Why do Calzaghe fans deny, lie and distort information.

[IMDAZED]

IMDAZED,

You make lots of very valid points, as usual, most of them to do with resume, so yes I agree with you about that. I think you overestimate the average quality of oppoent on Cotto's resume, and underestimate those on Kessler's, but thats opinion and the bottom line is that I agree with you, Cotto's resume is better.

If you think I'm underestimating Kessler's resume or overrating Cotto's, prove it. I can see why you wouldn't try as even you admit Cotto's is better.

I would just ask that you remember, I am not seeking to compete with you or lay a line in the sand saying X is better than Y nah nah nah, merely express my opinion. Regarding Mikkel Kessler, I see him as one of the best orthodox boxers I've ever seen, with few flaws, maybe the biggest being that he is so textbook and orthodox.

He's got quite a few flaws. But yeah, when you fight that level of opposition you can look like "one of the best orthodox boxers" with "few flaws." That's why opposition is so important, not style. Because you can look real good until you face someone real good. Best orthodox boxer? Please.

I see Cotto on the other hand as a destructive body puncher when in with opponents that are not Margarito, but with plenty of flaws. His boxing ability is very overrated, he's really not that good on the backfoot, and basically I see him very much more as the brawler, or at least thats when I think he's most effective. For those reasons I rate Kessler as the better talent, but I'm not asking anyone to agree with me.

I'm glad you can see Miguel's flaws. It's a shame you can't see Mikkel's. That's probably because he hasn't fought the opposition Cotto has. If Cotto's best opposition was Philip Ndou, that might be the case. Luckily, it's not. The bottom line is, I don't care who's the better talent, I care who's the better fighter. Luckily, most fans do too.

[IMDAZED]

Surely you are able to distinguish between the skills somebody brings to the ring and the piece of paper that describes their careers?

Naseem hamed was massively more talented than Ricky Hatton but achieved less on paper.

You see...the threadstarter was talking about guys like YOU. And I would have never thought that with the dingbats I see on here and your thought-filled posts.

But I'm gonna say this and leave it alone afterwards. The piece of paper is a testament to the skills they bring to the ring. If you don't beat anybody, all your skills AINT ****.

I'll also add that Naseem Hamed accomplished MORE than Ricky the one-hit wonder Hatton on paper and in the ring. But that's another thread and another opportunity to watch you claim some moral victory by now switching the conversation from who is the better fighter (as evidenced by their resume) to who is the better talent. Threadstarter's point is proven.

Good night.

[joseph5620]

Neither can I. Sadly, this post ranks right up there with the worst of them.

A young, hungry, dangerous prime champ? It's Mikkel Kessler, not Miguel Cotto. And wins over Librado Andrade and guys like Anthony Mundine don't quite compare to Antonio Tarver and Ronald Winky Wright. I don't know, call me crazy - I just don't see it.



Mikkel Kessler is a hard punching, hungry fighter in his prime who came in with much more offensive intentions than the 43 year old Hopkins who tired in the later rounds like most 43 yeatr old fighters would. If you can't see that then theres not much more to say about it.


And frankly, neither do you since you conveniently overlook Hopkins two fights prior to Joe C.

Either you have reading comprehension problems or you conveniently left out what I clearly pointed out in my post. I included Hopkins two opponents before Calzaghe. Or did you conveniently overlook this?



People seem to forget that Hopkins recent wins came over old fighters.

Tarver and Wright are old fighters. In addition to that,Wright was fighting at a weight that was clearly too heavy for him by his own admission. If you want to talk about leaving things out, I also see you left out that Hopkins lost to Taylor twice before Joe Calzaghe.





and don't tell us ANYTHING about what this young, hungry, dangerous prime champ did to make you call him that! You'll have to forgive me, I'm still waiting on Kessler to beat an elite opponent.

Who exactly is Kessler supposed to beat at 168 that would satisfy you?



I agree with you on one thing though - I think everyone will see Hopkins' age against Pavlik (for those who didn't see it against Winky).

Now you're contradicting youself. First you slam Kessler as being unworthy of being called his touger opponents, but at the same time rightfully acknowledge that Hopkins has seen his better days at 43 You can't have it both ways..



Sadly, even at this advanced stage, he gave Calzaghe the toughest fight of his career. What does that say about the quality of the young, hungry, dangerous prime champ?

It tells me that styles determine how a fight looks and he lost the fight just like Hopkins did. What else is it suppose to tell me?

[abadger]

If you think I'm underestimating Kessler's resume or overrating Cotto's, prove it. I can see why you wouldn't try as even you admit Cotto's is better.



He's got quite a few flaws. But yeah, when you fight that level of opposition you can look like "one of the best orthodox boxers" with "few flaws." That's why opposition is so important, not style. Because you can look real good until you face someone real good. Best orthodox boxer? Please.




I'm glad you can see Miguel's flaws. It's a shame you can't see Mikkel's. That's probably because he hasn't fought the opposition Cotto has. If Cotto's best opposition was Philip Ndou, that might be the case. Luckily, it's not. The bottom line is, I don't care who's the better talent, I care who's the better fighter. Luckily, most fans do too.

I have my opinion, you have yours. I believe Kessler is a better fighter than Miguel Cotto. One thing I am not interested in doing is being competitive about it. Next time you exchange posts with me, I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't assume that I do and just try chatting about the boxers in the way I assume you talk to people in real life. You are one of the more knowledgeable posters here, and that is the only reason I ask, many others are a lost cause to me.

[Gatti9783]

If 45 professional fighters are bitches, what does that make you?

I got Malignaggi over Hatton in November. Wanna make a 5K bet?

[Flawless.]

No credit for Hopkins stopping Winky’s 7 year unbeaten run. No credit

[abadger]

You see...the threadstarter was talking about guys like YOU. And I would have never thought that with the dingbats I see on here and your thought-filled posts.

But I'm gonna say this and leave it alone afterwards. The piece of paper is a testament to the skills they bring to the ring. If you don't beat anybody, all your skills AINT ****.

I'll also add that Naseem Hamed accomplished MORE than Ricky the one-hit wonder Hatton on paper and in the ring. But that's another thread and another opportunity to watch you claim some moral victory by now switching the conversation from who is the better fighter (as evidenced by their resume) to who is the better talent. Threadstarter's point is proven.

Good night.

Scratch that last post IMDAZED, you are an idiot. Your interest in boxing is in fact no more sophisticated than the type of LAMO PWN poster these boards are already rife with. Don't bother talking to me again.

[joseph5620]

bhop has a far deeper resume, his fight with joe was much closer than kessler-joe, and to say kessler is a better win than bhop is foolish. Bhop clearly gave joe his toughest fight.

Hopkins is an old man. Of course he has a better resume than Calzaghe and ranks higher all time. But the man is approaching his mid 40's. There are some people in here who have the perception that Hopkins is 33 instead of 43. Winky Wright was 36 when Hopkins fought and Tarver was pushing 40. They were all past their prime fighters. The last time Hopkins fought a young prime fighter, he lost. Jermaine Taylor. And that was 2-3 years ago. I think some of the people who build up Hopkins at 43 do it to justify Kelly Pavlik's decision to fight an almost 44 year old fighter coming off a loss. Hopkins is nowhere near as good as he was 5-10 years ago. If he was, he would tear Pavlik up.

[daggum]

Hopkins is an old man. Of course he has a better resume than Calzaghe and ranks higher all time. But the man is approaching his mid 40's. There are some people in here who have the perception that Hopkins is 33 instead of 43. Winky Wright was 36 when Hopkins fought and Tarver was pushing 40. They were all past their prime fighters. The last time Hopkins fought a young prime fighter, he lost. Jermaine Taylor. And that was 2-3 years ago. I think some of the people who build up Hopkins at 43 do it to justify Kelly Pavlik's decision to fight an almost 44 year old fighter coming off a loss. Hopkins is nowhere near as good as he was 5-10 years ago. If he was, he would tear Pavlik up.

someone should tell hopkins this.

[ALT-Assassin]

WoW,such hatred towards other posters.This forum is turning into a constant flame war.

LETS STOP THE HATE AND BRING THE PIECE