But that isn't what I said. We were talking about whether or not Calzaghe should fight Dawson, and I pointed out that the circumstances that suggest Calzaghe should fight Dawson are the same as those that said he should fight Lacy and Kessler, that Dawson is a young prime champ. Calzaghe has been there before.
I don't really see what you get out of posting in the aggressive way you do, for you to be 'right' you would have to think that I believe Dawson and Lacy are equally good. Do you? I also mentioned Kessler in the same post, but you have chosen to overlook that in favour of Lacy only. Why? I think its because you're only interest in posting here is to attempt to 'PWN' people, which is a shame because you do have quite a lot of factual knowledge about boxing, and it would be much better if you could use it to enter into rational discussion rather than pointless argument.
Comment