Re: does the winner of the SMW super six have a better resume than Calzaghe??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Possibly, the only difference is Joe DID beat the fighters he beat whereas Jermain lost to a couple of his own opponents.
As for Taylor having a chance against Kessler, well the great news is we will soon get to see.
I actually Jermain a lot, and believe he could upset a few on the Super Six tournament. It doesn't change the fact that he was Ko'd twice, beaten 3 times and had 4 other fights (Hopkins twice, Spinks, Winky) that were all very controversial to say the least, and with him only escaping with a draw against Winky.
Meanwhile Joe went 46-0.
Joe's resume is better.
Based on wins and losses, yeah it is. Which is why I tried to make it clearer what I meant. And what I meant was Taylor faced the better fighters. Which he did
I don't know, aside from Hopkins and Pavlik he hasn't faced anybody great.
Calzaghe beat Hopkins so they cancel each other out. Winky is certainly no better than Roy Jones, both are old and past their best of course. Of the others like Spinks and Ouma, they were joke fights really, Taylor had no business fighting them.
Pavlik was a great opponent, but comparable to Kessler, I'm not sure, maybe equal, maybe not, personally I prefer Kessler.
Facing Hopkins twice doesn't cancel out facing Hopkins once. And Spinks and Ouma were out of there best weights. But certainly better than Manfredo and Bika
Re: does the winner of the SMW super six have a better resume than Calzaghe??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Based on wins and losses, yeah it is. Which is why I tried to make it clearer what I meant. And what I meant was Taylor faced the better fighters. Which he did
I don't know, aside from Hopkins and Pavlik he hasn't faced anybody great.
Calzaghe beat Hopkins so they cancel each other out. Winky is certainly no better than Roy Jones, both are old and past their best of course. Of the others like Spinks and Ouma, they were joke fights really, Taylor had no business fighting them.
Pavlik was a great opponent, but comparable to Kessler, I'm not sure, maybe equal, maybe not, personally I prefer Kessler.
Facing Hopkins twice doesn't cancel out facing Hopkins once. And Spinks and Ouma were out of there best weights. But certainly better than Manfredo and Bika
Honestly I don't think Ouma was even better than Manfredo. Manfredo never lost to K9 Bundrage. Spinks was barely able to beat complete unknown Deandre Latimore and got floored in the process, Bika has held his own against good competion and has wins over Manfredo, Soliman and Jaidon Codrington. He's also never been stopped and has gone 24 rounds with Calzaghe and Bute. Sure he's not world class but he's a hard night's work for anybody and a tougher challenge than a blown up welter with a notoriously weak chin and no stamina, as well as being one of the lightest hitters in boxing.
Re: does the winner of the SMW super six have a better resume than Calzaghe??
Kessler could end up with a better resume than Calzaghe after the super 6, but it'd probably take a couple more wins to solidify. I mean just cos Joe beat him once dont mean that his resume is better. For example RJJ beat BHOP as easily as Joe beat Kess but a lot of people would say Bhop's resume and career is more impressive due to better opposition fought.
If Kess went thru undefeated then he would have to be seen as nearly having as good a resume as Joe. Then if he defeated say Bute and Pavlik for arguments sake it'd be bloody hard for even the keenest Calzaghe fan to say Kess didnt have a better Resume. He'd be 48-1 with potentially wins over Beyer, Mundine, Andrade, Ward, then maybe Taylor, Dirrel, Abraham, Froch, Bute, Pavlik. Of course one of those would be missing.
Re: does the winner of the SMW super six have a better resume than Calzaghe??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Shiit goes both ways. You don't think Taylor could beat the fighters Calzaghe beat? He holds 2 victories over a much younger Hopkins that Calzaghe beat. And i would give him an excellent chance against Kessler
Possibly, the only difference is Joe DID beat the fighters he beat whereas Jermain lost to a couple of his own opponents.
As for Taylor having a chance against Kessler, well the great news is we will soon get to see.
I actually Jermain a lot, and believe he could upset a few on the Super Six tournament. It doesn't change the fact that he was Ko'd twice, beaten 3 times and had 4 other fights (Hopkins twice, Spinks, Winky) that were all very controversial to say the least, and with him only escaping with a draw against Winky.
Meanwhile Joe went 46-0.
Joe's resume is better.
Based on wins and losses, yeah it is. Which is why I tried to make it clearer what I meant. And what I meant was Taylor faced the better fighters. Which he did
By that rationale we should be talking about Reggie Strickland's resume. A Resume is only a good one if you win. Having great jobs on your resume aint a good thing if you got fired from the most challenging ones.
Re: does the winner of the SMW super six have a better resume than Calzaghe??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
deadlypete
Nope Joe Calzaghe Is A Class On His Own And He Well And Truly Defeated Kessler In A Beautiul Fight....which He Won Easily... Joes Undeafted Status Will Go Down In History And That Is Wat Makes Him Greater Then Any Of These Wannabe Greats.....joe Was A Absolutely Brilliant Fighter And His Resume Will Remain Unmatched 50 Years From Now
Well, Marciano already has a better resume than Joe... so you should say that Marciano will remain with an unmatched resume for 50 years;) Also, if we talk in matter of quality of opponent, Jermaine has the edge over Joe big time. Not saying he's better, but just like the violent one stated, quality of opponent for quality of opponent, Jermaine has a better one to this day and it is quite likely to think that he'll continue to face dangerous guys, no matter win or lose.
Re: does the winner of the SMW super six have a better resume than Calzaghe??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Possibly, the only difference is Joe DID beat the fighters he beat whereas Jermain lost to a couple of his own opponents.
As for Taylor having a chance against Kessler, well the great news is we will soon get to see.
I actually Jermain a lot, and believe he could upset a few on the Super Six tournament. It doesn't change the fact that he was Ko'd twice, beaten 3 times and had 4 other fights (Hopkins twice, Spinks, Winky) that were all very controversial to say the least, and with him only escaping with a draw against Winky.
Meanwhile Joe went 46-0.
Joe's resume is better.
Based on wins and losses, yeah it is. Which is why I tried to make it clearer what I meant. And what I meant was Taylor faced the better fighters. Which he did
By that rationale we should be talking about Reggie Strickland's resume. A Resume is only a good one if you win. Having great jobs on your resume aint a good thing if you got fired from the most challenging ones.
I agree that it has to be considered somewhere, but you can't base solely on the number of defeats on the resume neither; the quality of the opponents is kinda playing down the stretch about if you'll escape with a win or a lose.
Re: does the winner of the SMW super six have a better resume than Calzaghe??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
VD's right, everyone remembers how terrifying Ouma and Spinks were at middleweight. Those were great wins.
And they never accomplished the great achievement of reaching the Contender final like the great Peter Manfredo
Ouma lost to a guy that didn't even make the Contender final :rotflmao:
Re: does the winner of the SMW super six have a better resume than Calzaghe??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nameless
Quote:
Originally Posted by
deadlypete
Nope Joe Calzaghe Is A Class On His Own And He Well And Truly Defeated Kessler In A Beautiul Fight....which He Won Easily... Joes Undeafted Status Will Go Down In History And That Is Wat Makes Him Greater Then Any Of These Wannabe Greats.....joe Was A Absolutely Brilliant Fighter And His Resume Will Remain Unmatched 50 Years From Now
Well, Marciano already has a better resume than Joe... so you should say that Marciano will remain with an unmatched resume for 50 years;)
Also, if we talk in matter of quality of opponent, Jermaine has the edge over Joe big time. Not saying he's better, but just like the violent one stated, quality of opponent for quality of opponent, Jermaine has a better one to this day and it is quite likely to think that he'll continue to face dangerous guys, no matter win or lose.
No he doesn't. If it's just about names faced then Calzaghe faced Roy Jones. Roy pisses over every name on Taylors record barring Hopkins. Calzaghe faced Hopkins too.
So Calzaghe wins this easy. ;D
Re: does the winner of the SMW super six have a better resume than Calzaghe??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nameless
Quote:
Originally Posted by
deadlypete
Nope Joe Calzaghe Is A Class On His Own And He Well And Truly Defeated Kessler In A Beautiul Fight....which He Won Easily... Joes Undeafted Status Will Go Down In History And That Is Wat Makes Him Greater Then Any Of These Wannabe Greats.....joe Was A Absolutely Brilliant Fighter And His Resume Will Remain Unmatched 50 Years From Now
Well, Marciano already has a better resume than Joe... so you should say that Marciano will remain with an unmatched resume for 50 years;)
Also, if we talk in matter of quality of opponent, Jermaine has the edge over Joe big time. Not saying he's better, but just like the violent one stated, quality of opponent for quality of opponent, Jermaine has a better one to this day and it is quite likely to think that he'll continue to face dangerous guys, no matter win or lose.
No he doesn't. If it's just about names faced then Calzaghe faced Roy Jones. Roy pisses over every name on Taylors record barring Hopkins. Calzaghe faced Hopkins too.
So Calzaghe wins this easy. ;D
I think people look at records and dismiss fights completely out of hand. Taylor has Pavlik and Hop and Winky on his record and nothing else, and people seem to be totally disregarding Joe's career pre-Lacy wtf. Granted there's a lot of crap on there, but seriously two blown up average Welters over the likes of Eubank, Reid, Woodhall, Mitchell???
So many people think that boxing is like a game of conkers, that immediately once you beat a guy then you get to claim that guy's entire career as your own and shoot up to elite level. Think Hatton Tszyu, or more appropriate with this thread Taylor suddenly becoming elite with controversial wins over Hop, and then Pavlik the same for beating Taylor. But now wait, then Hop comes round and humiliates Pavlik and now your head hurts cause your flawed logic.
Suddenly, now Froch beats Taylor he is now considered another strong fighter on Taylor's resume, what if Taylor really slips and loses to a Manfredo, does he suddenly become elite? the only reason Froch and Pavlik look good on his record is cos he lost to them, what if JC had lost to Bika, would he then get to join Kess and Hop as one of his stronger opponents? but JC never lost so via VD's logic that makes him and his opponents crap.
and another newsflash for you, the Reid and Eubank Joe faced smashes Froch, and Woodhall schools him. And beating two completely untested pros in this tourney does no more than what Joe did against the likes of Veit and Starie and Sheika all those years ago, it actually does less as the latter two held wins over credible guys like Woods and Johnson respectively.
Re: does the winner of the SMW super six have a better resume than Calzaghe??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bomp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nameless
Well, Marciano already has a better resume than Joe... so you should say that Marciano will remain with an unmatched resume for 50 years;) Also, if we talk in matter of quality of opponent, Jermaine has the edge over Joe big time. Not saying he's better, but just like the violent one stated, quality of opponent for quality of opponent, Jermaine has a better one to this day and it is quite likely to think that he'll continue to face dangerous guys, no matter win or lose.
No he doesn't. If it's just about names faced then Calzaghe faced Roy Jones. Roy pisses over every name on Taylors record barring Hopkins. Calzaghe faced Hopkins too.
So Calzaghe wins this easy. ;D
I think people look at records and dismiss fights completely out of hand. Taylor has Pavlik and Hop and Winky on his record and nothing else, and people seem to be totally disregarding Joe's career pre-Lacy wtf. Granted there's a lot of crap on there, but seriously two blown up average Welters over the likes of Eubank, Reid, Woodhall, Mitchell???
So many people think that boxing is like a game of conkers, that immediately once you beat a guy then you get to claim that guy's entire career as your own and shoot up to elite level. Think Hatton Tszyu, or more appropriate with this thread Taylor suddenly becoming elite with controversial wins over Hop, and then Pavlik the same for beating Taylor. But now wait, then Hop comes round and humiliates Pavlik and now your head hurts cause your flawed logic.
Suddenly, now Froch beats Taylor he is now considered another strong fighter on Taylor's resume, what if Taylor really slips and loses to a Manfredo, does he suddenly become elite? the only reason Froch and Pavlik look good on his record is cos he lost to them, what if JC had lost to Bika, would he then get to join Kess and Hop as one of his stronger opponents? but JC never lost so via VD's logic that makes him and his opponents crap.
and another newsflash for you, the Reid and Eubank Joe faced smashes Froch, and Woodhall schools him. And beating two completely untested pros in this tourney does no more than what Joe did against the likes of Veit and Starie and Sheika all those years ago, it actually does less as the latter two held wins over credible guys like Woods and Johnson respectively.
Reid v Froch prime for prime would be a good fight, I still fancy Froch. Woodhall to school Froch lol. Woodhall was shit mate european standard fighter who won a world title. Froch would beat Woodhall without much fuss.
Re: does the winner of the SMW super six have a better resume than Calzaghe??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nameless
Quote:
Originally Posted by
deadlypete
Nope Joe Calzaghe Is A Class On His Own And He Well And Truly Defeated Kessler In A Beautiul Fight....which He Won Easily... Joes Undeafted Status Will Go Down In History And That Is Wat Makes Him Greater Then Any Of These Wannabe Greats.....joe Was A Absolutely Brilliant Fighter And His Resume Will Remain Unmatched 50 Years From Now
Well, Marciano already has a better resume than Joe... so you should say that Marciano will remain with an unmatched resume for 50 years;)
Also, if we talk in matter of quality of opponent, Jermaine has the edge over Joe big time. Not saying he's better, but just like the violent one stated, quality of opponent for quality of opponent, Jermaine has a better one to this day and it is quite likely to think that he'll continue to face dangerous guys, no matter win or lose.
No he doesn't. If it's just about names faced then Calzaghe faced Roy Jones. Roy pisses over every name on Taylors record barring Hopkins. Calzaghe faced Hopkins too.
So Calzaghe wins this easy. ;D
I would agree with you if he would have beaten a.. let's say, 33-34-35 years old Roy Jones and not a way pass its prime and fading 40 years old Jones. ;)
Re: does the winner of the SMW super six have a better resume than Calzaghe??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nameless
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nameless
Well, Marciano already has a better resume than Joe... so you should say that Marciano will remain with an unmatched resume for 50 years;) Also, if we talk in matter of quality of opponent, Jermaine has the edge over Joe big time. Not saying he's better, but just like the violent one stated, quality of opponent for quality of opponent, Jermaine has a better one to this day and it is quite likely to think that he'll continue to face dangerous guys, no matter win or lose.
No he doesn't. If it's just about names faced then Calzaghe faced Roy Jones. Roy pisses over every name on Taylors record barring Hopkins. Calzaghe faced Hopkins too.
So Calzaghe wins this easy. ;D
I would agree with you if he would have beaten a.. let's say, 33-34-35 years old Roy Jones and not a way pass its prime and fading 40 years old Jones. ;)
So you think it's better to lose than to win?
Taylor getting knocked out by Carl Froch is better for his resume than Calzaghe beating Roy Jones?
Fucks sake ;D
Re: does the winner of the SMW super six have a better resume than Calzaghe??
Only Kessler and Jermain have resumes worth comparing even with winning the whole tournament.
I'll say this if Jermain wins this whole tournament with wins over Kessler, Abraham, and Froch in a rematch, it's worth discussing. Right now Calzaghe has a better resume hands down if simply because he has never lost and faced better opposition at his natural weight. Yes, an undefeated Jeff Lacy, Eubanks, Reid, Bika, Kessler, Bhop (step up in weight to 175), Jones (step up in weight to 175) are better wins than Taylor most significant wins. Taylor FACED good opposition, but other than his Hopkins wins (which for comparison's sake were only three years before Calzaghe beat Hopkins and Hopkins only fought twice in that time), he never won the big fights. He lost to Kelly Pavlik (and in my opinion the jury is still out on how good legacy-wise Kelly Pavlik is), drew with Winky Wright, and lost to Carl Froch. Jermain wins the whole thing and beats Bute and his resume compares favorably to Calzaghe's.
Abraham's biggest wins are over Miranda at 160.
Froch's biggest wins are over Jermain and Pascal at 168 - better than Abraham's resume.
Ward and Dirrell don't have any significant wins yet.
Kessler has wins over Andrade, Beyer, and Mundine, but he lost to Calzaghe. Kesslers wins the whole thing and beats Bute and his resume can compare favorably with Calzaghe's.
Re: does the winner of the SMW super six have a better resume than Calzaghe??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nameless
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nameless
Well, Marciano already has a better resume than Joe... so you should say that Marciano will remain with an unmatched resume for 50 years;) Also, if we talk in matter of quality of opponent, Jermaine has the edge over Joe big time. Not saying he's better, but just like the violent one stated, quality of opponent for quality of opponent, Jermaine has a better one to this day and it is quite likely to think that he'll continue to face dangerous guys, no matter win or lose.
No he doesn't. If it's just about names faced then Calzaghe faced Roy Jones. Roy pisses over every name on Taylors record barring Hopkins. Calzaghe faced Hopkins too.
So Calzaghe wins this easy. ;D
I would agree with you if he would have beaten a.. let's say, 33-34-35 years old Roy Jones and not a way pass its prime and fading 40 years old Jones. ;)
Right, but Calzaghe was 37 at the time of the fight. It goes both ways.
Re: does the winner of the SMW super six have a better resume than Calzaghe??
lmao at woodhall schooling froch.
the funniest shit i've ever heard.
