Joe Calzaghe v Roy Jones Jnr 2002

Loudion dont be ridiculous, I pointed it out and several other posters have picked you up for it including Bat. That is no coincidence. You must be deluded as you have even admitted doing it before. I think its what you do to back out of corners

 

This is all he posts:

Roy would
Roy could
Roy should
Roy was thinking
I think that Roy was

all opinion. I guess he is a Fortune Teller or something. He hasn't a damn clue what Glass Jaw Roy or any of the other fighters discussed in this thread were thinking.

 

What the hell are you talking about?


What the hell is this?


Why have you again mentioned Martinez, Chavez Jr and Pavlik?


When have any of those guys had to lose 8-9 pounds of muscle in camp??


You're questioning our common sense?


When you're comparing Spinks circumstances with Canelo's?


You are being foolishly stubborn, arguing against science, and Mackie Shilstone's figures. atsch


How exactly have we established that Spinks walked around at 175, when you've been given evidence that he used to walk around as high 192?


It really is getting ridiculous now.


The facts are, Spinks walked around naturally between 187-192, and he was 6'2.


When he hit 170 for Sears, he'd lost MUSCLE, and had a body fat percentage of only 4.6%.


So before we take this nonsense any further, I want to know two things.


1. With a body fat percentage of 4.6%, and having already lost around 25 pounds, 8-9 of which were MUSCLE, how could he have hit 160?


2. Why would he have attempted it??

 

Are you seriously saying that Spinks balooned to 192 lbs between fights in the year I just posted?

Loudon. I like you. I think you are fun and a genuine good guy I'd enjoy drinking a cold beer with, but please stop now. Give it up and go back to discus Jones and Calzaghe.

 

Yeah. I've been trying to drive that point home for the last 500 posts or so.

 

These Roy Fan Boys are so hung up on losing 'muscle' because that is their excuse for their hero losing even though he continued to get KOed years after the second Tarver fight.

The human body is made up of approx 65% water. There is also fat and muscle. You can't lose just 'fat' or just 'muscle'. It doesn't work that way. You lose a combination of all 3 with Water being the most prevalent. So yes it is conceivable for Spinks to cut even from 170 to 160 and rehydrate.

This losing just 'muscle' excuse is a joke.

 

Those last 10 lbs at 4.6% bodyfat would not have been all water genius.. There would have been even more muscle damage..

Spinks would have been drained as hell. Making 175 was already hard enough, having to cut 9 lbs of muscle to even get there.

We have evidence from a professional that Spinks naturally was 190 with 8% bodyfat when he wasn't training.. Trying to argue that he walked around at 175 is borderline mental...

 

You are saying that Spinks walked around drained in the period I specified?

Or did he blow up to 190 only to start losing the weight a few weeks later?

You are not making sense. So do us a favour and leave the subject alone.

 

They dont get it. It's pathetic.

 

Spinks was a gym rat and was obviously training to weigh in on those dates...

And yes, fighters did cut water weight on same day weigh ins.

I had to weigh in every weekend in wrestling, and on monday I was 12lbs over every time, and had to cut it off through the week at practice..

There is a differnce in training weight and vactaion weight..

Spinks vactaion weight was 190 with 8% bodyfat...That is almost superhuman for a man not training...It is a fact of science, that with those percentages, to get to 160, a substantial amount of muscle will be lost. fact.

 

I have never made any of these claims... So I don't feel I need to argue a point here.

 

You are ignorant.

 

Wow, you owned me there.

 

No one has actually said that...

That is just more Rico crap that he repeats over and over.

 

Rico,

You constantly speak of Roy's intentions and what he was thinking like you know them as fact.. You really have no right to be calling another poster out on this.