BoxRec

Quixall wrote:Kingfinn, fair enough, everyone has an opinion however bizzare that opinion may be and all opinion is subjective. But as i have said before, opinions can be measured by whether or not a concensus can be gained on any particular subject. So whilst it's fine to hold an opinion that only a tiny majority of people believe, the rest of society works on the basis that bonafide opinion comes about through the vast majority of people thinking or believing roughly the same things. There will be people that think that robbery and murder should go unpunished or that the holocaust never existed, but the majority of people will think that robbery and murder should be dealt with through criminal proceedings and that the holocaust clearly existed and was a horrific event in the history of human kind and should have be dealt with through the courts and the death penalty.

Now, whilst sport is clearly a less serious subject, the same principles apply. If the vast majority of people, which will include fools, the shit kicker, the sensible and the special all believe in one thing or agree on the basic assumptiuon of something, then invariably it will contain within it a large degree of truth. Someone like myself or my friend Mr Saxon trying to convince you to change or reconsider your viewpoints is an entirely different matter with regard to establishing a truth or sense of objectivityabout a particular subject. A person may believe that Elvis Presley is not dead but works in their local Asda or that Wales will win the football world cup and whilst they have every right to hold these views, it has to said that by the principles set out earlier, Society would deem them eccentric and not worthy of listening too and prefer instead the opinion set down by the majority.

The theory of consensus can be tried out and here, on this very site

Based on that theory you would have been a nazi if you lived in germany during ww2 and degale would have beaten groves, foreman would have beaten ali, khan would have beaten peterson. If your only argument is most people think something is right so it must be then i really do wonder why you follow boxing. As was stated previously and not by me most people thought the world was flat at some point. I base my opinions on my belief that i have better instincts than the people who disagree with me as well as an informed opinion.

Stating a world champion would beat another better favoured world champion is not along the same lines as thinking Elvis works in asda, your point is weak if not embarrassing.

I think what is embaressing is that you couldn't detect the tongue in cheek humour and you took my points out of context.

All you are doing is pointing out the rarities that will always come from having most people derive their opinions by a consensus of opinion. Occasionally Man Utd will lose to Bolton or Arsenal, but still the majority would say that they have been the top team in Britain over the last 10 years, so i'm afraid that the shit you just tried to throw has ended up back in your face. You may just have, possibly by a tiny thread, a debate worth having over Calzaghe vs Jones (prime) and the possible out come, but your Eubank equals Toney comment was just plain ridiculous and then to say you didn't think Toney was all that great really did prove that your judgement is derisory. People who defy convention and go out on a limb to prove the majority wrong are either brilliant people who hold special abilities, the delusional or those who like to go against the grain simply for the enjoyment of being contrary. Holding your opinion in this case does not make you a boxing genius who can see what others can't, it just makes you look stupid and unknowledgeable of the sport, which i'm sure isn't really the case.

The only way to get a sort of objective account is to open up the debate to the site and let the people on here have their say. But i think you can already tell what the majority think and so you shall decline to do so. To do dismiss the opinions of very knowledgable people and take your own minority view and not consider or reflect upon your own analysis is regretable and says an awful lot about your mind set and approach to debating. This shall be my last post on the subject because i have wasted enough time already on stating what is quite obvious to the majority of posters on this site. Without all the references to WW2, the elvis in Asda etc etc, if you went to any boxing venue, gym, spoke to boxing fans, fighters, promoters, trainers and came out with your points of view, i think you will find that what came back was the opinions that Jon, Mugabi, myself and many others share. You would perhaps get some debate over the Calzaghe - Jones, Calzaghe - Hopkins fights (prime years) but you would just get laughter at your suggestion of Toney equals Eubank and isn't a ATG.

As i said earlier and before, although it's not scientific and there are holes in the experiment, just put up a thread and ask those questions and if you respect some of the excellnt posters on this site, you will see that your talking utter shite

Quixall wrote:I think what is embaressing is that you couldn't detect the tongue in cheek humour and you took my points out of context.

All you are doing is pointing out the rarities that will always come from having most people derive their opinions by a consensus of opinion. Occasionally Man Utd will lose to Bolton or Arsenal, but still the majority would say that they have been the top team in Britain over the last 10 years, so i'm afraid that the shit you just tried to throw has ended up back in your face. You may just have, possibly by a tiny thread, a debate worth having over Calzaghe vs Jones (prime) and the possible out come, but your Eubank equals Toney comment was just plain ridiculous and then to say you didn't think Toney was all that great really did prove that your judgement is derisory. People who defy convention and go out on a limb to prove the majority wrong are either brilliant people who hold special abilities, the delusional or those who like to go against the grain simply for the enjoyment of being contrary. Holding your opinion in this case does not make you a boxing genius who can see what others can't, it just makes you look stupid and unknowledgeable of the sport, which i'm sure isn't really the case.

The only way to get a sort of objective account is to open up the debate to the site and let the people on here have their say. But i think you can already tell what the majority think and so you shall decline to do so. To do dismiss the opinions of very knowledgable people and take your own minority view and not consider or reflect upon your own analysis is regretable and says an awful lot about your mind set and approach to debating. This shall be my last post on the subject because i have wasted enough time already on stating what is quite obvious to the majority of posters on this site. Without all the references to WW2, the elvis in Asda etc etc, if you went to any boxing venue, gym, spoke to boxing fans, fighters, promoters, trainers and came out with your points of view, i think you will find that what came back was the opinions that Jon, Mugabi, myself and many others share. You would perhaps get some debate over the Calzaghe - Jones, Calzaghe - Hopkins fights (prime years) but you would just get laughter at your suggestion of Toney equals Eubank and isn't a ATG.

As i said earlier and before, although it's not scientific and there are holes in the experiment, just put up a thread and ask those questions and if you respect some of the excellnt posters on this site, you will see that your talking utter shite

I really cant see what point you are making. Is your point that if the majority of people think a fighter would win he would? because thats what it sounds like.

From what i can gather you think you absolutely 100% know the outcome of fights that never took place.

And as far as respecting excellent posters on this site, i do, i just dont think you are one of them. There are people on this site i have had the same discussion with in the past and put forward credible arguments to back up their thoughts. You keep banging on about how the majority agree with you so i must be talking shit.

Heres one of your arguments - Calzaghe beat hopkins so wouldnt have beaten a prime hopkins.

As i said before 95% of experts, people who's opinion i respect more than yours and who have more inside knowledge than you picked degale to beat groves. Foreman was supposed to beat Ali, same with liston. From your comments im not even sure you watch this sport.

Kingfinn, i think we have both deliberately miss-understood each others view point and it has desecended into a rather boring and tedious argument. I never said i was an excellent poster and i don't seek praise for my posts, need my ego boosting or need my knowledge quantified by someone i don't know and in that respect i couldn't care less what you think of me or my posts. We both watch the sport, assume we both love the sport and have an opinion on it that we like to express through this site. I would imagine that we know slightly more than your average sports fan about boxing, but there will be people who know less and people who know more than we do, i don't come on here to "win" arguments, rather to express an opinion and debate with like minded people, which includes yourself. On a site like this you will get allsorts of people with varying agenda's which is why i tend to take most people's views with a pinch of salt.

I think that there is a debate to be had about whether Calzaghe would have beaten Jones and Hopkins in their primes. I think that Jones was a very fast, unorthadox fighter, who had phenominal reflexes in his prime, backed up by a punching power that was under-rated. He was also technically very proficiant and could switch styles easily, but it was the unorthadox nature to his style combined with the speed that makes me say he would have comfortably have beaten Calzaghe. Hopkins was an old school fighter, who could work out someone's style and approch and then negate it. You could see how Hopkins dominated the first half of the fight with Calzaghe and this was because he took away the A game that Calzaghe always used. Calzaghe came back into the fight through work rate and stamina and Hopkins faded slightly from around the 7th round, but Calzaghe's work wasn't of quality. Hopkins did this in his 40's, some way off his prime, which is why i would have favoured Hopkins to beat Calzaghe in his prime years.

I am not going to discuss the James Toney / Eubank analysis to much because i think it is pretty pointless. Where as the Calzaghe / Hopkins / Jones at their prime years has some merit, i don't think that is the case with your comments on James Toney. Again, you could perhaps argue that Eubank would have been an awkward fight for Toney, but one look at Toney's career, who he fought, what he has won over the years and watching him fight is enough to see that the man is a definate all time great fighter in my opinion. All my point was about the "consensus of opinion" is that you get such an analysis because a sports person has proved many times over that he or she is better, on average, than their peer group over a period of time, but that doesn't mean that you can say with any certainty that a specific result can be pre-determind as you have pointed out yourself. You could use this as an example with people such as Ali, who many people believe by consensus was the best heavyweight ever, yet he lost to Frazier, which means that no, you can't always predict the accuracy of something because the mjority of people think it likely to happen.

I never mean't to argue with you, upset you or belittle your point of view, i just found it strange how you quantified your view points if you didn't take on board the opinions of people who had a counter view to yourself and represented to a degree the majority of opinion. That was alerted to me when you said about not wanting to put up a thread to ask people whether they thought Jones / Hopkins would beat Calzaghe in their primes and whether or not Toney was an all time great. You said that despite what people said, why would it change your opinion !! Which is why i said that if the majority of people felt that way, then maybe you could be miss-guided in your analysis and would perhaps reflect on your view points. Your attitude was kind of "I know best, my knowledge is better than theirs, so why should i take onboard their views". Anyway, hope that has cleared a few things up and given you a better idea of where i was coming from initially. That is what is good about the site, having views, debating and having a frank exchange of views

Quixall wrote:Kingfinn, i think we have both deliberately miss-understood each others view point and it has desecended into a rather boring and tedious argument. I never said i was an excellent poster and i don't seek praise for my posts, need my ego boosting or need my knowledge quantified by someone i don't know and in that respect i couldn't care less what you think of me or my posts. We both watch the sport, assume we both love the sport and have an opinion on it that we like to express through this site. I would imagine that we know slightly more than your average sports fan about boxing, but there will be people who know less and people who know more than we do, i don't come on here to "win" arguments, rather to express an opinion and debate with like minded people, which includes yourself. On a site like this you will get allsorts of people with varying agenda's which is why i tend to take most people's views with a pinch of salt.

I think that there is a debate to be had about whether Calzaghe would have beaten Jones and Hopkins in their primes. I think that Jones was a very fast, unorthadox fighter, who had phenominal reflexes in his prime, backed up by a punching power that was under-rated. He was also technically very proficiant and could switch styles easily, but it was the unorthadox nature to his style combined with the speed that makes me say he would have comfortably have beaten Calzaghe. Hopkins was an old school fighter, who could work out someone's style and approch and then negate it. You could see how Hopkins dominated the first half of the fight with Calzaghe and this was because he took away the A game that Calzaghe always used. Calzaghe came back into the fight through work rate and stamina and Hopkins faded slightly from around the 7th round, but Calzaghe's work wasn't of quality. Hopkins did this in his 40's, some way off his prime, which is why i would have favoured Hopkins to beat Calzaghe in his prime years.

I am not going to discuss the James Toney / Eubank analysis to much because i think it is pretty pointless. Where as the Calzaghe / Hopkins / Jones at their prime years has some merit, i don't think that is the case with your comments on James Toney. Again, you could perhaps argue that Eubank would have been an awkward fight for Toney, but one look at Toney's career, who he fought, what he has won over the years and watching him fight is enough to see that the man is a definate all time great fighter in my opinion. All my point was about the "consensus of opinion" is that you get such an analysis because a sports person has proved many times over that he or she is better, on average, than their peer group over a period of time, but that doesn't mean that you can say with any certainty that a specific result can be pre-determind as you have pointed out yourself. You could use this as an example with people such as Ali, who many people believe by consensus was the best heavyweight ever, yet he lost to Frazier, which means that no, you can't always predict the accuracy of something because the mjority of people think it likely to happen.

I never mean't to argue with you, upset you or belittle your point of view, i just found it strange how you quantified your view points if you didn't take on board the opinions of people who had a counter view to yourself and represented to a degree the majority of opinion. That was alerted to me when you said about not wanting to put up a thread to ask people whether they thought Jones / Hopkins would beat Calzaghe in their primes and whether or not Toney was an all time great. You said that despite what people said, why would it change your opinion !! Which is why i said that if the majority of people felt that way, then maybe you could be miss-guided in your analysis and would perhaps reflect on your view points. Your attitude was kind of "I know best, my knowledge is better than theirs, so why should i take onboard their views". Anyway, hope that has cleared a few things up and given you a better idea of where i was coming from initially. That is what is good about the site, having views, debating and having a frank exchange of views

At first I thought thats a big post but then I read it and it was a very well honest & smart piece.

Kingfin give it up mate, life's waaay too short

Im not upset in anyway. Theres a difference between a debate and people dismissing opinions, if people want to talk about why they think fighter a is better than fighter b or why fighter a is better than fighter b thats great.

Thats hasnt been the case here on most posts. I often find jon saxon gets his knickers in a twist on this forum and becomes anal and rather smarmy which is irritating at best, and where some of your points have had merit the rest of the post tends to state something along the lines of "you must be stupid to believe that".

Bottom line is Calzaghe had the best record at SMW which was my original point, i also think he would have beaten jones at that weight; however i can see clearly why people would disagree. Where as although toney had a great career i think in an actual fight at SMW (and bare in mind the whole conversation i was having with jon was regarding the SMW division) i think he would have been on the same level as Eubank. Eubanks cv at SMW was better and i base that on the fact Toney was completely outclassed by Jones and his best wins previous to that fight were in the middleweight, when he moved up to LHW he was immediately beaten by giffin. Other than Barkley who Benn also beat he didnt actually beat anyone that good at smw, he only ever held one title so at no point did he dominate the division or challenge another world title holder. Eubank beat watson, malinga, rocchiggiani and drew with benn, Eubank was also never stopped (bar his last fight at CW) and the only real bench mark there was, is Thornton and both Eubank and Toney won by UD, Eubank doing it a year earlier than toney. Also Eubank imo had the ability to put away alot of fighters but didnt due to the outcome of the watson fight, which is why despite his punch power the majority of his smw fights went the distance, he often used to back off when a fighter was in trouble; and if you watch alot of his fights Eubank was winning fights whilst holding back on occassion where as toney wasnt.

Well, i think we can all descend into slagging matches at times and i'm as guilty as the next person. As for Jon, he is a mate of mine and i can assure you that when you talk to him he is far more measured than he appears on this site at times. He is a studious fan of the sport and has good all round knowledge and is a very interesting, articulate and successfull person. Jon has a tendancy to wind people up which he enjoys but is a top bloke. I think one of the confusions has been me looking at someone's general career and you looking at a specific weight and making judgements of of that, as you have explained with Eubank and Calzaghe at SM. I personally would have liked to have seen Calzaghe go to America much earlier in his career. Whether he would have got fights against the likes of Hopkins, Jones, Toney etc in his prime years is uncertain, because his stock only seemed to rise towards the end of his career and certainly after his defeat of Lacy and Kessler. It's almost as if Jones in particular looked in disdane at any British champion around his own weight classes and only fought Calzaghe because by then he was running out of other options.

Jon Saxon wrote:

kingfinn wrote:

Quixall wrote: Like i said, post the thread !!

See what you get back !! You won't do because you know people will tell you that your talking crap !!

To be honest, i should have stopped debating with you when you said that Toney was on the same level as Eubank.

As Jon says, it's either a wind up or you really don't know what the eff your talking about..................

Why would i post the thread, people agreeing with you isnt going to change my opinion. 63% of people on this site said helenius was going to ko chisora.

Yeah but they haven hindsight on this one and im willing to bet that you have very few who will agree with you on this.


Toney is an ATG Eubank (as much as I love the mad fuk) is not.
Toney goes to the Hall Eubank doesnt.

How simple is that for you?

I can see Eubank getting in, not a first ballot, but I think he may get in.

Quixall wrote:Well, i think we can all descend into slagging matches at times and i'm as guilty as the next person. As for Jon, he is a mate of mine and i can assure you that when you talk to him he is far more measured than he appears on this site at times. He is a studious fan of the sport and has good all round knowledge and is a very interesting, articulate and successfull person. Jon has a tendancy to wind people up which he enjoys but is a top bloke. I think one of the confusions has been me looking at someone's general career and you looking at a specific weight and making judgements of of that, as you have explained with Eubank and Calzaghe at SM. I personally would have liked to have seen Calzaghe go to America much earlier in his career. Whether he would have got fights against the likes of Hopkins, Jones, Toney etc in his prime years is uncertain, because his stock only seemed to rise towards the end of his career and certainly after his defeat of Lacy and Kessler. It's almost as if Jones in particular looked in disdane at any British champion around his own weight classes and only fought Calzaghe because by then he was running out of other options.

Ill give him the benefit of the doubt

kingfinn wrote:

Quixall wrote:Well, i think we can all descend into slagging matches at times and i'm as guilty as the next person. As for Jon, he is a mate of mine and i can assure you that when you talk to him he is far more measured than he appears on this site at times. He is a studious fan of the sport and has good all round knowledge and is a very interesting, articulate and successfull person. Jon has a tendancy to wind people up which he enjoys but is a top bloke. I think one of the confusions has been me looking at someone's general career and you looking at a specific weight and making judgements of of that, as you have explained with Eubank and Calzaghe at SM. I personally would have liked to have seen Calzaghe go to America much earlier in his career. Whether he would have got fights against the likes of Hopkins, Jones, Toney etc in his prime years is uncertain, because his stock only seemed to rise towards the end of his career and certainly after his defeat of Lacy and Kessler. It's almost as if Jones in particular looked in disdane at any British champion around his own weight classes and only fought Calzaghe because by then he was running out of other options.

Ill give him the benefit of the doubt

In my case I would just like to say that I was more patient before I post things, I tend to et hot headed and stuborn and start the verbal fistycuffs way to easily.

That said, Kingfin your stil a wank (joke)

Chris Eubanks has always spouted shite of the highest order. Let's get things straight, Roy Jones Jnr (at his and Eubanks super middleweight peaks) would have creamed Eubank no problem at all. Eubank boxed top notch domestic opposition wrapped up in a WBO package. Sure he could handle himself in world class, but without the WBO piece of crap around his waist, I doubt he would have even been a "world" champion and if he could have managed to pull it off he certainly would not have been a world champion for long. A vastly over-exposed boxer.

Eubank-Jones jr. wouldve been a Great fight.. Eubank with those low pounces to close the gap nd get off short rights or short uppercuts from out of nowhere, nd Jones jr. with those leaping hooks or leaping rights from outside to bypass jabbing nd avoid counters on his toes.. both had flashy flurries.. both had ace reflexes.. the ultimate game of chess.. Jones jr. ultimately had better workload nd stamina though to edge each round..

I think Eubank wouldve easily outboxed Julian Jackson, Iran Barkley, Van Horn, Cordoba or Galvano or a pre-McCallum J.Toney.. those were the other options if the Benn fight never came off or he was stripped or title-less.. he'd of definitely been world champ..

Its a shame because Julian J and Iran B were in P4P lists at the time nd Eubank wouldve breezed past them in USA making a name for himself there.. also a shame he never went through with the M.Nunn fight after the Benn re-match because Nunn looked shit in that next fight against journeyman Steve Little losing his title -so Eubank wouldve walked it!

Greg Nicholas wrote:Its a shame because Julian J and Iran B were in P4P lists at the time nd Eubank wouldve breezed past them in USA making a name for himself there.. also a shame he never went through with the M.Nunn fight after the Benn re-match because Nunn looked shit in that next fight against journeyman Steve Little losing his title -so Eubank wouldve walked it!

Greg,

Eubank breeze by Jackson?? yes Chris had the chin but its a toss up, i favour Chris only because jackson was really a LMW.
but with the supernatural power he had you never know?

I would loved to have saw Eubank v Barkley.

Norris and Graham stood Jackson on his head, and Eubank was super-slick of course (see Benn fight). I was surprised McClellan opted to slug with Jackson, when he surely could've outboxed him. Barkley was another limited boxer, certainly not limited as a slugger, but as a boxer Eubank would've ran circles around Barkley and boxed his face off.

coghaugen11 wrote:Norris and Graham stood Jackson on his head, .

Lol but both got BRUTALY KTFO

and he seiriously buzzed McCallum so he 'might' have got to Eubank .

I take Jackson over Benn also.

Good post!

A peak Jackson had the power to beat anyone.

Jon Saxon wrote:

coghaugen11 wrote:Norris and Graham stood Jackson on his head, .

Lol but both got BRUTALY KTFO

and he seiriously buzzed McCallum so he 'might' have got to Eubank .

I take Jackson over Benn also.

I agree with this post; Jackson was a chiller; he would have knocked good cruiserweights clean out. No one 'breezed by' him; Terry Norris looked like he'd been electricuted when Jackson caught him.

Julian Jackson vs the Brit crop is a lot more of a sensible debate. Jackson would have decapitated Benn and I wouldn't have put it past him to stop Eubank as well with those lightning fast, scarily destructive bombs. Even with Eubank's chin.

I would have given Jackson a decent shot to stop Calzaghe too, even though Jackson didn't quite fight at the 168 limit. Remember the perfect, flush right hand Kabary Salem landed on the southpaw Calzaghe to put him down? That shot, that scenario was the exact same one as Jackson/Herol Graham. Calzaghe was too leaky to survive Jackson, and he wasn't enough of an offensive beast a la McClellan or McCallum to really damage the Hawk.

Jackson certainly could ice Eubank. He could pretty much splatter anyone he connected square on.

loaded_gloves wrote:Jackson certainly could ice Eubank. He could pretty much splatter anyone he connected square on.

I find it amazing that people think a guy who got demolished in 5 round by mcClellan would "certainly" beat a man who beat the guy that ended his career. If McClellan couldnt decapatate Benn i dont think its guaranteed Jackson could have done it. He also got sparked in two by mccallum, watson went 11 rounds with him and eubank ended watsons career.

I know the fighter a v fighter b arguments arent brilliant but lets be realistic benn and eubank would be favourites over jackson, and calzaghe would have ruined jackson.

kingfinn wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:Jackson certainly could ice Eubank. He could pretty much splatter anyone he connected square on.

I find it amazing that people think a guy who got demolished in 5 round by mcClellan would "certainly" beat a man who beat the guy that ended his career. If McClellan couldnt decapatate Benn i dont think its guaranteed Jackson could have done it. He also got sparked in two by mccallum, watson went 11 rounds with him and eubank ended watsons career.

I know the fighter a v fighter b arguments arent brilliant but lets be realistic benn and eubank would be favourites over jackson, and calzaghe would have ruined jackson.

I take "ice" to mean knockout and he said "could" not "would" i.e. Jackson had the power to potentially KO Eubank. That's different from saying he would definitely win a fight between the two.

Jackson weren't the worst boxer; he was half blind by the time he was a middleweight and he was always in fantastc condition. The Brits were a good pack but for the very most part; boxed hand picked opponents. Jackson never boxed at supermiddle (effectively), so Calzaghe was a weight division above in any case. Benn and Eubank (as middleweights) would have come unstuck against the hawk; though Eubank would have lasted like Thomas Tate. A prime Jones would have kicked everyone's head in; he was the man.

kingfinn wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:If McClellan couldnt decapatate Benn i dont think its guaranteed Jackson could have done it. He also got sparked in two by mccallum, watson went 11 rounds with him and eubank ended watsons career.
.

If Benn would have been stopped in the first like he should have been, you wouldn't be saying that. Plus we all know McClellan had his health issues and faded, Benn also should have been stopped in the 8th, he was gone then too.

Jackson was just relentless and before he was totally past it he got stopped by two beasts, plus says a lot that it took one of the toughest fighters in history (McCallum) to stand up to Jackson's shots. Benn is not in the same league as those guys, there were loads of fighters who could stand up to his power and we all know he was leaky and could be knocked over. I could just see Jackson walking through him, he threw faster crisper shots than McClellan and would just be endlessly landing on Benn whose stalking, open style would just play right into the Hawk's hands.

I really would have loved to see Hawk/Eubank. Chris could get lazy and that's a recipe for disaster against Jackson.