Joe Calzaghe is #1 P4P and not Manny Pac; here is why?

Edwin Valero is no1 pound for pound in the world.. 24 fights 24 KOs and undefeated... Stupid logic

Aha! What are you holding with the other hand?! :D Your mama. Nah, I don't disrespect people's mothers. That was funny man, I wasn't expecting that (I have a clean mind!). I got an arm injury, either a torn tendon or muscle. Something like that. 100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

I think you need to tell this to a blind person. There is a reason calzaghe is Scrutinized and ridiculed, its because god gave some of us sence. Only a deluded person will tell you Calzaghe is a ATG of no 1 p4p. Beating unproven and old shot fighters basically sums up joe c resume, not ONE career defining fight to talk of. This is a joke/bait thread, incase you didn't notice. Maybe you're a little blind. Calzaghe's had 2 career defining fights against Lacy and Kessler. Against Lacy he proved almost everyone wrong with one of the greatest performances in British boxing history. Against Kessler he confirmed his greatness and proved not only was he the best Super-Middle of his generation, he could whoop the best of the next gen. If you don't think much of those highly impressive victories, that's your problem. Under your criteria these are a list of guys off the top of my head that aren't ATGs: Kostya Tszyu (Judah was unproven & turned out to be just a level above gatekeeper, Chavez was ancient, Mitchell was an average champ) Aaron Pryor (Cervantes was past it, Arguello was a Lightweight and old) Larry Holmes (Norton and Shavers were old, Ali was completely shot, L.Spinks and Cooney were nothing special) Rocky Marciano (Louis was shot, Walcott & Charles were old, Archie Moore was a Light Heavy) Mike Tyson (Spinks was old and ok he beat an old Holmes and Cooney but he was a LHW, Holmes was shot) & Calzaghe (Eubank & Hopkins were old, Jones was shot, Kessler was unproven, Lacy was unproven and turned out to be an average fighter) I personally consider all ATGs taking into account how dominant they were in the ring and over their division in their primes and the obvious skill they showed. But under your logic they're not. Which shows how stupid your logic is. As for this thread, it's ridiculous. But I guess it was supposed to be. Pacquiao is now easily #1 after his dominant win over DLH, no question. If he had lost Joe might've had a case.

Benny is a smart man. PS: Benny, I'll reply to your PM later, I'm currently in pain and can only type with one hand. The last few posts I made almost KO'd me! Aha! What are you holding with the other hand?! :D

Benny is a smart man. PS: Benny, I'll reply to your PM later, I'm currently in pain and can only type with one hand. The last few posts I made almost KO'd me! 100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

Benny Leonard is like a more witty version of Brassangel. I like both fellas.

I'll start to break it down...but just "start" Since I was a boy I had this "something" inside me to ask "why?" This "Why" curiosity led me to great discoveries in my life. For example: Why do "Charlie horses" hurt so damn much? Why does watermelon make you piss through your ass? Why does Vodka and Cocaine go so well together in the morning? Great questions like that have baffled me and historians. That's the first part of the thread. If anybody has ever read my past posts they would have noticed the same boy I mentioned that was curious to ask "why" was the same poster that posted on the sites until, well, now...now that I have saw the light and found the new religion of "No excuses." ;) Let's break down the next big three: Charlie horses: they hurt like a bitch. For me, I wanted to know why they hurt and what caused them to hurt and how in the future I could prevent them. Now, would I be able to do this with "No excuses" logic. A belief system that doesn't ask "why" or use reason or research? Well, when I talk to these “certain” posters that is how I feel sometimes: AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH....WTF.......The pain. In this case the pain is in my head, not in my leg. But at least I get to laugh at this because it becomes funny. Sitting with Popcorn and enjoying the show isn't a bad way to kill a couple of hours as long as I don't become addicted and stay to long and get my other work done...which will lead us to... Morning...Coke...and Vodka: Besides the fact I never used Cocaine, what does each one represent? Morning: New Day; New Light; New energy (for most since there are others that are night-people). Cocaine: energy, but only lasts a very short time. It is addictive and expensive and kills the brain cells. In the End, if you use it too much, you can become poor and your life can be ruined. Vodka: makes the blood feel warm; helps you feel relaxed in small quantities...but clouds the vision and brain. Can destroy the Body and the Mind in large portions and in long use. Looks like water, but doesn't taste and isn't good for you like water. Fogs the mind. So now you have opposites being mixed in the cup to start your day off. We also had: Watermelon and the anus: Watermelon goes right through you just like logic does to these "certain" posters. Plus, were talking about the anus here and what comes out of the anus? Shit...usually compact...but in this case, Watermelon out the anus is liquidity. Piss instead of Shit out the anus...it just doesn't make sense. Anus..."No excuses"...prodcues what? OK....the rest is yours right now.

With your no excuses logic, Sinsurat-whatever and Torrecampo are better boxers than Pacquiao! In the same token, all current undefeated boxers are better than Robinson, Armstrong, Leonard, Duran, Hagler, Ali, etc. Your logic makes you dumb. So you are saying I shouldn't stick with the "NO EXCUSES" logic and people that use it are "dumb"?

With your no excuses logic, Sinsurat-whatever and Torrecampo are better boxers than Pacquiao! In the same token, all current undefeated boxers are better than Robinson, Armstrong, Leonard, Duran, Hagler, Ali, etc. Your logic makes you dumb.

There was a point to the length and if you want, you can look through my previous posts to figure out why I would do such a thing...or, you can reread the first portion...that is your hint...or, I could just tell you. Post reply. "So no longer should we look into the history of the fighters; no longer shall we investigate why a fighter won or lost; no longer shall we "reason" what happened to the fighter(s) before, during, and after the match (for future fights). If a Fighter Wins, it was because he was just the better Man. If he loses, he was just the weaker of the two." My bad...i was caught starting to read after those sentences. :D

I believe a lot of what you are saing is true, and if Joe Calzaghe had faced Kelly Pavlik and won, Kelly Pavlik would've been another "unproven" champ. But when Bernard Hopkins beats him, Hopkins get so much respect, even though Kelly Pavlik looked liked something everyone could win against. I'm not taking anything away from Hopkins, great ahtlet. Anyways, who is in their prime and are proven? Lacy wasn't apparently, and Kessler wasn't either? Is Chad Dawson really that different?

oh Benny, i know you're finding it hard to get a lot of logical people to agree w/ your views, and i know you're just trying to be funny here, but damn boy even in sarcasm YOU FAIL. so Rocky Marciano the GOAT? Where you fail is that you think I'm using sarcasm...I'm just me. I don't need to follow a pattern.

So by your logic Marciano is the HW GOAT not Ali cause Marciano never lost and Ali lost 5 times? Yes, by the logic of "No Excuses" this would work Should I continue to follow this logic?

The mere fact that you took time and effort to do this "justification" is proof enough that Pacman with all his faults is greater than Calzaghe, otherwise, there won't be this need for lengthy explanation. If Calzaghe is indeed greater, with his wins over greater fighters, having not a single loss in his resume, I'm sure there wouldn't be a need to come up with this kind of an argument against a small guy, who was beaten by nobodies and whose wins were against fighters past their best days. MOVING ON, greatness is earned not on paper (or in this case the boards) but inside the ring; greatness is earned, not given nor assumed. :D There was a point to the length and if you want, you can look through my previous posts to figure out why I would do such a thing...or, you can reread the first portion...that is your hint...or, I could just tell you. Post reply.

honestly, im being serious here, this thread sums up alot of our society as a whole, going into something without reading into it and forming a talking point thats pre-emptive to the feelings they already have to justify a point that doesnt even need to be made. People in general do not read into a situation before they form an opinion, they look at the surface and assume. This thread essentially highlights that "NO EXCUSES" removes any equation for reasoning. There are always reasons why human beings come up short, but in the glee of someones triumphs, nobody wants to nessecarily hear about that, and some of these posters who i know for a fact, love to claim a holier than thou approach and act as if they listen to reason, calling others idiots for not a reading a situation in its proper context, show that in essence they fall into the same trap of not reading and comprehending an obvious point. I think people, human beings are natural in this behavior, but alot of these people are so blindly passionate, they refuse to listen to anything other than what they want to hear, it is our nature to be this way, and the few that know how to mediate between two sides of an issue with success are usually people looked upon with respect. Benny i have noticed recently you have done alot within the past few days to get people to see the error in not listening to each other particularly with that coming to america thread and this thread, generally speaking, people make a couple of logical points and then degenrate into name calling, talking points, then everyone stops listening and just starts waiting for their turn to talk

oh ok... i didn't catch that it wasn't a serious thread... No problem. Glad you got it.

30 out of the 30 boxing experts amazingly agreed that Manny is the King of Boxing.

Here is a list of boxing experts who all unanimously agree that Manny is Pound For Pound the best fighter on the planet: Raul Alzaga, Primera Hora, Puerto Rico; Ron Borges, Boston Herald; Steve Cofield, Yahoo! Sports; Dave Cokin, ESPN Radio 1100, Las Vegas; Brian Doogan, London Sunday Times; Andrew Eisele, About.com; Scott Fyfe, Sunday Post, Scotland; Tom Gerbasi, MaxBoxing.com; Lee Groves, MaxBoxing.com; Thomas Hauser, SecondsOut.com; Keith Idec, Herald News, New Jersey; Kevin Iole, Yahoo! Sports; Michael Katz, MaxBoxing.com; Scott Mallon, SweetScience.com; Rich Marotta, XTRA Sports 570, Los Angeles; Franklin McNeil, Newark Star-Ledger; Gunnar Meinhardt, Die Welt, Germany; Roman Modrowski, Chicago Sun-Times; Robert Morales, Los Angeles Daily News; Marty Mulcahey, MaxBoxing.com; Kieran Mulvaney, Reuters; Santos Perez, Miami Herald; Martin Rogers, Yahoo! Sports; Michael Rosenthal, Ring Magazine; Tim Smith, New York Daily News; T.K. Stewart, BoxingScene.com; Paul Upham, SecondsOut.com; John Whisler, San Antonio Express News; George Willis, New York Post.

NO EXCUSES: A little history about myself :) Since I was a boy I had this "something" inside me to ask "why?" This "Why" curiosity led me to great discoveries in my life. For example: Why do "charlie horses" hurt so damn much? Why does watermelon make you piss through your ass? Why does Vodka and Cocaine go so well together in the morning? Great questions like that have baffled me and historians. Moving along: It has been brought to my attention by certain posters that we are no longer allowed to use "reason(s)" and logic for that matter, because Reason(s) equal Excuses. So no longer should we look into the history of the fighters; no longer shall we investigate why a fighter won or lost; no longer shall we "reason" what happened to the fighter(s) before, during, and after the match (for future fights). If a Fighter Wins, it was because he was just the better Man. If he loses, he was just the weaker of the two. So breaking down Joe Calzaghe and Manny Pac's resume based on this new revolutionary logic, here is how I came to the simple conclusion Joe is number One and not Manny Pac. Joe "The Legend Killer" Calzaghe won 46 (KO 32) + lost 0 (KO 0) + drawn= 0 Manny "Not Unbeatable" Pacquiao won 48 (KO 36) + Lost 3 (KO 2) + drawn 2 = 53 So what strikes you as different between these two? I'll give you a hint; it's in the red. If you notice, the Red for Joe "The Legend Killer" Calzaghe has "0" losses and "0" draws. Manny "Not Unbeatable" Pacquiao, if you notice in the red, has 3 losses and 2 draws. So using the "no excuses" logic, I asked myself a simple question: Which Fighter would I want to be based on records? The answer, the guy that was undefeated of course...especially since the other fighter had been KTFO twice. In addition, as I looked through their resume to see who they fought, but of course I didn't want to investigate the fights since that doesn't work in "no excuses," I found this: Joe "The Legend Killer" Calzaghe: Last three fights alone against the Legendary Roy "Mr. Unstoppable" Jones Jr; The Legendary Bernard "The Executioner" Hopkins; and Mikkel "Viking Warrior" Kessler {who was undefeated and held a title}. WOW, the nicknames alone are terrifying and should add points to Joe's resume. Continuing on we have Jeff "Left-hook" Lacey, who was deemed the Tyson of the 168 pound division, who also held a title and was undefeated. This was just in the last two years....AMAZING. Let's go to COLOR="Magenta"]Manny "I've been KTFO 2 times" Pacquiao: we'll only stick with the so called "legends." Manny has some great wins over Oscar "I choke in my big fights" De La Hoya. Marco "Baby Face ;)" Barrera; and Erik "Holocaust Survivor of 2006" Morales. Well, that's about it. So let's go to the losses: WOW, hope I can read this long list ;); oh, "0" Manny "I will only fight you if you are weight-drain and shot" Pacquiao: Hopefully this is a good one because I'm a big fan....OH SHIT: 3 losses. Hopefully these guys are "legends"; it won't be so bad if they are Legends. YES! I see one legend. Erik "I schooled Manny's ass even though I'm on Social Security" Morales. Loss count = 1 Moving on...and...??? Medgoen Singsurat. How did Pac lose to him? Maybe it was poor judging; let me check. Eh, just watched the fight...Manny was KTFO. Hopefully this guy was some type of legend because he certainly proved to be the better fighter. Moving on...and...WTF? Rustico "The Newspaper Boy" Torrecampo. EH....I'm going to have to check how he lost; maybe it was poor judging this time, really. Ah, Shit: just watched the fight, not long at all...Manny was knocked out by this legend. So, that's my results on this revolutionary thinking of "No Excuses." Thank You for reading and most importantly; Thank You "Certain Posters" for bringing this to my attention. The mere fact that you took time and effort to do this "justification" is proof enough that Pacman with all his faults is greater than Calzaghe, otherwise, there won't be this need for lengthy explanation. If Calzaghe is indeed greater, with his wins over greater fighters, having not a single loss in his resume, I'm sure there wouldn't be a need to come up with this kind of an argument against a small guy, who was beaten by nobodies and whose wins were against fighters past their best days. MOVING ON, greatness is earned not on paper (or in this case the boards) but inside the ring; greatness is earned, not given nor assumed. :D

i like manny!!!!!!!!!1