Joe Calzaghe v Roy Jones Jnr 2002

Bailey,

I said that Joe defended his belt for ten years, against the likes of Branko Sobot. So what if Pudwell was a late sub for Tate?

Rico thinks that Roy's belts were trinkets, but seemingly has no problem that Joe hugged the WBO.

And? He shouldn't have been fighting guys of that caliber at that stage of his career.

That's right, but Roy was 40 at that point, and he'd won titles in 4 divisions, including at HW, and had been recognized as the best fighter on the planet for 9 years. He'd already achieved great things at that stage. He'd done all he could, and had nothing left to prove.

Joe was a great fighter. But he shouldn't have been defending the WBO against the likes of Tate at that stage of his career. He was nearly 31 at that point.

I said he was on a par with them.

Is Kessler better than Tarver? I wouldn't say so. I would say that they were at a similar level.

But I guess that Kessler being undefeated when he fought Joe, must mean that he was better than Tarver, because Tarver had lost?

Not only do you NEVER allow for circumstances, but you have an obsession with undefeated records.

With regards to Eubank, the version that Joe fought, was not the Eubank that had beaten Watson, Benn and Roch. He was at the end of his career, and he'd been training to fight an orthodox fighter, at a higher weight, when on 11 days notice, he had to prepare for Joe.

It can't be classed as a GREAT win for Joe.

So I would say that Tarver was on a par with that version of Eubank.

Why not?

You make it sound as though Hearns was a nobody. Hearns went on to fight at CW. Again, I said Hill was on a par with Eubank, meaning the version that Joe fought.



You were debating with Mind Reader, whether or not Roy had two wins at LHW that were as good as Joe's wins over Kessler and Eubank.

This is very interesting.


In my opinion he has.


But you have to take a lot of things into consideration.

You have to be fair, and assess where each opponent was in their career at the time, what they went onto achieve afterwards, the manner in which they were beaten, the importance of it, and the circumstances involved.

If you want to debate this objectively, then I'll gladly oblige you.


I would say that Joe's win over Kessler was a very good-great win. He'd waited a long time to be given the opportunity to unify, he was 35, and he'd had 44 fights.

Again, I can't say that Joe's win over Eubank was great, due to the circumstances involved, and where Eubank was at that stage of his career. But Joe was 25, it was his first big fight, and like you always point out, Eubank went on to give Carl Thompson two great fights at CW. So I would say it was a good-very good win.


This is why you to be fair when you assess Roy and Joe's wins.

You can say that Eubank was a better fighter than Hill, and that he had a better resume. But that doesn't mean that Joe's win over Eubank, was better than Roy's win over Hill.

You have to consider many factors, as I've mentioned above.



Roy knocked out Montell Griffin with a lead uppercut in the first round of their rematch. That was a fantastic win in my opinion.

He unified against Reggie Johnson, with absolute ease. Reggie was past his best, but he went on to give Tarver a good fight three years later.

He crushed Virgil Hill with a beautiful 4th round body shot. Virgil had recently lost to DM on points, but he'd recently beaten Maske and then he went on to knock out Tiozzo in a single round, 2 years later. Also, in 57 fights, including fighting at CW, Roy was the only person to knock him out.

The big one for me was Roy's win over Tarver. Roy was nearly 35, he'd had 50 fights, and he'd come back from HW. He was a solid 196 for Ruiz, with hardly any body fat, and he had to lose a lot of weight to weigh in at 175. Tarver was also unbelievably motivated and fired up for that fight, and he was a dangerous southpaw. Roy was running on fumes for the last 3 rounds, and had to dig in deep to get the win. After Roy had won, it made him only the second fighter in the history of the sport, to reclaim the LHW belts after coming back from HW, after originally winning a MW title. The only other fighter to have achieved that, was Bob Fitzsimmons.


So in my honest opinion, Roy's wins over Griffin and Hill, were better than Joe's win over Eubank.


I also believe that Roy's win over Tarver was better than Joe's win over Kessler, all things considered, such as the importance of it, Roy's circumstances, and the challenge that it brought.


If you or anybody else wants to debate this further, that would be great.

 

So many pages for a fight that wouldn't even have been close.


Calzaghe would have got buried against Jones in 2002. Its a complete mismatch

 

******ed!

 

I see that you're still having trouble answering two easy questions.

1. If Roy only won the WBA trinket belt from Ruiz, then why did you want Roy to fight Corrie Sanders?

2. If all Roy did was win trinkets, then what did you think of Joe holding onto the WBO for dear life, for nearly ten years?


Why don't you ask Bailey if he'll help you.

 

Bailey,

No, I'm saying that it's not relevant. Again, AT THE TIME of negotiations Roy held ALL of the major belts, and was considered the World's best fighter. You go to the champ, he doesn't come to you. The World's best fighter, should not have had to travel to Germany.

Stop spinning things. It had no relevance when negotiations took place. Roy was the man, DM wasn't. The only reason that Roch had the WBC was because Roy relinquished it. What have you got to say regarding DM's disgraceful play acting to get Roch disqualified in their first fight?

Germany. So what?

But again, why does any of this mean that Roy should have gone to Germany?

The onus was on DM to go to Roy.

Again, it all depends what the CIRCUMSTANCES are, which you NEVER allow for.

 

A glass jawed, former 154 fighter, fighting a HW at 34, after 50 fights = A safe, easy fight.

 

Except, he hasn't been brutally knocked out on three continents.

A glass jawed, former 154 fighter, had no heart fighting across 5 divisions, including up at HW?

 

Ha!

 

North America
Australia
Europe/Asia (whatever you consider Russia to be)

So that isn't 3 Continents?

 

Are you seriously saying the Danny Green fight that ended with Jones on his feet was "brutal?":huh

Hopkins followed through with the rematch becasue he thought it was a bad stoppage.

 

He wasn't brutally knocked out in Australia.

 

Rico, since the internet is available on all continents, it seems you are ahead of Roy Jones jnr in getting KOed on more continents than him.

well done, mate.