James Toney vs Joe Calzaghe.

There were comparisons to Mayweather when Broner came along, but Jones at that time wasnt massively proven and didnt have any big major wins. The Hopkins is now a hindsight win and the Mercado draw is ignored

 

with due respect Loudon, I am debating with several posters at the same time, so please keep the posts to a respectable length if you require an answer, because as it is, I am getting a little bored schooling some of the dummies here.

Now in brief
Yep, Xmas was great thanks and still enjoying the time off. Hope yours was good to.

Not sure what you mean with the first question, but I dont think there is anything wrong with siting resumes, as that is one of the most obvious ways and I have seen you do it also, so please dont pretend otherwise.

Toney and Calzaghe at LHW if they fought and yes at LHW, I would go for Calzaghe due to how Toney looked at LHW. Try and argue otherwise. If they fought at SMW, the only other weight they both fought, yes I would pick calzaghe again.

Look at the way Toney looked at SMW and then look at him at LHW, and still I think Calzaghe looks more impressive. Had Calzaghe had a MW career, who knows, but he didnt and Toneys MW career is made up of debateable wins and a come from behind win over Nunn, where people arent saying who the natural MWs were that Nunn beat.

Hope that clears it up

 

failey why you still denying you are flustered?

and why you think the action of someone editing a post that has no content whatsoever in reply to your points has anything to do with you being flustered so obviously?

when failey fails, he fails hard.

 

Just imagine what you would be saying now if only 3 of them were top 10 atsch. Im sure someone would mention it, so stats yes, we all use them and you are lying if you say otherwise

 

Where have I denied it? I havent.

This content is protected

wally, and added the colours and smileys :yep.
Completely ruined at the point you felt B Mitchell lost due to slipping against Calzaghe

 

Well done for answering and also Eubank wasnt faded like you want to make out. I said, yes he was at a similar level to Kessler at the same sort of age, only without the eye trouble

 

Look at the difference in age between Calzaghe and Hopkins/Jones and then look at the difference in age between Dawson and Tarver/Johnson/Hopkins. Enough said there and Dawson was so good his best win now is still Hopkins, yes stats

 

There's nothing wrong with citing resumes to a certain extent.

But it appears that you're laughing at the mere suggestion that Toney could have beaten Joe, because Joe had the better wins at the weight.

That is not having an objective debate.

I think Joe would have beaten Toney at LHW.

But I think If both fighters were fully fit, and fighting to their full capabilities at SMW, I think Toney would have won.

It makes no difference to me, that Toney only fought 5 times at the weight, and Joe fought 33 times at the weight.

Why on earth are you asking people to name Nunn's and Jirov's best wins etc?

You've turned this into a debate regarding resumes, instead of who would have won and why.

 

you are flustered, that's cool.

nothing else matters that's allI wa talking about.

 

I don't put too much into the Mercado draw, it was a home fight for Mercado at a very high elevation, Hopkins didn't look well in my opinion..

He cleared up all doubt in the rematch.

 

Stats never tell the whole story.

If you had a really weak division, there'd still be a champion of it.

You've listed all of Joe's numbers, and they don't really impress me.

Not only do they not impress me, it's no indication of how a fight with Toney would have turned out.

Why don't you do a comprehensive breakdown of their attributes, and tell us exactly why you think Joe would have won.

That's a better debate, then comparing 33 victories to 5.

 

Sorry Peril, Due to being terribly flustered dealing with more reasonable posters, I will have to cut the irrelevant ones out. ie yourself, which also eliminates the most stupid one, who claims to have me on ignore yet highlights my posts and replies. That shows what being flustered is, when you claim to have someone on ignore and yet post :smoke

 

Ok.

What do my answers mean to you?

You've argued that at 31, Eubank wasn't past his prime.

But he was past his prime when he fought Joe at 31, and his actual age was irrelevant.