calzaghe to relinquish the ibf belt

[TheEvilSaint]

just about every unified or undisputed title holder that holds 3-4 belts usually lose the wretched IBF title first, either dropping it or being stripped of it.

**** the IBF. they're the worst of the sanctioning ****s.

[dumdane]

Does someone of note really need defining? Blimey. I'd have both Taylor and Calzaghe in my P4P top 10 as it goes ... maybe even top 5 if I'm feeling very generous. I can't wait for that fight to come off, and whoever decided that a beating of Manfredo was necessary beforehand needs one themselves.

Sadly there is rather a dearth of competition within the SMW division. It's in a bit of a lull now (has been for a couple of years) but there does seem to be some real talent coming through. It is a bit of a shame for Kessler that the one meaningful fighter out there for him has bigger fish to fry. I'm sure he'll get his chance (maybe even against both) but he's really not as attractive an option as Taylor to Calzaghe and vice versa. It does take a special kind of idiot though to claim that fighting the man that beat BHop twice means he's ducking Kessler.

But just to clear up things (and put it into perspective) this definition does mean that, perhaps with the exception of an old Eubanks, Calzaghe has yet fight "anyone of note" for his entire carreer - right? Taylor if it happens would be the second.

And it still doesn't mean that Kessler wouldn't be a harder (and therefore from a fans perspective - better) fight than Taylor.

[SHB]

But just to clear up things (and put it into perspective) this definition does mean that, perhaps with the exception of an old Eubanks, Calzaghe has yet fight "anyone of note" for his entire carreer - right? Taylor if it happens would be the second.

And it still doesn't mean that Kessler wouldn't be a harder (and therefore from a fans perspective - better) fight than Taylor.

Are you being deliberately dense?

[dumdane]

Are you being deliberately dense?

Possibly.
But could you please answer if ANYONE on Calzaghe's resume, apart from perhaps Eubanks fits your desciption of "someone of note". Coz i still have trouble understanding what you mean by "someone of note" and what it takes to be one.

[SHB]

You're either showing a staggering lack of knowledge or being deliberately daft if you think Eubank is the only name of note on Calzaghe's resume.

Why do you always turn a discussion about Kessler into one about Calzaghe? It seems your anti-Calzaghe sentiments are rapidly overtaking your pro-Kessler ones. Which is quite a feat.

[dumdane]

You're either showing a staggering lack of knowledge or being deliberately daft if you think Eubank is the only name of note on Calzaghe's resume.

Why do you always turn a discussion about Kessler into one about Calzaghe? It seems your anti-Calzaghe sentiments are rapidly overtaking your pro-Kessler ones. Which is quite a feat.

So who?

And it's hardly surpricing that Calzaghe as the most recognizable name in the division is being used for comparison.

And yes obviously I ask these questions because i feel you're judging their respective opposition with extreme bias and double-standart.

[SHB]

I asked your fellow dane the following quite straighforward question - who, of note, has Kessler fought. I didn't ask who he has fought in comparison to anyone else. I didn't ask you where his opponents rank in the division. I asked who, of note, Kessler has fought.

Your constant squirming and attempt to bring Calzaghe into your argument - again - are not answering the original question.

[dumdane]

I asked your fellow dane the following quite straighforward question - who, of note, has Kessler fought. I didn't ask who he has fought in comparison to anyone else. I didn't ask you where his opponents rank in the division. I asked who, of note, Kessler has fought.

Your constant squirming and attempt to bring Calzaghe into your argument - again - are not answering the original question.

And i cannot answer it untill i know what determines when someone is "of note"