Joe Calzaghe v Roy Jones Jnr 2002

what is relevant is that if prime spinks were to have fought prime roy then i would believe that roy would have been the favorite.

pretty incredible of roy bieng a 2-1 favorite over johnny when ruiz had just come off of 36 rounds with a near prime holyfield and also an undefeated kirk johnson.

heres a typical day at the office for prime roy against woods

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/boxing/2243759.stm

close to a 50 percent connect rate against a 25 percent connect rate for woods


heres self-proclaimed GOAT floyd against the much, much weaker competition in canelo alvarez

http://compuboxonline.com/throwdownfantasy-com-stats-mayweather-w-12-alvarez/

pretty much the same stats defensively and offensively, however, jones stops clinton as opposed to floyd getting the decision. and clinton woods is a far, far greater talent than canelo was or will ever be.


people fail to realize how truly great prime roy was because all they see now is the faded version.

 

just as for sure you can understand the comparison.

 

how is it not a real HW title?

 

:roflatsch

Because Lennox Lewis was the Champion. Are you ******ed?

 

you are the one that can't understand the difference between moving up and fighting THE champion and moving up and handpicking the weakest threat for a trinket belt that nobody even acknowledged.

 

Nope, you are saying that the WBA title is not a title?

how is the wba title not a title?

explain how the wba title is NOT a title, don't tell me what I already know and accepted.

 

I said 'just as'

WHat part of that do you not understand?

 

it was a trinket. A worthless one at that. Roy wasn't a 'champion'. Lennox Lewis was.

 

We know, but it was still an impressive win, much better than anything Calzaghe ever did.

 

No, you said it wasn't a title. I said it was a title.

This is mutually exclusive to Lennox being champion, which everyone accepts.

So, it remains for YOU to explain why the wba title isn't a title.
please continue. explain why the wba title isn't a title. before xmas arrives would be nice.

 

it is meaningless when there is a legitimate linear champion.

And I want you to explain to me how his WBA title was better than Calzaghe's Ring Magazine belt...........

 

I'm not saying any body of boxing is better than any other, its you doing that.

so you don't want to compare like for like?

You don't want to compare Jones unification and multiple defences of the LHW crowns with Joe Calzaghe's one meaningful fight against a 43 year old at LHW for a ring title?

Whys that then?

 

Roy won vacant belts at LHW 2 of which belonged to a guy he wouldn't fight then he had the WBC stripped and handed back to him on a silver platter :roflatsch

that is a damn joke. All of his belts were meaningless at LHW.

 

if it is your opinion that unifying 3 LHW crowns and making 12 defences of them, 10 of which were unified defences, is meaningless compared to 1 ring title fight at LHW, then you are welcome to your opinion.

good luck with explaining how that is meaningless.

I would say there is something wrong with you if you think that one LHW fight for the ring title is better than all that.

 

Calzaghe moving up and barely beating former MW 43 year old Hopkins DOES NOT COMPARE to Roy winning a belt at HW...atsch