Dumbest boxing argument you have had?

[BetterCallSaul]

Well, mine came last night.

I stated to a friend of a friend that while Calzaghe is one of my favourite fighters, if he beats Roy Jones, he has to go on and beat Pavlik to answer any questions about his resume. My friend then gets quite aggressive and says that Calzaghe doesn't need to answer any questions because he has been a champion for a decade and he is one of the most highly skilled boxers out there. I agreed that P4P he is one of the best boxers skill wise, but stated again that he still needs to fight Pavlik to answer the questions about his resume.

He then goes on to say that a win over, and I quote "the undefeated Chris Eubank" is better than a win over Pavlik. I guess he does not remember Collins or Thompson. He then gets a whole lot dumber when he says that Roy Jones was never that good anyway and that and I quote "Clinton Woods almost ko'd him in their second fight". There was a second fight? Clinton Woods almost ko'd him? If you're going to make **** up, at least make it plausible.

Anyway, I'm not hating on Calzaghe, I just realise he has to do a little bit more to secure his greatness. I'm now just wondering if anybody had had an argument with somebody as dumb as the person I did.

[MWMerlino]

Any argument with some one from the UK about Joe Calzaghe is dumb. They are too proud to see that holding onto his alphabet title and slapping his way through mediocre competition isn't that impressive. Almost every old fight of his he is against some poor bastard who looks like an accountant, that isn't aggressive and can't counter punch and either gets knocked out while moving backwards or covers up and gets slapped until the ref stops the fight (even if he isn't hurt). And so you say something like that and get mobbed and it all turns to ****.