BoxRec

pundit wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:

Mattyp151 wrote:If Ronald Wright is a top 5 p4per, I feel you have to include Jermain, seeing as he went dead even with Winky. Not to mention, this all coming after taking on the #1 p4p fighter in the world twice in a row, and winning both. It's crazy when Kassim Ouma is a step down.

That is one way of seeing it. But Wright has a body of woek that is far deeper. When Taylor was beating on overmatched junior middles, Wright was beating some top class men. For me, that is the difference.

Plus, Winky is the naturally smaller man.

& he was a very light puncher at junior middleweight. Never mind middleweight.

viciousmaussa wrote:

lvlarc_uk wrote:So Taylor beats one certified ATG in Hopkins, not once but twice. Then fights Winky, (possible ATG) to an even keel for 12 rounds. Both of which were top 5 P4P. Now keep in mind that these 2 (Hopkins/Winky) were easily the best opposition available at 160. Seriously name me one boxer that has had 3 big fights in succession against such top quality? You'd have to go back a good few years, Toney, Hagler?

How can you possibly have Masamori Tokuyama ahead of Taylor! What logic? He got stopped in just 3 fights back in the 1st round, and you put him ahead of Taylor? WTF? Same goes for Parra.

So apparently you'd rate Taylor higher had he beaten GOOD opposition impressively, rather than just beating GREAT/Very GOOD opposition.

BTW people can rate Taylor 5-10, tho very few do..but to say top 5 is absolute bullshit is just nonsense.

Why are Hopkins and WW so wellr egarded? because they have major bodies of work that they built up themselves. Taylor has fought them near the end of their careers. These fights got him up to elite level. What he does next can justify him a top 5 ranking.

No one has stopped Parra, or even beaten him. I don't know what you're on about. Parra went to Puerto Rico in 2004, outclassed the elite Eric Morel, & defended 2x on the road. In 2005, he defended on the road 3x. Had his big fight with Vasquez happened this year (it was called off), Parra would be a candidate for #1 p4p. Let's not forget Roberto Vasquez was the #1 junior fly and an excellent fighter in his own right. Parra is the finest at fly, but he hasn't fought this year due to injury.

Tokuyama: WBC super flyweight champion for 6 years. Yes he lost to Kawashima in the 1st rd, but he also holds 2x wins over him. He has been champ for six years, nine defenses, most of which were vs QUALITY FOES. You hear about Kirilov & Navarro getting robbed away from home, but no one talks about their fights with Tokuyama, where they were legitimiately beaten. How many champions today fight very good fighters, time in, time out? Kawashima 3x, In Joo Choo 2x, Penalosa 2x, Kirilov, Navarro etc etc.

I didn't say anyone had beaten Parra. Of course P4P lists are all purely opinionated but to say Taylor at top 5 is absolute bullshit, when the majority rate him that high and his recent resume is far more impressive than the fighters you've mentioned, doesn't make sense.

Tokuyama isn't even the best in his own weight class anymore. I think Arce would beat him.

Taylor beating Hopkins, Eduoard, Joppy and drawing with Winky equates to building a very impressive body of work. It doesn't matter how old Hopkins was, he was still regarded as top 3 P4P and showed how good he still is when he dominated Tarver.

viciousmaussa wrote:

pundit wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:That is one way of seeing it. But Wright has a body of woek that is far deeper. When Taylor was beating on overmatched junior middles, Wright was beating some top class men. For me, that is the difference.

Plus, Winky is the naturally smaller man.

& he was a very light puncher at junior middleweight. Never mind middleweight.

Floyd is a terribly light punching welter, but it apparently has no effect on his standing...be good or bad, but be consistent.

my p4p top 10:

1) floyd mayweather - undefeated at top level since 1998 and still going strong.
2) winky wright - boxed rings round trinidad, beat mosley twice, unified the light middles for 1st time in it's history, earned middleweight title shot by beating 2 top 5 contenders and fought to a draw with the guy that decisioned hopkins twice.
3) pacman - whipped barrera and morales, also drew with the best featherweight in the world (in my opinion) marquez.
4) marco antonio barrera - one of the best mexican fighters ever and still going strong as a 3 weight world champion.
5) joe calzaghe - longevity and undefeated record demands respect and he looked sensational when unifying with lacy.
6) jermain taylor - beat hopkins twice (i thought he won), and drew with winky wright, a fellow pound for pounder.
7) ricky hatton - unbeaten in 41 fights and has won 3 world titles in 2 weight divisions over the last 18 months.
8) jose luis castillo - consistently fought top comp at lightweight and successfully rematched corrales.
9) juan manuel marquez - i thought he was robbed against chris john (115-111 for marquez i thought), and looked back to his best in his last fight.
10) joel casamayor - always rated this guy and he deservedly got back on top with a win over diego corrales to win the world lightweight title. he's only ever lost close fights against top comp over the years.

lvlarc_uk wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:

lvlarc_uk wrote:So Taylor beats one certified ATG in Hopkins, not once but twice. Then fights Winky, (possible ATG) to an even keel for 12 rounds. Both of which were top 5 P4P. Now keep in mind that these 2 (Hopkins/Winky) were easily the best opposition available at 160. Seriously name me one boxer that has had 3 big fights in succession against such top quality? You'd have to go back a good few years, Toney, Hagler?

How can you possibly have Masamori Tokuyama ahead of Taylor! What logic? He got stopped in just 3 fights back in the 1st round, and you put him ahead of Taylor? WTF? Same goes for Parra.

So apparently you'd rate Taylor higher had he beaten GOOD opposition impressively, rather than just beating GREAT/Very GOOD opposition.

BTW people can rate Taylor 5-10, tho very few do..but to say top 5 is absolute bullshit is just nonsense.

Why are Hopkins and WW so wellr egarded? because they have major bodies of work that they built up themselves. Taylor has fought them near the end of their careers. These fights got him up to elite level. What he does next can justify him a top 5 ranking.

No one has stopped Parra, or even beaten him. I don't know what you're on about. Parra went to Puerto Rico in 2004, outclassed the elite Eric Morel, & defended 2x on the road. In 2005, he defended on the road 3x. Had his big fight with Vasquez happened this year (it was called off), Parra would be a candidate for #1 p4p. Let's not forget Roberto Vasquez was the #1 junior fly and an excellent fighter in his own right. Parra is the finest at fly, but he hasn't fought this year due to injury.

Tokuyama: WBC super flyweight champion for 6 years. Yes he lost to Kawashima in the 1st rd, but he also holds 2x wins over him. He has been champ for six years, nine defenses, most of which were vs QUALITY FOES. You hear about Kirilov & Navarro getting robbed away from home, but no one talks about their fights with Tokuyama, where they were legitimiately beaten. How many champions today fight very good fighters, time in, time out? Kawashima 3x, In Joo Choo 2x, Penalosa 2x, Kirilov, Navarro etc etc.

I didn't say anyone had beaten Parra. Of course P4P lists are all purely opinionated but to say Taylor at top 5 is absolute bullshit, when the majority rate him that high and his recent resume is far more impressive than the fighters you've mentioned, doesn't make sense.

Tokuyama isn't even the best in his own weight class anymore. I think Arce would beat him.

Taylor beating Hopkins, Eduoard, Joppy and drawing with Winky equates to building a very impressive body of work. It doesn't matter how old Hopkins was, he was still regarded as top 3 P4P and showed how good he still is when he dominated Tarver.

That's ignorance. Who else has a resume at super fly like Tokuyama's? Montiel hasn't faced the same level of opponents overall, & lost his biggest fight (Mark Johnson). Arce has yet to face a top class super fly, never mind have a long title reign against genuine world class opponents. Martin Castillo was naively regarded as the best - and we saw what happened to him, dethroned after half as long as Tokuyama was champ, by 7 fight novice Nashiro!

If Taylor had a body of work's like Tokuyama's (I know, why would he so young) everyone would be talking hall of fame.

Mattyp151 wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:

pundit wrote: Plus, Winky is the naturally smaller man.

& he was a very light puncher at junior middleweight. Never mind middleweight.

Floyd is a terribly light punching welter, but it apparently has no effect on his standing...be good or bad, but be consistent.

I'm not getting at that (nor am I a much of a Floyd supporter). I'm stating Wright's lack of punch, to put Taylor in a little bit of perspective. Because no one wants to put JT in perspective. Taylor was backed up consistently by a career junior middle, outworked on the ropes by a man who couldn't crack an egg at 154, never mind at 160, versus a fighter big enough to fight at 175 one day! Good job that Taylor landed some heavy looking blows, or he would've lost.


I'm getting a lot of backlash, for saying that Taylor hasn't yet justified ALL the hype. All I'm saying is, Taylor CAN match the hype (& justify this lofty top 5 p4p4 rating), by beating some of the good middleweights.

This is a forum in which any fighter who loses a fight is "exposed". So I always wonder why ppl don't already look out for the signs. Let's forget Wright & Hops for a minute. What other middles did Taylor face? Edouard. Fine, but who else was actually a middleweight? A middleweight that had the experience/toughness to give him a workout, or the freshness/promise to test/extend him? We saw "Mr Untouchable Taylor's" bad late fades vs Winky & Hopkins. I ask, how will he fare against better specimens who make it out of the first 3 or 4 rounds?

It's uncharted terrain and there are questions . Will he blast them out, ala Edouard? Will he flag under the pressure?

& I'm being unreasonable wanting to see fights vs Miranda, Abraham, Sturm, Castillejo (Castillejo), Soliman and eventually Pavlik and the Mundine (when he moves down) & Allan Green (when ready, & when if he moves down)! We haven't seen the complete Taylor picture yet, and there are m/ws who can provide the answers over the next couple of years.


Taylor has got the results vs the elite fighters, albeit not always in convincing fashion. I want him to hammer some good/very good fighters who are real 160-pounders. Just as I see Kessler's potential from outclassing some good operators, & am waiting for him to beat an elite type. That way, it would be hard to argue against either being top 5 if they keep on doing so well over the next 12-18 months.

lvlarc_uk wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:

lvlarc_uk wrote:So Taylor beats one certified ATG in Hopkins, not once but twice. Then fights Winky, (possible ATG) to an even keel for 12 rounds. Both of which were top 5 P4P. Now keep in mind that these 2 (Hopkins/Winky) were easily the best opposition available at 160. Seriously name me one boxer that has had 3 big fights in succession against such top quality? You'd have to go back a good few years, Toney, Hagler?

How can you possibly have Masamori Tokuyama ahead of Taylor! What logic? He got stopped in just 3 fights back in the 1st round, and you put him ahead of Taylor? WTF? Same goes for Parra.

So apparently you'd rate Taylor higher had he beaten GOOD opposition impressively, rather than just beating GREAT/Very GOOD opposition.

BTW people can rate Taylor 5-10, tho very few do..but to say top 5 is absolute bullshit is just nonsense.

Why are Hopkins and WW so wellr egarded? because they have major bodies of work that they built up themselves. Taylor has fought them near the end of their careers. These fights got him up to elite level. What he does next can justify him a top 5 ranking.

No one has stopped Parra, or even beaten him. I don't know what you're on about. Parra went to Puerto Rico in 2004, outclassed the elite Eric Morel, & defended 2x on the road. In 2005, he defended on the road 3x. Had his big fight with Vasquez happened this year (it was called off), Parra would be a candidate for #1 p4p. Let's not forget Roberto Vasquez was the #1 junior fly and an excellent fighter in his own right. Parra is the finest at fly, but he hasn't fought this year due to injury.

Tokuyama: WBC super flyweight champion for 6 years. Yes he lost to Kawashima in the 1st rd, but he also holds 2x wins over him. He has been champ for six years, nine defenses, most of which were vs QUALITY FOES. You hear about Kirilov & Navarro getting robbed away from home, but no one talks about their fights with Tokuyama, where they were legitimiately beaten. How many champions today fight very good fighters, time in, time out? Kawashima 3x, In Joo Choo 2x, Penalosa 2x, Kirilov, Navarro etc etc.

I didn't say anyone had beaten Parra. Of course P4P lists are all purely opinionated but to say Taylor at top 5 is absolute bullshit, when the majority rate him that high and his recent resume is far more impressive than the fighters you've mentioned, doesn't make sense.

Tokuyama isn't even the best in his own weight class anymore. I think Arce would beat him.

Taylor beating Hopkins, Eduoard, Joppy and drawing with Winky equates to building a very impressive body of work. It doesn't matter how old Hopkins was, he was still regarded as top 3 P4P and showed how good he still is when he dominated Tarver.

don't forget Contender winner Grady Brewer; JT is already an immortal now. Ignore all my arguments!

Monzon had Emile Griffith and Jose Napoles
Hagler had Duran and Hearns
Hopkins had Trinidad and DLH
Taylor, the lineal successor, has Grady Brewer as his great below-160 opponent!

The H(y)B(n)O(sis) isn't even needed. All you need to do is scan through Boxrec.

You are getting rediculous now.

Taylor is still young, 26 fights to his name, overall against very solid opposition. Who do you think is missing on his resume?
You cannot deny that he's fought the best at 160 to date and I'd favour him to beat every other middleweight out there, including Winky....that's if Winky ever plucks up the courage to accept a rematch.

Soon as we see Taylor in with an offensive fighter we will see him shine again, like when he blew out Edouard. Your original comment is still BS

If however he wins at say 150, then you have to perhaps accept that Oscar really is something a bit special, because Floyd hasn't really looked like losing aside from a relatively close call against Castillo, which was overplayed.

If Oscar won though, there'd be people blaming the weight saying Oscar was too big.

Waiting a year ain't going to be good for Oscar either, Mayweather's leagues above Mayorga.

Max Molyneux wrote:

If however he wins at say 150, then you have to perhaps accept that Oscar really is something a bit special, because Floyd hasn't really looked like losing aside from a relatively close call against Castillo, which was overplayed.

If Oscar won though, there'd be people blaming the weight saying Oscar was too big.

Waiting a year ain't going to be good for Oscar either, Mayweather's leagues above Mayorga.

I think you will find that Oscar has already stated that should they fight the contract will be at 154. If PBF comes in lighter that will be his problem. Either take the fight or dont, simple as that.

lvlarc_uk wrote:You are getting rediculous now.

Taylor is still young, 26 fights to his name, overall against very solid opposition. Who do you think is missing on his resume?
You cannot deny that he's fought the best at 160 to date and I'd favour him to beat every other middleweight out there, including Winky....that's if Winky ever plucks up the courage to accept a rematch.

Soon as we see Taylor in with an offensive fighter we will see him shine again, like when he blew out Edouard. Your original comment is still BS

My oh my, do not dare question JT; he's untouchable.

I have not said ONE thing that is unreasonable. I have admitted his potential, and my own excitement about seeing him take on some fine fighters in his own class.

We've seen him against pathetic junior middles (dominant). We've seen him against two elite middles - one who wanted to spoil because he was too old & slow at m/w to engage (Hopkins); one who engaged the bigger Taylor (Winky) yet JT couldn't get the W.

Now, for the sake of balance, let's see him in with his peers. Let's see him build up his OWN resume against some 160-pounders who will hit him hard or often. Because he held his own with a still tricky Hopkins, doesn't mean he has Hopkins' body of work!

hops & WW got him into the elite, proved he belonged there. That's cool. What he does next will build his legacy. That is the crucial difference that some people won't consider.

Over the next 2 years I would be overjoyed to see him in with: Miranda, Soliman, Sturm, Mundine, Castillejo, Abraham, Sturm, Allan Green, Pavlik, Duddy.

Remember how good he looked against Edouard? I'm glad you mention Edouard. Look how he brought the best out of Taylor. I thought Taylor was meant to be the NEXT GREAT MIDDLEWEIGHT. Well he's got plenty chance to prove that. Hopkins never had names that were as good, as promising or as attractive as these guys that I list above.

What will Taylor do next? Jump up, fight Calzaghe, win a disputed decision? Right now he seems to have reverted back to form, by facing Ouma: small 154 lb'er whom de la Hoya wanted to move down to WELTER.

Can you see a pattern developing? It's very unsatisfactory, anticlimatic.

Terence wrote:

pundit wrote:

Terence wrote:Taylor is a very good middleweight. Jumping to SM and taking on a a top guy in his first fight will be a big ask, to his eternal credit I imagine if the call comes Taylor will give it a bash.

This would be poor career planning for Taylor. The fella is young and hasn't been at the highest level for that long.

He should first establish himself as the clear #1 at 160 and gain experience in the process - give a refight to Winky, fight a couple of other strong challengers, say Abraham or Sturm. Thereafter he could step up to 168, win a belt there, and then challenge the man at 168 (who will probably be Kessler at the time) -- if he wishes. Similar to how Tito did it when he went to 160. This said, 168 is generally less interesting and has a lower reputation than 175 or 160, so perhaps he should just use it as a stepping stone a la RJJ.

I was mostly getting at the idea that fighting a MW who is taking his first step as a SM is a sign of Calzaghe taking a loaded option, that is loaded in his favour. It would be a clear circumvention of the Kessler issue on his part.

Taylor will come good at SM one day - he will be stronger and carry greater power at the higher poundage, for him to fight Calzaghe would be a deal that favoured Joe but Taylor being Taylor (and this is why I have so much time for him) I bet he would listen to the offer.

I do not do a P4P list but right now Jermain is top of my 'guy who of accepts big fights' list.

That's very true. Around middle/s middle, Taylor & Kessler are the only ones who truly want to test themselves consistently.

I really want Taylor to stay at middleweight. So many attractive or good names that are at 160-pounds. There's even fighters who say they're coming down from 168, Mundine & Allan Green. Who knows how good Green can be in a couple of years' time?

The top 15 is really exciting at the moment. Who knows, Taylor could run into his great rival. He could end up in a fight of the year with someone. He might just blast everyone away, and really get some credit. Too much potential at 160, in my mind. These would bring the best out of him.

I think the condition for fighting Calzaghe was that Joe fight in America in Feb to raise his profile. That's not happening, so plans could already be out the window.


One reason I like Kessler so much. We've seen him in with genuinely good fighters, and he outclassed most of 'em. Waiting for him are the exciting young fighters Bute & Andrade. Promising fighters with some real firepower. With Kessler you can believe he'll fight them.

viciousmaussa wrote:

Taki... wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:Taylor being a top 5 p4p is absolute bullshit.That he held his own in those 3 fights suggests he has the POTENTIAL to be a top 5 p4p.

We haven't seen him in with any punchers or particularly fresh MIDDLEWEIGHTS yet.

Kessler has been dominating good fighters for the past two years. He unified two belts, has barely lost any rounds, holds 3 defenses & has wins over 6 titlists. In his past 4 fights he has bested 2 former, and 2 current titlists, and has lost a total of 4 rounds.

He has a brilliant jab, which he uses to dominate most opponents, he hasn't scraped the barrel for opponents Calzaghe-style, & is willing to take hard fights. i.e. we can believe he will fight Andrade, Mundine & Bute in succession.

In his first title fight, he wasn't even in any publication's world top 10, yet he dominated Siaca (who fought on level terms with one of Calzaghe's 'career-defining' foes Mitchell) as if he was a veteran! In his last title fight, he was dominant in a unification.

I certainly think he is, or nearly is, in the top ten p4p.

I don't have Taylor in my top 5, but plenty of people do. As for not seeing Taylor in with punchers or fresh MW's... so what? He survived 24 rounds with the top man at 175 rather well. In fact he did rather well over 36 rounds with two top 10 P4p fighters.
Kessler has been dominating decent fighters... only Mundine could be rated as 'good'. And even his stock is vastly over-rated, based as it is, on losing to Kessler... which seem to self perpetuate the OTT hype surrounding both fighters.

Yeah Kessler hasn't 'scraped the barrel'... the 35 year old Eric Lucas was a fantasticly ambitious defence.

As for rating Siaca as a great win... more power to you. And dominating fighters who turn up to lose isn't massively impressive.

As for Kessler being top 10 p4p! Better than Mayweather, Wright, Pacquiao, Barrera, Taylor, Hatton, John, Vazquez, Marquez, DLH, Castillo, JMM, Hopkins... based on what? I think a little more than Manny Siaca and ancients like Lucas and Beyer are required before he's in that company.

Stop putting words in my mouth, dimwit.

Lucas wasn't great. He was decent, and decent is better than anything Calzaghe faced from 2004 through to early 06.

Did I say Siaca was a "great win"? it was a very accomplished win, for a young challenger. Like I say, Siaca was unlucky vs Mitchell. Yet Mitchell was Calzaghe's best win, before Lacy.

As to Taylor: yes he held his own with two men with massive bodies of work. But that doesn't make Taylor's body of work massive. But he's fought mostly junior middles and will do for his next fight.

Ha! Hopkins wasn't at 175, when Taylor 'beat' him, was he? Hopkins looks so much stronger and healthier at 175.

The p4p question: being a top ten wouldn't put him above all those. It would put him above the top 15-20 sorts.

In a nutshell, Kessler has been dominant against GOOD fighters. That makes him very good in my eyes. Your attempts to downgrade his foes are a bit desperate.

I am not putting words in your mouth!
It's arguable whether the version of Lucas that Kessler fought was better than Mario Veit. Very arguable in fact.
Styles make fights, so it's foolish to say just because Siaca ran Mitchell close and then 3 years later was solidly beaten by Kessler it means something! You might as well point out that Siaca out pointed Mundine (who is Kessler's biggest win), Mundine was KO'd by Ottke, who in turn picked up a questionable decision over Mitchell... surely that means something too! This 'six degrees of seperation' style of proving things actually proves nothing.

If, as seems to be the case, you're arguing that Taylor is overrated (or possibly untested) after fighting Hopkins twice and Winky once, you must be having a laugh.

The p4p question... you said top 10 or just outside! Now you've backtracked to 15-20. HA!!!!

Kessler has fought ONE good opponent, TWO decent opponents, and ONE formerly very good opponent who came to lose. Desperate is the effort to make wins over the aging Lucas and Siaca look like something special.
If you don't like Calzaghe and think his resume isn't all it could be, fair enough. But don't pretend Kessler's record is all that in (recent) comparison, when it really isn't.

Taki... wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:

Taki... wrote: I don't have Taylor in my top 5, but plenty of people do. As for not seeing Taylor in with punchers or fresh MW's... so what? He survived 24 rounds with the top man at 175 rather well. In fact he did rather well over 36 rounds with two top 10 P4p fighters.
Kessler has been dominating decent fighters... only Mundine could be rated as 'good'. And even his stock is vastly over-rated, based as it is, on losing to Kessler... which seem to self perpetuate the OTT hype surrounding both fighters.

Yeah Kessler hasn't 'scraped the barrel'... the 35 year old Eric Lucas was a fantasticly ambitious defence.

As for rating Siaca as a great win... more power to you. And dominating fighters who turn up to lose isn't massively impressive.

As for Kessler being top 10 p4p! Better than Mayweather, Wright, Pacquiao, Barrera, Taylor, Hatton, John, Vazquez, Marquez, DLH, Castillo, JMM, Hopkins... based on what? I think a little more than Manny Siaca and ancients like Lucas and Beyer are required before he's in that company.

Stop putting words in my mouth, dimwit.

Lucas wasn't great. He was decent, and decent is better than anything Calzaghe faced from 2004 through to early 06.

Did I say Siaca was a "great win"? it was a very accomplished win, for a young challenger. Like I say, Siaca was unlucky vs Mitchell. Yet Mitchell was Calzaghe's best win, before Lacy.

As to Taylor: yes he held his own with two men with massive bodies of work. But that doesn't make Taylor's body of work massive. But he's fought mostly junior middles and will do for his next fight.

Ha! Hopkins wasn't at 175, when Taylor 'beat' him, was he? Hopkins looks so much stronger and healthier at 175.

The p4p question: being a top ten wouldn't put him above all those. It would put him above the top 15-20 sorts.

In a nutshell, Kessler has been dominant against GOOD fighters. That makes him very good in my eyes. Your attempts to downgrade his foes are a bit desperate.

I am not putting words in your mouth!
It's arguable whether the version of Lucas that Kessler fought was better than Mario Veit. Very arguable in fact.
Styles make fights, so it's foolish to say just because Siaca ran Mitchell close and then 3 years later was solidly beaten by Kessler it means something! You might as well point out that Siaca out pointed Mundine (who is Kessler's biggest win), Mundine was KO'd by Ottke, who in turn picked up a questionable decision over Mitchell... surely that means something too! This 'six degrees of seperation' style of proving things actually proves nothing.

If, as seems to be the case, you're arguing that Taylor is overrated (or possibly untested) after fighting Hopkins twice and Winky once, you must be having a laugh.

The p4p question... you said top 10 or just outside! Now you've backtracked to 15-20. HA!!!!

Kessler has fought ONE good opponent, TWO decent opponents, and ONE formerly very good opponent who came to lose. Desperate is the effort to make wins over the aging Lucas and Siaca look like something special.
If you don't like Calzaghe and think his resume isn't all it could be, fair enough. But don't pretend Kessler's record is all that in (recent) comparison, when it really isn't.

No backtracking at all. If Kessler is near the bottom half of the top 10, how is he ABOVE ALL those men that you mention. If he is around 8, 9, or 10, then common sense would dictate that he would be above ppl putting their noses into the top 15.

All I'm saying about Siaca is that he isn't a joke. Which people are calling him. Hmm, I'll bet ppl have been laughing about him for years... I'm using Mitchell for the sake of comparison, and to underline a lot of ppl's double standards.

If Siaca is crap, then one of Calzaghe's key "Career Defining" (drum roll) opponents must be shit also, because Mitchell was no better!

Oh, and I have stuck up for Calzaghe a heck of a lot on these boards, particularly in the Current Scene. But no longer, because post Lacy he reverted back to form, with an immature display vs another spoiler.

Don't let it get to your head that I am an anti-Calzaghe who will do anything to prop up Kessler. It's plain that Kessler takes his world titles far more seriously than Calzaghe.

Kessler has beaten the same # of titlists, and dominated his own unification. Kessler has done that in precisely two years as champion. This took Calzaghe 9 bloody years.

Calzaghe's dad turned down the power punching Andrade. Do you think Kessler will duck him? Kessler already made plans to fight Andrade a couple of weeks before Beyer.

Mundine is a very good fighter with an extremely tricky style. Beyer is a very good fighter who lost to an even better one at the top of his game. Lucas is an okay fighter - certainly better than the bilge that Calzaghe face over maybe 10 title defenses - and Siaca was a flawed fighter, but a world beater nonetheless who was holding a title at the time.

Kessler's resume isn't half as good as you make it out to sound.

His best win is over a 35 year old Beyer who suddenly decided to cash-in, just prior was getting beat by Bika. I seen both fights.

You say Mitchell was no better, yet he beat Siaca twice, once was a stoppage. Now I know you think the first fight was controversial but you also thought Marquez was "robbed" against John.

The only reason anyone would talk up Siaca would be to credit Kessler with not 1 but two of his wins, since Siaca beat the fragile Mundine. Hey atleast Byron went the full 12 rounds with Ottke..

I'm not sure if I can take you serious tho since you think having Taylor in top 5 P4P is "absolute bullshit"

In fairness it does appear that Joe and his old man have got 25 excuses and justifications for every positive question thrown at them. As for Fwank he just seems to believe that if he keeps telling the public that JC is the best thing since Wrigleys, sooner or later they will fall for it.

lvlarc_uk wrote:Kessler's resume isn't half as good as you make it out to sound.

His best win is over a 35 year old Beyer who suddenly decided to cash-in, just prior was getting beat by Bika. I seen both fights.

Beyer was not "just cashing in" and he was not getting beaten by Bika -- this is wishful thinking on your behalf. And Kessler's best win was over Mundine anyway, not Beyer.

You say Mitchell was no better, yet he beat Siaca twice, once was a stoppage. Now I know you think the first fight was controversial but you also thought Marquez was "robbed" against John.

Still, Siaca fought tooth and nail with Mitchell twice, the fella who was supposedly one of Calzaghe's best opponents. You can't have it both ways -- saying that Calzaghe had a great win over Mitchell AND that Kessler's win over Siaca has no value. If Siaca is crap so is Mitchell.

Btw, the truth is probably in the middle: Mitchell and Siaca were both decent but no great wins.

The only reason anyone would talk up Siaca would be to credit Kessler with not 1 but two of his wins, since Siaca beat the fragile Mundine. Hey atleast Byron went the full 12 rounds with Ottke..

You know better mate. Going 12 rounds with Ottke isn't much of an achievement as Ottke never went for te KO unless he had to. He had to against Mundine, who gave Ottke the toughest fight of his career.

Btw, "feather-fisted" Ottke has more clean KOs than Calzaghe.

I'm not sure if I can take you serious tho since you think having Taylor in top 5 P4P is "absolute bullshit"

Whenever you talk Calzaghe/Warren I find it hard to take you seriously as you pinch the facts violently into a shape that suits your line, whether the resulting argument makes sense or not (normally it doesn't). If it wasn't for your round-by-rounds and other stuff you write, I would doubt your boxing competence. But you normally know your stuff -- so I assume you stray off on this topic due to intense emotional attachement.

Finally: let's have Kessler vs. Calzaghe and find out. I expect some decisive steps from Frankie Warren in this direction soon.

Cheers,
P

Btw, it was not me who made you write another 20 Calzaghe posts in this thread. You need to find another excuse for your obsession....

pundit wrote:
Beyer was not "just cashing in" and he was not getting beaten by Bika -- this is wishful thinking on your behalf. And Kessler's best win was over Mundine anyway, not Beyer.

Yes he was getting beat by Bika, even Vic agrees with that, you probably haven't even seen the fight.

Still, Siaca fought tooth and nail with Mitchell twice, the fella who was supposedly one of Calzaghe's best opponents. You can't have it both ways -- saying that Calzaghe had a great win over Mitchell AND that Kessler's win over Siaca has no value. If Siaca is crap so is Mitchell.

Please, when have I ever said Mitchell was a "great win" He finished him off in an entertaining fight.

You know better mate. Going 12 rounds with Ottke isn't much of an achievement as Ottke never went for te KO unless he had to. He had to against Mundine, who gave Ottke the toughest fight of his career.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1685000/i ... ine300.jpg
Right.

Whenever you talk Calzaghe/Warren I find it hard to take you seriously as you pinch the facts violently into a shape that suits your line, whether the resulting argument makes sense or not (normally it doesn't). If it wasn't for your round-by-rounds and other stuff you write, I would doubt your boxing competence. But you normally know your stuff -- so I assume you stray off on this topic due to intense emotional attachement.

It's you who keeps chiming in with the same repetitve nonsense over and over and over.

Btw, it was not me who made you write another 20 Calzaghe posts in this thread. You need to find another excuse for your obsession....

Actually most of my posts on this thread have been dragged out through the discussion about Taylor definetly not being top 5 P4P. You know when you chimed in again with that illogical nonsense.

lvlarc_uk wrote:

pundit wrote:
Beyer was not "just cashing in" and he was not getting beaten by Bika -- this is wishful thinking on your behalf. And Kessler's best win was over Mundine anyway, not Beyer.

Yes he was getting beat by Bika, even Vic agrees with that, you probably haven't even seen the fight.

No he wasn't. This is nonsense. Bika and Beyer split the first four rounds before the fight was stopped on an uninteded headbutt. Noone knows how the fight would have evolved, and Beyer is known to be a slow starter.

Still, Siaca fought tooth and nail with Mitchell twice, the fella who was supposedly one of Calzaghe's best opponents. You can't have it both ways -- saying that Calzaghe had a great win over Mitchell AND that Kessler's win over Siaca has no value. If Siaca is crap so is Mitchell.

Please, when have I ever said Mitchell was a "great win" He finished him off in an entertaining fight.

If Mitchell wasn't a great fight, how many "great fights" did Calzaghe have in his 10 years as beltholder?

This is the point.

You know better mate. Going 12 rounds with Ottke isn't much of an achievement as Ottke never went for te KO unless he had to. He had to against Mundine, who gave Ottke the toughest fight of his career.

Right.

Right.

Whenever you talk Calzaghe/Warren I find it hard to take you seriously as you pinch the facts violently into a shape that suits your line, whether the resulting argument makes sense or not (normally it doesn't). If it wasn't for your round-by-rounds and other stuff you write, I would doubt your boxing competence. But you normally know your stuff -- so I assume you stray off on this topic due to intense emotional attachement.

It's you who keeps chiming in with the same repetitve nonsense over and over and over.

Btw, it was not me who made you write another 20 Calzaghe posts in this thread. You need to find another excuse for your obsession....

Actually most of my posts on this thread have been dragged out through the discussion about Taylor definetly not being top 5 P4P.

.... a discussion you started to sell the middleweight Taylor as a great opponent in anticipation of Calzaghe's expected ducking of Kessler.

As said: you need to find another excuse for your obsession than me, mate...

Doesn't look good for Calzaghe -- 75 percent think he is nothing special or worse....

It's painfully obvious that Beyer was cashing in his WBC chip when he signed to fight Kessler, anyone saying otherwise is living in a dream world.
I bet any money in the world that If Calzaghe had fought Beyer and Kessler had fought Lacy (to the same result) then those who suggest Beyer wasn't collecting a cheque in Denmark would sing a different tune... I dare say they'd be singing Lacy's praises too.

Taki... wrote:It's painfully obvious that Beyer was cashing in his WBC chip when he signed to fight Kessler, anyone saying otherwise is living in a dream world.

Sure he was, but this doesn't mean that he did not try to win. He tried hard but ran into a better fighter.

I bet any money in the world that If Calzaghe had fought Beyer and Kessler had fought Lacy (to the same result) then those who suggest Beyer wasn't collecting a cheque in Denmark would sing a different tune... I dare say they'd be singing Lacy's praises too.

Well, you would lose that money then.

Btw: while Kessler's win over Beyer is at least as significant as Calzaghe's win over Lacy, Kessler's win over Mundine is more signifcant than his win over Beyer (lvlarc: your chance to post your nice photo again).

I'm sorry, but Kessler's win over Beyer, good as it was, is not as significant as Calzaghe's win over Lacy. Not that I'm trying to defend Calzaghe, because I'm fed up with him. But Lacy was a young Champ on the way up, coming off some good KO wins, and he was expected to beat Calzaghe. Beyer was on his way out, and next to no-one gave him a chance against Kessler.

states wrote:I'm sorry, but Kessler's win over Beyer, good as it was, is not as significant as Calzaghe's win over Lacy. Not that I'm trying to defend Calzaghe, because I'm fed up with him. But Lacy was a young Champ on the way up, coming off some good KO wins, and he was expected to beat Calzaghe. Beyer was on his way out, and next to no-one gave him a chance against Kessler.

Well, opinions differ... But for your consideration: Lacy struggled badly with Sheika, while Beyer boxed Sheika's ears off.
And while I never expected Lacy to beat Calzaghe, I remember that this board was split down the middle.

Cheers,
P

a discussion you started to sell the middleweight Taylor as a great opponent in anticipation of Calzaghe's expected ducking of Kessler.

Wrong, I think Taylor's resume speaks for itself, far more impressive than Kessler's. As for ducking, it's Mikkel that took his mandatory Andrade, just as talks between the camps begun.