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

The English language really isn't as complicated or puzzling as you seem to think it is. I suggest you read my post again and concentrate on the words and the sentences they are forming in full, and try really hard not to let your mind wander to long meditative thoughts on Joe Calzaghe in between words.

The cause that Roy Jones was 39 and not 44 when he faced Calzaghe? That's the only thing I've stated, and it's factually correct.

And I'm still waiting for you tell me what mistake you think I made. Cue incoherent Herol rambling...

NOW!

[url]https://media1.tenor.com/images/12a54ef86c01bdb14b0395cb49a5d931/tenor.gif?itemid=8067385[/url]

 

This had me creasing lol. Remember, "Self praise is no recommendation"......

 

which time did you miss me tellng you your maths was right? 5th , 4th? lost count now.

You appear to have a need to consolidate what you wrote by repeating it. I dont share it.

 

The Passion of Herol:

Only he can see this simple post:

"Get your facts straight.

Calzaghe was 36
Jones Jr was 39"


And respond with this:

"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."

"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"

"
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 why you are what you are, and I'm what I am.
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."

"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."

"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.
"

 

6th time now? your maths was fine.

I'll let you keep repeating posts, as you appear to feel a need to consolidate I-dont-know-what by repeating things, very insecure about something for sure.

This bit is for your next repeat - 7th time, your maths is fine. Saves me replying with the same thing a 7th time in yet another post saying the same thing.

 

Is "creasing" a thing now?

If you don't respect me, good for you, do you want a fold with that crease, Laundry Man?

 

respect man, good maths.

you've broke the cycle now, good man. thread can move on now.

 

Nah, I respect your contributions on here, even though I may not agree with them all TKC.. Btw, Wlad's still too big for Ali

 

You said Cycle...hahaha.


[url]https://78.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls1pebBhvr1qhgmnco1_500.gif[/url]

 

you caught the reference, good man, hence the like.

This is much better.

 

If it helps, Wlad is the only HW of the last 4 decades I think can come close to beating a peak Ali. He has the speed, strategy, and physical attributes to be his most troubling opponent of the bunch.

 

surely retired fat sanders too

although prime sanders has no chance obv

 

Lewis rags him for a UD

 

Lewis lacks the speed and mobility to contend with Ali.

 

Lewis was fast enough to catch anyone, including Ali. He couldn't run forever, as soon as he comes down off his toes its going to be very hard for him. He does a better job on Ali than Norton did !