BoxRec

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

observer1 wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:do you honestly think pascal and taylor are better names than hopkins,kessler and lacey?

Hopkins was passed it. Anyway you want to look at it. Not to mention it was a Close SD than could have gone either way.

That said, Taylor is leagues better than Kessler AND Lacy put together.

Considering Taylor was his 1st title defence, and Kessler and lacy were Joe's "Career defening" bouts, whatever rubbish that means

Not sure that he's better than Kessler at all mate. Not at 168.

Well here in North America Hopkins and Taylor are the biggest names. Everyone knows Lacy is a bum, so that doesn't count, and Pascal is still really young and getting better. Kessler isn't a big name here but people know he's a solid champ. Froch has certainly had the more entertaining fights though. The Taylor win was the most spectacular.

and why does everyone know lacy is a bum?exactly.cast your mind back to 2005 and he was a big,unbeatable hbo superstar,the american hero,until he came to england...

mickey1975 wrote:and why does everyone know lacy is a bum?exactly.cast your mind back to 2005 and he was a big,unbeatable hbo superstar,the american hero,until he came to england...

2005 he was losing against Sheika until he landed a bomb.

He drew on one card with manfredo since (chuck giampa i recall)

Yes, I bought the hype of the Robin Reid/Scott Pemberton performances... I should have realised how shot these two were. I think the Sheika and Vanderpol fights are more significant.

Funny that Stu - you havent had a veiled dig at Calzaghe for a while, you must have been getting withdrawl symptoms.

Fact of the matter the vast, and I mean vast majority thought Lacy was a monster and Joe mullered him. Its very easy to play the revisionist now isn't it boys

Wrists wrote:Funny that Stu - you havent had a veiled dig at Calzaghe for a while, you must have been getting withdrawl symptoms.

Fact of the matter the vast, and I mean vast majority thought Lacy was a monster and Joe mullered him. Its very easy to play the revisionist now isn't it boys

it says a lot when fans of a fighter are proposing a win over JEFF LACY as one of his best wins.

Froch's victory over Taylor is much better and Frochy Balboa would have done Lacy and would DO Lacy today. Can't wait til Frochy BEATS Kessler and then he will be Britains best 168 pounder in history. Without 30 fights against Mario Viets and Tocker Pudwills

G0mez wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:and why does everyone know lacy is a bum?exactly.cast your mind back to 2005 and he was a big,unbeatable hbo superstar,the american hero,until he came to england...

2005 he was losing against Sheika until he landed a bomb.

He drew on one card with manfredo since (chuck giampa i recall)

froch was losing,convincingly,against taylor until he landed a bomb

Lirva - you prove my point just there on the revisionism.

Lacy is a very good win because at the time 80% of people picked him to KO Calzaghe and instead he got his arse handed to him??

Anyway, digressing slightly have you paid up yet on your bet with J???

Bit of a misleading thread title, isn't it? Eubank stated that's what Calzaghe thinks.

Wrists wrote:Lirva - you prove my point just there on the revisionism.

Lacy is a very good win because at the time 80% of people picked him to KO Calzaghe and instead he got his arse handed to him??

Anyway, digressing slightly have you paid up yet on your bet with J???

Lacy is shite and always was, fact. And that bet situation was sorted a long time ago.

sg1985 wrote:hindsight is 20/20.

as has been said in the thread he was losing handily to omar sheika before the calzaghe fight until he landed a bomb.

lirva wrote:

sg1985 wrote:hindsight is 20/20.

as has been said in the thread he was losing handily to omar sheika before the calzaghe fight until he landed a bomb.

Strange revisionist history that. Sheika gave him a tough fight but at no stage was winning "handily".

Lacy was clearly better than he is given credit for now. And Calzaghe's performance against Lacy (who was a 1-2 favourite) was probably the greatest single performance by a British boxer I have ever seen. Anyone who calls Lacy a bum has, firstly, no respect for fighters (particularly one in Lacy's case who kept trying in terrible circumstances until the end (judge that next to Sam Peter v Vitali)) and is completely rewriting history. Lacy wasn't anything like the same fighter after Calzaghe when he fought Manfredo, Tyspko or Taylor. Anyone who knows anything about boxers knows that. They are people, not computer programmes.

RLewis wrote:

lirva wrote:

sg1985 wrote:hindsight is 20/20.

as has been said in the thread he was losing handily to omar sheika before the calzaghe fight until he landed a bomb.

Strange revisionist history that. Sheika gave him a tough fight but at no stage was winning "handily".

Lacy was clearly better than he is given credit for now. And Calzaghe's performance against Lacy (who was a 1-2 favourite) was probably the greatest single performance by a British boxer I have ever seen. Anyone who calls Lacy a bum has, firstly, no respect for fighters (particularly one in Lacy's case who kept trying in terrible circumstances until the end (judge that next to Sam Peter v Vitali)) and is completely rewriting history. Lacy wasn't anything like the same fighter after Calzaghe when he fought Manfredo, Tyspko or Taylor. Anyone who knows anything about boxers knows that. They are people, not computer programmes.

I watched the Lacy Sheika fight recently. Sheika was outboxing him and winning the fight until he got caught. He would have won it if he hadn't gotten caught and maintained what he was doing for 12 rounds.

The bookmakers aren't boxing fans, they look at records and reputations and make the odds.

Hopkins was the big underdog against Pavlik and I knew exactly what would happen in that fight and called it precisely.
Kotelnik is 2/1 against Khan, hardly reflective of his chances.

I could go on. Bringing up what the odds were before a fight, in order to justify and dramatize the win, is weak. Lacy was shite then and is shite now. Who did he beat before Calzaghe?

lirva wrote:
I watched the Lacy Sheika fight recently. Sheika was outboxing him and winning the fight until he got caught. He would have won it if he hadn't gotten caught and maintained what he was doing for 12 rounds.

The bookmakers aren't boxing fans, they look at records and reputations and make the odds.

Hopkins was the big underdog against Pavlik and I knew exactly what would happen in that fight and called it precisely.
Kotelnik is 2/1 against Khan, hardly reflective of his chances.

I could go on. Bringing up what the odds were before a fight, in order to justify and dramatize the win, is weak. Lacy was shite then and is shite now. Who did he beat before Calzaghe?

That shows how little you know about bookmakers. Odds are always stacked against the home fighter, because bookmakers expect a large amount of betting on the home boxer out of loyalty. Thus, to make the away boxer the favourite gives an example of how favoured he was. If you are so sure the bookies have it wrong about Khan-Kotelnik, go lump on. If you're right, it could be the greatest investment you ever made. But I suppose you didn't back up your Hopkins prediction either, did you?

I cannot see how any boxing fan could call any boxer shite, shows a shocking level of disrespect. Vanderpool was a decent fighter, so was Williams and Pemberton. And Lacy was considered a good enough fighter that Carl Froch went in print saying he would knock Calzaghe out.

But hindsight is a great thing. I would have a bit more respect for your opinion if you were saying it 3 years ago. But, as this board proves, it's far easier to be negative about stuff than positive. There lie may of boxing's faults.

RLewis wrote:
That shows how little you know about bookmakers. Odds are always stacked against the home fighter, because bookmakers expect a large amount of betting on the home boxer out of loyalty. Thus, to make the away boxer the favourite gives an example of how favoured he was. If you are so sure the bookies have it wrong about Khan-Kotelnik, go lump on. If you're right, it could be the greatest investment you ever made. But I suppose you didn't back up your Hopkins prediction either, did you?

I cannot see how any boxing fan could call any boxer shite, shows a shocking level of disrespect. Vanderpool was a decent fighter, so was Williams and Pemberton. And Lacy was considered a good enough fighter that Carl Froch went in print saying he would knock Calzaghe out.

But hindsight is a great thing. I would have a bit more respect for your opinion if you were saying it 3 years ago. But, as this board proves, it's far easier to be negative about stuff than positive. There lie may of boxing's faults.

I believe Kotelnik is certainly worth a bet at 2/1. I would recommend a bet on Kotelnik by KO though and will have some on because its good value and overpriced. I had almost 1k on Hopkins to beat Pavlik and would have had much more if I could have afforded it at the time. I think the bookmakers and everyone else just bought into the hype of Lacy, which they do a lot. Floyd was 1/2 against Hatton and I had massive amounts on him because the bookmakers were buying into the Hatton hype. I've also lost lots of money on boxing bets too by the way.

My point is that its a weak argument to say that since the bookmakers had Lacy at 1/2, Calzaghe deserves great credit for beating him. Do we give Hatton massive credit for beating Castillo (who many were picking to beat him)? No, we say Castillo was shot which he was and that victory means little. Castillo lost his previous fight to Ngoudju imo and got a gift but was still tipped to win the Hatton fight.

Ultimately my point is that, yes Lacy was hyped by many, but if you watch the Sheika fight you can see his limitations AND looking at his subsequent performances, it's pretty easy to deduce that he wasn't particularly good at that level. Boxing is littered with fights were one fighter was overhyped massively and got exposed. Look at Victor Ortiz last week.

lirva wrote:

RLewis wrote:
That shows how little you know about bookmakers. Odds are always stacked against the home fighter, because bookmakers expect a large amount of betting on the home boxer out of loyalty. Thus, to make the away boxer the favourite gives an example of how favoured he was. If you are so sure the bookies have it wrong about Khan-Kotelnik, go lump on. If you're right, it could be the greatest investment you ever made. But I suppose you didn't back up your Hopkins prediction either, did you?

I cannot see how any boxing fan could call any boxer shite, shows a shocking level of disrespect. Vanderpool was a decent fighter, so was Williams and Pemberton. And Lacy was considered a good enough fighter that Carl Froch went in print saying he would knock Calzaghe out.

But hindsight is a great thing. I would have a bit more respect for your opinion if you were saying it 3 years ago. But, as this board proves, it's far easier to be negative about stuff than positive. There lie may of boxing's faults.

I believe Kotelnik is certainly worth a bet at 2/1. I would recommend a bet on Kotelnik by KO though and will have some on because its good value and overpriced. I had almost 1k on Hopkins to beat Pavlik and would have had much more if I could have afforded it at the time. I think the bookmakers and everyone else just bought into the hype of Lacy, which they do a lot. Floyd was 1/2 against Hatton and I had massive amounts on him because the bookmakers were buying into the Hatton hype. I've also lost lots of money on boxing bets too by the way.

My point is that its a weak argument to say that since the bookmakers had Lacy at 1/2, Calzaghe deserves great credit for beating him. Do we give Hatton massive credit for beating Castillo (who many were picking to beat him)? No, we say Castillo was shot which he was and that victory means little. Castillo lost his previous fight to Ngoudju imo and got a gift but was still tipped to win the Hatton fight.

Ultimately my point is that, yes Lacy was hyped by many, but if you watch the Sheika fight you can see his limitations AND looking at his subsequent performances, it's pretty easy to deduce that he wasn't particularly good at that level. Boxing is littered with fights were one fighter was overhyped massively and got exposed. Look at Victor Ortiz last week.

Well done on the Hopkins win, that was a big call with that sort of money.

Wrists wrote:
Anyway, digressing slightly have you paid up yet on your bet with J???

bet wasnt with me do you think id be daft enough to bet someon 500 quid over the internet? I might be doing well but 500 notes is 500 notes mate.

Stand corrected