2 Fantasy Fights

First topic message reminder :

Jean Pascal v Charles Brewer SM





Joe Calzaghe v Chad Dawson LH

Again? Right. Large print. Small words. Here goes:

There's no way any of the super six participants could have a career to rival any of the fab four. With the way boxing is currently, there's no chance any of the S6 guys will have as many fights as three of the fab four. Only Leonard of the four had less than 65 fights. That means if the S6 guys have fewer fights they'll have to be matched tougher and more consistently in order to face sufficient tough opposition. That won't happen. Nor is there the same depth of talent available for them to face. Due to their weight there's little chance of any of them even becoming more than a two-weight champuon, so that route to greatness is out.

What you're basically saying Herman is that the Super Six guys could equal or surpass the achievements of the fab four without them actually having the skill, the opponents or the opportunities to do so.

I know I said large print and small words, but I lied.

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

True, but I persist in the (perhaps naive) hope that he's just a genuinely innocent dimwit and not a WUM.

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

For having opposing views to you?



You're suggesting I put forward opinions I don't believe in? Which I haven't given any analysis to?

Considering your name and the fact i've only ever seen you comment on one fighter think that the assumption of you being a WUM is a correct one.

BALTIMORA wrote:Again? Right. Large print. Small words. Here goes:

There's no way any of the super six participants could have a career to rival any of the fab four. With the way boxing is currently, there's no chance any of the S6 guys will have as many fights as three of the fab four. Only Leonard of the four had less than 65 fights. That means if the S6 guys have fewer fights they'll have to be matched tougher and more consistently in order to face sufficient tough opposition. That won't happen. Nor is there the same depth of talent available for them to face. Due to their weight there's little chance of any of them even becoming more than a two-weight champuon, so that route to greatness is out.

What you're basically saying Herman is that the Super Six guys could equal or surpass the achievements of the fab four without them actually having the skill, the opponents or the opportunities to do so.

I know I said large print and small words, but I lied.

Hagler was only a one weight world champion. How many wights you win a title in is not that significant, particularly in these days of fractured titles.


Less of the insults please , means you're losing the argument.

Herman Frotchlinger wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Again? Right. Large print. Small words. Here goes:

There's no way any of the super six participants could have a career to rival any of the fab four. With the way boxing is currently, there's no chance any of the S6 guys will have as many fights as three of the fab four. Only Leonard of the four had less than 65 fights. That means if the S6 guys have fewer fights they'll have to be matched tougher and more consistently in order to face sufficient tough opposition. That won't happen. Nor is there the same depth of talent available for them to face. Due to their weight there's little chance of any of them even becoming more than a two-weight champuon, so that route to greatness is out.

What you're basically saying Herman is that the Super Six guys could equal or surpass the achievements of the fab four without them actually having the skill, the opponents or the opportunities to do so.

I know I said large print and small words, but I lied.

Hagler was only a one weight world champion. How many wights you win a title in is not that significant, particularly in these days of fractured titles.


Less of the insults please , means you're losing the argument.

You care to point out when I've thrown an insult, or are you just going to continue spouting verbal slurry? Hagler was only a champion in one weight, but he was dominant for a long time, and fought more opponents of a higher calibre than either Ward or Froch. Why you mention fractured titles I'm not sure, because that only serves to undermine your own already tepid argument.

There's no problem Balti.


It was you who compared the super six to the fab four.



I never once have.

The fact that you cannot counter his argument says it all mate, there's no winning or losing an argument when you're not dealing with facts.

Hagler is an all time great because he's a top 5 middleweight without a shadow of a doubt and beat each and every contender there was to beat.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:The fact that you cannot counter his argument says it all mate, there's no winning or losing an argument when you're not dealing with facts.

Hagler is an all time great because he's a top 5 middleweight without a shadow of a doubt and beat each and every contender there was to beat.

Mike McCallum?

You mean the Mike McCallum who didn't move up to middleweight until Hagler had lost his title to Ray Leonard?

Ok then Herman; kindly explain what Froch or Ward will need to accomplish in order for their careers to equal or surpass those of ANY of the fab four.

I've already clarified exactly HOW I have compared the Super Six to the fab four. You have failed to do likewise with your points.

BALTIMORA wrote:Ok then Herman; kindly explain what Froch or Ward will need to accomplish in order for their careers to equal or surpass those of ANY of the fab four.

I've already clarified exactly HOW I have compared the Super Six to the fab four. You have failed to do likewise with your points.

To be honest, I don't at this stage want to compare Ward and Froch to any of the super six. It's never crossed my mind to do so. So my respons would be inadequate.



But if you want an answer, I would say they have quite a bit to do. Sorry I can't do any better than that.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You mean the Mike McCallum who didn't move up to middleweight until Hagler had lost his title to Ray Leonard?

I was enquiring, not stating it as fact. Hence the question mark.

Hence my reply, giving you an answer to your question.

Herman Frotchlinger wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Ok then Herman; kindly explain what Froch or Ward will need to accomplish in order for their careers to equal or surpass those of ANY of the fab four.

I've already clarified exactly HOW I have compared the Super Six to the fab four. You have failed to do likewise with your points.

To be honest, I don't at this stage want to compare Ward and Froch to any of the super six. It's never crossed my mind to do so. So my respons would be inadequate.



But if you want an answer, I would say they have quite a bit to do. Sorry I can't do any better than that.

It would have been nice if you could have even given a coherent answer. You seem keen to throw out your own claims and assertions with little in the way of substantiating what you're saying. Your reluctance to even halfway validate your claims suggests that you're simply unable to do so, not merely unwilling.

Ok, which claims do you wish me to attempt to validate?

Froch for instance to be considered an all time great on a world level would have to at least Kessler, Bute and Ward thus proving himself to the man at 168lbs without a shadow of a doubt before moving up to Light heavyweight and beating men of the calibre of Dawson, Cloud and rematching Pascal. He does that and he'll be a great but even then wouldn't be on the level of the fab four.

Herman Frotchlinger wrote:Ok, which claims do you wish me to attempt to validate?

All those you've made so far on this thread. Actually, don't bother. This thread has become exactly as fatuous and boring as I had originally expected it to. Well done.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Froch for instance to be considered an all time great on a world level would have to at least Kessler, Bute and Ward thus proving himself to the man at 168lbs without a shadow of a doubt before moving up to Light heavyweight and beating men of the calibre of Dawson, Cloud and rematching Pascal. He does that and he'll be a great but even then wouldn't be on the level of the fab four.

He can do all of those things. Cloud could be a toughie though



Incidentally who's Cloud fighting next?

He has the ability to beat any of them but very he has the time left in his career to do anything approaching that remains to be seen.

Don't think Cloud has signed for his next fight yet.

Herman Frotchlinger wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Froch for instance to be considered an all time great on a world level would have to at least Kessler, Bute and Ward thus proving himself to the man at 168lbs without a shadow of a doubt before moving up to Light heavyweight and beating men of the calibre of Dawson, Cloud and rematching Pascal. He does that and he'll be a great but even then wouldn't be on the level of the fab four.

He can do all of those things. Cloud could be a toughie though



Incidentally who's Cloud fighting next?

'Can do' is significantly different to 'has done'.

BALTIMORA wrote:

Herman Frotchlinger wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Froch for instance to be considered an all time great on a world level would have to at least Kessler, Bute and Ward thus proving himself to the man at 168lbs without a shadow of a doubt before moving up to Light heavyweight and beating men of the calibre of Dawson, Cloud and rematching Pascal. He does that and he'll be a great but even then wouldn't be on the level of the fab four.

He can do all of those things. Cloud could be a toughie though



Incidentally who's Cloud fighting next?

'Can do' is significantly different to 'has done'.

It certainly is , and on that note I'm off for a curry. Thanks for the discussion.

Calzaghe against toney would have been a great fight.

2 very excellent choices there.

Brewer was a career Super Middle vs a guy that would go on to do good things (albeit in fortuntate circumstances) at light heavyweight. Brewer for me was a very good fighter unfortunatley robbed blind of his title by a certain German who's name should not be mentioned to avoid tarnishing this fine forum. Let's be diplomatic and call it a draw.

Anyways, I for one as a Calzaghe fan really wish he'd have taken Dawson for the Kudos and a genuine world title belt at light heavy. Never saw the point in a schooling of Pavlik either but wish JC would have opted for Chad and not a fella that used to be called Roy Jones Junior.

JC wins for me by UD, Dawson a bit open when he gets inside, leans over too much, reaches with his punches a bit, not enough of a workrate JC would have punished, good way to have finished his career it would have been. Never mind.

Dawson is an odd one for me, never understood the guy, he's one of those that is just so incredibly talented, but yet doesn't seem bothered...

I feel JC does win, with Dawson very much having the potential to beat JC but not doing enough. Fact is Super Joe just keeps coming forward in flurries catching the judges eyes, whereas Dawson will most probably give up about 3-4 rounds by just being his usual lackadaisical self...

Ah glad to see I'm not the only imsomniac on the forum.

Yes Dawson seems to lack the will sometimes. His win over Adamek probably still his best.