Kelly Pavlik Disputes Joe Calzaghe's Fight Claims

[Chase8400]

Pavlik's in the driver seat now. He's younger, getting better every fight, and is the Top Middleweight in boxing, period. Top Rank indeed had a fight on the table but Calzaghe's pops turned it down after Roy agreed to terms for the bigger money fight at the time. And really, you can't blame Joe for that. I'd probably do the same. But he's just making himself sound like an ass trying to make it seem like he wanted Pavlik but they turned it down (which is total BS).

Calzaghe needs to stop worrying about Pavlik and realize Roy Jones isn't a walk in the park...even at 39.

Shhhhhhhh!!!!!!

I want Calzaghe to stay occupied with Pavlik while Jones sneaks up and knocks his **** in the dirt while returning to the boxing elite status. The more Jones has on his side the better.

[abadger]

Shhhhhhhh!!!!!!

I want Calzaghe to stay occupied with Pavlik while Jones sneaks up and knocks his **** in the dirt while returning to the boxing elite status. The more Jones has on his side the better.

I want never gets.

That is a saying we have here in the UK, maybe you have it too.

Is "knock his **** in the dirt" a saying?

[Kris Silver]

Perhaps my earlier posts tone suggested I was certain in my conclusion of neither guy lying. That wasn't intended, had it have been I'd have said so. I've provided reasonings as to why I've reached the conclusion I have, and why I consider it to be quite fair and logical. It's too easy to just want to portion blame and not want to accept it anywhere near your side of support, no matter how much that is. Take a step back, and really it's quite likely neither guy is lying, and we've quickly bought into, and developed our own little soap of he said, he said, he's lying, he's lying.

Contrary to what some like to believe, Calzaghe doesn't quite contradict himself like is often made out. I'm half happy to challenge particular examples even though it's a little frustrating as it's old ground and many can't shift scepticism. Joes by no means flawless but perhaps sometimes you learn to know what to take seriously, what not to.

I am not cynical to the point, that I would buy that even 5% of any of the top boxers ouf there would completely invent offering a guy a fight twice years ago, with fairly specific details, knowing it's going to bring him criticism.

To me, to believe that just puts into question a persons balanced assessment of things, because it's just not common sense and seems overly cynical to me.

I'm giving Pavlik the benefit of the doubt, I don't have big reasons, but I believe he's being truthful. Result is, as much as we'd love someone to blame or to be lying, neither is hence their adamancy.

[MWMerlino]

Your lack of following quite simple concepts, and believing endlessly in your initial thoughts, is a little concerning sometimes IMDAZED, especially when you go on about it so much.

How many posts on this entire boxing forum are not based on pure fact, but views, opinions based on some facts? Most. So what is not saying anything yourself with any value or info, and just saying why constantly achieving?

I'm assessing a few factual happenings of either guy, listing them and concluding my thoughts, which is better than what many have done, or you for that matter. I've listed that Calzaghe said "we offered" them the fight twice weeks ago. If it's so untrue, why did Pavlik not deny it immediately in the press like most certainly would. Damn right fair and logical question IMDAZED.

I've said Calzaghe can talk **** but he nor most people with any COMMON SENSE would completely invent something which is ultimately whether believed or not, NOT going to help them, only increase criticism.

There's nothing on Pavliks side that suggests he'd be telling the truth as he's delayed for weeks, and often didn't know of his potential opponents offering him, or rather his team fights. These are fact based IMDAZED. However, I'm giving Pavlik, I repeat not Calzaghe, PAVLIK, the benefit of the doubt as not lying.

The natural, logical result then is a fair one for BOTH guys.

Calzaghes team offered Pavliks team a fight.

Kelly Pavlik knew nothing of it and did not turn it down, or believes it could have been offered.

Team Pavlik turned the fight down.

Pretty, ****ing, simple, and, fair.

Christ.

There is nothing intelligent about this post and IMDAZED is asking a pretty simple question so I believe it is you that is incapable of "following quite simple concepts."

And can I just say that it is really funny when a poster goes on the defense like this and breaks out the English 101 -- Essay style format as if it adds credibility to their bull ****.

[Kris Silver]

There is nothing intelligent about this post and IMDAZED is asking a pretty simple question so I believe it is you that is incapable of "following quite simple concepts."

And can I just say that it is really funny when a poster goes on the defense like this and breaks out the English 101 -- Essay style format as if it adds credibility to their bull ****.

What essentially is this question? How can you be sure? The response, you can say that to about 90% of the posts on this entire board, because most are views based on some amounts of facts. Quite an established thing that to have to cover again. That's why I got frustrated because it's offering no info and just saying, whhhhyyyy.

Ask me a question and I shall answer. Otherwise, take your own advice in your sig.

[box2box]

What a boring thread.

We'll probably never know, who cares.

If I had to guess the fight was going to happen and then RJJ appeared on the scene offering a whole lot more money so Calzaghe switched plans.

His earlier comments about RJJ I suspect were out of bitterness that RJJ wouldn't give him a fight due to him being a nobody in the US at the time.

[MWMerlino]

What essentially is this question?

The question is this: When you, KrisSilver, stated that the Calzaghe/Pavlik fight deal was "lost amongst their teams" -- was this "SPECULATION" on your part or some thing factual you can prove.

The response, you can say that to about 90% of the posts on this entire board,

Coincidentally, he was not asking about 90% of the posts on "this entire board", just yours.

That's why I got frustrated because it's offering no info and just saying, whhhhyyyy.

Why would he offer info? That's what you were trying to do. "Why" is the questioning of your info.

Ask me a question and I shall answer. Otherwise, take your own advice in your sig.

Do you talk like this in reality?
Put you on ignore or don't break my rule of complaining about your idiocy and then explaining why you are an idiot?

[IMDAZED]

What essentially is this question? How can you be sure? The response, you can say that to about 90% of the posts on this entire board, because most are views based on some amounts of facts. Quite an established thing that to have to cover again. That's why I got frustrated because it's offering no info and just saying, whhhhyyyy.

Ask me a question and I shall answer. Otherwise, take your own advice in your sig.

Dude, it was a simple question. You caught a hissy fit and only recanted when everyone ELSE besides me pointed out how off you were.

I asked if you were speculating or had the facts in hand - as you made it sound by saying "This is TRUE."

Ehh...whatever. The posts speaks for themselves.

[Kris Silver]

The question is this: When you, KrisSilver, stated that the Calzaghe/Pavlik fight deal was "lost amongst their teams" -- was this "SPECULATION" on your part or some thing factual you can prove.

Obviously. Unless someone states this is fact, or definite, I have no doubt. Then don't assume so. People don't have to state such things, or "I think, possibly, maybe" for it to be clear an opinion is being made.

Coincidentally, he was not asking about 90% of the posts on "this entire board", just yours.

Quite relevent I said that, when per above, my entire point is unless someone says this is definite, or fact, don't assume that's what they mean. If people did that, the boards would be cluttered with queries of, how are you certain. It's not, because people don't get so **** and assume one is certain or stating fact all the time.

Why would he offer info? That's what you were trying to do. "Why" is the questioning of your info.

Perhaps to actually offer and contribute some information, views, insight instead of just being pedantic.

Do you talk like this in reality?
Put you on ignore or don't break my rule of complaining about your idiocy and then explaining why you are an idiot?

The irony here is, this doesn't make sense.

If you felt I was saying I was certain - I didn't say that, and didn't intend it. I went on to further clarify that by saying as much, and you persist. I over reacted but guys it's pretty damn clear when ones expressing opinion usually. If you want to persist further I find that ludicrously pedantic about something quite clear, but feel free to pm.

[Chase8400]

I want never gets.

That is a saying we have here in the UK, maybe you have it too.

Is "knock his **** in the dirt" a saying?

First off, "I want" gets alot , just not everything. LOL

Yea, the **** in the dirt one is a saying here. Basically means kickin' ones arse with little resistence, etc....

Man, you have me curious now. Throw me a few more sayings and I'll toss you some back. This could be alot of fun. Hahaha