Not saying your one of the haters mate

Of course we can have an opinion on who will win a fight. Of course someone isnt a hater if they dont think calzaghe will win, thats not what im saying at all mate.

Id say calzaghe vs pavlik is 62/38 in calzaghes favour. Thats mainly because of the style clashes suiting joe.

Id say calzaghe vs jones is 60/40 in calzaghes favour.

BUT id say that a peak RJJ vs a peak JC (what we saw in the lacy fight) would be one hell of a fight, infact make that a totally unbelievable match up! I dont know how the styles would clash except there would be action involved, in terms of the way the fight would go im tempted to say it is 60/40 in RJJ's favour but im also tempted to say 50/50 aswell because i wouldnt have been suprised at all if calzaghe won that (at his prime aswell).

So i'll split and say it would be 55/45 in RJJ favour of winning that match up if it occured.

But would i mean by 'hater' is letting prejudices get in the way of judging an athlete.

For instance, i think JC would beat pavlik, 60/40 chance in my opinion, perhaps slightly higher...but if JC gets beaten by pavlik then i will not dislike pavlik (i like pavlik as a fighter anyway), i will rate him higher than JC and will definately retract my words about JC being better than pavlik...thats how i work.

I think if someone is calling a 45,0,0 fighter a 'weak, slapping, non straight punching, lucky brawler', it stinks of hate all over it. Afterall how can someone with the record of joe's and opponents hes fought be called that?

He can be criticised for throwing light flurries of punches at times, sure he can! But a 'weak, slapping, non straight punching, lucky brawler' thats pathetic.

It like saying that ali was a p*ssy because he had his jaw broke...its nonsensicle, only an ali hater would say that.