We All Want Our Opinion To Be Respected!

[abadger]

I realised something when posting here today. The majority of NSB posters are really not bad posters at all! We see constant threads about 'These guys are hyping their fighters', and 'So and so is overrated' and if we disagree we think the posters making them are always hate filled trolls. They aren't. The problem here is that it is all too easy to believe that someone who does not agree with you is disespecting your opinion. Sometimes they are, but a lot of the time they aren't.

Take my views on Jermain Taylor, lets be clear, I don't rate this guy much at all, but that doesn't mean that I can't see the case for my opinion being ridiculous. The guy ended Hopkins MW run FFS! If you have any reason to be a fan of his whatsoever you are going to retain a fair bit of belief in him, and even someone like me can see that for all the flaws I love to concentrate on, the man is capable of getting wins in top-level boxing, he fought tough opposition as champ and he did OK against Pavlik second time out too. Problem is that when I make a post saying 'Calzaghe is way better than Taylor' those of you who like him are going to think I don't see the good, but I do. In brief posts on a forum most don't bother moderating or balancing their argument and unable to see one another face to face, we are left looking at raw opinions that on the face of it are ultra-critical and harsh on fighters we think are great. I think we should remember that's not always how it is!

Another example is the hype thing. Calzaghe and Kessler are the best example of this. I'm sure to American fans the high regard a lot of Joe fans hold Kessler in can often seem like hype designed to boost Joe up and maybe disparage B-Hop a bit. You look at Kessler and say 'what has this guy done apart from lose to Joe? Hopkins was ****ing P4P and both Pavlik and Taylor have beaten tougher opponents!' you're right too, but rememember that Joe fans have never seen anyone put up as good a fight and quality performance against Joe as Kessler did. It's pretty natural that they're going to rate him! That doesn't mean at all that they don't think Hopkins was a good win and tough fight for Joe, they just favour the better Joe performance and exciting fight! At least I think thats how it is.

So what am I saying? Basically, we're all boxing fans aren't we? We all love and hate fighters and most of us are smart enough to realise that most of the guys we talk about on here are pretty ****ing good. It's just that to talk about boxers we have to compare and contrast them, who beats who?, who deserved the win?, who has the better resume?, who has the most talent? and the basic respect and acknowledgement for the guy we pick to lose gets left unsaid, but on a forum, with only typed words, none of us have any way to know that, and it can be hard to remember. It's the easiest thing in the world to take a single post you disagree with as the full extent of a posters opinion, but it almost never is, so I, in future, am not going to make the mistake of assuming it. I'm going to ask what the other guy's opinion is. You all can ask me mine anytime, if I haven't already bored you to tears!

[da_beast]

i am guessing this is due to the Calzaghe Kessler post i was on earlier.

[UKDan]

i actually think u are a good poster when the topic has nothing to do with Joe C, but i must say u are unbelievably biased sometimes...i like Joe C im british so i support him but (and its not just u) people dont seem to be able to be objective on this forum.

Silencers for example trys to give pro's and cons about a subject and then ends with his difinitive opinion no matter what the topic or fighter....i think wen people just say one thing and then QUITE often dont attempt to back it up and wen someone disagrees they start being an ass about it and this discredits the poster....again this is not about u cause i find your posts about most things very good!

[abadger]

i am guessing this is due to the Calzaghe Kessler post i was on earlier.

Yep. I realised how easy it is to misconstrue disagreement with disparagement. I do it all the time, but I see it going on all around me too. I'm also sick of arguing with people when I actually just ant to talk about boxing, so I thought I'd try a little peace and love.

[El Dominicano]

I realised something when posting here today. The majority of NSB posters are really not bad posters at all! We see constant threads about 'These guys are hyping their fighters', and 'So and so is overrated' and if we disagree we think the posters making them are always hate filled trolls. They aren't. The problem here is that it is all too easy to believe that someone who does not agree with you is disespecting your opinion. Sometimes they are, but a lot of the time they aren't.

Take my views on Jermain Taylor, lets be clear, I don't rate this guy much at all, but that doesn't mean that I can't see the case for my opinion being ridiculous. The guy ended Hopkins MW run FFS! If you have any reason to be a fan of his whatsoever you are going to retain a fair bit of belief in him, and even someone like me can see that for all the flaws I love to concentrate on, the man is capable of getting wins in top-level boxing, he fought tough opposition as champ and he did OK against Pavlik second time out too. Problem is that when I make a post saying 'Calzaghe is way better than Taylor' those of you who like him are going to think I don't see the good, but I do. In brief posts on a forum most don't bother moderating or balancing their argument and unable to see one another face to face, we are left looking at raw opinions that on the face of it are ultra-critical and harsh on fighters we think are great. I think we should remember that's not always how it is!

Another example is the hype thing. Calzaghe and Kessler are the best example of this. I'm sure to American fans the high regard a lot of Joe fans hold Kessler in can often seem like hype designed to boost Joe up and maybe disparage B-Hop a bit. You look at Kessler and say 'what has this guy done apart from lose to Joe? Hopkins was ****ing P4P and both Pavlik and Taylor have beaten tougher opponents!' you're right too, but rememember that Joe fans have never seen anyone put up as good a fight and quality performance against Joe as Kessler did. It's pretty natural that they're going to rate him! That doesn't mean at all that they don't think Hopkins was a good win and tough fight for Joe, they just favour the better Joe performance and exciting fight! At least I think thats how it is.

So what am I saying? Basically, we're all boxing fans aren't we? We all love and hate fighters and most of us are smart enough to realise that most of the guys we talk about on here are pretty ****ing good. It's just that to talk about boxers we have to compare and contrast them, who beats who?, who deserved the win?, who has the better resume?, who has the most talent? and the basic respect and acknowledgement for the guy we pick to lose gets left unsaid, but on a forum, with only typed words, none of us have any way to know that, and it can be hard to remember. It's the easiest thing in the world to take a single post you disagree with as the full extent of a posters opinion, but it almost never is, so I, in future, am not going to make the mistake of assuming it. I'm going to ask what the other guy's opinion is. You all can ask me mine anytime, if I haven't already bored you to tears!

Don't you feel that you overate Calzaghe sometimes?? Doesn't it piss you off that Calzaghe came to the states really late?? I mean Calzaghe could have been so much more if he'd of beaten James Toney, Younger Hopkins, faced off and beaten a younger RJJ, Tarver, Winky, Jermain Taylor, Kelly Pavlik...Don't you think?

In Calzaghe's resume there is UNPROVEN fighters like Lacy/Kessler. You are who you beat and who has Lacy/Kessler beaten?? In my opinion Calzaghe biggest win was against a 43 year old Hopkins and he won by S.D and some believe he even lost.

I'm not trying to bash him but 90% of boxing fans say 43 year old Hopkins/Kessler/Lacy are his biggest wins. So I ask, don't you think you overate him, just a bit?? Abadger, don't get mad and ****, please lets try to settle this. I'd like to know, what you think.

[BRAVE-HEART]

Don't you feel that you overate Calzaghe sometimes?? Doesn't it piss you off that Calzaghe came to the states really late?? I mean Calzaghe could have been so much more if he'd of beaten James Toney, Younger Hopkins, faced off and beaten a younger RJJ, Tarver, Winky, Jermain Taylor, Kelly Pavlik...Don't you think?

In Calzaghe's resume there is UNPROVEN fighters like Lacy/Kessler. You are who you beat and who has Lacy/Kessler beaten?? In my opinion Calzaghe biggest win was against a 43 year old Hopkins and he won by S.D and some believe he even lost.

I'm not trying to bash him but 90% of boxing fans say 43 year old Hopkins/Kessler/Lacy are his biggest wins. So I ask, don't you think you overate him, just a bit?? Abadger, don't get mad and ****, please lets try to settle this. I'd like to know, what you think.

what he said

[El Dominicano]

what he said

feeling abadgar is writing a long paragrapgh. I see it coming

[abadger]

Don't you feel that you overate Calzaghe sometimes?? Doesn't it piss you off that Calzaghe came to the states really late?? I mean Calzaghe could have been so much more if he'd of beaten James Toney, Younger Hopkins, Faced off and beaten a younger RJJ, Tarver, Winky, Jermain Taylor, Kelly Pavlik...Don't you think?

In Calzaghe's resume there is UNPROVEN fighters like Lacy/Kessler. You are who you beat and who has Lacy/Kessler beaten?? In my opinion Calzaghe biggest win was against a 43 year old Hopkins and he won by S.D and some believe he even lost.

I'm not trying to bash him but 90% of boxing fans say 43 year old Hopkins/Kessler/Lacy are his biggest wins. So I ask, don't you think you overate him, just a bit?? Abadger, don't get mad and ****, please lets try to settle this. I'd like to know, what you think.

My view is that Joe's resume is a little lacking, and I've said so before. At the same time I think that a large number of his opponents were actually a lot better than many give him credit for, in that they weren't bums, just not truly top class guys. This can be put down to the division he was in. It was lacking star quality. Unfortunately beating lots of solid-only boxers does not make you great, especially if you stack them up slowly over the course of ten years without throwing in a few bigger names. As for the best names on his resume, I think Eubank, Kessler and Hopkins are perfectly acceptable as elite wins, Lacy would have been excellent had he not turned out to be rubbish.

I wish that Joe had either got a fight with Hopkins or moved up to LHW in around 2000 - 2001, when he was in his prime. He did try to get a Hopkins fight but it didn't come off, and similarly there was talk of him moving to LHW from quite early in his career, but again it seems that no big fight could ever be made. I think had he managed to get fights with Clinton Woods or Glen Johnson, maybe Tarver around this time then it would have boosted his record and reputation, but lets be honest these are hardly 'great' wins and it would have cost him the opportunity to beat Lacy and Kessler, which at the end of the day made his name. He also would probably have lost to RJJ anytime before 2003, and the question would be whether such a loss would make him look worse or better than he does now. I find it hard to say.

Perhaps my preferred career path would have been for Joe to fight and beat Hopkins at SMW in 2001 and then see where that took him. It was undoubtedly the biggest fight and name he could have faced (who wasn't Jones), much better than the other three, and Joe would have become a star straight away. Shame it didn't happen.

As for whether I overrate him, I don't think I do. I have no problem really with anyone who says that guys like Jones/ Hopkins/ Toney have achieved more, but that doesn't really concern me. I do point out that going undefeated and getting so many defences like Joe has is actually a much greater achievement than many people realise, but I don't actually care that much about Joe's all time status as seen by the wider boxing public, and accept that in America in particular others will always be seen as greater. My assessment of Calzaghe is that he is a unique and special fighter, much more gifted than is commonly supposed and one of the very best boxers of the last ten years. I definitely believe he is the most talented boxer boxing right now, but will never be seen as such because he has lacked American exposure for so long. I just have to live with it. To you that will seem like overrating, but I don't believe it is because that is truthfully what I think.

[abadger]

feeling abadgar is writing a long paragrapgh. I see it coming

Correct!....

[El Dominicano]

My view is that Joe's resume is a little lacking, and I've said so before. At the same time I think that a large number of his opponents were actually a lot better than many give him credit for, in that they weren't bums, just not truly top class guys. This can be put down to the division he was in. It was lacking star quality. Unfortunately beating lots of solid-only boxers does not make you great, especially if you stack them up slowly over the course of ten years without throwing in a few bigger names. As for the best names on his resume, I think Eubank, Kessler and Hopkins are perfectly acceptable as elite wins, Lacy would have been excellent had he not turned out to be rubbish.

I wish that Joe had either got a fight with Hopkins or moved up to LHW in around 2000 - 2001, when he was in his prime. He did try to get a Hopkins fight but it didn't come off, and similarly there was talk of him moving to LHW from quite early in his career, but again it seems that no big fight could ever be made. I think had he managed to get fights with Clinton Woods or Glen Johnson, maybe Tarver around this time then it would have boosted his record and reputation, but lets be honest these are hardly 'great' wins and it would have cost him the opportunity to beat Lacy and Kessler, which at the end of the day made his name. He also would probably have lost to RJJ anytime before 2003, and the question would be whether such a loss would make him look worse or better than he does now. I find it hard to say.

Perhaps my preferred career path would have been for Joe to fight and beat Hopkins at SMW in 2001 and then see where that took him. It was undoubtedly the biggest fight and name he could have faced (who wasn't Jones), much better than the other three, and Joe would have become a star straight away. Shame it didn't happen.

As for whether I overrate him, I don't think I do. I have no problem really with anyone who says that guys like Jones/ Hopkins/ Toney have achieved more, but that doesn't really concern me. I do point out that going undefeated and getting so many defences like Joe has is actually a much greater achievement than many people realise, but I don't actually care that much about Joe's all time status as seen by the wider boxing public, and accept that in America in particular others will always be seen as greater. My assessment of Calzaghe is that he is a unique and special fighter, much more gifted than is commonly supposed and one of the very best boxers of the last ten years. I definitely believe he is the most talented boxer boxing right now, but will never be seen as such because he has lacked American exposure for so long. I just have to live with it. To you that will seem like overrating, but I don't believe it is because that is truthfully what I think.

Good post and I'm glad you understand that. You should hope he has enough in him to fight AA Pavlik and maybe even Chad Dawson. That would be a good accomplishment if he wins, by the way. Did you ever make a post saying that "Calzaghe is the best boxer ever" becuz thats the reason I said you were overating him. I might have the wrong guy