Re: Joe Calzaghe: Andre Ward is good but beatable
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
Firstly, with respect to anyone who thinks that a second Froch-Ward fight would go any differently, Froch doesn't even think he could beat Ward. He's already said that he's the second-best 168-pounder, and that nobody can beat Ward at 168.
Secondly, it's a myth that Calzaghe cleaned out the 168-pound division. He beat many good fighters, but there were A LOT of top contenders that for one reason or another, he never took on. Pick up a random Ring Magazine from the Calzaghe era, and you'll see a lot of names in the top-5 of the 168-pound division that Calzaghe never got in the ring with. That doesn't mean that he wouldn't have beaten them; but it's just patently false that he beat all of the big names in the division.
Thirdly, since the Calzaghe fight, with the exception of the Ward fight, Kessler is 5-0 (4), including a solid win against the division's #3. So it's bullshit to discount Ward's victory by saying that Kessler is somehow markedly worse than he was against Calzaghe; it's just that Ward made him LOOK bad. The 2011 Ward is better than ANY year's Kessler, and Calzaghe, while he beat him decisively, hardly "destroyed" him. To say that Ward hasn't done against anyone else the types of things that he would need to go to beat Calzaghe misses the point; it doesn't imply that Ward is incapable of doing those things. He just hasn't needed to do them against anyone else. What Ward has shown is that to date, he can do whatever is needed to beat the people put in front of him. That doesn't mean that he necessarily would be able to adjust successfully against Calzaghe, but there's no particular reason to think that he wouldn't, either. IMO, 2011 Ward vs. (insert your favorite 168-pound year here) Calzaghe would be a close, competitive, and highly entertaining fight.
Actually mate, your comment is 'The Myth' - this is a point that has been debated over and over on here. You tell me who Calzaghe should've fought at 168, that was operating at 168 at that time, and that the reason they didn't fight was JC!!
Andplease don't say Liles, Echols, Mundine and all that old blurb.
I didn't say anything about "the reason" Calzaghe didn't fight them; but the fact is, he didn't. Again, just pick up a Ring Magazine during the Calzaghe era. You'll see lots of names in the top-5 that Calzaghe never fought. Sorry, I missed the earlier debates, but why are supposed to ignore Echols and Mundine? They were #s 3 and 4 in the 2003 and 2004 annual rankings, when Calzaghe was defending against people like Kabary Salem and Mger Mkrtchyan. But those are hardly the only names.
Look at Calzaghe's record, and look at the names of the people in the top 5 during his time as a top 168-pound champion and contender.
Ward is 27, and he's beaten three of the top 5 in the weight class, and four of the top 10.
OK, so you tell me who these people are and which ones enhance his legacy?
Woodhall, Reid, Mitchell, Lacy, Kessler, Brewer, Bika are not all time greats, but were all (except Bika) either current or very recent world champions. To say that Echols or Mundine (or the others you are going to tell us) would've changed your view on his resume doesn't make sense. Fact is, it wasn't a great era, B-Hop and RJJ were not fighting at SMW (there were to busy creating far worse resume's than Calzaghe in their own respective weight classes ;)) and other than Ottke, who was utter shite, there was nobody else to fight that he didn't fight.
I'm not saying they have to be all-time greats, but most of the people Calzaghe defended the title against weren't top-ten in the weight class. In the last 2 1/2 years, he stepped up his level of competition dramatically, but in the first 7+ years, his defenses weren't remotely against the best 168-pounders. They just WEREN'T. Don't extrapolate anything from that other what it is, or what his legacy would have been if he fought X, Y, or Z. I'm just stating a plain, verifiable, almost indisputable fact. For over 7 years, the top SMWs were passed over as Calzaghe defended mostly against 2nd and 3rd tier guys. I'm not talking about P4P greats; I'm just talking about the top 168-pounders of that era.
I agree with Gandalf that all boxers have some filler, but what other boxers do is irrelevant to the question of whether he cleaned out the division. He just didn't. And if you look at the Ring Magazine rankings of their eras (which are not perfect, but are at least Better than the corrupted sanctioning body rankings), it's apparent that Hopkins, overall, defended against a higher class of challenger. Which, of course, doesn't mean that Hopkins was better than Calzaghe. But it's still true (that he defended against better challengers, that is).
Re: Joe Calzaghe: Andre Ward is good but beatable
Hopkins, as 160-pound champion, has a better resume than Calzaghe as 168-pound champion.. The "far worse resume" bit is nonsense.
Re: Joe Calzaghe: Andre Ward is good but beatable
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Big H its a fuckin record ts not a resume, a resume is something some bird has who works in catering and is trying to get a job in a cake shop
Everyone who has a decent job has a cv
And boxers have a fuckin record
;D
;D
Re: Joe Calzaghe: Andre Ward is good but beatable
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
Firstly, with respect to anyone who thinks that a second Froch-Ward fight would go any differently, Froch doesn't even think he could beat Ward. He's already said that he's the second-best 168-pounder, and that nobody can beat Ward at 168.
Secondly, it's a myth that Calzaghe cleaned out the 168-pound division. He beat many good fighters, but there were A LOT of top contenders that for one reason or another, he never took on. Pick up a random Ring Magazine from the Calzaghe era, and you'll see a lot of names in the top-5 of the 168-pound division that Calzaghe never got in the ring with. That doesn't mean that he wouldn't have beaten them; but it's just patently false that he beat all of the big names in the division.
Thirdly, since the Calzaghe fight, with the exception of the Ward fight, Kessler is 5-0 (4), including a solid win against the division's #3. So it's bullshit to discount Ward's victory by saying that Kessler is somehow markedly worse than he was against Calzaghe; it's just that Ward made him LOOK bad. The 2011 Ward is better than ANY year's Kessler, and Calzaghe, while he beat him decisively, hardly "destroyed" him. To say that Ward hasn't done against anyone else the types of things that he would need to go to beat Calzaghe misses the point; it doesn't imply that Ward is incapable of doing those things. He just hasn't needed to do them against anyone else. What Ward has shown is that to date, he can do whatever is needed to beat the people put in front of him. That doesn't mean that he necessarily would be able to adjust successfully against Calzaghe, but there's no particular reason to think that he wouldn't, either. IMO, 2011 Ward vs. (insert your favorite 168-pound year here) Calzaghe would be a close, competitive, and highly entertaining fight.
Actually mate, your comment is 'The Myth' - this is a point that has been debated over and over on here. You tell me who Calzaghe should've fought at 168, that was operating at 168 at that time, and that the reason they didn't fight was JC!!
Andplease don't say Liles, Echols, Mundine and all that old blurb.
I didn't say anything about "the reason" Calzaghe didn't fight them; but the fact is, he didn't. Again, just pick up a Ring Magazine during the Calzaghe era. You'll see lots of names in the top-5 that Calzaghe never fought. Sorry, I missed the earlier debates, but why are supposed to ignore Echols and Mundine? They were #s 3 and 4 in the 2003 and 2004 annual rankings, when Calzaghe was defending against people like Kabary Salem and Mger Mkrtchyan. But those are hardly the only names.
Look at Calzaghe's record, and look at the names of the people in the top 5 during his time as a top 168-pound champion and contender.
Ward is 27, and he's beaten three of the top 5 in the weight class, and four of the top 10.
OK, so you tell me who these people are and which ones enhance his legacy?
Woodhall, Reid, Mitchell, Lacy, Kessler, Brewer, Bika are not all time greats, but were all (except Bika) either current or very recent world champions. To say that Echols or Mundine (or the others you are going to tell us) would've changed your view on his resume doesn't make sense. Fact is, it wasn't a great era, B-Hop and RJJ were not fighting at SMW (there were to busy creating far worse resume's than Calzaghe in their own respective weight classes ;)) and other than Ottke, who was utter shite, there was nobody else to fight that he didn't fight.
I'm not saying they have to be all-time greats, but most of the people Calzaghe defended the title against weren't top-ten in the weight class. In the last 2 1/2 years, he stepped up his level of competition
dramatically, but in the first 7+ years, his defenses weren't remotely against the best 168-pounders. They just WEREN'T. Don't extrapolate anything from that other what it is, or what his legacy would have been if he fought X, Y, or Z. I'm just stating a plain, verifiable, almost indisputable fact. For over 7 years, the
top SMWs were passed over as Calzaghe defended mostly against 2nd and 3rd tier guys. I'm not talking about P4P greats; I'm just talking about the top 168-pounders of that era.
I agree with Gandalf that all boxers have some filler, but what other boxers do is irrelevant to the question of whether he cleaned out the division. He just didn't. And if you look at the Ring Magazine rankings of their eras (which are not perfect, but are at least Better than the corrupted sanctioning body rankings), it's apparent that Hopkins, overall, defended against a higher class of challenger. Which, of course, doesn't mean that Hopkins was better than Calzaghe. But it's still true (that he defended against better challengers, that is).
And yet again, I ask "Who are these people?" Give me names!!
Re: Joe Calzaghe: Andre Ward is good but beatable
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
Hopkins, as 160-pound champion, has a better resume than Calzaghe as 168-pound champion.. The "far worse resume" bit is nonsense.
Until he started beating up the little guys, i.e his first 18 or so defences, who did he fight that was higher rated/revered than Kessler or Lacy as 2 examples? Go to Boxrec and look at that list of bums and tell me there any better than the people JC fought. B-Hop and RJJ will go down as ATGs, but their records (there you go Eric you koont ;D ) during their prime yeaers are filled with fighters at a very similar level to those on JC's record. I would say that is pretty undisputable!
Re: Joe Calzaghe: Andre Ward is good but beatable
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
Hopkins, as 160-pound champion, has a better resume than Calzaghe as 168-pound champion.. The "far worse resume" bit is nonsense.
Until he started beating up the little guys, i.e his first 18 or so defences, who did he fight that was higher rated/revered than Kessler or Lacy as 2 examples? Go to Boxrec and look at that list of bums and tell me there any better than the people JC fought. B-Hop and RJJ will go down as ATGs, but their
records (there you go Eric you koont ;D ) during their prime yeaers are filled with fighters at a very similar level to those on JC's record. I would say that is pretty undisputable!
Well said Big H, thing is the top fighter never fight each other week in week out.?
never has happened never will?
All the great fighter's, and not so great one's have fought, there bum's s so with all
fighter's we can say there opponent's have not all been top quality.?;D
Re: Joe Calzaghe: Andre Ward is good but beatable
Re: Joe Calzaghe: Andre Ward is good but beatable
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
Hopkins, as 160-pound champion, has a better resume than Calzaghe as 168-pound champion.. The "far worse resume" bit is nonsense.
Until he started beating up the little guys, i.e his first 18 or so defences, who did he fight that was higher rated/revered than Kessler or Lacy as 2 examples? Go to Boxrec and look at that list of bums and tell me there any better than the people JC fought. B-Hop and RJJ will go down as ATGs, but their
records (there you go Eric you koont ;D ) during their prime yeaers are filled with fighters at a very similar level to those on JC's record. I would say that is pretty undisputable!
I do find it funny how Felix Trinidad is considered a little guy now since he lost the fight. Yet that wasn't the case going into the Hopkins fight. Hell he was actually favored to beat Hopkins. But I see the need to bad mouth Hopkins resume....record is so great he must be referred as a little guy
Re: Joe Calzaghe: Andre Ward is good but beatable
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Althugz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElTerribleMorales
Calzaghe can say anything he wants, but FACT is that Ward already has a better looking resume than Calzaghe ever did
Exactly my point..Jeez!
Fenster, you bore me..but if you must know why I have such a "disgraceful attitude" towards Calzaghe it's because I've never felt so strongly about any fighter actually BEING a great talent..BUT chose never to prove it. He proved it once in my eyes and that was against Kessler. I gave him his due props. Other than that he's a huge waste of talent..and yours or Miles' man-crush on him doesn't change that.
(FACT)
P.S. You brought up and insulted somebody complete unrelated to the argument because you didn't have one. So how am I the one with a disgraceful attitude? :dunce:
How have I insulted Larry? Have I called him a "pussy?" Shit? Mug? Overrated?
YOU'RE the one insulting Larry but you're to
thick naive to realise it. That's my argument. I haven't wavered from it.
If you have no respect for fighters that have reached the pinnacle how can you possibly respect fighters with little talent and little chance of success?
Had you never mentioned being in a boxing gym and knowing fighters (like Larry) I wouldn't even respond to a single post you make, i'd just think you're a silly kid. However, I find it incredible that someone that actually knows fighters can have such little respect for them. Amazing.
Christ you take this internet forum lark so seriously...I'm the thick one yet I have to explain to you in great detail what I mean by every post I make.
I'm starting to feel like the teaching assistant in primary school especially brought in to help you comprehend the most simple shit..You ready, Fenster? :vd::vd:
I refer to Calzaghe as a "pussy" in boxing terms..of course I respect him as a fighter as I respect anybody who steps into the ring, regardless of whether I like them or not.
As I explained before I thought Calzaghe was a huge talent..So I call him a "pussy" because he wasted that talent NOT fighting people..come on..Peter Manfredo on your 40th odd fight when you've been a world champ for untold years??
I call him a pussy to illustrate my point..not to call him a literal pussy..but you're too naive (or was it thick?) to understand even though i've explained once before. Don't take me or yourself so seriously..bet you think this is your real job too!
How many times does Floyd get called Gayweather, chicken etc yet I've never seen you defend him as a fighter? I call out your man-crush and I have a shit attitude. hmmm. You've always had this weird boner for me and I suggest you get help for it..I like girls so it's not healthy for you to be feeling the way you do.
Re: Joe Calzaghe: Andre Ward is good but beatable
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Althugz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Althugz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElTerribleMorales
Calzaghe can say anything he wants, but FACT is that Ward already has a better looking resume than Calzaghe ever did
Exactly my point..Jeez!
Fenster, you bore me..but if you must know why I have such a "disgraceful attitude" towards Calzaghe it's because I've never felt so strongly about any fighter actually BEING a great talent..BUT chose never to prove it. He proved it once in my eyes and that was against Kessler. I gave him his due props. Other than that he's a huge waste of talent..and yours or Miles' man-crush on him doesn't change that.
(FACT)
P.S. You brought up and insulted somebody complete unrelated to the argument because you didn't have one. So how am I the one with a disgraceful attitude? :dunce:
How have I insulted Larry? Have I called him a "pussy?" Shit? Mug? Overrated?
YOU'RE the one insulting Larry but you're to
thick naive to realise it. That's my argument. I haven't wavered from it.
If you have no respect for fighters that have reached the pinnacle how can you possibly respect fighters with little talent and little chance of success?
Had you never mentioned being in a boxing gym and knowing fighters (like Larry) I wouldn't even respond to a single post you make, i'd just think you're a silly kid. However, I find it incredible that someone that actually knows fighters can have such little respect for them. Amazing.
Christ you take this internet forum lark so seriously...I'm the thick one yet I have to explain to you in great detail what I mean by every post I make.
I'm starting to feel like the teaching assistant in primary school especially brought in to help you comprehend the most simple shit..You ready, Fenster? :vd::vd:
I refer to Calzaghe as a "pussy" in boxing terms..of course I respect him as a fighter as I respect anybody who steps into the ring, regardless of whether I like them or not.
As I explained before I thought Calzaghe was a huge talent..So I call him a "pussy" because he wasted that talent NOT fighting people..come on..Peter Manfredo on your 40th odd fight when you've been a world champ for untold years??
I call him a pussy to illustrate my point..not to call him a literal pussy..but you're too naive (or was it thick?) to understand even though i've explained once before. Don't take me or yourself so seriously..bet you think this is your real job too!
How many times does Floyd get called Gayweather, chicken etc yet I've never seen you defend him as a fighter? I call out your man-crush and I have a shit attitude. hmmm. You've always had this weird boner for me and I suggest you get help for it..I like girls so it's not healthy for you to be feeling the way you do.
I was addressing your attitude towards all fighters not just Calzaghe. Just about all the kids on here that actually box are very respectful towards fighters. Larry comes across as a very humble guy. You come across as the opposite.
No worries though...
P.S. - you are far too ugly to give me a boner. Fact. ;)
Re: Joe Calzaghe: Andre Ward is good but beatable
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
I'm not saying they have to be all-time greats, but most of the people Calzaghe defended the title against weren't top-ten in the weight class. In the last 2 1/2 years, he stepped up his level of competition dramatically, but in the first 7+ years, his defenses weren't remotely against the best 168-pounders. They just WEREN'T. Don't extrapolate anything from that other what it is, or what his legacy would have been if he fought X, Y, or Z. I'm just stating a plain, verifiable, almost indisputable fact. For over 7 years, the top SMWs were passed over as Calzaghe defended mostly against 2nd and 3rd tier guys. I'm not talking about P4P greats; I'm just talking about the top 168-pounders of that era.
You are totally wrong.
Brewer, Mitchell, Reid and Woodhall were all top 10 Ring ranked during this period (see links at bottom).
And for what it's worth - Tocker Pudwill replaced Thomas Tate (top 10 rated) who pulled out two weeks before the fight. And for what it's worth - Cazlaghe stopped Glenn Catley (top 10 rated) in the amateurs.
So as you can see - it's a plain, verifiable, almost indisputable fact that Calzaghe WAS NOT passing over all the top supermiddles.
The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: Super Middleweight--1990s - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia
The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: Super Middleweight--2000s - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia
Re: Joe Calzaghe: Andre Ward is good but beatable
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
Hopkins, as 160-pound champion, has a better resume than Calzaghe as 168-pound champion.. The "far worse resume" bit is nonsense.
Until he started beating up the little guys, i.e his first 18 or so defences, who did he fight that was higher rated/revered than Kessler or Lacy as 2 examples? Go to Boxrec and look at that list of bums and tell me there any better than the people JC fought. B-Hop and RJJ will go down as ATGs, but their
records (there you go Eric you koont ;D ) during their prime yeaers are filled with fighters at a very similar level to those on JC's record. I would say that is pretty undisputable!
I do find it funny how Felix Trinidad is considered a little guy now since he lost the fight. Yet that wasn't the case going into the Hopkins fight. Hell he was actually favored to beat Hopkins. But I see the need to bad mouth Hopkins resume....record is so great he must be referred as a little guy
Trinidad was favourite, becuase Hopkins hadn't fought anybody!! Nobody knew what would happen when he foguht a truly world class fighter.
Credit to him, he was awesome and took Tito apart, but this ins't about how good he is/was, it's about the fact that his record at MW through his reign is littered with names comparable with those on Calzaghe's record. Even you can't try and make a case that Hopkins' opposition was anything other than average prior to Tito?
Re: Joe Calzaghe: Andre Ward is good but beatable
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
I'm not saying they have to be all-time greats, but most of the people Calzaghe defended the title against weren't top-ten in the weight class. In the last 2 1/2 years, he stepped up his level of competition dramatically, but in the first 7+ years, his defenses weren't remotely against the best 168-pounders. They just WEREN'T. Don't extrapolate anything from that other what it is, or what his legacy would have been if he fought X, Y, or Z. I'm just stating a plain, verifiable, almost indisputable fact. For over 7 years, the top SMWs were passed over as Calzaghe defended mostly against 2nd and 3rd tier guys. I'm not talking about P4P greats; I'm just talking about the top 168-pounders of that era.
You are totally
wrong.
Brewer, Mitchell, Reid and Woodhall were all top 10 Ring ranked during this period (see links at bottom).
And for what it's worth - Tocker Pudwill replaced Thomas Tate (top 10 rated) who pulled out two weeks before the fight. And for what it's worth - Cazlaghe stopped Glenn Catley (top 10 rated) in the amateurs.
So as you can see - it's a plain, verifiable, almost indisputable fact that Calzaghe WAS NOT passing over all the top supermiddles.
The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: Super Middleweight--1990s - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia
The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: Super Middleweight--2000s - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia
It's a bit amusing that you'd say in caps that I'm WRONG when you make a nice post that proves my point. Let's break it down a bit...I'll go slow and highlight the operative words:
most of the people Calzaghe defended the title against weren't top-ten in the weight class.
Prior to the Lacy fight, Calzaghe had the title for about 8 1/2 years. In that time, he defended it SEVENTEEN times, and yes, you have correctly identified the FOUR challengers in the Ring Top-10 annual rankings.
Re: Joe Calzaghe: Andre Ward is good but beatable
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
Hopkins, as 160-pound champion, has a better resume than Calzaghe as 168-pound champion.. The "far worse resume" bit is nonsense.
Until he started beating up the little guys, i.e his first 18 or so defences, who did he fight that was higher rated/revered than Kessler or Lacy as 2 examples? Go to Boxrec and look at that list of bums and tell me there any better than the people JC fought. B-Hop and RJJ will go down as ATGs, but their
records (there you go Eric you koont ;D ) during their prime yeaers are filled with fighters at a very similar level to those on JC's record. I would say that is pretty undisputable!
I do find it funny how Felix Trinidad is considered a little guy now since he lost the fight. Yet that wasn't the case going into the Hopkins fight. Hell he was actually favored to beat Hopkins. But I see the need to bad mouth Hopkins resume....record is so great he must be referred as a little guy
Trinidad was favourite, becuase Hopkins hadn't fought anybody!! Nobody knew what would happen when he foguht a truly world class fighter.
Credit to him, he was awesome and took Tito apart, but this ins't about how good he is/was, it's about the fact that his record at MW through his reign is littered with names comparable with those on Calzaghe's record. Even you can't try and make a case that Hopkins' opposition was anything other than average prior to Tito?
Hopkins's list of opponents may be "comparable," but it's clearly better. Most of Hopkins's defenses were against legitimate top-10 contenders. Most of Calzaghe's were not.
Re: Joe Calzaghe: Andre Ward is good but beatable
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
Hopkins, as 160-pound champion, has a better resume than Calzaghe as 168-pound champion.. The "far worse resume" bit is nonsense.
Until he started beating up the little guys, i.e his first 18 or so defences, who did he fight that was higher rated/revered than Kessler or Lacy as 2 examples? Go to Boxrec and look at that list of bums and tell me there any better than the people JC fought. B-Hop and RJJ will go down as ATGs, but their
records (there you go Eric you koont ;D ) during their prime yeaers are filled with fighters at a very similar level to those on JC's record. I would say that is pretty undisputable!
I do find it funny how Felix Trinidad is considered a little guy now since he lost the fight. Yet that wasn't the case going into the Hopkins fight. Hell he was actually favored to beat Hopkins. But I see the need to bad mouth Hopkins resume....record is so great he must be referred as a little guy
Trinidad was favourite, becuase Hopkins hadn't fought anybody!! Nobody knew what would happen when he foguht a truly world class fighter.
Credit to him, he was awesome and took Tito apart, but this ins't about how good he is/was, it's about the fact that his record at MW through his reign is littered with names comparable with those on Calzaghe's record. Even you can't try and make a case that Hopkins' opposition was anything other than average prior to Tito?
After becoming IBF champion and before he faced Trinidad, I see only 3 names he shouldn't have faced. Steve Frank, Simon Brown and William James. Frank was garbage. Simon was ancient. And James was unworthy. Other than that his opposition isn't outstanding but it surely ain't terrible
