IF Floyd Beats Canelo 12-0 and Drops Him and Cuts Him........

You have to be kidding Irish, seriously. Frock would batter Lacy, he's just a better fighter in every way.

You don't need to prop up the Lacy win to bolster Calzaghe's legacy, the Kessler and Hopkins wins were both very good, especially Hopkins. Lacy sucked.

 

I'd pick Froch to stop the Lacy Calzaghe fought.

 

There are two Froch fights that make me fear for him at any given moment..........{not that I like Froch in fact I am probably his biggest detractor here}...........the first is the Pascal fight, the second is the Johnson fight. Especially the Johnson fight.......if Johnson had any staying power, instead of his usual late fade, Froch would have lost that fight.

Lacy could deal with anything he could hit. He couldn't hit Joe Calzaghe. He could, and would, hit Carl Froch, and Froch, I insist, CANNOT take it to the body. I see a relatively sawn off guy like Lacy getting to him, hurting him, and finding something over the top.

Watch the Arthur Abraham fight......Froch dominated yet was hurt badly in the last minute IIRC of the 12th...by a guy who threw no punches.

Always remember, Joe Calzaghe has a better chin than Carl Froch.

 

Alvarez is already a visibly better fighter than Lacy, who was a one trick pony (left hook) that blocked punches with his face against bums like Reid & Sheika

 

:lo: Oh and the same Kessler too. Sure why not. He'd probably stop Hopkins too, or at least not get knocked down.

Let me ask you something....would he have stopped Jones? Like he did Dirrell or Johnson or Pascal or....all these other guys he stopped?

This isn't Tony Dodson or Brian "11 Rounds I Went With Froch" Magoo.

 

@referencing Cotto getting dropped by Corley, Cotto was draining to make 140 & his chin improved noticeably at 147. He went on to do pretty good things with his career after that at 147 & '54.

I agree Cotto was worn when he fought Trout, but he was a very very good fighter at his peak (.. unlike Lacy).

 

Yeah its visible. Very visible, Visible through the chest and legs and the fat under his chin when he weighs in against these ancient no hopers he's been blowing away.

You are making me root for a big black guy over a pudgy guy with red hair and freckles. This is an epic achievement. I award you the Mohandas K Ghandi medal for achieving the impossible.

 

He fought Torres on the Wlad-Peter undercard.

 

He'd very likely stop Jones as well, yes. I'd pick the Kessler Calzaghe beat to squeak by Froch & Hopkins to win pretty clear.

 

I cannot believe I am reading this.........guys like Calzaghe and Lebedev go in there and go late..and now Froch is stopping Jones. Froch couldn't even stop Dirrell. He cannot apply pressure anywhere near as intelligently as people think he can. He cannot take it to the body and he is wide open to the right hand. His chin is not as good as Calzaghe's and his speed of hand and foot is nowhere near as good.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gyaMYt4SssI?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Irish, Lacy was a scrub at world level. He would get run over by Frock. Frock is awkward and less hittable than people think he is. Lacy had a shitty, slow, telegraphed left hook and that's it. He lost to a completely shot Jones ffs, and never beat anyone. Two different levels of fighter. Frock would beat him 100 times out of 100.

He is even worse than Arabham, who Frock dominated.

 

Andre Dirrel is like 100x more durable than the Jones Calzaghe fought.

 

No he isn't. He's just a bit less hittable and thats the point. Abraham chased him into quitting and put his ass on the mat. Froch plodded and plodded and plodded and plodded all fucking night AND was worse hurt in that fight than Dirrell. It was like watching a dog chase not just its own tail but the shadow of its own tail.

Froch is an epically mechanical fighter. We're talking about a guy who has less handspeed and fluidity than Vitali in 1998. Let's just bear this in mind.

Froch is white. I am supposed to back him, according to logic. Dude is lego. He's fucking meccano.

 

Yeah but like, Frock and Arabham fought, and Frock dominated him and made him look like a useless scrub ::

 

Dirrell was hilariously humiliating AA before the disgusting foul.

 

At least Abraham got into range to foul him. By the way AA had him down legit, maybe twice. Froch never came close. And Froch was buzzed badly in that fight, I think the 11th round.

Froch once had Dirrell "trapped" in the corner and flailed away like the agricultural primitive thresher that he is and landed the grand total of minus-1 punch.

 

I can't bear to read through this entire thread. Just somebody answer this question.

Is good ol' Irish already preparing to hate on the Gingexican, because he perceives the media is going to treat him more fairly in defeat, then they did the Ivan Drago Wonder Twins?

If so, that is truly insidious, and Irish should seek professional counseling, or at least call up Dolph Pussy himself, and talk it through. Yes, there is life after Rocky IV, but it requires hard work in the B-movie circuit, in between getting the occasional cameo in a selected Sly Stallone exploitation vehicle.

 

Please.

That said, thanks for the reminder.

It is noticeable how shitty Sam Peter became after Wlad beat him.

 

But that's all irrelevant. As I said, Frock and Arabham fought - and Frock proved to be by far the superior fighter.

 

Well Lacy got the nod because he looked worse versus Sheika than Joe did. :scratcher:

 

Irish this isn't a conspiracy, brah. People think those guys are shit because they're guileless skilless plodders.

 

Yes. If it looks like shit, and fights like shit, it is shit.

 

Essentially, I am railing against what I see as literal convenience when it comes to making the fights {"so-and-so deserves this fight, he's beaten so-and-so"}, calling the fights and then explaining {or in this case, explaining-away} the ultimate result of the fight.

It seems to me in this case that Jeff Lacy got a title shot for what is now being described as no good reason. I could say the same about Canelo.

It seems to me that in this case, everybody knew Jeff was shit and only gave him a shot as Joe looked bad in previous fights. Well the Sheika fight was one of those fights :dunno:

It seems to me that in this case, Jeff is proven to be a shit fighter as he went on to do fuck all after a horrific beating by a guy who himself went on to turn in some sterling performances against guys who had a lot left in the tank themselves {Hopkins humiliating Pavlik and Kessler out-warring Froch}. Yet lots of quality fighters have gone on to do precisely nothing after suffering very bad reversals themselves, and it doesn't make them bad fighters.

Whether Lacy was good , bad, great, indifferent is not really important. What does interest me is how these conclusions are reached....reached as they are, it seems to me, by sets of values which blow in the wind depending on the given mood of the evaluating parties at any given moment.

"Oh, today there are 19 inches in a foot, I think in my mind there were 8 yesterday. But that was yesterday".

 

Irish, seriously, I stopped reading at this line "It seems to me in this case that Jeff Lacy got a title shot for what is now being described as no good reason. I could say the same about Canelo."

You may or may not have noticed that I've been calling Canelo scrubby for a while, never really rated him, but evidently he is better than I thought - and perfectly deserving of a shot.

Quite simply the Trout win is better than Lacy's entire, crappy career. Trout is 10 times better than anyone Lacy beat. Trout is a solid world class guy, and a big 154 pounder.

 

Lacy deserved a 'shot' fine, he'd put a couple of wins together. Two things - Calzaghe turned out to be better than we thought and Lacy turned out to be worse. It was a 'competitive match' at the time (on a much lower perceived level than Floyd-Alvarez) because of both those factors. I don't see any big hypocrisy or agenda at work here.

But if there was one I'd be pushing it furiously, so maybe i just dont see it.

 

At the time I thought Lacy was crap, and Calzaghe was kind of crap too. As it turns out, Lacy is still crap, and Calzaghe isn't.

 

I don't think I'd seen Lacy at the time it was pre-Youtube. I probably pulled some knowing opinion out my ass based on 20 second sky sports highlight reel just to have something to say though.::

 

Trouts "career" is a lot of guys and one old faded, north-of-his-best-weight Miguel Cotto.

I love how the daisy chain gets made. The arse end of one jaded daisy gingerly biscuited to the next wilted bloom, alone a collection of faded petals, but strung together, lineage style, a veritable ecological miracle.

Cotto....Trout.....Canelo......::...back to Floyd, who met the jaded Cotto not so long ago....then back to....Trout.

This started a long long time ago. Its not recent. You had Shane fight a veritable collections of bums after he beat Oscar. Good , solid win over Oscar, legitimate champeen.

Then the daisy chain starts. Bums like Stone and Taylor....then he loses to Forrest who loses to Mayorga who loses to Stinks who loses to Judah who loses to Baldomir who loses to Floyd.

No pedigree. No reigns. Then throw in your Balco and Shane and some loaded gloves and a whole pile of other shit.....and around it comes back again. The same Cotto who MIGHT have been a real serious deal in 2002 is having the puckered gob of Trout stapled to his arse, and this apparently is enough to bring Trout into the fold. All Trout has to do now is brush off Canelo, and Canelo is suitably pollinated.

Poo. And you know it.

 

Yeah but part of the quickening involves people actually watching the fighters. Trout is like.....quite allot better than Lacy.

 

Based on what? A win over 140lb star-of-2005 Miguel Cotto?
Based on what? His next fight being against somebody not as good as Joe Calzaghe?