2 Fantasy Fights

Jean Pascal v Charles Brewer SM





Joe Calzaghe v Chad Dawson LH

Pascal and Calzaghe on points

Right, er...Tocker Pudwill vs Mario Veit...and er...

Matthew Hatton vs...Bob Marley?

Only asked the first one as it came up today in the discussion.


The second one of course is a fight a lot of fans would like to have seen.

I wanted to put in the Pascal/Brewer fight, as minor as it surely would be, as today it was claimed Brewer would win.


So any takers? Is this a touch fanciful, or could anyone else see Brewer pull off the upset?

Pascal vs Hopkins, twice

Day V Lately wrote:Pascal vs Hopkins, twice

Expand?

To be fair, I always thought Brewer was one of Joe's best wins over a very capable fighter. I didn't see the fight live, nor do I know where Brewer was at in terms of peak. Some people denigrate the win saying Brewer had seen better days, but he still looked alright in the replay to me.


I bring up the Dawson fight as many a judge felt this would be the perfect way for Calzaghe to end his career. So you have to wonder why Joe didn't take this fight.

Herman Frotchlinger wrote:I bring up the Dawson fight as many a judge felt this would be the perfect way for Calzaghe to end his career. So you have to wonder why Joe didn't take this fight.

Well, those two fights that Calzaghe had at 175 lb at the tail end of his career were all about raising his profile and earning a few bob more than he'd done for his 'big' Super-Middleweight fights. Dawson, even before his recent fall from grace (so to speak) has never been a big ticket seller or a name which sets the pulse rating. I just don't think Calzaghe had any interest in a 'high risk, low reward' bout by that stage.

As for the match ups, Brewer-Pascal is an interesting one. Pascal gets rated a little too highly by some for my liking, although I suppose that's understandable given that tear up with Froch. However, he's woefully lacking in variety if an opponent isn't discouraged by his power. That said, I don't think Brewer was any great shakes, either, more just a solid 168 lb belt holder who could be relied on to give the top dogs a tough fight but still lose. Pascal would probably outwork him to a decision.

Calzaghe has too much for Dawson too, I'd say. Dawson's questionable workrate is a big mark against him against someone as busy as Calzaghe, and he doesn't have the power to unsettle Calzaghe and force him to adapt (as Kessler did, for instance). Can't see how the American takes more than three or four rounds on the way to losing on the cards.

Thanks for the response chris, I do always enjoy your input despite the fact we don't always see eye to eye.


Pascal was able to outmuscle Dawson, I'm not sure Joe has the strength to do that; and with that long reach, footwork, and ability to box of the back foot, a case could be made that he could control the range in a fight with Calzaghe. If so, I don't see this as the foregone conclusion that you make out.

Come one be serious, Calzaghe was a step above everyone at super middleweight and light heavyweight, where you get the idea that Calzaghe can be controlled at range by a jab from is beyond me, the best jabber in the two divisions in Kessler couldn't do it yet Froch and Dawson with inferior jabs manage it.

Kessler can only really fight coming forward in straight lines.



No comparison.

The comparison is that Kessler is a better fighter than both Dawson and Froch with a better jab.

You think Kessler would beat Dawson?


You think Kessler would beat Froch on neutral ground?



Shame he didn't make it to the final and Froch did

Kessler beat Froch fair and square so please stop making excuses for that loss, he had to withdraw because of injury it doesn't in anyway prove Froch to be the better fighter of the two. Yes I would pick Kessler to beat Dawson, he's a bigger puncher, stronger, more durable, better jab and has a far better workrate.

Kessler beat Froch fairly. The only controversy is in the margin by which one particular judge gave Kessler the win. End of, FACT, etc LOL.

C'mon Kessler's right there to be ouboxed by any good technician. I really think he's overrated by certain fans.


Don't tell me, you predicted Kessler to win the tournament, am i right?

I didn't make any prediction on the tournament as there was too many unknowns involved but what relevance does that have? Kessler wasn't knocked out the tournament he withdrew from it and yes he's there to be outboxed by someone like Ward or Calzaghe but it's evidentally something that Froch wasn't capable of doing, he still stands out as a better win than any of Frochs.

If you really didn't like someone, which would give you greater pleasure?


Beating him yourself with an audience of something approaching ten million, or getting someone else to do it for you, and in the process suffering a nasty backlash from irate fans for rejecting the fight?

Herman Frotchlinger wrote:C'mon Kessler's right there to be ouboxed by any good technician. I really think he's overrated by certain fans.


Don't tell me, you predicted Kessler to win the tournament, am i right?

Many people had Kessler as favourite, and not without good reason. Taylor had 3 losses in his last 4, with two of those being nasty stoppages. Dirrell and Ward were untested at world level and therefore not ranked with any certainty. Abraham was coming up from middleweight and was therefore something of an unknown quantity at the weight. That leaves Froch, who'd struggled with Taylor and had only been on the 'world' scene for two fights.

Who would YOU have had as favourite?

What are you on about?

Morning Balti.



Th final I wanted to see is the final we have.


The two most durable, confident fighters, who believe they can beat, and show a willingness to fight anybody. I have a lot of respect for Ward. I can't wait for this final. One of the most important fights in the division's history.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:What are you on about?

Giving himself greater pleasure?

Herman Frotchlinger wrote:Morning Balti.



Th final I wanted to see is the final we have.


The two most durable, confident fighters, who believe they can beat, and show a willingness to fight anybody. I have a lot of respect for Ward. I can't wait for this final. One of the most important fights in the division's history.

I wanted to see Froch in the final. His opponent is unimportant, as long as he wins. A rematch with Kessler would be more interesting than a Ward fight.

Not saying much that this is one of the divsions biggest ever fights it's still in it's relative infancy but Jones/Toney, Kessler/Calzaghe and Leonard/Hearns all rate higher.

Sorry but the Hearns Leonard was not much more than a money making exhibition for me. Ray never beat a top class super middle and this was just a way of getting another title.


Calzaghe Kessler really that important ghosty in light of Kessler's schooling off Ward?

Yes Calzaghe/Kessler really was that important, a unification of 3 belts should have been 4 between the divisions clear top 2 and both unbeaten. Is Ward/Froch really that important considering that Froch lost to Kessler?

I'm not going to answer you ghosty, as then we'd be going round in circles.


You refuse to see the picture, you seem to see things only in black and white.



Foch is in the final. Kessler isn't.

You seem to wish to twist things in order to make out Froch is something he quite clearly isn't if Calzaghe/Kessler wasn't a big fight then this one quite clearly isn't either, can't have it both ways. You also refuse to answer because you realise the idiocy of your own argument.

It was also evident from the initial post that all you wanted to do was ramble on with your persistent nonsense that Froch is awesome and Calzaghe is a useless ducker, may be better served to conceal it a bit better in future.

Kessler withdrew. He wasn't knocked out. Much as I hate the Calzaghe ball-lickers they're right to make a point out of Calzaghe beating an unbeaten Kessler and unifying the division. I'd root for Froch over Calzaghe every day of the week, but I would be betting the other way.

Simply cannot understand this idea that because Froch is in the final and Kessler, who withdrew, isnt that it means his loss to Kessler should be stricken from the record and Froch assumed a better fighter.

The Super 6 is really just a device for making big individual fights happen. If you look past the structure its really just a series of fights. Just because you reach the final, it doesnt mean previous losses in the tournament dont really count. I might sympathize more had Kessler actually been eliminated, but the fact it was injury related makes this kind of argument rather weak.

Just a series of fights?


I think history will look at it differently.


Don't think the format will catch on though. Too arduous for most fighters. Takes a special kind of fighter to run this kind of gauntlet. There just aren't that many around.

History wont necessarily look at it as a tournament but rather as Colonial says a series of fights, in all likelihood were he not tied up to the super 6 in the first place then Kessler would have been made a champion in recess with Abraham and Froch unlikely to have fought for the title but because of the format the title had to stay in the tournament.

Simply put Kessler beat Froch so until that result is reversed we cannot assume Froch to be the better fighter.

Herman Frotchlinger wrote:Just a series of fights?


I think history will look at it differently.


Don't think the format will catch on though. Too arduous for most fighters. Takes a special kind of fighter to run this kind of gauntlet. There just aren't that many around.

What ARE you on about? Of course it's just a series of fights. Granted, there's a bit more structure to it than is usual nowadays, but it's really not much different to the whole 'fab four' saga. Personally I think you're blowing WAY too much smoke up Froch's bottom, and I'm a fan of his.

That applies to Ward too Balti. To even make it to a final like this is an accomplishment.


Not much different to the fab four saga?



That's the highest compliment you could ever pay it then.

Difference is Ward hasn't lost which Froch has done.

Herman Frotchlinger wrote:That applies to Ward too Balti. To even make it to a final like this is an accomplishment.


Not much different to the fab four saga?



That's the highest compliment you could ever pay it then.

The reference to the fab dour is solely in terms of a bunch of guys taking on challenging fights amongst themselves in a relatively short space. Thing is, while it's an achievement to be in the final, that achievement is tempered by taking into account the quality of the opposition. In this case, very good but by no means legendary, unlike the fab four.

'In this case, very good but by no means legendary.'



Give it time Balti. These things need time.

So you're now comparing the super six fighters to the likes of Hearns, Duran, Hagler and Leonard?

Herman Frotchlinger wrote:'In this case, very good but by no means legendary.'



Give it time Balti. These things need time.

Time, and about another dozen good wins each... I think you're either being excessively optimistic or you're on the wind-up.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So you're now comparing the super six fighters to the likes of Hearns, Duran, Hagler and Leonard?

That's for history to decide. I think both Ward and froch are both special fighters. Whether they can reach the lofty heights of the fab four, only time will tell. I think they can both carve out their own bit of history though.

Your clearly on a wind up if you can even contemplate that as reality. Leonard and Duran are consensus top ten all time greats something Froch and Ward will be getting no where near, then you have Hearns and Hagler on the cusp of the top 25 again something the aforementioned will get no where near.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Your clearly on a wind up if you can even contemplate that as reality. Leonard and Duran are consensus top ten all time greats something Froch and Ward will be getting no where near, then you have Hearns and Hagler on the cusp of the top 25 again something the aforementioned will get no where near.

I never called them atg's, nor would I rule out the possibility of either or both one day attaining that status.


What I do know is believe is that they're two of the best super middles we've seen. Time will tell.

I'd currently have them around the 5/6 mark in the division which is a fair bit different to be anywhere near the level of the fab 4 wouldn't you say?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I'd currently have them around the 5/6 mark in the division which is a fair bit different to be anywhere near the level of the fab 4 wouldn't you say?

It's impossible to accurately rank a fighter till his career has finished. As things stand, you are correct, they are obviously a fair bit off the fab four.

There's very little chance either will get near that level so I wont be comparing them to the fab four in any way.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:There's very little chance either will get near that level so I wont be comparing them to the fab four in any way.

No one's asking you to. And nor have I.

Herman Frotchlinger wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I'd currently have them around the 5/6 mark in the division which is a fair bit different to be anywhere near the level of the fab 4 wouldn't you say?

It's impossible to accurately rank a fighter till his career has finished. As things stand, you are correct, they are obviously a fair bit off the fab four.

Yeah, it's unfair to assess a boxer's career until it's over, but the way you're going on you're making it sound like we shouldn't write someone off, regardless of how poor they may be.

BALTIMORA wrote:

Herman Frotchlinger wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I'd currently have them around the 5/6 mark in the division which is a fair bit different to be anywhere near the level of the fab 4 wouldn't you say?

It's impossible to accurately rank a fighter till his career has finished. As things stand, you are correct, they are obviously a fair bit off the fab four.

Yeah, it's unfair to assess a boxer's career until it's over, but the way you're going on you're making it sound like we shouldn't write someone off, regardless of how poor they may be.

Again please?

Don't worry mate, we can all spot a WUM when we see one.