talyors resume is already 10 times better than joes

[Clegg]

No Miranda has not done as much as Reid right now, but he is also ten years younger. I def believe that 10 yrs later Miranda will have achieved just as much.

Well, when I was listing Reid's wins, the most recent one I mention is when he was 30. So that gives Miranda 3 years.

Furthermore, Reid had beaten better opposition at age 27 than Miranda has.

Either way I dont see these two being that much different, because neither could really beat a legit world champ.

Well if that's your criteria then so be it. I guess Arthur Abraham is also no better than Miranda? Because he hasn't beaten a legit world champ either.

Its pretty hard to label one a noteworthy opponent and another not mentionable.

I agree, which is why I thought it was silly to call Robin Reid a bum.

[larryx]

lacy=lol
kessler=best name on resume-unproven
eubanks=who
reid=hype job
hopkins=7 years from 50

[WLAD OWNS]

Kessler, Hopkins, Eubank, Reid, Lacy

IS BETTER THAN

Hopkins, Ouma, Spinks




END OF THREAD

[larryx]

Kessler, Hopkins, Eubank, Reid, Lacy

IS BETTER THAN

Hopkins, Ouma, Spinks




END OF THREAD

calzaghe sucks end of thread

[ragingvic]

Well, when I was listing Reid's wins, the most recent one I mention is when he was 30. So that gives Miranda 3 years.

Furthermore, Reid had beaten better opposition at age 27 than Miranda has.



Well if that's your criteria then so be it. I guess Arthur Abraham is also no better than Miranda? Because he hasn't beaten a legit world champ either.



I agree, which is why I thought it was silly to call Robin Reid a bum.

Well AAs criteria is different considering the only legit champs (not by holding a title, but being a champion) in the divison are Pavlik and Winky and he has yet to secure a fight with them. Winky has turned him down on several occasions in the past but seems interested in fightin AA now. With Pavlik who knows what happens with setting up a PAV/Cal fight so AA/Pavlik could be farther down the line. Once he steps in with these two well see what AAs made of. I have high hopes for him but its to early to say how far he will go.
What interesting is that if Cal was as good as some claim he is this poll should not have even been close, let alone Taylor having more votes. Taylors good but he aint no Hagler, so it says a lot when Calz resume cant completely dominate Taylors.
I really have to go now but I will be glad to pick this up with you again Clegg, your def. one of the more interesting/smarter posters on this forum.

[Clegg]

if you compare the two, taylor is much younger and went straight to fighting the most elite opposition he could get

So you think Calzaghe could have gotten elite opposition in his division sooner? Against who?

i give the nod to taylor for not dodging, and im not saying joe was definitely dodging or not

This is self-contradictory.

but... he went his entire career and just now he is deciding to make important fights happen.

Calzaghe was a young and inexperience and was matched with Steve Collins. Now I'm not claiming Steve Collins as superman, but Collins was experienced, strong, and had wins over very good opposition. Calzaghe had never been 12 rounds before, and he took a world title fight against someone who even Nigel Benn couldn't hurt.

Whatever you might think of those fighters, at the time it was a hard ask of a fighter in Calzaghe's position.

Then Collins pulled out, and Calzaghe took a fight against Eubank a 2 weeks notice.

Calzaghe also fought Lacy and Kessler, which were 50/50 fights, and against Hopkins, where he was the slight favourite.

In all cases, Calzaghe was either the underdog or it was 50/50. The exception is the Hopkins fight, where he was willing to travel to the other side of the world and fight an American, in America, in front of an American judges. Oh, and he stepped up in weight.

You don't rate Calzaghe? Up to you. You don't rate his opponents? Your choice. But the idea that he never took a hard fight until recently, whereas Taylor should be credited for taking on 154 guys who he was the favourite against...that doesn't seem factual IMO.

if joe retires without fighting pavlik (that is if he beats jones and pavlik beats hopkins), then joes legacy should and will be forever questioned. if he beats jones then pavlik, and maybe even one more great name, then i dont see any reason why people can question joes greatness.

Should Marciano's legacy be questioned for not fighting Valdes? Johnson's for not re-matching Langford? Tunney and Dempsey's for not defending against black boxers? Tyson for not fighting Holyfield before prison? There are many examples, so valid, some not, but several of them do not have their resume's "forever questioned".

[Clegg]

Hopkins twice is better than 43 year olds and Kessler

I asked you a straight question. Can you answer it?

[Zocalo]

Well this has become a productive thread...

[Flawless 2]

Taylor wins over Hopkins twice was better than Calzaghe one win over Hopkins and Kessler fact

[Miburo]

Which is why he fought Spinks insted of Miranda Were you active when everyone hated Taylor? He was hated on worse then Calzaghe

Taylor would have fought Miranda had he beaten Pavlik. It was a delay, not a duck.