what is the difference between calzaghe ducking pavlik and mayweather ducking cotto??

[KING •]

There is no difference. Vagina is as vagina does.

[Ray*]

When you're at the top then you have loads of options to choose from, I dont think Joe ducked Pavlik just like i didnt think Pavlik ducked Paul williams.

[mojack]

Difference is

1. Gayfeather has been ducking Cotto for years
2. Gayfeather and Cotto are at the same weight (no weight issues)
3. Both are in their prime and not wet behind the ears (pavlik)
4. Both would bring in huge sum of money for both fighters

That's the difference, you ****ing moron.
Just because Pavlik will pay 1/4 of the RJJ fight it makes business sense for Joe at the end of his career to make as much money as possible.

[mojack]

And for the record....it's a bigger risk for Joe to fight RRJ than it is Pavlik. In the highly unlikely event that Joe would loose to Pavlik at least he lost to an amazing fighter, not washed up etc. Where as if he lost to RJJ that's it for him, legacy destroyed.

[Clegg]

People wanna say JC is fighting Jones because it's less risk. Yet as I stated in a thread yesterday, what will be worse for Joe's legacy - losing to Jones or losing to Pavlik? Seems clear cut that the fight with Jones poses a greater risk with less reward for his legacy in that, if he beats Jones, everyone will say he was old and washed up, yadda, yadda. BUT - should he lose to Jones, yeah, JC's legacy will never be the same. Now, should he lose to Pavlik, well, he's a young undefeated fighter in his prime and a very hard puncher. So it really wouldn't be a shame or a hit to his legacy. If he BEATS Pavlik, well then his legacy is in stone. So, based off of these examples, Kelly Pavlik makes more sense of a last fight for JC because the fight with RJJ carries more risk for a little reward.

No that's not true. The 'less risk' refers to the chances of defeat, not the consequences of defeat. That's why a prospect who regularly faces guys with losing records is described as taking on low-risk opposition.

If we followed your logic, fighting a guy with a 7-95 record is a riskier fight than taking on someone like Pavlik or Abraham, and clearly that isn't the case.

[Ray*]

Difference is

1. Gayfeather has been ducking Cotto for years
2. Gayfeather and Cotto are at the same weight (no weight issues)
3. Both are in their prime and not wet behind the ears (pavlik)
4. Both would bring in huge sum of money for both fighters

That's the difference, you ****ing moron.
Just because Pavlik will pay 1/4 of the RJJ fight it makes business sense for Joe at the end of his career to make as much money as possible.

What??? since when did Mayweather ducked Cotto for years? Anybody that knows boxing would say he started ducking Cotto since the Cotto/Mosley>>>Mayweather/Hatton scenario which all end in december.

You want to see someone ducking for years check Hatton ducking Witter for 8 years before he lost to Bradley.

[abadger]

There is no greater risk of Calzaghe losing to Pavlik than there is of his losing to RJJ. He would win both fights easily.

[HappyBoxingFan]

The difference is Mayweather has said that he wants to be an all time great and that he has "beaten the best."

All Joe Cal has said is He wants to retire undefeated.

[Fidayin]

Floyd isn't ducking cotto, he will fight cotto when he makes his comeback.
That way he will make more money then fighting cotto now.

Joe Calzaghe is just a *****

[supermandathoe]

Damn people love to hate on the guys on top, pathetic.