If YOU were Joe Calzaghe, would you come out of retirement to fight Andre Ward?

[Hattons Hook]

The WBO was a new belt in the late 90's but it was always a bigger strap than the IBO ever has been. Anyone refuting this wasnt a fan of the sport at the time.

[HerolGee]

Originally Posted by bailey

What alts
If you think MAJR is an alt of mine, contact the mods and check it out to satisfy yourself.
It just shows that it is not only me that stumps you with questions you cannot answer but MAJR does it also, and has you running from the questions.
Herol pwned again


He couldnt answer. Nobody has been able to counter that old post I brought up because it is a fact and Herol fails to understand them

yeah wbc goes back decades, wbo barely got started in 1988. You in your argument are referring to smw titles ONLY, you ought to be referring to the wbo division. You've been told you are wrong about this repeatedly, loudly, into your ear, right in your face yet still failey to notice, so you are hardly going to read a direct quote from the WBO wikipedia page itself - 'From its inception in 1988 until Bernard Hopkins' victory over Oscar De La Hoya in 2004, the WBO did not allow its champions to hold the title of the three "major" sanctioning bodies, the IBF, WBA, or WBC. Up until that time, it was considered a second-tier world title and most boxers opted to fight for the more established titles. '

Obviously you've schooled the wikipedia page of the wbo as well lol. The WBO is wrong, and you Bailey are right about them. Well done Bailey in Baileyworld.

[raichu]

bet joe knows about this thread.

loved him when he clowned Roy, Karma

[MAJR]

Originally Posted by HerolGee

yeah wbc goes back decades, wbo barely got started in 1988. You in your argument are referring to smw titles ONLY, you ought to be referring to the wbo division. You've been told you are wrong about this repeatedly, loudly, into your ear, right in your face yet still failey to notice, so you are hardly going to read a direct quote from the WBO wikipedia page itself - 'From its inception in 1988 until Bernard Hopkins' victory over Oscar De La Hoya in 2004, the WBO did not allow its champions to hold the title of the three "major" sanctioning bodies, the IBF, WBA, or WBC. Up until that time, it was considered a second-tier world title and most boxers opted to fight for the more established titles. '

But the WBC Super Middleweight Belt didn't go back decades. The Super Middleweight Division only got a world title in 1984 with the IBF, it was still a relatively new division when the WBO was formed and they and the WBC commisioned their own World Titles. Between its creation in 1988 and the time Calzaghe won it in 1997 there had been 24 fights for the WBO Title, which was not less than the other titles in the division in that period, nor had the quality of the fighters challenging for the WBO been noticably weaker than those challenging for the WBC or WBA Titles during that period.

Additionally, the comment of the WBO not "allowing its champions to hold the three titles of the "major" sanctioning bodies" is not exactly true of the Super Middleweight Division because there were two unification fights between the WBO Champion and the WBC Champion - Hearn/Leonard in 1989 and Eubank/Benn in 1993 - that they finished in draws doesn't change the fact that in both those fight the WBO and WBC put their titles up for grabs against the other.

So I'm not objecting to the premise of the WBO not being the top title in the division - that was the IBF - nor am I trying to call the WBO an equal organization to the others in terms of history or influence, I'm objecting to calling the WBO Super Middleweight Title specifically worthless in 1997 when it was a title that had no less history in its division than the WBC or WBA.

[Loudon]

[quote=bailey;14077819][quote]

They may not be called great, but they are very solid and won easily which shows what an undefeated fighter with an undefeated mentality brings to the table. Tell me which T Cloud LHW win is great? If he was beaten, it would be considered a good win for a fighter as he is an UNDEFEATED world champ. Kessler was an undefeated unified champ who had beaten 2 reigning world champs as well as a former champ who reclaimed a SMW title, not forgetting how he beat former champs Lucas and Thobela and undefeated Andrade who destroyed R Steiglitz who AA could only get a contraversial win over.

I agree with the above. But my original point to dinovelvet, stated that Kessler was a very good, but not great fighter, and he'd never beaten any great fighters, before he fought Joe. I stand by that. You're trying to argue when there's no need to.

When Jones beat Lucas, Lucas was a novice, when Kessler beat him, he had been a world champ scored some fair wins.

That's true, but you have a hatred for Roy, for some reason? If Roy had've beaten Kessler, or anyone that Kessler beat, would you class them as good/great wins? I don't think so.

I did because you have raved before about his win over unwell Kessler

I don't think I've raved over Ward at all. Also, as I've mentioned, I like Kessler, and I think he's very good, but I don't think he's ever been an elite fighter. So I wouldn't rave over anybody beating him.

Which showed your lack of knowledge in a debate you are trying to argue

You're crazy! I asked a question, that' all. I wanted you to confirm either way, what I'd said. I wasn't trying to argue that point with you. Stop being stupid.

Once again.
Kessler going into the Calzaghe fight was an undefeated unified champ who had these good wins.
Against Ward he was an already exposed fighter who had not fought for a while and was coming in off a win over Perdermo. I know which looks better.
It was a good win for an old past best fighter to be beating a unified world champ and Calzaghe had the Eubank win also.
You keep trying to say Kessler was Calzaghes best win. I thought it could have possibly been at one time as Calzaghe was old and past his best, but not so sure now. It has to be between, Kessler, Eubank, Hopkins, Lacy with Reid, Woodhall and Mitchell in the next catagory

You are right. I agree that Joe faced the better version of him. But again, nobody has mentioned anything about Andre Ward. That's a fair point, regarding Joe's best win. But I picked Kessler, in terms of importance. Lacy was Joe's best ever performance. So you could argue that it was his best ever win also. But Kessler was to unify the division, and he'd waited for that moment for ten years. But I suppose you could argue, that against Lacy, he was a massive underdog, and he made the American's sit up and take notice. I personally can't rate Hopkins as his best win, because I honestly scored it as a draw, and I think that would have been the fairest result. Although I'm glad Joe won in a way, because I hated Hopkins's tactics. But at 43, he couldn't keep up with Joe's workrate, so he didn't have much of a choice. Eubank was a good win, he was only 25. I watched that on the Full Monty, and was very impressed when Joe dropped him. But although Eubank was only 32, he was an old 32, and clearly passed his best.

If you had to pick, taking everything into consideration, what would you say was his best win?

What looks foolish are your posts after you have been pwned.
G Zod even pwned you by accident

Zod corrected me, and by doing so, made your argument weaker.

The fact you had to ask when trying to argue a point was self pwning

I wasn't arguing that specific point. That's why I asked you for confirmation.

Your not wrong there, but we are well past part 4 now Loudon. The number of times you have been pwned has gone into the triple figures now

How can you say that when you dont even know any facts?
You keep saying Joe wanted the crown jewels which could mean any figure more than he was getting because you dont know what he was to have been offered and what he would have accepted.
You also fail to note how he wasnt offered anything to refuse.
So you have no facts and no counters, just what you think personally which has no credit and I dont mean that in an insulting way, but meaning you just have no facts.

Ha! This topic just makes me laugh. Why do you keep asking for an exact figure? We don't need an exact figure. We can both safely assume, that he was talking about a lot of money. He was talking about millions. How many? Nobody knows! I don't know, and neither do you. But my original point to you was, We know that Otis Grant, Clinton Woods, and Richard Frazier definitely all got under a million dollars.

How much did they all get exactly? I've no idea! Zod corrected my guess of $800,000, and said it would more likely have been about $300,000. Fair enough. How much did Woods and Frazier get? No idea of the exact amount, but it was definitely less than $1 million dollars.

So we know they got paid less than a million. We don't know the exact amounts, but again it's a safe assumption. So, they all got less than a million, and we know from Joe's comments, that whatever figure he had in his head, it was certainly more than a million pounds. We know this. It was obvious he was talking about millions.

So my point was, although we don't know the exact figure that Joe would have wanted, we know he wouldn't have fought Roy, for whatever purse Woods, Frazier and Grant got.

The other point was, HBO in 2002 were never going to give Joe millions of dollars, because he had no U.S. fanbase, and there was hardly any interest in him at the time.

You don't need the exact figures, to work all of this out. It's an educated guess, based on what we do know. You asked in a recent post, how do I know that Joe wouldn't have accepted $300,000 to fight Roy?

Ha! If you think Joe values the crown jewels at $300,000 then fair enough. But I know you're not daft enough to really believe that.

I think Calzaghe offered the crown jewels to get some fighters in the ring and they still wouldnt take the fights as KO Artist has shown and as you know about Hopkins ducking Calzaghe

If Joe had have done more to get Roy into the ring, he could have had the payday that he wanted. Now according to Roy in a recent interview (obviously you're not going to believe him) HBO offered DM $5M to go to the States to unify all of the titles. Now if Joe had've targeted DM, and beaten him, there's nothing to say that Joe wouldn't have been offered the same opprtunites.

But you havent shown how anything was a lie Loudon. Jones even admitted that Calzaghe chased him but said he was after other things. This is how you get yourself pwned because Jones even admits this
Its happend again. Loudon, but even if I dont pwn you, you just self pwn

What do constitute as chasing someone?

In 2001, after McIntyre, Joe said he wanted to fight Roy Jones.

Do you class that comment as chasing Roy?

After he made the comment, he continued to fight at 168 (while Roy was still at 175) in Britain (while Roy was in America) to fight the likes of Miguel Jiminez.

Now you're asking me to prove that he wasn't genuine and he was lying? Ha!

Work it out for yourelf, from history, from what happened, from what he did, and didn't do.

You can keep copying and pasting videos of Joe claiming that he was desperate for Roy. You can upload a hundred of them. History tells me that he was lying!

You name me the 5 or 6 years, in which Joe really chased Roy down for a fight?

Name the years, and tell me exactly what he did to get Roy in the ring?

This is the problem you have.

Joe says on your videos and your links, that he was desperate for Roy.

But history tells me, that Joe didn't fight at 175 or in America, unitl he was 36 in 2008.

So, History PROOVES to me, that Joe was lying!

Ricky Hatton chased Floyd Mayweather.

He fought a few fights in America, built up a fanbase, and mocked Floyd on HBO. That was chasing a fight.



Regards, Loudon.

[Loudon]

haha I know what you mean, checking ESB when you're sitting around with other doesn't tend to go down too well

Ha! I'm always on her i phone when we're out. It drives her mad!

I took her to Statford upon Avon in the summer, and we were sat at the side of the river in the sun, and I asked her for the phone, and she wasn't happy! Ha!

I see what you mean, it's all hypothetical and you're right in that by staying at 168, Joe didn't put himself in the mix at 175. Though he'd already been given a title shot by Glen Johnson, who then pulled out to fight Roy Jones.

You're right, it is all hypothetical. But Joe also annoyed Glen by pulling out with a bad back. When Frank tried to get the fight back on track, Glen demanded money up front I believe.

He was still strong at 168, it wasn't like Dawson who sacrificed too much to make 168. Joe even admitted after the Jones fight that he could make 168, but was more comfortable at 175.

Over the years I've read a few articles, that stated he had to come down from 14 stone, and it got harder and harder. In 2001, he was looking to move up but didn't. In 2004, Barry McGuigan stated that in his opinion, he had to move up, and Joe said the same thing himself, the same year.

I don't think Joe was ever going to move up to LHW by 2003, at that point he and everyone wanted was against Ottke, which was clear after Joe beat Byron Mitchell. Also Jones left the LHW division in 2003 and Darius had been beaten by Gonzalez

I've just read recently, that Joe in 2004, was upset that Tarver and Johnson knocked Roy out. He was frustrated that he hadn't got the the opportunity to beat him, but then admits, that both of them wouldn't have beaten Roy, when he was at his best.

I know the quote you're talking about, isn't it from Calzaghe's autobiography which is a couple of years later? I don't remember him immediately dismissing Tarver? Perhaps a fight with Tarver wasn't worth much money?

You may be right, but I'm certain I heard him say it on a radio interview, but I can't find anything. I think later on, when they had their war of words in 2006, and in 2008, Joe said he'd done nothing apart from a shot version of Roy.

I don't think Tarver would have fought Calzaghe between 2004-2005 unless he had a LHW title.

Tarver beat Jones

Then Jones stepped in way too soon against Johnson, but the point of the fight was for Jones to dominate Johnson, and set up the rubber with Tarver. Glen put on a career best performance and dominated a Roy Jones who was close to his the best. I remember reading the odds on Glen to knock him out were 9/1, and the odds on Glen to win were 5/1.

You might be right, but I just wish that Joe had've been in the divison then, and everyone had have known how good he was. Then there would have been a big call for the fight.

Joe was supposed to fight Glen that night for his LHW title, and Glen pulled out to face Roy Jones, which was fair because it was worth more money

I didn't know that Joe was looking to fight Glen, before he beat Roy?

If Glen and Joe had fought as scheduled, Joe would have won his LHW title, and then he would have been in a position to challenge Tarver. But he was denied that opportunity when Glen pulled out to fight Roy Jones

I'll have to look into this.

and yet never fought the men who mattered in these divisions after Toney

We've been through this a lot, but in my opinion, it became impossible for Roy to unify at 168, so he moved to 175.

The men who mattered at 175, were the other belt holders, after he'd beaten Mike McCallum. He beat both of them, but couldn't get the DM fight. He then fought Harding, Gonzalez, Woods and Tarver. So apart from beating DM, he fought everyone who was relevant.

At the same time, you can acknowledge that there are reasons Joe didn't get certain fights, like Hopkins, Ottke, Collins, Echols, Tate and therefore it's not fair to say he 'chose the path of least resistance'. If these guys had agreed to get in then those would have been great fights for Joe. Especially Hopkins and Ottke at the start of the decade.

I can agree with that. But at the same time, because he couldn't get those fights that you've mentioned, I think he should have moved upto 175. Hopkins was a 160 fighter. There was no point in him staying at 168 when he couldn't fight Ottke.

I agree, like zod he picks and chooses what he wants to believe to suit his own agenda, which is why I'm just baiting him for fun now

Zod provides great links, and forms his own opinion based on factual information. Skittlez is a hater!

But you agree that it's not fair to simply drum up a list of names and say that Roy or Joe avoided these guys?

No. There's always circumstances involved. But again, Joe could have done so much more with his career. So could Roy, but Joe was too good to stay at 168 til 2008.


I'll reply to the other half a bit later.

Thanks!


Loudon.

[bailey]

Originally Posted by generally owned

Welcome to TEAM ELITE world where losing is the NEW winning

didnt General Zod think that, when Superman went into the ice chamber and rendered him powerless? Zod thought Superman was losing there only to find he had been pwned.
ESBs very own Superman KO Artist has sent you running.
I think your name might have changed after the slaughtering KO Artist gave you to generally owned

Originally Posted by HerolGee

yeah wbc goes back decades, wbo barely got started in 1988. You in your argument are referring to smw titles ONLY, you ought to be referring to the wbo division. You've been told you are wrong about this repeatedly, loudly, into your ear, right in your face yet still failey to notice, so you are hardly going to read a direct quote from the WBO wikipedia page itself - 'From its inception in 1988 until Bernard Hopkins' victory over Oscar De La Hoya in 2004, the WBO did not allow its champions to hold the title of the three "major" sanctioning bodies, the IBF, WBA, or WBC. Up until that time, it was considered a second-tier world title and most boxers opted to fight for the more established titles. '

Obviously you've schooled the wikipedia page of the wbo as well lol. The WBO is wrong, and you Bailey are right about them. Well done Bailey in Baileyworld.

You have been once again destroyed before I even arrive as MAJR has put it to you again.
A point that was missed though is that the WBA often used to strip fighters if they owned another world title, I havent seen that with the WBO though.
Once again though you fail to acknowledge that at SMW the WBO is as highly rated and had the 2 champions with the best SMW resumes

Also once again tell me how was the WBC and WBA doing more at SMW for legitimacy with this below
Consider M Beyer defending his WBC title against 26-14-5 fighter who was coming off of a win against a 0-2-0 fighter
Or that Mundine when defending the WBA title against a 24-13-5 fighter who was the same fighter that WBC champ Beyer was defending against above.

Originally Posted by MAJR

But the WBC Super Middleweight Belt didn't go back decades. The Super Middleweight Division only got a world title in 1984 with the IBF, it was still a relatively new division when the WBO was formed and they and the WBC commisioned their own World Titles. Between its creation in 1988 and the time Calzaghe won it in 1997 there had been 24 fights for the WBO Title, which was not less than the other titles in the division in that period, nor had the quality of the fighters challenging for the WBO been noticably weaker than those challenging for the WBC or WBA Titles during that period.

Additionally, the comment of the WBO not "allowing its champions to hold the three titles of the "major" sanctioning bodies" is not exactly true of the Super Middleweight Division because there were two unification fights between the WBO Champion and the WBC Champion - Hearn/Leonard in 1989 and Eubank/Benn in 1993 - that they finished in draws doesn't change the fact that in both those fight the WBO and WBC put their titles up for grabs against the other.

So I'm not objecting to the premise of the WBO not being the top title in the division - that was the IBF - nor am I trying to call the WBO an equal organization to the others in terms of history or influence, I'm objecting to calling the WBO Super Middleweight Title specifically worthless in 1997 when it was a title that had no less history in its division than the WBC or WBA.

Herol Gee cannot get his head around this. Hes not the brightest

[Loudon]

[quote=knockout artist;14077131]

Did he instantly dismiss Tarver? I think those quotes were a few years later. Also he would have fought Tarver, if Tarver had beaten Hopkins

As mentioned, I can remember hearing it, and thinking, that doesn't make sense. But I can't find it online. It was definitely before 2006 though. In theory he could have fought Tarver, if he'd have beaten Hopkins, but we don't know that. When Roy had lost 3 in a row, he said he'd rather fight him, than Johnson and Tarver, which didn't make a lot of sense. It's all ifs and buts. I just wish he'd have fought Glen Johnson. Maybe if he'd have beaten Glen, putting in a good performance, a fight against Tarver and an earlier fight with Hopkins may have happened?

You appreciate that boxing is business, and Dawson couldn't then, and still couldn't sell out a local village hall. The fight of his life against Ward, he had to sacrifice his own health to make 168, and travel into his opponents backyard when he was the legit LHW champ himself. That pretty much says it all to me, I don't even think that fight was PPV. Calzaghe was 36, he was advised to stop fighting after Kessler because of his hands, and yet he went on and had two more fights. You can do this to any fighter when they retire.

I can appreciate all of the above, but I didn't like Joe's comment when he said, there was absolutely nothing left to achieve. I suppose you can't blame him for cashing in against Roy, but Dawson would have been a much more competitve fight, that I'm sure fans would rather have seen. But like you say, boxing is a business. He said Pavlik had done nothing to warrant a fight. (he hadn't at 16 But fans would have loved that fight at the time. He also said Dawson had done nothing to warrant a fight. Now if you agree, then that's fair enough. But the thing is, he dismissed them, but chose to fight Roy, who he'd been dismissing from 2004.

I think he embarrassed himself a little, when he pretended that he thought Roy was back to his best etc. A little honesty would have been a lot better. Roy chased him in 2008. He could have said, Roy wants the fight, and the opportunity is too good to turn down etc. That would have been fair enough. But early in 2008, he said he'd be disappointed if Roy was his last fight, and he wasn't a great fighter anymore. Then 6 months later, it's Roy's back! He's had three great wins etc! There was no need for it.

Did Lennox Lewis retire to avoid Wladimir Klitschko and Corrie Sanders? Fights that were mentioned before he retired

Did Marciano retire to duck Patterson, Johannson and Liston?

If Floyd Mayweather retires tomorrow, is he avoiding Berto and Guerrero??

You can do this to any fighter who retires as a champion. There's always the next up and comer
out there. But the facts are that Dawson brought nothing to the table.

That's fair enough, but again, a little honesty wouldn't have gone amiss.
You would have thought with Joe's style, that he'd have relished a fight against a guy like Kelly Pavlik. I know he was free from Frank when he signed to fight Roy, and they both said that the negotiations were easy to make, because neither fighter was tied in to anyone. But the fight didn't do great PPV. I would assume, that he probably would have got more money against Pavlik, because that fight would have excited everyone, and a lot more people would have been interested in it. I think the PPV figures would have been much higher. Even if he'd have still been with Frank, and he'd have taken a cut, I still think he'd have earnt more in the end. He also would have gained a lot more respect.

I'm not sure that he instantly dismissed Tarver

Again, I'm going to look into it in more detail.

Ward's very good, but I don't think he could fight at Calzaghe's pace for 12 rounds, I don't think he could out-think Calzaghe in the ring

- I don't think he has the power to stop Calzaghe

- All in all, I struggle to see Ward winning this fight, but that's just my opinion. He hasn't fought anyone like Joe, and whilst they're not identical, the Hopkins that Joe beat is better than Ward anyway.

- As for Joe being scared of Ward, let's be objective - Joe wanted Hopkins in 2002, Ottke, he stepped in with Lacy and Kessler in big unification fights when he got the chance.

As I've mentioned, I could envisage both guys beating each other.

I don't know about being scared, but again, would he have been up for the fight? He did fight Lacy and Kessler, but would they have posed the same threat?

We can't just automatically assume, that he'd have stepped in with Ward. He could have dismissed him like he did Pavlik.

He stepped in with Lacy and destroyed him. Lacy was seen as a huge puncher, and knockout artist. That's scarier then a skillful spoiler like Ward

Despite him destroying Lacy, you can't just ignore the fact that he tried to pull out, till Frank intervened. I think Joe would definitely have seen Andre as the bigger threat, if he'd have been around at the time, and Joe had've seen him fight a few times.

Joe didn't dismiss Dawson, he just said he didn't want to fight anymore. I remember the post fight interview after Jones, he said Dawson's a great talent but this was his last fight

That's fair enough, I heard that, but again, he also stated that he'd nothing left to achieve. In another interview I heard, he said Dawson was a good fighter, but he'd done nothing. Which again is fair enough, but he'd done a lot more than Roy. Everyone knew Roy's career had ended 4 years earlier.

Remember how Ward was reluctant to fight Bute, and instead opted to fight Dawson for less money, at a weight where Dawson wasn't competitive. At 168 Dawson is practically journeyman level. Bute was an undefeated champ, and that was the fight fans wanted

True, but I don't know the circumstances involved. You'll have to educate me on this. Did he clearly duck him?

I take your points and respect your opinion

Same to you.

Joe could have done more, and at the same time it wasn't his fight certain fights couldn't get made. Same with Roy, he was in the ultimate position of power and I don't think his opposition between facing Toney to facing Tarver is what it should have been. Same with Calzaghe from Eubank-Lacy, but you can't blame them entirely.

True.


Great debating with you mate!


Regards, Loudon.

[Scar]

The fact that a Calzaghe thread lasts this long and gains this much attention proves there's an overflow of trolls here.

[Loudon]

Originally Posted by raichu

bet joe knows about this thread.

loved him when he clowned Roy, Karma

Why? Anybody that knows anything about Boxing, knows that he wouldn't have dared to do it, had they fought years earlier?

He wanted the crown jewels, when he was getting around £500,000 per fight.

He said he knew what his capabilites were etc!

He dismissed Roy in 2004, he dismissed again him in his autobiography in 2007, and again just before they fought in 2008.

Did you not see Glen Johnson dominate him, and knock him out 4 years earlier?

Dd you not see Danny Green knock him out a year after Joe had beaten him?

There's nothing to celebrate.

[bailey]

Part 1
[quote]

Originally Posted by Loudon

I agree with the above. But my original point to dinovelvet, stated that Kessler was a very good, but not great fighter, and he'd never beaten any great fighters, before he fought Joe. I stand by that. You're trying to argue when there's no need to.

Then he hasnt beaten any great fighters full stop. But it was Calzaghe who took his 0 and Calzaghe that has other great names on his resume like Eubank, Hopkins and Jones who have all had over 20 world title fights.
Why do so many call Jirov a great win for Toney? What were Jirovs top 5 wins? .

You're crazy! I asked a question, that' all. I wanted you to confirm either way, what I'd said. I wasn't trying to argue that point with you. Stop being stupid.

You asked a question after trying to argue a point. Which proved you didnt know what you were going on about, yet you cannot see that because you believe your opinions are a fact when the facts have buried you, yet you argue and then ask questions about what you are arguing to defend. You showed yourself up with that one

You are right. I agree that Joe faced the better version of him. But again, nobody has mentioned anything about Andre Ward. That's a fair point, regarding Joe's best win. But I picked Kessler, in terms of importance. Lacy was Joe's best ever performance. So you could argue that it was his best ever win also. But Kessler was to unify the division, and he'd waited for that moment for ten years. But I suppose you could argue, that against Lacy, he was a massive underdog, and he made the American's sit up and take notice. I personally can't rate Hopkins as his best win, because I honestly scored it as a draw, and I think that would have been the fairest result. Although I'm glad Joe won in a way, because I hated Hopkins's tactics. But at 43, he couldn't keep up with Joe's workrate, so he didn't have much of a choice. Eubank was a good win, he was only 25. I watched that on the Full Monty, and was very impressed when Joe dropped him. But although Eubank was only 32, he was an old 32, and clearly passed his best.

Calzaghe didnt beat Hopkins on workrate, he beat Hopkins because he was able to land his left more than Hopkins could land his right and you forget that Hopkins strongest moments are down the stretch and that is where Calzaghe took that away from him, something that nobody has been able to do before or since.
Eubank was no older than Kessler in career and age. Both 31

If you had to pick, taking everything into consideration, what would you say was his best win?

Very tough to say. As said I could argue it for Eubank, Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins. Possibly Eubank as he was the best SMW out the bunch who had never clearly been beaten and went on to put weights in his clothes to appear heavier and take on a massive punching CW world champ to a close decision which could have gone either way.
The only CW to beat unified CW champ D Haye.
I would like to see any SMW today give away such weight and face a CW champ of today, but none of todays hit as hard as Thompson

Zod corrected me, and by doing so, made your argument weaker.

My arguement was that you didnt have any details or facts which was proven. I dont know how Zod correcting you affected me.
You had no facts and were arguing something you didnt even know and was then corrected.

Ha! This topic just makes me laugh. Why do you keep asking for an exact figure?

To know the facts.
You keep saying and insinuating millions but cant even come remotely close to knowing what you are talking about

We don't need an exact figure.

So once again you ave no idea.
So why not say you dont know.
You dont know what was offered. If anything
You dont know what he wanted money wise
You dont know what he was being paid and how much he would have taken
You dont know what he insinuated by an off the cuff remark
You dont know anything about the subject do you!
What we do know is that Jones wanted 10mil. To make it happen. The crown Jewels

We can both safely assume, that he was talking about a lot of money.

We can assume he wanted more than normal, but what was he being paid? You dont know

He was talking about millions.

Once again Loudon, that is your opinion. YOUR opinion. You dont know what he was talking about. Hatton wanted big money to defend against Witter when British champ but I doubt at that time he wanted millions

How many? Nobody knows! I don't know, and neither do you.

This is where you pwn yourself because as you say you dont know and where has the word millions been said by anyone other than you and Jones who wanted 10 mil?

So we know they got paid less than a million. We don't know the exact amounts, but again it's a safe assumption. So, they all got less than a million, and we know from Joe's comments, that whatever figure he had in his head, it was certainly more than a million pounds. We know this. It was obvious he was talking about millions.

YOU DONT KNOW THAT. What are you a mindreader now .
This shows why I cant take you seriously. You have no idea of what was wanted and now say you have an idead what he wanted by reading his mind
Fact is, Jones didnt put out an offer, Calzaghes team did.
If someone was getting 50K a fight and said I want the crown jewels for this next one and was offered 500K they would likely jump at the chance because it is so much more. It can mean anything Loudon, not just what you think. Get it, not just what YOU think

So my point was, although we don't know the exact figure that Joe would have wanted, we know he wouldn't have fought Roy, for whatever purse Woods, Frazier and Grant got.

YOU DONT KNOW THAT . He wasnt offered. though I would add he probably would have wanted more because he would have been a bigger fight. But I dont know that and unlike you cant assume, only stick to facts.
Luckily Loudon reads minds and has close ideas even when his buddy Zod does correct him

[bailey]

Part 2
[quote]
[quote]

Originally Posted by Loudon

The other point was, HBO in 2002 were never going to give Joe millions of dollars, because he had no U.S. fanbase, and there was hardly any interest in him at the time.

Who said he wanted millions other than you. WHO??
We know Jones wanted 10 mil. Were HBO going to pay that for him to fight Calzaghe?
Also Calzaghe was with Showtime

You don't need the exact figures, to work all of this out. It's an educated guess, based on what we do know. You asked in a recent post, how do I know that Joe wouldn't have accepted $300,000 to fight Roy?

Lets stick to facts rather than your imagination. There was not a figure because he wasnt offered.
Loudon stop making things up

Ha! If you think Joe values the crown jewels at $300,000 then fair enough. But I know you're not daft enough to really believe that.

What was he being paid at the time?
Maybe he would/wouldnt have excepted 300K, if lesser fighters were getting that, but we dont know and dont know what he would have accepted because an offer wasnt put to him

If Joe had have done more to get Roy into the ring, he could have had the payday that he wanted.

Once again. WHAT PAYDAY DID HE WANT?
YOU DONT KNOW AND HAVE NO IDEA

Now according to Roy in a recent interview (obviously you're not going to believe him) HBO offered DM $5M to go to the States to unify all of the titles. Now if Joe had've targeted DM, and beaten him, there's nothing to say that Joe wouldn't have been offered the same opprtunites.

Nothing to say there is either, so once again this ios your opinion only. We know Jones wanted 10mil.
You dont know Loudon and are just making assumptions.
Also what were the terms of that 5mil to DM and where is the link, because any fighter can say they offered X amount but terms would need to be mentioned also.
Once again Im not expecting you to know, just for you to cast an opinion and then try and argue it.
KO Artist produced video proof of Jones saying Calzaghe wanted to fight him and that he had other things to do.

What do constitute as chasing someone?

You tell me. What method did O Grant use

In 2001, after McIntyre, Joe said he wanted to fight Roy Jones.

Said it before and after

Do you class that comment as chasing Roy?

Well he didnt say any other name

After he made the comment, he continued to fight at 168 (while Roy was still at 175) in Britain (while Roy was in America) to fight the likes of Miguel Jiminez.

Mandatories like Frazier was
No point in losing a title for a fight that may not happen.
Still there was also Mitchell

Now you're asking me to prove that he wasn't genuine and he was lying?

What facts do you have rather than opinions

You can keep copying and pasting videos of Joe claiming that he was desperate for Roy. You can upload a hundred of them. History tells me that he was lying!

Roy said it himself, was he lying or are you forgetting Roy said that?
Maybe you can read Jones mind also and tell me he was lying

You name me the 5 or 6 years, in which Joe really chased Roy down for a fight?

I think that was just a comment that he had been chasing for a while because as we know it was longer than that

Name the years, and tell me exactly what he did to get Roy in the ring?

Kept winning.
Made an offer and as you know Jones didnt accept

This is the problem you have.

I dont have a problem. Jones himself said he knew Calzaghe wanted it and said he had other things to do.
Jones himself said he wanted 10 mil.
Jones himself said he didnt want to fight Calzaghe at the time.
I have no problem, but you obviously read his mind and knew otherwise

Joe says on your videos and your links, that he was desperate for Roy.

Havent seen the words desperate, you will have to show me that.
Or maybe you were mindreading again

But history tells me, that Joe didn't fight at 175 or in America, unitl he was 36 in 2008.

Why do you deny that Hopkins backed out of fighting him in America all those years ago?
He agreed to fight in America for those fights.

Once again why deny this?

So, History PROOVES to me, that Joe was lying!

How has it proved he was lying? You know Hopkins backed out, so why deny this?

Ricky Hatton chased Floyd Mayweather.

He fought a few fights in America, built up a fanbase, and mocked Floyd on HBO. That was chasing a fight.

Hatton fought in America, but didnt say he wanted to fight Floyd, those words never were said by Hatton, when asked he just said you saw more action in those 4 rounds than his career, but wouldnt answer about wanting the fight.
Calzaghe did call Jones out.
How did Hatton build a fanbase? He fought there 3 times in a completely different division and didnt call out Mayweather and his fans were mainly British who travelled


Now Loudon before this continues can you please stick to facts and not just your opinion.

Read what has been written where things have only been your opinion and stick to facts.

FACTS ONLY LOUDON. I know you can read minds but not everyone else can

[ELECTRIC GURU]

Bailey is literally schooling you guys, you should throw in the towel, don't let the butthurt destruction of hopkins and jones take over your tedious lives, nothing will ever change the fact - ALL ROADS LEAD TO JOE CALZAGHE

[raichu]

if i had a loss and i was calz, then i would, nothing to lose apart from another loss.

if i was undefeated, had already cemented my legacy, nah, no point.

[DaveyboyEssexUK]

Originally Posted by ELECTRIC GURU

Bailey is literally schooling you guys, you should throw in the towel, don't let the butthurt destruction of hopkins and jones take over your tedious lives, nothing will ever change the fact - ALL ROADS LEAD TO JOE CALZAGHE