Page 6 of 8
Posted: 24 Dec 2006, 13:02
by pundit
Twinkle Toes wrote:pundit wrote:
Mundine, a fighter with better footspeed and lateral movement than Calzaghe, couldn't get inside either, although he tried every trick in the book.
Mundine isn't very good at fighting on the inside either, he's certainly a few levels below that of Calzaghe.
His skill as stated by you is his lateral movement and footspeed, and what has that got to do with fighting on the inside? - Nothing is what, so your point is again flawed.
You tell me what lateral movement and footspeed is good for against Kessler if you can't get inside (at least in-out). Kessler has a huge reach advantage over most super-middlweights, Calzaghe and Mundine included, and a superb jab. From the outside he beats anyone.
You can carry on making your predictions on misunderstandings, but your knowledge of the game is negligible to say the least...
Of course.
..Not that many people would be daft enough to say Mundine has any particular boxing attribute better than that of Calzaghe.
People with knowledge of the game will say that Mundine has better footspeed, ring generalship, and lateral movement than Calzaghe -- because he has. Calzaghe is the better combination puncher, has better handspeed (at least when it comes to volume punching - here I disagree with viciousmaussa), a better chin, and he is overall an outstanding pressure fighter, second only to Manny Pacquaio pfp. Also, against Lacy he revealed some very nice infighting skills that I hand't seen with him before.
Overall Calzaghe is probably a notch above Mundine, but after Kessler Mundine would be the next most dangerous opponent for Calzaghe at 168.
As for the fight itself happening - I'd love to see it, but the reality of the situation is that it is highly unlikely - Calzaghes track record when it comes to making the big fight is poor, but that doesn't mean the guy lacks the ability to give Kessler a good going over.
So why don't you say openly that Calzahge is likley to duck Kessler -- because this is what it boils down to. In view of that, all the woulda coulda shoulda is pointless. But turning to woulda coulda for a moment nonetheless, I agree that Calzaghe vs. Kessler would have all the makings of a great fight. Two guys who are outstanding at what they are doing but fight very different styles, and who would have to get out of their comfort zones to win this.
Posted: 24 Dec 2006, 13:09
by lvlarc
8-4 is stretching it as far as possible for Mundine and you know it. The fight was about even going into the 12th but Mundine was way too negative and didn't deserve the nod. It was Siaca that was landing more shots and asserting himself. There should have been two separate knock downs scored for Siaca, one of them won him the fight. Mundine thought he won but never accepted the rematch. How can he be the highest paid SMW ? That's news to me.
Posted: 24 Dec 2006, 13:24
by Max Molyneux
Think Mundine does get a couple of million per fight regardless of opposition, so it might be true thats he's the highest paid super middle.
Posted: 24 Dec 2006, 15:16
by Autobarn
lvlarc_uk wrote:8-4 is stretching it as far as possible for Mundine and you know it. The fight was about even going into the 12th but Mundine was way too negative and didn't deserve the nod. It was Siaca that was landing more shots and asserting himself. There should have been two separate knock downs scored for Siaca, one of them won him the fight. Mundine thought he won but never accepted the rematch. How can he be the highest paid SMW ? That's news to me.
I scored it round by round, and I had more of 'em to Mundine in a desultory fight involving two styles that just wouldn't gel.
Mundine DEFINITELY disliked the height of Siaca, and only wanted to steal shots, but I had him pickpocketing it for certain.
Siaca assertive and landed more shots? - correction, his feet moved forward and landed very few shots with the knuckle on the target area. You have to land punches to win rounds & Siaca didn't do much of that, not against the defence of Mundine.
It isn't important to me that Mundine got the better of Siaca. It was a cautious game of tag between 2 men who didn't want to give the other an opportunity, but Mundine APPEARED to be the man who could get away with it due to his agility & speed from the outside.
But I admit, I was intrigued that when I finally watched this 'nail in Mundine's Boxrec coffin' , he didn't even appear to lose the bout, LMAO
When Siaca did go for broke at the end, all he did was clinch and punch, muffling his own shots, shots that barely hit the target area.
IMO ppl have been way out of order with Mundine on these forums. When I ended up checking out the fights, then I realised there was sense in what Pundit was saying. I also found that a lot of other ppl had been talking shite.
Posted: 24 Dec 2006, 15:24
by states
I'd like to propose a new sticky thread for the top of this forum. It's to be titled "Some people think Kessler beats Calzaghe. Others disagree" It's subtitled 'most of us just don't give a shit anymore'.
Fact is Calzaghe, for all his undoubted gifts, has shown no inclination to fight Kessler. So how about we just forget the whole thing? Let Kessler beat the guys put in front of him, and let Calzaghe beat the guys put in front of him. At the end of the day, this fight is never going to happen, and reading people discussing the possibilities should it happen just depresses me. And yes, it is all Calzaghe's fault, before Kessler fans accuse me of apathy as a defence for Joe.
Posted: 24 Dec 2006, 16:02
by lvlarc
viciousmaussa wrote:lvlarc_uk wrote:8-4 is stretching it as far as possible for Mundine and you know it. The fight was about even going into the 12th but Mundine was way too negative and didn't deserve the nod. It was Siaca that was landing more shots and asserting himself. There should have been two separate knock downs scored for Siaca, one of them won him the fight. Mundine thought he won but never accepted the rematch. How can he be the highest paid SMW ? That's news to me.
I scored it round by round, and I had more of 'em to Mundine in a desultory fight involving two styles that just wouldn't gel.
Mundine DEFINITELY disliked the height of Siaca, and only wanted to steal shots, but I had him pickpocketing it for certain.
Siaca assertive and landed more shots? - correction, his feet moved forward and landed very few shots with the knuckle on the target area. You have to land punches to win rounds & Siaca didn't do much of that, not against the defence of Mundine.
It isn't important to me that Mundine got the better of Siaca. It was a cautious game of tag between 2 men who didn't want to give the other an opportunity, but Mundine APPEARED to be the man who could get away with it due to his agility & speed from the outside.
But I admit, I was intrigued that when I finally watched this 'nail in Mundine's Boxrec coffin' , he didn't even appear to lose the bout, LMAO
When Siaca did go for broke at the end, all he did was clinch and punch, muffling his own shots, shots that barely hit the target area.
IMO ppl have been way out of order with Mundine on these forums. When I ended up checking out the fights, then I realised there was sense in what Pundit was saying. I also found that a lot of other ppl had been talking shite.
I guess this is where we agree to disagree, but you know I thought my memory might be failing me so I did a quick search for a fight report and couldn't even find one that had Mundine winning, most agreeing that he was too tentative and also found that media ringside at Mundine-Soliman all had Soliman winning.
Pundit does speak some sense I agree but it's just a shame he speaks much nonsense too.
I still think Calzaghe/Kessler may still happen, now that Taylor will probably stay at 160 and Hopkins moving up to HW, they were the 2 biggest names on his list.
Most on here were saying the same thing about the Lacy fight too.
Posted: 24 Dec 2006, 16:16
by Autobarn
I think that when a fighter is hyped, and outspoken, they can be judged more harshly. To ppl watching @ the time, Mundine must have been a bitter disappointment vs Siaca.
Mundine vs Soliman and Siaca were not the best fights, but AM seemed to me to land the quick shots and make the other guy miss.
I see those as Toney-Griffin (1 and 2) type of fights. One guy who you expect to be doing way more, to make things obvious, and to punctuate the rounds with something memorable having decidedly low contact encounters.
However, just as I had Toney landing most of the proper shots vs Griffin (both times), I also had Mundine rolling damn near everything that came his way and landing with the clean scoring blows.
I hate to score a fight for someone who's trying harder but not much more.
To me, Soliman is a bit of a trier, who endears himself to ppl by non stop work. But when you're not a clean puncher in the first place, and you're fighting someone who knows how to pick off your best shots, then guys like Soliman have nothing to bitch about.
The last 3 rounds, where Soliman had his breakthrough, even then he was landing rubbish shots. But it doesn't make up for getting beaten to the jab over the first 2/3 of the bout.
The Soliman controversy will actually do good for Mundine - it will work out in a cynical money grabbing way. Mundine got $6.25m AUD vs Green. Obviously he won't get that versus Sam, but if ppl are told that SS deserved to win the first fight, ppl are definitely more likely to buy the PPV.
Posted: 25 Dec 2006, 08:51
by Sweet P
I had Mundine by 1 point against Siaca, The Soliman fight was all Mundine for the first 8 rounds then Soliman came back in the last 4. When i watched it live i thought that Soliman won( I was at the pub and drunk), After watching it again Soliman only won 4 rounds so Mundine deserved the decision.
Posted: 26 Dec 2006, 07:24
by Autobarn
Ben Keilty wrote:I had Mundine by 1 point against Siaca, The Soliman fight was all Mundine for the first 8 rounds then Soliman came back in the last 4. When i watched it live i thought that Soliman won( I was at the pub and drunk), After watching it again Soliman only won 4 rounds so Mundine deserved the decision.
I agree fully on Soliman. Soliman's strong finish gave the impression that he 'deserved it'. But Sam just wasn't able to land leather over the first 7 or 8 rds, IMO, whereas Mundine landed some very fast shots and had the look of being in command.
I felt the Australian commentators can be hard on Mundine - if I remember correctly, they had Sullivan beating Mundine first time, for basically scuffling on the ropes and pushing down on Mundin's back repeatedly.
Posted: 26 Dec 2006, 16:31
by Taki...
Mundine gets more BS hype than Kessler (which is probably the reason why). Nice to see Boxrec has him rated 12th in the division... which is about right.
I'm all for a list of supermiddles (excluding Calzaghe and Kessler) who would beat Mundine... I'll start
#1: Denis Inkin.
Posted: 26 Dec 2006, 16:49
by Autobarn
Taki... wrote:Mundine gets more BS hype than Kessler (which is probably the reason why). Nice to see Boxrec has him rated 12th in the division... which is about right.
I'm all for a list of supermiddles (excluding Calzaghe and Kessler) who would beat Mundine... I'll start
#1: Denis Inkin.
On the contrary, I would say he is a much abused fighter, particularly from ppl who have a pro Calzaghe agenda.
In essence, he's the most accomplished boxer that Kessler beat, and thus it's more necessary to dismiss him as a glass chin hype lacking in class, substance and toughness.
I don't see why Kessler is hyped. Based on what he's done (i.e. taken on proper opposition), what he's going to do (face a dangerous mandatory), and what he wants to do (FULLY unify), I'd say he is SUBSTANCE.
While I'm at it, how is discovering that not only is Mundine's win over Soliman very fair, but that his loss to Siaca was questionable, hype? I'd say it was a surprising little discovery, and I'm glad I watched 'em instead of listening to lying wankers.
Posted: 26 Dec 2006, 18:01
by Taki...
viciousmaussa wrote:Taki... wrote:Mundine gets more BS hype than Kessler (which is probably the reason why). Nice to see Boxrec has him rated 12th in the division... which is about right.
I'm all for a list of supermiddles (excluding Calzaghe and Kessler) who would beat Mundine... I'll start
#1: Denis Inkin.
On the contrary, I would say he is a much abused fighter, particularly from ppl who have a pro Calzaghe agenda.
In essence, he's the most accomplished boxer that Kessler beat, and thus it's more necessary to dismiss him as a glass chin hype lacking in class, substance and toughness.
I don't see why Kessler is hyped. Based on what he's done (i.e. taken on proper opposition), what he's going to do (face a dangerous mandatory), and what he wants to do (FULLY unify), I'd say he is SUBSTANCE.
While I'm at it, how is discovering that not only is Mundine's win over Soliman very fair, but that his loss to Siaca was questionable, hype? I'd say it was a surprising little discovery, and I'm glad I watched 'em instead of listening to lying wankers.
The fact is that apart from Calzaghe and to a lesser degree Kessler the supermiddle division lacks boxers who have both quality and experience.
Andrade, Inkin, Froch, Bute and even Lacy are all comparatively inexperienced when one considers the upper reaches of other divisions. Mundine's standing is based (largely by default) on his experience. I'd say it was more a case of lack of substance in the division than Mundine being overly blessed with said content.
Posted: 26 Dec 2006, 19:03
by Autobarn
Super middle's a very exciting division. Despite coming into boxing late, Mundine has fantastic athletic gifts and with 6 years' pro experience, it's all coming together (this, with no amateur grounding). The win over Green was an outright masterpiece - the kind of performance that only a special fighter can pull off.
I have high hopes for Mundine in '07.
Posted: 26 Dec 2006, 19:31
by Axe
Max Molyneux wrote:Adamek would get clowned by Calzaghe, thats one fight I'd even pay for PPV to watch.
Adamek from the Ulrich fight (and earlier) knocks Joe spark out.
I hope he can get back to form after the layoff and court struggles with King though. If so, Joe's in for a beating.
Hypothetical of course, as Adamek has already shown balls while Calzaghe has failed to do so before and after Lacy.
Posted: 26 Dec 2006, 19:41
by pundit
Max Molyneux wrote:Adamek would get clowned by Calzaghe, thats one fight I'd even pay for PPV to watch.
Woulda coulda shoulda all over again.
HASN'T.
WON'T.
CAN'T.
Posted: 26 Dec 2006, 19:43
by pundit
Taki... wrote:viciousmaussa wrote:Taki... wrote:Mundine gets more BS hype than Kessler (which is probably the reason why). Nice to see Boxrec has him rated 12th in the division... which is about right.
I'm all for a list of supermiddles (excluding Calzaghe and Kessler) who would beat Mundine... I'll start
#1: Denis Inkin.
On the contrary, I would say he is a much abused fighter, particularly from ppl who have a pro Calzaghe agenda.
In essence, he's the most accomplished boxer that Kessler beat, and thus it's more necessary to dismiss him as a glass chin hype lacking in class, substance and toughness.
I don't see why Kessler is hyped. Based on what he's done (i.e. taken on proper opposition), what he's going to do (face a dangerous mandatory), and what he wants to do (FULLY unify), I'd say he is SUBSTANCE.
While I'm at it, how is discovering that not only is Mundine's win over Soliman very fair, but that his loss to Siaca was questionable, hype? I'd say it was a surprising little discovery, and I'm glad I watched 'em instead of listening to lying wankers.
The fact is that apart from Calzaghe and to a lesser degree Kessler the supermiddle division lacks boxers who have both quality and experience.
Andrade, Inkin, Froch, Bute and even Lacy are all comparatively inexperienced when one considers the upper reaches of other divisions. Mundine's standing is based (largely by default) on his experience. I'd say it was more a case of lack of substance in the division than Mundine being overly blessed with said content.
Well, you are clueless.
Posted: 26 Dec 2006, 21:19
by Taki...
pundit wrote:Taki... wrote:viciousmaussa wrote:On the contrary, I would say he is a much abused fighter, particularly from ppl who have a pro Calzaghe agenda.
In essence, he's the most accomplished boxer that Kessler beat, and thus it's more necessary to dismiss him as a glass chin hype lacking in class, substance and toughness.
I don't see why Kessler is hyped. Based on what he's done (i.e. taken on proper opposition), what he's going to do (face a dangerous mandatory), and what he wants to do (FULLY unify), I'd say he is SUBSTANCE.
While I'm at it, how is discovering that not only is Mundine's win over Soliman very fair, but that his loss to Siaca was questionable, hype? I'd say it was a surprising little discovery, and I'm glad I watched 'em instead of listening to lying wankers.
The fact is that apart from Calzaghe and to a lesser degree Kessler the supermiddle division lacks boxers who have both quality and experience.
Andrade, Inkin, Froch, Bute and even Lacy are all comparatively inexperienced when one considers the upper reaches of other divisions. Mundine's standing is based (largely by default) on his experience. I'd say it was more a case of lack of substance in the division than Mundine being overly blessed with said content.
Well, you are clueless.
Coming from a man who contradicts himself from one week to the next and who has no idea what he's written in the past... I'd call that ironic.
Posted: 26 Dec 2006, 22:47
by pundit
Taki... wrote:Coming from a man who contradicts himself from one week to the next and who has no idea what he's written in the past... I'd call that ironic.
Hmmmmm -- strange.
As far as I know, I've consistenlty considered Mundine a top 3 super-middleweight, extremely gifted and the second most risky challenge for Calzaghe at 168.
Because he is.
As far as I know, I have consistently for the past 3 years considered Kessler the real challenger at 168, and the guy Calzaghe is (principally) avoiding.
Because he is.
As far as I know I have consistently considered Lacy a mediocre super-middleweight with severe flaws, never had him higher than #5, and even this only grudgingly after the Reid fight.
Because he isn't better and he never was.
Moreover, I consistently considered Lacy taylor-made for Calzaghe and hand-selected for a beating by Warren; and the alleged "super-fight" a PR charade.
Because this is what it was.
Finally, as far as I know I have consistently considered Calzaghe an exciting, promising but protected fighter who is shielded by his manager from risky, meaningful fights, which is possible in part due to the WBO "belt".
Because this is what has been going on for the past 10 years, and it is ruining Calzaghe's career.
And this is what in essence the discussion about 168 boils down to.
What bugs you is of course exactly the consistency of these arguments, and the fact that they are consistently correct.
Posted: 27 Dec 2006, 06:45
by Autobarn
Axe wrote:Max Molyneux wrote:Adamek would get clowned by Calzaghe, thats one fight I'd even pay for PPV to watch.
Adamek from the Ulrich fight (and earlier) knocks Joe spark out.
I hope he can get back to form after the layoff and court struggles with King though. If so, Joe's in for a beating.
Hypothetical of course, as Adamek has already shown balls while Calzaghe has failed to do so before and after Lacy.
I actually think the Adamek from the 2nd Briggs fight would KO Calzaghe. He looks well strong, and those combos that rocked Briggs would finish off a lot of fighters.
Posted: 27 Dec 2006, 16:29
by Taki...
pundit wrote:Taki... wrote:Coming from a man who contradicts himself from one week to the next and who has no idea what he's written in the past... I'd call that ironic.
Hmmmmm -- strange.
As far as I know, I've consistenlty considered Mundine a top 3 super-middleweight, extremely gifted and the second most risky challenge for Calzaghe at 168.
Because he is.
As far as I know, I have consistently for the past 3 years considered Kessler the real challenger at 168, and the guy Calzaghe is (principally) avoiding.
Because he is.
As far as I know I have consistently considered Lacy a mediocre super-middleweight with severe flaws, never had him higher than #5, and even this only grudgingly after the Reid fight.
Because he isn't better and he never was.
Moreover, I consistently considered Lacy taylor-made for Calzaghe and hand-selected for a beating by Warren; and the alleged "super-fight" a PR charade.
Because this is what it was.
Finally, as far as I know I have consistently considered Calzaghe an exciting, promising but protected fighter who is shielded by his manager from risky, meaningful fights, which is possible in part due to the WBO "belt".
Because this is what has been going on for the past 10 years, and it is ruining Calzaghe's career.
And this is what in essence the discussion about 168 boils down to.
What bugs you is of course exactly the consistency of these arguments, and the fact that they are consistently correct.
Consistent you most assuredly are not... as proven by your rapid change of views with regards to Librado Andrade.
And you 'considered' Lacy to be a tailor-made PR charade, but just neglected to post anything on the subject. Convenient more than consistent.
Nothing 'bugs' me, but I do find it amusing to point out the FACT you voiced NONE of these opinions before Lacy was beaten. Saying Lacy's style suits Calzaghe (patently obvious) and that Calzaghe is more experienced (even more patently obvious) is hardly insightful. Pretending you posted things about Lacy being over-hyped, overrated, mediocre and one dimensional before the fight is just pure fantasy.
What a shame you can't go back and edit those posts... without the date of the change being noted.
Posted: 27 Dec 2006, 16:38
by pundit
Taki... wrote:pundit wrote:Taki... wrote:Coming from a man who contradicts himself from one week to the next and who has no idea what he's written in the past... I'd call that ironic.
Hmmmmm -- strange.
As far as I know, I've consistenlty considered Mundine a top 3 super-middleweight, extremely gifted and the second most risky challenge for Calzaghe at 168.
Because he is.
As far as I know, I have consistently for the past 3 years considered Kessler the real challenger at 168, and the guy Calzaghe is (principally) avoiding.
Because he is.
As far as I know I have consistently considered Lacy a mediocre super-middleweight with severe flaws, never had him higher than #5, and even this only grudgingly after the Reid fight.
Because he isn't better and he never was.
Moreover, I consistently considered Lacy taylor-made for Calzaghe and hand-selected for a beating by Warren; and the alleged "super-fight" a PR charade.
Because this is what it was.
Finally, as far as I know I have consistently considered Calzaghe an exciting, promising but protected fighter who is shielded by his manager from risky, meaningful fights, which is possible in part due to the WBO "belt".
Because this is what has been going on for the past 10 years, and it is ruining Calzaghe's career.
And this is what in essence the discussion about 168 boils down to.
What bugs you is of course exactly the consistency of these arguments, and the fact that they are consistently correct.
Consistent you most assuredly are not... as proven by your rapid change of views with regards to Librado Andrade.
And you 'considered' Lacy to be a tailor-made PR charade, but just neglected to post anything on the subject. Convenient more than consistent.
Nothing 'bugs' me, but I do find it amusing to point out the FACT you voiced NONE of these opinions before Lacy was beaten.
This is total crap and you know it.
Posted: 27 Dec 2006, 16:41
by Taki...
pundit wrote:Taki... wrote:pundit wrote:
Hmmmmm -- strange.
As far as I know, I've consistenlty considered Mundine a top 3 super-middleweight, extremely gifted and the second most risky challenge for Calzaghe at 168.
Because he is.
As far as I know, I have consistently for the past 3 years considered Kessler the real challenger at 168, and the guy Calzaghe is (principally) avoiding.
Because he is.
As far as I know I have consistently considered Lacy a mediocre super-middleweight with severe flaws, never had him higher than #5, and even this only grudgingly after the Reid fight.
Because he isn't better and he never was.
Moreover, I consistently considered Lacy taylor-made for Calzaghe and hand-selected for a beating by Warren; and the alleged "super-fight" a PR charade.
Because this is what it was.
Finally, as far as I know I have consistently considered Calzaghe an exciting, promising but protected fighter who is shielded by his manager from risky, meaningful fights, which is possible in part due to the WBO "belt".
Because this is what has been going on for the past 10 years, and it is ruining Calzaghe's career.
And this is what in essence the discussion about 168 boils down to.
What bugs you is of course exactly the consistency of these arguments, and the fact that they are consistently correct.
Consistent you most assuredly are not... as proven by your rapid change of views with regards to Librado Andrade.
And you 'considered' Lacy to be a tailor-made PR charade, but just neglected to post anything on the subject. Convenient more than consistent.
Nothing 'bugs' me, but I do find it amusing to point out the FACT you voiced NONE of these opinions before Lacy was beaten.
This is total crap and you know it.
I dare say... just look at you giving examples of posts PRIOR to Lacy/Calzaghe where you made these stamements and proving me wrong!
Posted: 27 Dec 2006, 17:29
by pundit
Taki... wrote:pundit wrote:Taki... wrote:
Consistent you most assuredly are not... as proven by your rapid change of views with regards to Librado Andrade.
And you 'considered' Lacy to be a tailor-made PR charade, but just neglected to post anything on the subject. Convenient more than consistent.
Nothing 'bugs' me, but I do find it amusing to point out the FACT you voiced NONE of these opinions before Lacy was beaten.
This is total crap and you know it.
I dare say... just look at you giving examples of posts PRIOR to Lacy/Calzaghe where you made these stamements and proving me wrong!
2 minutes of search return these ones -- the rest you'll have to find yourself.
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:31 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calzaghe has never fought anyone, and Lacy squeezed out a narrow decision against a mediocre clubber (Sheika) who in his next fight was schooled and made look like a clown by Markus Beyer.
Lacy is a bully who wins convicingly against fighters who crumble under pressure. But fighters who resist that pressure soon expose Lacy's rather limited arsenal.
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:36 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEITHER Lacy NOR Calwhoee have EVER fought anyone like Mundine, BEWARE OF on Mundine's home turf.
From a boxing perspective, Calzaghe knows only one way to fight - slap slap slap away from half-distance. With his outstanding handspeed, this gives him good chances against immobile, limited sluggers like Lacy.
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:50 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who cares. This is a fight for at best the number 2 or number 3 spot in the super-middleweight division. A limited slugger against a onedimensional notorious duckling. Mundine vs Green appeals more to me.
P
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 5:44 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Woulda coulda shoulda blablabla...
FACT: Beyer won a much more lospided decision over Sheika than Lacy.
One can't say too much about Lacy at this stage except that he is rather untested and that he looks strong but one-dimensional. But I'm sure team Calzaghe has made its homework before offering the fight to Lacy. He seems the easiest opponent among the other s-m beltholders for Calzaghe. Kessler is far too good; and the evasive counterpuncher Beyer would be a stylistic horror for Joe
Posted: 27 Dec 2006, 18:00
by Taki...
PUNDIT!!!! Thankyou for giving me the idea of searching your posts on this subject... conclusive evidence that you really don't have a fornicating clue (read them and you'll chuckle yourself).
Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 2:30 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with others: we should just forget about Calzaghe and his fake belt. Ignore this idiot and
focus on the other good super-middleweights around - Kessler,
Lacy, Beyer, Mundine, Green, Markussen, whohaveyou.
Kessler-Lacy would undoubtedly be much more meaningful than Calzaghe-Lacy.
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 2:28 pm Post subject:
Mikkel Kessler challanges Jeff Lacy!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me join the other folks here - I'd love to see this, and in my book the winner would clearly be the #1 at super-middleweight.
The winner should then unify with Markus Beyer, if this can be done.
Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 5:02 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chesney_Chambers wrote:
Joe will spank the yank!!
Joe will duck the yank.
As he's ducked every half-decent fighter between 160 and 175 pounds during the past 10 years.
And this is pure gold...
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:58 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lacy shows promise, but some are hyping him up way too much. I hope he'll take on a top-5 fighter - Kessler, Beyer, Calzahge, Green, Mundine - in his next bout. Well, Calzaghe and Beyer will avoid him, but get one of these Australians or mighty Mikel.
Kessler-Lacy is anyway the best bout that could be made at s-m at the moment. After this we'll know more.
Noone is more annoyed by Little Haymaker Joe than I am;
still I would have a hard time nominating 5 super-middleweights that I would rate above him. Kessler yes, Lacy probably, Beyer perhaps, Green hmmmm, Mundine probably not. Who else is there? Anyway, Calzaghe condems himself to irrelevance.
P
So you'd 'probably rate Lacy above Calzaghe.
And Lacy/Kessler will show who is #1 at SM...
In the words of The Streets; don't mug yourself! And you are consistent in as much as you're consistently inconsistent.
Posted: 27 Dec 2006, 18:52
by Autobarn
Who cares - hasn't anyone changed or revised an opinion?
Boxing doesn't exactly remain static, and thus we'd all be idiots if he just clung to the same notions.
Calzaghe's reputation was rock bottom prior to Lacy - I for one had totally given up on the man after the Salem and Ashira excuses for fights.
There was definitely the temptation to just write off Joe Calzaghe, because this guy took this piss out of anyone bothered about boxing.
It wasn't until the week before the fight that I personally thought Calzaghe was going to get him.