very very close and Oscar fought brilliantly. He was robbed against both Trinidad and Mosley in the rematch.

Oscar has acquitted himself well in all of his fights, including the mayweather fight, and lest we forget was actually ahead according to the judges against Bernard, though personally I don't see it that way.

Oscar is an all time great in my book, not quite on a par with the likes of Leonard, Duran, Hearns etc, but still a great fighter.

[stujones]

Absolutely James. Alot of fighters prove themselves more with a tough loss than a close victory (e.g. Mads Larsen).

Whilst it could be argued that you could add 3 additional defeats to the DLH resume. It could also be argued that 3 of his actual defeats could have been reversed - including vs the current P4P number 1.

[kevo]

i love the late ones more drinking time

[emma]

I dont care what time its on because...

a, Im not going

b, I dont have sentana

and c, Im not paying £10 to watch it.

Oh and hes my tip for anyone going...try and get a hotel near the stadium because trying to get a taxi at that time of morning is a nightmare.

p.s Im surprised the hotels havent doubled the prices, they did last time.

[n1ebf]

doubled?? i heard 6 weeks ago they'd trebled for that weekend

[Deram]

I dont care what time its on because...

a, Im not going

b, I dont have sentana

and c, Im not paying £10 to watch it.

Oh and hes my tip for anyone going...try and get a hotel near the stadium because trying to get a taxi at that time of morning is a nightmare.

p.s Im surprised the hotels havent doubled the prices, they did last time.

I don't think you really belong in a boxing forum. Unless you are a four year old child for whom 10 pounds takes 10 years to gather.

[Deram]

You don't half talk some nonsense when it concerns Calzaghe.

Hopkins x 2, Wright, Ouma, Spinks and now Pavlik beats Lacy, Bika and Manfredo easily.

I'm not a huge ODH fan but the guy beat Hernandez, Chavez, Gonzalez, Whittaker, Quartey and Vargas.

Even his losing resume beats most other fighters. Shane x 2, Hopkins and Mayweather.

You can say Hopkins ducked Calzaghe but Calzaghe offered very little until recently and we are still waiting to see if he can become #1 in his weight division after a ten year span. That is really poor.

Taylor might have looked unimpressive but his fledgling resume is better than Joe's on paper. Oscar's pisses on Joe's, even his contender type fights are better than Joe's.

Joe has beaten fringe P4P fighters in Lacy and, we presume, Kessler. The fighters you disparage went for it early and put Joe to shame in this sense.

Even his losing resume beats most other fighters.

How can a losing resume beat ANYTHING?

A lost fight is a lost and it is just a matter of how much should be deducted for the loss.

If one could make a resume by losing then we can just take some crappy gatekeeper and his resume will beat most people's resume's. That is a complete misconception to count loses as something positive.

Bullshite

It depepends on the manner of the loss, you're talking crap. It's not like Oscar got smashed to bits my Mosley or Trinidad is it. In fact the only guy to stop him was Hopkins, which was no big frigging crime was it.

The first Mosley fight could have gone either way, it was very very close and Oscar fought brilliantly. He was robbed against both Trinidad and Mosley in the rematch.

Oscar has acquitted himself well in all of his fights, including the mayweather fight, and lest we forget was actually ahead according to the judges against Bernard, though personally I don't see it that way.

Oscar is an all time great in my book, not quite on a par with the likes of Leonard, Duran, Hearns etc, but still a great fighter.

Maybe he was robbed,maybe not. I don't care if Oscar is no. 1 p4p or # 20. You are obviously very attached to Oscar, bu objectively in general a loss is always a loss.

Mads Larsen is also just as bad an example as any other. Mads didn't prove himself more through defeat than a win. Had he won he would have had a better resume - hopefully very few people will doubt that.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Even his losing resume beats most other fighters.

How can a losing resume beat ANYTHING?

A lost fight is a lost and it is just a matter of how much should be deducted for the loss.

If one could make a resume by losing then we can just take some crappy gatekeeper and his resume will beat most people's resume's. That is a complete misconception to count loses as something positive.

Bullshite

It depepends on the manner of the loss, you're talking crap. It's not like Oscar got smashed to bits my Mosley or Trinidad is it. In fact the only guy to stop him was Hopkins, which was no big frigging crime was it.

The first Mosley fight could have gone either way, it was very very close and Oscar fought brilliantly. He was robbed against both Trinidad and Mosley in the rematch.

Oscar has acquitted himself well in all of his fights, including the mayweather fight, and lest we forget was actually ahead according to the judges against Bernard, though personally I don't see it that way.

Oscar is an all time great in my book, not quite on a par with the likes of Leonard, Duran, Hearns etc, but still a great fighter.

Maybe he was robbed,maybe not. I don't care if Oscar is no. 1 p4p or # 20. You are obviously very attached to Oscar, bu objectively in general a loss is always a loss.

Mads Larsen is also just as bad an example as any other. Mads didn't prove himself more through defeat than a win. Had he won he would have had a better resume - hopefully very few people will doubt that.

I'm not attached to Oscar in the slightest, but unlike you I am not obsessed with being unbeaten being the be-all and end all. When you face consistently top level opposition, you're going to lose ocassionally.

Ray Leonard in my opinion was a far better all around fighter, with better wins on his resume than Mayweather, but you know what, he lost some fights, because he was taking on the very best the sport has to offer.

Even in his losing effort against Duran, when he fought the wrong tactics, he pushed Duran very close.

Staying beaten is impressive, but not if it comes as a result of fighting mediocre opposition. I rate Calzaghe very highly for instance, but recognise that he has faced a lot of duffers. Had Oscar fought similiar opposition, he would probably still be unbeaten. He could probably have defended a WBO welterweight title ad infinitum had he chosen to avoid Mosley and Trinidad, which is effectively what Calzaghe has done until very recently, and we don't know yet how he fares against Kessler.

"Show me a guy who ain't lost, and I'll show you a guy who never fought nobody."

I think Whitey Bimstein's words sum it up.

[sockdolager]

Stiill, as long as a load of fat septics can hunker down onto their couches at prime time and get stuck into their 6th meal of the day whilst enjoying an all European unification fight, it somehow seems to make all the aggrevation worth while..

Wow, way to stereotype. Blame the money hungry promoters instead of labeling a nation fat septics.

[Deram]

Bullshite

It depepends on the manner of the loss, you're talking crap. It's not like Oscar got smashed to bits my Mosley or Trinidad is it. In fact the only guy to stop him was Hopkins, which was no big frigging crime was it.

The first Mosley fight could have gone either way, it was very very close and Oscar fought brilliantly. He was robbed against both Trinidad and Mosley in the rematch.

Oscar has acquitted himself well in all of his fights, including the mayweather fight, and lest we forget was actually ahead according to the judges against Bernard, though personally I don't see it that way.

Oscar is an all time great in my book, not quite on a par with the likes of Leonard, Duran, Hearns etc, but still a great fighter.

Maybe he was robbed,maybe not. I don't care if Oscar is no. 1 p4p or # 20. You are obviously very attached to Oscar, bu objectively in general a loss is always a loss.

Mads Larsen is also just as bad an example as any other. Mads didn't prove himself more through defeat than a win. Had he won he would have had a better resume - hopefully very few people will doubt that.

I'm not attached to Oscar in the slightest, but unlike you I am not obsessed with being unbeaten being the be-all and end all. When you face consistently top level opposition, you're going to lose ocassionally.

Ray Leonard in my opinion was a far better all around fighter, with better wins on his resume than Mayweather, but you know what, he lost some fights, because he was taking on the very best the sport has to offer.

Even in his losing effort against Duran, when he fought the wrong tactics, he pushed Duran very close.

Staying beaten is impressive, but not if it comes as a result of fighting mediocre opposition. I rate Calzaghe very highly for instance, but recognise that he has faced a lot of duffers. Had Oscar fought similiar opposition, he would probably still be unbeaten. He could probably have defended a WBO welterweight title ad infinitum had he chosen to avoid Mosley and Trinidad, which is effectively what Calzaghe has done until very recently, and we don't know yet how he fares against Kessler.

"Show me a guy who ain't lost, and I'll show you a guy who never fought nobody."

I think Whitey Bimstein's words sum it up.

Losing is not the be-all and end all. It is of course possible to have 5 defeats and be better than a guy with let's say only one defeat. That is very possible and not even unusual.

HOWEVER, the wrong claim is when people start arguing that a loss can be better than a win to the same opponent. Sure SRL lost a couple and sure he has a great resume, but imagine he actually won those fights that he lost - then his resume would have been EVEN better.

Winning is ALWAYS better than losing. That ought to be self-evident.

An entirely different thing is that losses are not all the same. A close loss to a ATG is of course far better or less bad than a shoot-out loss against a mediocre fighter.

But both fighters resume's would be better if they had won instead of lost. And that is my point.

[emma]

I dont care what time its on because...

a, Im not going

b, I dont have sentana

and c, Im not paying £10 to watch it.

Oh and hes my tip for anyone going...try and get a hotel near the stadium because trying to get a taxi at that time of morning is a nightmare.

p.s Im surprised the hotels havent doubled the prices, they did last time.

I don't think you really belong in a boxing forum. Unless you are a four year old child for whom 10 pounds takes 10 years to gather.

Or maybe Im just not a Calzaghe fan.

[Max Molyneux]

How can you not be a fan of the best boxer In the world?

Plus It's cheaper than Hatton Vs Mayweather and It's a superior matchup too.

[Autobarn]

You don't half talk some nonsense when it concerns Calzaghe.

Hopkins x 2, Wright, Ouma, Spinks and now Pavlik beats Lacy, Bika and Manfredo easily.

I'm not a huge ODH fan but the guy beat Hernandez, Chavez, Gonzalez, Whittaker, Quartey and Vargas.

Even his losing resume beats most other fighters. Shane x 2, Hopkins and Mayweather.

You can say Hopkins ducked Calzaghe but Calzaghe offered very little until recently and we are still waiting to see if he can become #1 in his weight division after a ten year span. That is really poor.

Taylor might have looked unimpressive but his fledgling resume is better than Joe's on paper. Oscar's pisses on Joe's, even his contender type fights are better than Joe's.

Joe has beaten fringe P4P fighters in Lacy and, we presume, Kessler. The fighters you disparage went for it early and put Joe to shame in this sense.

Even his losing resume beats most other fighters.

How can a losing resume beat ANYTHING?

A lost fight is a lost and it is just a matter of how much should be deducted for the loss.

If one could make a resume by losing then we can just take some crappy gatekeeper and his resume will beat most people's resume's. That is a complete misconception to count loses as something positive.

Bullshite

It depepends on the manner of the loss, you're talking crap. It's not like Oscar got smashed to bits my Mosley or Trinidad is it. In fact the only guy to stop him was Hopkins, which was no big frigging crime was it.

The first Mosley fight could have gone either way, it was very very close and Oscar fought brilliantly. He was robbed against both Trinidad and Mosley in the rematch.

Oscar has acquitted himself well in all of his fights, including the mayweather fight, and lest we forget was actually ahead according to the judges against Bernard, though personally I don't see it that way.

Oscar is an all time great in my book, not quite on a par with the likes of Leonard, Duran, Hearns etc, but still a great fighter.

Oscar's handicapping is so obvious before every fight that everything he does cannot help but look manufactured. Oscar has filled out to 154 pounds and he called out Mayweather. Mayweather was smaller than many of his super featherweight opponents, yet stil Oscar couldn't manage a win all the way up at LIGHT MIDDLE. ppl talk about how Oscar and Floyd started at the same weight, 130, but Oscar dwarved his super feather foes and Floyd was smaller than a good few, for instance.

Oscar losing this bout was not good. He should, if he was so great, have beaten Mayweather in the way that Hopkins beat Oscar.

[jangeorg]

How can you not be a fan of the best boxer In the world?

Plus It's cheaper than Hatton Vs Mayweather and It's a superior matchup too.

The best boxer in the world


Calzaghe has only fought two mandatory in 21 defence af his WBO-crab-belt in ten years,i can`t believe it, two in ten years,so how can he be the best
No,take a look on Kessler
Kessler has shown that he is willing to take on all the top guys in the division, and already in his 6th he will fight the top dog. 50% of his World-Champ fights revolves in removing belts from someone, and 66% of the remainder have been legitimate mandatories

[Max Molyneux]

Why do you guys only defend mandatry defences when It suits you?

Don't always be fooled by records either. Joe's shown willingness to fight the best and he Is fighting the 2nd best super middle on November 3rd.

Joe's going to annihilate Kessler on November 3rd.

The only boxer you could ever favour reasonably over Joe was a prime Jones Jr but that would be a 50/50 as Jones was too relfelxes reliant.

If the WBO Is crap then why Is Kessler also fighting for It?

This fights going to be pretty one sided.

Oh yeah someone on ESB posted this, the full Mundine fight.

http://files.filefront.com/Mikkel_Kesle ... l#comments

[Lenny]

Prime Jones Jnr v prime Calzaghe is no way 50/50. Joe is far too open against a super middle Jones Jnr who could hit hard. Calzaghe would be stopped imo

[steve689]

If the WBO Is crap then why Is Kessler also fighting for It?

I think Kessler is fighting for Super Middleweight supremecy and the WBO belt comes as part of a winning package. It's like something you get free in a supermarket but don't really want. As Graham Chapman says in the Life Of Brian "I don't want it but thanks".

And for my second none existent point....is it true only 2 of 21 defences have been mandatories? Veit was maybe one but who was the second?

[kevo]

If the WBO Is crap then why Is Kessler also fighting for It?

I think Kessler is fighting for Super Middleweight supremecy and the WBO belt comes as part of a winning package. It's like something you get free in a supermarket but don't really want. As Graham Chapman says in the Life Of Brian "I don't want it but thanks".

And for my second none existent point....is it true only 2 of 21 defences have been mandatories? Veit was maybe one but who was the second?

Wasn't Veit both mandatories?

[Max Molyneux]

Why did Hatton get off with not fighting Mandatries?

[kevo]

Why did Hatton get off with not fighting Mandatries?

The WBU doesn't have mandatories, and he hasn't held any of his other belts long enough to fight a mandatory.