Hopkins calls out Calzaghe...

[.Mik.]

I'm not comparing Calzaghe's second tier victories (or in the case of your very strange choice of Manfredo FOURTH tier) with Hopkin's first tier victories. Why would I?

I'm comparing like for like.

The stuff you said about resumes is just pure nonsense. I'm sorry mate, but it really is. On a boxing forum, nobody but idiots should believe that the name is the important thing and not the circumstance and the manner of victory.

[Technical_Skill]

So you think Beating Jeff Lacy and Chris Eubank is equal to beating a blown up de la hoya and Trinidad?

[.Mik.]

So you think Beating Jeff Lacy and Chris Eubank is equal to beating a blown up de la hoya and Trinidad?

No. Like I've said two or three times now. I consider it to be slightly in Hopkins' favour...but thats IT.

[Technical_Skill]

I'm not comparing Calzaghe's second tier victories (or in the case of your very strange choice of Manfredo FOURTH tier) with Hopkin's first tier victories. Why would I?

I'm comparing like for like.

The stuff you said about resumes is just pure nonsense. I'm sorry mate, but it really is. On a boxing forum, nobody but idiots should believe that the name is the important thing and not the circumstance and the manner of victory.

You've mis understood,

Listen.

Resume= Who you have fought, thats what it is, imo a resume is NOT the circumstances behind it,

All you are saying is the circumstances behind the resume are more important than the resume itself, which is perfectly vaild.

[.Mik.]

Again, I completely disagree. In every walk of life your resume is backed up by the connotations behind the name and the circumstances of the job and the way it was performed. I dont understand how you can possibly say that your resume as a fighter is entirely free of anything other than names.

I havent misunderstood anything whatsoever. It is quite obviously a clash of opinions, I just happen to think that mine is much more understandable than yours and I'd like to think that the majority of people would agree with me there.

[Technical_Skill]

Again, I completely disagree. In every walk of life your resume is backed up by the connotations behind the name and the circumstances of the job and the way it was performed. I dont understand how you can possibly say that your resume as a fighter is entirely free of anything other than names.

I havent misunderstood anything whatsoever. It is quite obviously a clash of opinions, I just happen to think that mine is much more understandable than yours and I'd like to think that the majority of people would agree with me there.

Well like i said, im open to a change of opinion on it.

To be honest i still cant work out how you say Calzaghe's victories are equal to Hopkin's Victories.

Yet you said Hopkins Beating a blown up DLH and Trinadad was better than Calzaghe's two best wins, Eubank and Lacy,

How does that work?

[.Mik.]

Seriously mate. If your resume is just a list of companies you've worked for with no supporting details, then you really are going to have to do something about that before you start applying for jobs.

[.Mik.]

To be honest i still cant work out how you say Calzaghe's victories are equal to Hopkin's Victories.

Yet you said Hopkins Beating a blown up DLH and Trinadad was better than Calzaghe's two best wins, Eubank and Lacy,

How does that work?

Why do you think that I think that Calzaghe's overall victories are equal to Hopkins'? I've stated the opposite many times.

I do however think that Calzaghe's B-list is better than Hopkins' B-list, which is why their overall resumes are fairly close to me.

[Technical_Skill]

Seriously mate. If your resume is just a list of companies you've worked for with no supporting details, then you really are going to have to do something about that before you start applying for jobs.

If you think a Boxing resume and an employment resume are the same thing, dont apply for jobs, stay on welfare.

Edit, he answered above.

[Technical_Skill]

Why do you think that I think that Calzaghe's overall victories are equal to Hopkins'? I've stated the opposite many times.

I do however think that Calzaghe's B-list is better than Hopkins' B-list, which is why their overall resumes are fairly close to me.

You call the two best wins of Calzaghe's career 'B-List'?

One more time.


To be honest i still cant work out how you say Calzaghe's victories are equal to Hopkin's Victories.

Yet you said Hopkins Beating a blown up DLH and Trinadad was better than Calzaghe's two best wins, Eubank and Lacy,

How does that work?