James Toney vs Joe Calzaghe.

I dont duck like you

 

hey failey thinks the dawson from whom joe ran into retirement, ran from wborthless joe at SMW.

and calls the OP a ducker for telling him hes wrong about this.

like woah. failey takes a fundamental truth, reverses it, and believes that reverse is true. For his next trick, hes going to try prove that gravity makes people fly upwards.

 

Oh yes. Im really rattled at watching you lot duck questions and not be able to win a debate. To the point you cannot answer, try and change the subject and try and post what you say I think to suit agendas.
Yeah got me all flustered atsch

 

Failoss you are flustered hahah its hilarious, you totally hate being called failey/failoss too.

look at the way you type with capitals, bold, red colors and defensive smilieys en masse amidt vast posts.

don't deny it its so obvious I even heard stevie wonder in fits over it.

 

I see what you mean from a resume standpoint as Jones was young... But he was a world champ at MW, and comparisons to SRL and SRR were being made. He was also a pretty big name at the time, I believe he was in the top 10 ring p4p ratings.

He may not have had the resume and title defenses at that time, but he was proven to be at the highest level IMO, especially when we look at what he was able to go on to do. Just like the Hopkins win, Hopkins was the #1 rated MW by the IBF when Jones beat him, but him going on to an ATG MW career makes Jones' win look better.

 

which makes me wonder why he did fight one pretty good (albeit injured) guy in Kessler.Why did he break with a decade of tradition and step up once (or twice perhaps)?

ah, yes because he had to, in order to have a legacy at all.

 

My favourite poster on ESB.

I hope you've had a great Christmas.


Now, can you kindly tell me, why you can't debate in a sensible manner, instead of as always, debating by using statistics?

The thread is asking who would have won between James Toney and Joe Calzaghe, if they'd have fought.

That means giving a prediction based on each fighters attributes. Their strengths and weaknesses etc.

But as always, you try to debate by comparing resumes.

Why?


What you've typed above, is complete nonsense.

If I wanted to, I could use the exact same criteria and comment on all of Joe's victories.

Please stop debating, by using statistics.

For the millionth time, statistics don't allow for circumstances.


Now James Toney only fought at SMW for a very brief period. He only had 5 fights at the weight, making 4 defences of his belt. The other fights he had were keep busy fights at LHW and CW.

Whereas Joe had a 15 year career, with all but 13 contests at SMW.
Which means he had 33 fights at the weight.

So you're comparing 5 fights at SMW, vs 33 fights at SMW.

So obviously, Joe had the better wins.

But so what?

What has that got to do with the thread title?

Does that mean nobody can pick Toney to win, because overall, Joe had the better wins at the weight?


It's ridiculous.

I wouldn't care if Toney had only fought at the weight twice, and Joe had fought at the weight fifty times.

If both fighters were fully fit, fighting to their full capabilities, then my pick would be Toney. I would pick Toney on the basis of his attributes, and not what he had and hadn't done at the weight.


Also, along with you debating on statistics, the other issue with you, is that you only debate on your terms.

On another thread, you've said that you think Joe would have beaten Kovalev at LHW. Yet Joe only had two fights at the weight. He scr*ped by Hopkins, and he beat a faded version of Roy. In the process, he was dropped twice. But that hasn't stopped you picking Joe, because you have obviously based your opinion, on Joe's entire body of work, and not just his LHW exploits.

Yet if I or anyone else, said that Toney would beat Joe, and list his victory over Nunn as evidence, you'd immediately quash that, by stating that Nunn was beaten at MW.


So please stop comparing resumes, and give a prediction based on both fighters skill sets.

:good

 

It doesn't mean they were good fighters.

More statistics.

 

according to baileys logic, ray robinson loses to calzaghe, because joe has the better wins at smw!

and so does ashira evans! he had more wins at smw than ray! ashira wins!

 

Why are you asking these questions?

It has NOTHING to do with thread title.


Toney's best wins at SMW were Barkley and Littles.

So what?


Btw, Chris Eubank was not prime at 31.

Please don't list other fighters at 31 who WERE prime, because that won't be relevant.

 

His logic is way off.

If I said I think Toney could have beaten Eubank at SMW, he wouldn't even consider my opinion, based on the fact that Eubank had the superior resume at the weight.

But you can't debate solely on those terms.

 

You aren't debating on who would win between Toney and Joe.

You are only debating on resumes and statistics.

Tell us who you think would have won, and why?

It will save everybody typing pages of irrelevant nonsense.

 

bailey,

A Chad Dawson fight at LHW, would have been a great fight for Joe to retire on. He was a very good fighter, and he was a southpaw. He'd beaten Harding, Johnson, Tarver and Adamek. They were good wins.

So what if Tarver and Johnson were old?

Were Hopkins and Roy not old, when Joe fought them?

So what if Dawson went back to SMW after Joe had retired?

It was only one fight.

Yet more spin from you.

 

Not sure why you edited this post? But oh no. No denying. Im really flustered with all this.
Here I will write

This content is protected

and add a few smileys just to give credit to your post atsch