Did Joe Calzaghe do enough to warrent a fight with Roy?

[THE REED]

guys Kris is a good dude.. i dont agree with him on a lot of Roy vs Joe points... but all in all, hes a nice guy... theres a lot of other posters on here that deserve the slandering A LOT more so then he does...

Joe is his favorite fighter, and he has every right to defend him... but he shouldnt be attacked...

Just keep it a cool debate in here.

[Kris Silver]

Then why do you keep responding? Is it because you love me so much? Or you love Calzaghe so much? Cuz I damn sure don't see you debating any other topics in any other threads.

See now, not even my 15 year old sister makes childish remarks like that IMDAZED.

Look harder at the topics I'm in if your that interested in trying to slander me more, peculiar to want to though. I'm trying to reason with you to find some common ground, but the fact is that is very rarely seen of either of you.

If the pair of you met, you'd probably argue with each other about the colour of the sky for several days.

[bsrizpac]

Now were onto exaggerating the extent of Roy being past prime to the point you'd think he had one leg.

He wasn't that huge an under dog, and Joe had just taken on the #1 in the division 6 months earlier, at a new weight, in Hopkins back yard, mostly American judges and the environment not suiting him.

A lot of people gave Roy a reasonable shot at Joe. So it was a risk. You ranting on all day about how he had literally zero chance to make Roy look better and Joe worse, is not going to change that. But your trying very hard, to make Roy look like God and Joe the devil. That ironically shows the level of your bias, yet here fans of Roy himself can find more open objectiveness deserving 10x the credit.

BS and IMDAZED, I'm sorry but your undoubtedly the two most arrogant, argumentative, stubborn minded people on these boards. I don't wish ill of you, it just gets a little tiresome.

No it was NOT a risk because some idiots thought Roy would win. This is what we call a logical fallacy, specifically :Inverse error- a formal fallacy.


I explained this before in this thread:

Okay, I'm getting tired of seeing this because it indicates that the majority of people on this site seem to have failed basic logic, debating and structure of argument in your schoolwork.

Example 1:

Ricky Hatton vs. JLC

Tons of people on this site hated Ricky Hatton. They want to see Ricky Hatton lose, for whatever reason. Could be because he's British, could be because his style sucks for them, could be because they don't like his spamming fanbase, could be cause they don't give him enough credit...whatever.

A fight prediction thread is made. The majority picks Castillo by beatdown. This despite the fact that Castillo failed to make weight HOW MANY times and struggled against some journeyman assclown before the Hatton fight. Anyone with a clue who saw that fight should and would have said that yes, Castillo was shot, in fact very shot (couldn't have been the first Corrales vs. Castillo fight that did it, could it?)

Fight occurs, Castillo shows up with the look of man who is beyond shot and done. He does not want to be there and quits at the first sign of adversity, something he's never done before.

Hatton wins.

Here's what you can say about this:

Hatton's detractors need to re-examine what they think about him. If they were that obtuse about his skills before maybe they are biased about him and will never give him enough credit. Above all they should admit they were wrong and man up about the incorrect prediction.

What you can NOT say about this (the point of this thread):

Oh well because a ton of ******s said Hatton would lose, JL Castillo was not shot and was still a good fighter.

Listen up ******s: just because the majority opinion says something DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE. It just means the majority is ******ed, ignorant or biased.

This is like saying well "the majority of people after 9/11 wanted to go to war in Iraq because they were told there were WMD. So therefore there WERE WMD in Iraq".

Do you idiots even begin to realize how bad this type of logic is? I mean seriously. Think about that last statement I just wrote and just stop. Stop being fanboys and try to analyze thing a bit more objectively.

End rant.

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=237357

Read that and think about what you are saying. Honestly.

[IMDAZED]

See now, not even my 15 year old sister makes childish remarks like that IMDAZED.

Look harder at the topics I'm in if your that interested in trying to slander me more, peculiar to want to though. I'm trying to reason with you to find some common ground, but the fact is that is very rarely seen of either of you.

If the pair of you met, you'd probably argue with each other about the colour of the sky for several days.

I don't have to look hard dude, somehow I always find you here. But please, stop responding to me - it's tiresome.

See you on the next Joe thread.

[THE REED]

see BS... thats what im talking about....


"Because some IDIOTS thought Roy could win"

it's just unnecessary....

[Ishy Aytan]

No it was NOT a risk because some idiots thought Roy would win. This is what we call a logical fallacy, specifically :Inverse error- a formal fallacy.


I explained this before in this thread:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=237357

Read that and think about what you are saying. Honestly.

Great thread.

[bsrizpac]

guys Kris is a good dude.. i dont agree with him on a lot of Roy vs Joe points... but all in all, hes a nice guy... theres a lot of other posters on here that deserve the slandering A LOT more so then he does...

Joe is his favorite fighter, and he has every right to defend him... but he shouldnt be attacked...

Just keep it a cool debate in here.

Horus is a nice guy too. I'm dead sure of it, just ******ed in Love with Mayweather. Look what you did to him

And I don't mind Kris. I just laugh when he writes huge novels defending Joe that contain little substance other than appeals to emotion and then goes Dr. Phil on me and people who aren't fans of Joe.

Hey umm guys, this was a Parody thread. I'd like to remind all of you that YET AGAIN.

I don't see douchenugget boxasmash getting all this attention and he's a Ricky alt that did the original thread.

[bsrizpac]

see BS... thats what im talking about....


"Because some IDIOTS thought Roy could win"

it's just unnecessary....

There were tons of people who definably only picked Roy to win cause they hate Joe.

You picked him cause you love Roy. I don't mean you when I say that.

But using lets say Flawless to support your argument about if Roy was shot or not...well............

and again none of this matters. It's a logical fallacy that I see tons of Joe fans make constantly: because Roy fans hyped Roy before the fight therefore he was NOT shot.

This is piss poor logic and piss poor debating.

Just because the masses say something does not make it true or false.

[THE REED]

Horus is a nice guy too. I'm dead sure of it, just ******ed in Love with Mayweather. Look what you did to him

And I don't mind Kris. I just laugh when he writes huge novels defending Joe that contain little substance other than appeals to emotion and then goes Dr. Phil on me and people who aren't fans of Joe.

Hey umm guys, this was a Parody thread. I'd like to remind all of you that YET AGAIN.

I don't see douchenugget boxasmash getting all this attention and he's a Ricky alt that did the original thread.

The difference is, I didnt call a horus an IDIOT, or a "F.ucking dumbass" for thinking he could add 3 bathrooms and 2 bathrooms to a boat.


I just asked him It would be great if he could explain how that would be possible

[bsrizpac]

Great thread.

You make some good points there, Pisspac. I still have to chuckle at the Fat Yankery of "get a clue", which is up there with "I could care less", but agree with the rest.

What really gets me is how many people will use betting odds as some form of justification of a win. ("They must have really got OWNED badly, because they were supposed to be the 3-1 underdog fore the fite took place. lamo.") Like bookmakers knowing jack **** about boxing and getting it totally wrong legitimises a win.

As an example of this I calculated an underrated (power/heart) and motivated Danny Williams's chance of beating an old, washed-up Tyson as around 2.5 to 1 against. When I saw the betting odds were 10-1 I put some cash down. Which doesn't really relate to my point exactly, but I just wanted to talk about Danny Williams.

This is Anoraks response to my logic thread. He agrees with me and we used to fight tooth and nail all the time. Much worse than even Dirk and I. If he agrees I'm betting it might have some merit based simply on the historical unlikelyhood of us ever agreeing on anything.