Would Glenn Johnson given Joe problems

[BetterCallSaul]

Calzaghe would beat him, but it's got nothing to do with his undefeated record vs. Johnson's 12-loss record. Records don't mean ****. I look at Johnson and see a guy who has taken on everyone, beaten most of them, and in turn is extremely experienced. And we all know he's been in so many close fights that could have gone either way, and in some cases he was straight up robbed.

My biggest problem with this generation of fight fans is that they are too concerned with the 0 in the loss column. Losses, sometimes at least, means you've take on quality opposition and you've gained experience.

Records don't mean crap, but losses to very poor club fighters, journeyman do. If he had only ever lost to Hopkins, Tarver, Woods, and Dawson, you would have a point, but the fact is, Johnson isn't as good as everybody makes out.

[daggum]

I've probably seen about 10 Glen Johnson fights, when the only fight you have ever watched is Hopkins vs Calzaghe.

i've seen 10 and a half glen johnson fights

[rj_ct]

Records don't mean crap, but losses to very poor club fighters, journeyman do. If he had only ever lost to Hopkins, Tarver, Woods, and Dawson, you would have a point, but the fact is, Johnson isn't as good as everybody makes out.

That's why I said Calzaghe would beat him. Calzaghe is/was a phenomenal fighter.

Again, it's all based on styles. Maybe some of those journeymen had a style that gave Johnson hell. Calzaghe had a style that I'm sure would give Johnson hell. Still, I think Johnson is a very good B+ or A- type fighter. Regardless, he is experienced, and boxing would suck without guys like Johnson.

[KingTito]

I think Joe would've won, but I don't think it'd be easy. Glenn Johnson would give anyone problems I would say. He's a tough bastard.

[daggum]

Why the head shake? If anybody else had 12 defeats they would be labelled as a bum, yet Johnson somehow can beat Calzaghe?

Joe would never lose to a man who has been beaten by Ottke, Vanderpool, Sheika, Kiwanuka, Branco, Harman, and Woods.

yea some guy named chris eubank should have about 12 losses if it wasn't for politics, money, and corrupt judging yet he's one of calzaghe's best wins and a "great" fighter. congratulations you beat the english sven ottke! a severely faded english sven ottke at that.

[BetterCallSaul]

yea some guy named chris eubank should have about 12 losses if it wasn't for politics, money, and corrupt judging yet he's one of calzaghe's best wins and a "great" fighter. congratulations you beat the english sven ottke! a severely faded english sven ottke at that.

Who are these 12 people that Eubank has lost to?

[MACAQUEINBLACK]

Why the head shake

Because it's utterly flawed thinking, regardless of whether Joe would win or not.



But then, you're the 10,000,000th arrival to the whiny, holier-than-thou 'Gerald McClellan was mean to dogs and I somehow feel the deep, burning need to be yet the latest imbecile to superfluously state this in a boxing thread' hoedown, so I shouldn't be surprised.

[daggum]

Who are these 12 people that Eubank has lost to?

have you not followed his career? his whole "title" reign is a joke and everyone who has followed boxing knows this. he lost basically every other fight but was saved by the judges cause he generated huge ratings for british tv and to save his undefeated record. obviously he already has 5 losses but he lost to schommer, amaral costa, ray close twice, nigel benn 2, watson 1, sherry, and thorton and malinga could have easily been losses. obv you would have to watch these fights to know this. you will probably reply with "he won all those fights easily! hes da greatest!" but you will just be laughed at.

[BetterCallSaul]

Because it's utterly flawed thinking, regardless of whether Joe would win or not.



But then, you're the 10,000,000th arrival to the whiny, holier-than-thou 'Gerald McClellan was mean to dogs and I somehow feel the deep, burning need to be yet the latest imbecile to superfluously state this in a boxing thread' hoedown, so I shouldn't be surprised.

What? Stating that I don't think Joe would lose to a guy who has 12 defeats, and who has been outclassed by lesser opposition, is a flawed argument? I also stated that Joe usually performs well against come forward/pressure fighters, and his combo's and boxing skills would leave Johnson confused.

As for Gerald, I couldn't give a damn about that guy. I only care for the dogs he brutally tortured.

[MACAQUEINBLACK]

What? Stating that I don't think Joe would lose to a guy who has 12 defeats, and who has been outclassed by lesser opposition, is a flawed argument?

The bolded remark provoked the head-shake, yes. It was silly.

As for Gerald, I couldn't give a damn about that guy. I only care for the dogs he brutally tortured.

Fool.