Are there any fighters in history you think could beat a prime Roy Jones?

Not really, as Lewis was underprepared, and Rahman just caught him with the perfect punch. We saw what happened in the rematch. The circumstances are different.

Look, I do think that Tarver was the best LHW that Roy fought. I do think he was better than Reggie. But again, I also think that all those guys I listed were of a similar ability. There wasn't that much between them.

 

If you want some examples, just go back and read our debates regarding GG's MW reign, and where Mike McCallum supposedly waited Marvin out.

 

I am not disputing that he got his facts wrong, so you cant say NO to me, only to him. Why did you assume that I was defending his maths when I didnt mention it... was it becos that pretence meant you could avoid replying to MY point? probably.

I am presenting that the shot jones of 3 years previous was labelled by cowerzaghe as a terrible end of career opponent as he was already done in.
This argument COMPLETELY NULLIFIES the "there is only 3 years difference between them" argument, by Joe's own hand.That is THE PERSON YOU ARE DEFENDING ACTUALLY DESTROYS YOUR OWN DEFENCE OF HIM.


so it remains for me to add - talkin bout yerself - -

 

The point was that Tarver splitting fights with Johnson, in no way drops him down to the level of a fighter as ill accomplished at LHW as Reggie. Just as Lewis splitting fights with Rahman regardless of the cirumstances, in no way drops him to the level of a David Tua.

Well that difference between them whatever it was, manifested in Tarver being far superior against Jones and the rest of the division.

Your argument was Jones Jr was great at LHW and just fell off the wagon against Tarver, and argued this by stating Jones handled Reggie who was "similar level to Tarver" Yet you now acknowledge Tarver was not only better than Reggie, but had unique tools and x factors that were more threatening to Jones. Which was my entire point.

Using Reggie as a measuring stick of Jones Jr greatness at LHW just isn't worth anything. Tarver was better than him and his height, reach, durability, southpaw stance, and one shot power are just too many x factors to dismiss as something Jones could always deal with because he beat Reggie or Hill even.

 

Nowhere did I push any agenda as a fact. You know very well you'll be hard pressed to find an example of that, which is why you predictably have nothing specific and can only manage a vague accusation.

You know very well I'm fairly respected here and Herol is treated as a joke, near Dino level.

I did state the facts and explain why I don't believe Hagler can be accused of ducking McCallum.

McCallum remained at JMW and did not seek out a Hagler fight like Mugabi did, who actually earned a #1 MW rating.

McCallum did not move up to MW until he challenged Kalambay who was holder of one of Hagler's vacated titles in a bout he was heavily favored to win. That is the facts, and the story they tell me is not what you McCallum hindsight fans are selling.

 

This is why you are what you are, and I'm what I am.

My post was correcting a factual mistake and did not give any opinion on the Calzaghe/Jones melodrama.

You completely ignored my actual post, responded to me in a disagreeable tone and tried to shove your agenda on me as a fact. It's like you tried to straw man me but couldn't find straw so you stuffed it with feces instead.

My concern was on the gross abuse of facts from the Aussie Invader. I don't care about your opinion on Calzaghe, you are known lunatic that has been preaching the same garbage for years now, I don't care about your agenda.

 

I've already agreed there is nothing wrong with the maths

I've already told you I said your maths was fine, this is the third time I've said it? yet you think I ignored it, odd man, its ONLY you who is ignoring things...perhaps a third time now if you still chose to ignore it again.

which is someone, me this time, told you that though your maths was right, your logic didnt help calzaghe's case. you appear to be VERY unhappy with being told this. Why so unhappy about the truth? dont be moody about truths.

this is true too, in a way you didnt mean it. It is interrsting though that you felt forced to open with that statement as if to provide false justification for the argument you had picked the wrong side for.

 

how no doubt?

 

Let's just start right here. Typical Herol dishonesty:

You are claiming you have told me 3 times, my facts were correct. However, this is actually the first time you said I was correct.

Post 1: "he waited till he was shot, thats the fact. he cant stop himself ageing while waiting can he. he tried the same with bhop but got a rude awakening."

-Nothing here about me being right.

Post 2: "I am not disputing that he got his facts wrong"

-Here you are careful to say you are not disputing my point, though you aren't really telling me my "math is fine" as you claimed.

Which kind of brings it full of circle, if you aren't disputing my point, what is your point? To spew the same garbage you've been spewing for years? I'll pass.

 

I told you your maths or facts or whatever term, was fine first time. This is the third or fourth, I've lost count now - your maths was ok, but it doesnt support the logic.

You appear to be saying "nnaaanaaa naanaa you didnt say math you said fact" but I am afraid they are synonymous in this case. I assume you are grabbing at terminology because you've nothing else to hold onto.

you trying to reverse engineer your mistake into something good, not recommended. good luck with it.

 

Billy Joe Saunders to beat a prime Roy Jones the first thing I see on the front page.... I was gonna read all 21 pages but that's just put me right off.

Andre Ward most certainly has a claim.

 

This is your first post to me ad verbatim:

"he waited till he was shot, thats the fact. he cant stop himself ageing while waiting can he. he tried the same with bhop but got a rude awakening.""

Where the hell do you say anything about my maths, facts, anything being "fine"?

How can anyone be so dishonest on a message board? These mind games might work in person, but everything here is written out in text and retrievable.

What logic? Hahaha. I listed two men's ages at the time of their fight, it doesn't get any more dry and to the point than that. If you aren't disputing my numbers, I have nothing to discuss with you.

So now I made a mistake? What mistake might that be?


[url]https://media.giphy.com/media/Vg0JstydL8HCg/giphy.gif[/url]

 

Loudon,

Fair advice. If you find yourself liking Herol's posts and Herol liking yours, you might want to reconsider your position after a good night's sleep.

 

are you trying to tell me that I've not said it yet?

Fourth time now? your maths is fine. the argument they support are not, destoryed by joe himself.

I tihnk you have a problem with admitting that you were trying to support a lost cause.

just to clarify, and only becauase you appear to be asking again! wow - is this 5th time, I'm not sure... your maths is fine. If you require being told that many times befoe u cotton on, so be it.

 

its joe calzaghe who is agreeing with loudon.

so if you think loudon is wrong, then you think joe C is wrong. Not if... in fact you do categorically think Calzaghe is wrong.

Thats fine with me and Loudon too.