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

noone blamed joe for not fighting prime hop they blame him 4 facing 2 oldies. get with it, noone can be blamed for NOT doing something. ha.

credit for facing a 43 year old with no title to escape his toughest mando ever sure

 

You should have thought this post out because it doesn't make no sense.

Are you suggesting Calzaghe vs Hopkins shouldn't have happened?

It was a a Superfight between the lineal Super Middle Champion and lineal Light Heavyweight Champion, without a catch weight. One of the best fights that could have been made in 2008 on paper. You are saying Calzaghe should have refused the fight? Why, so you can say he ducked Hopkins? Good grief.

And again, the reason for Calzaghe defending against Jones Jr was explained. No point in retreading.

 

nonsense post asking nonsense making up questions that are obvious attempts to invent words for my mouth....., so i skip the fails, apart from ...whaaaat.....classing hopkins calzaghe a superfight???

it wasnt lineal, it was one magazine title on its own. more lies from u. Erdei was lineal.

 

[url]https://media1.tenor.com/images/19e59b5c8fbf858885d3939e05443681/tenor.gif?itemid=4180958[/url]

 

ok run like a coward, np. bye.

 

The Kentucky Cobra,

You're just being argumentative now.

I've already said that Tarver was the better LHW. But again, in my honest opinion, I believe that Hill, Griffin and Reggie, were around the same level as Tarver and Glen in terms of ability.

Look at the following words:

Around

Similar

As in: not that much between them.

Okay?

If you don't agree with that, that's cool.

Tarver was better than Reggie and Griffin, but not by much.

I'm looking at their ability, and the specific versions who fought Roy.

Griffin was a very good fighter, especially at his peak when he was trained by Eddie Futch. He lost a step when he fought Tarver, and he was faded against Glen. He was unlucky against Harding though, with a fair amount of people thinking he'd done enough.

What happened when Tarver fought Reggie and Griifin? Did he beat them with absolute ease? No he didn't. He beat them clearly, but not in a way which showed he was completely on another level to them. If he'd been on a completely different level, he'd have beaten them with absolute ease, and he'd never have lost to Harding or Johnson.

I'm not looking at accomplishments here. Of course Tarver was a more accomplished LHW than a guy like Reggie. But Reggie only had about 10 fights at LHW, and that was at the end of his career after about 40 fights. Again, I'm looking here at the specific versions who fought Roy. Which is why I think the version of Griffin who Roy fought was on a similar level to Glen. I think Hill was also on a similar level to Glen. Glen split 3 fights with Woods. Did he have 3 off nights, or were they of similar ability?

Regarding Lennox, again, he was underprepared against Rahman, and Rahman caught him with a peach. That's boxing. When they had a rematch, Lennox proved that they were levels apart. That's not what happened with Tarver.

This is the last time I'm going to type this:

In my honest opinion, if you took the versions of Reggie, Hill and Griffin that Roy fought, and you put them up against Tarver, Glen and Harding etc, you would end up with mixed results.

I don't need to put forward an argument.

Roy was a great LHW.

No fighter can go on forever.

There's nothing to debate/argue.

Again, I agree that Tarver was better. But again, not by much.

I'm not using Reggie as a measuring stick. We know how great Roy was in his prime.

You have jumped in the middle of a debate between me and Bailey, where he put forward a ridiculous theory of why guys like Ottke would have been favoured over Roy.

He thinks that because Roy lost to Tarver and Glen, that guys like Dariusz and Ottke would have beaten Roy, especially as Ottke beat Glen.

It's funny how he's disappeared though, since I stated that we could use the same silly logic by saying that Roy would easily have beaten Dariusz, seeing as though he easily beat Gonzalez who beat Dariusz.

Do you agree with his theory?

 

Dino is a very knowledgeable poster.

Nobody accused Marvin of ducking Mike.

You are the guy who thinks that Mike hid from Marvin and the MW division, and you think it's laughable to suggest that Mike could have beaten him.

You also completely ignored Mike's circumstances, and the fact that he was prevented from fighting Tommy or Duran at the weight.

You dismissed everything I said, whilst at the same time hyping GG for his supposedly legendary MW reign.

You were completely ignorant.

If you want to bump the thread, feel free. You never even replied back to my last posts.

 

Did he have the mental strength that would have been required?

 

Joe waited Roy out.

Did you not follow his career?

He was a scavenger just like Hopkins.

Joe made sure that he was never in the same division as Roy.

He had no intentions of fighting Tarver, Dawson or Pavlik, stating that they'd done nothing to warrant a fight and they hadn't impressed him.

He wouldn't fight Glen at LHW either. All the negotiations they had were for fights at SMW.

Roy wasn't on a hot comeback. He beat 2 C class guys in Prince Badi Ajamu and Anthony Hanshaw, before fighting the Ghost of Tito who couldn't even make their agreed upon C-W.

 

More nonsense from you.

Roy rejected a fair 50/50 split?

Bernard left $6m on the table, and demanded $10m or no fight.

Credit to Calzaghe?

For what?

Stepping up to fight Roy after previously saying that a fight was pointless because Roy had been shot for 4 years?

By all means give him credit for fighting Bernard. But he doesn't deserve an ounce of credit for beating Roy.

Sure, Roy missed out on big fights. But Joe shrunk himself down to SMW and missed the whole LHW division, even when he knew Ottke wouldn't unify and there was nothing on the horizon at the time. Roy gets criticised for his resume, yet he too could have a had a reign like Joe's. He could have sat on his IBF, SMW title for years. But he didn't, because he always had far more ambition than what Joe had.

 

i'm certainly not discrediting Calzaghe's win over a 44 year old Hopkins, I rate it as better than anything he did at SMW, but because Calzaghe had zero US profile while he fought at SMW, he was a 'high risk, low reward' fighter during the jones and Hopkins prime years, and he did nothing to change that.

surely you can see a pattern with name european fighters who had little or no US profile and therefore who never fought the best fighters of their era when it mattered (Calzaghe, ottke, sturm, DM, eubank), and European fighters who actually did invade the US and their careers took off as a result (hatton, khan, golovkin, kovalev)

saying that "you can't blame Calzaghe for the fight not happening" is simply untrue. you need to understand the business of boxing

 

We are talking Calzaghe specifically.

Hopkins refused the fight in 2003. Haha, thats some hardcore bias you have. You determined to place blame, but not on the man who refused a hefty payday.

I understand the business very well, which is why I said Hopkins, Calzaghe, and Jones did not duck each other. You are being one sided and immature, trying to single out blame.

 

That's just ignorant of how boxing works. Some fighters are just superior, but because of style or motivation have difficult or close fights despite winning cleanly. Tarver had a bad habit of giving up rounds or fighting down to his opponents. Holyfield did the same thing.

Jones of 2003-04 would probably make easier work of most of Tarver's opponents but still get knocked out by Tarver, because of the match up.

It's not about "levels", it's about individual attributes.

That's absurd. Virgil Hill was a vastly superior fighter to the Road Warrior. Johnson was just better equipped for dealing with Jones, namely being heavy handed and aggressive. Attributes.

Ottke beats everyone in Germany but that has nothing to do with his ability. Dariusz vs Roy should have happened. And Dariusz had unique attributes that would have presented a stern test to Roy.

 

Bahahahahaha.

It doesn't get anymore biased than that.

The difference is I have no problem concluding that Calzaghe didn't want anything to do with the LHW division, likely because of his lack of power, size, and abundance of Americans in the division that would make him have to travel more than he would like. No fighter likes to travel their whole career.

I still wouldn't say Calzaghe specifically waited Roy out. He didn't move up when Roy was knocked out or went on hiatus. Calzaghe committed to unifying SMW and fought Hopkins immediately after. The fight he wanted since 2003. And he only defended against Jones because he brought the most money and exposure of any top 10 LHW at the time.

It is an historical reign and neither you or I can change that.