Quote Originally Posted by killersheep
Quote Originally Posted by shza
Quote Originally Posted by killersheep

I don't think it's overrating him, the only name that Joe has on his resume that's better is Lacy. I have no problem rating him
at #2 for SMW right behind Joe.
This is logically inconsistent. If Kessler is the #2 SMW, then he's better than Lacy. Meaning that if Lacy is the best name on Joe's resume, then Joe actually has no names on his resume that are better than Kessler.

Unless you meant that Joe's resume is better than Kessler's by virtue of Kessler not having beaten anyone as good as Lacy?
How is it logically inconsistant? Yes I RATE Joe higher, because of his beating LACY. And yes I do not rate anyone else on Joe's resume to be better than Kessler (Lacy would be an option however, I have to move him down because of the defeat). I don't see the flaw in my logic. Kessler is still undefeated and has two belts, just like Joe the only difference on paper is the conquest of Lacy IMO. Yes I do take into account wins and losses especially when it was a huge blowout. IMO I believe that Kessler will do better against Calzaghe than Lacy did, only time will tell though.
No worries. I just interpreted you to mean something other than what you meant. You said "the only name that Joe has on his resume that's better is Lacy," which I interpreted to mean that "the only name that Joe has on his resume that's who's better than Kessler is Lacy." This would have been logically inconsistent with saying that Kessler is better than Lacy, obviously.

But you actually meant my second guess, namely that:

Quote Originally Posted by shza
Unless you meant that Joe's resume is better than Kessler's by virtue of Kessler not having beaten anyone as good as Lacy?
So, no inconsistency, and we can stop this part of the thread before it gets any nerdier or more nit-picky than I've already made it. Cheers!