No way would have Calzaghe beaten this guy

I will agree with you on Toney, afterall the result speaks for itself.

Hopkins I will have to think about further, but would err on Jones's side very strongly.

 

Calzaghe wouldn't have been ready.....

 

I think the Jones of the Woods fight vs the Calzaghe of the Lacy fight would have been epic.

 

I don't post much but sometimes I just have to when some of the Brits on here are getting carried away. Calzaghe is a decent boxer but he'll be the first to admit that he's not in the same league as a prime Jones or Hopkins.

 

Not sure he would.

Just type into youtube 'Joe Calzaghe slags off Carl Froch' :good

 

Obviously nobody can say for 100% because they didn't actually fight, that's so obvious and unnecessary that I wouldn't expect a 5-year-old to bother typing it. Nobody can say for 100% that peak Mike Tyson would beat ****ing Danny Williams - because they never fought, so you cannot be 100% sure, it's impossible. But anyone can give their honest opinion, and if their honest opinion is that Jones would beat Calzaghe 100 times out of 100, then you should respect their opinion and simply put forward your own alongside it instead of labelling it 'ignorant' or whatever other intolerant bull**** you have been spitting around on this thread.

Watch Joe Calzaghe v Robin Reid. Watch Roy Jones v James Toney. Now, you may disagree that these two guys are on completely different levels, fair enough mate, but you must be able to see why some people think they are. Calzaghe was a good fighter who beat some decent opposition between 97 and 03, he also beat some woeful opposition, and he also struggled against some fighters that a truly great fighter would not have struggled against.

Between 93 and 03, Roy Jones was world pound-for-pound number 1 for the majority of this time. He dominated two ATGs (Hopkins and Toney), looked absolutely sen-****ing-sational in almost every fight for an entire decade, and carved out a wonderful career cleaning house at 175lbs against naturally bigger men.

How the **** is it 'pure ignorance' to believe that Jones would definitely beat Calzaghe? How is it 'pure ignorance' to have a different opinion to you? You're coming off as an immature, intolerant and arrogant little ******* making comments like that. If I said to you "who would've won between Joe Calzaghe and Jermain Taylor?", you would say "Calzaghe definitely, no doubt in my mind". What would you then think if some Taylor fanatic popped up on the same thread saying "anyone who says Calzaghe would definitely beat Taylor is a cockhead, it's pure ignorance", what would you think of them??

You may not think the gap in quality between Roy Jones and Joe Calzaghe is the same as the gap in quality between Joe Calzaghe and Jermain Taylor - but many many people do! That's not 'pure ignorance' at all, if someone sits and watches every one of Jones's fights 93-03 and every one of Calzaghe's fights 97-03, I guarantee at least 8 people out of 10 would agree that Jones would embarrass Calzaghe!! Keep on disagreeing, as is your right, but your 'cockhead' comments are ****ing ridiculous!

 

It's easy to see how people would give the edge to RJJ over Calzaghe in prime-for-prime terms but it is interesting to read various boxing historians here saying one fighter was not in the same class as another or would've been belittled by a particular fighter back in his prime etc etc. People can also argue exactly when 'prime' was for different fighters. When Jones beat Hopkins it wasn't a case of BHop being disgraced at a time when he was hugely less tactically astute than the fighter Hopkins himself said he developed into. Hopkins just gave an interview on ESPN and said his greatest performance ever was against Pavlik - he rated it better than the Trinidad win. In the previous bout to his 'greatest ever win' he lost to Calzaghe, and so whilst favouring RJJ over Calzaghe 'back in the day' is understandable, I find no basis for agreement with those using words such as 'outclassed', 'dominated' and 'different level'.

Also, I have to take the Larry Merchant trail when looking at Roy's opposition during his 'prime', in much the same way as those who look at Calzaghe's do. While Joe was defending against Thornberry, McIntyre and Pudwill, it was the case that Jones was pissing off HBO with his fights against Richard Frazier, David Telesco and Richard Hall. It was interesting to read someone in this thread actually glorifying Roy's win over Richard Hall!!! Jones loved home too, spurning lucrative offers to fight Steve Collins in Dublin by instead facing Tony Thornton in his hometown of Pensacola, and declining Dariusz Michalczewski in New York by instead fighting Glen Kelly in Miami. He knew he could beat Clinton Woods then as he would still do now, much the same as Hopkins and Calzaghe would.

As for the showboating, they effectively had a gentleman's agreement for at least the last couple of rounds so if Joe wasn't gonna throw any punches he had to do something! I don't think a man who likes to attach blades to the legs of his prize cockfighters and who has made a career out of showboating would've had his feelings hurt too much somehow!!

 

The time of prime is irrelevant IMO, the Jones of 93-03 at any time would comfortably defeat the Calzaghe of any point between 1997 and this very second.

My basis is watching all of their world title fights and comparing their performances and opponents.

Jones's opposition from 1993-2003 was stronger than Calzaghe's 1997-right now. Not only that, but his greatest performances were far greater.

No, they did not have any such "gentleman's agreement". The harsh truth that you refuse to acknowledge is that Calzaghe has virtually zero punching power at lightheavyweight and was simply unable to finish a fighter who is more shot than Sonny Corleone was in Godfather One. Tarver and Johnson sparked a better version of Jones, because they can punch.

The very idea that Jones would have a gentlemanly agreement to allow someone to humiliate him now that he's shot is nothing short of a horrific lie. Why the **** would he be happy to let a guy drop his hands and grin because Jones no longer had the power to hurt him? The whole thing was painful to watch, both because (like I knew beforehand and said a million times on this forum) Jones was so utterly shot to pieces that he had no way to stop Calzaghe from toying with him, and because Calzaghe's absolutely unbelievable lack of class was nothing short of ****ing revolting. If I was one of his fans, I would have been utterly ashamed of him.

 

On the prime RJJ-Calzaghe debate i think it is incredibly difficult to say Calzaghe would win, however to say Calzaghe would be embarrased and dominated is stupid IMO. Calzaghe has the tools to make it a very competitive fight.

On Calzaghes showboating i for one found it entertaining. After watching RJJ do it for years against much less talented opposition to see Calzaghe toying with him was fantastic

Your obviously a RJJ fan. Did you find him '****ing revolting' and were you 'utterly ashamed' when RJJ did it?

 

Let me guess, these tools wouldn't be... workrate and handspeed now, would they??

Workrate and handspeed are not the key to defeating every fighter who has ever lived! Jones's speed around the ring would remove Calzaghe's workrate, he wouldn't be doing much because he would be trying to stop the lightning-quick Jones from spearing punches through his horribly sloppy defence and into his mush all night. And his handspeed would also be nullified because he would be in with a guy even faster than him. I'm telling you Brit fanboy maniacs, watch Roy Jones's fights 1993-2003. Calzaghe would not win this fight, nor even make it very close.

I found it unnecessary and in very poor taste when RJJ did it, or anyone has ever done it, I always have done and always will do. True warriors don't bother. There is absolutely no need to embarrass a beaten man. But I must be honest, I don't recall Jones doing it to a fighter who was absolutely shot to **** and could hardly see for blood.

 

It seems you misinterpreted what I said and it is clear that you have never been in a ring. When I say agreement I don't mean anything agreed before the fight, just what transpired towards the end of the fight. Anyone involved in the game knows when a fighter carries another one over the line. I'm not saying that Roy allowed anything to happen to him, but it was the case that Calzaghe stopped throwing punches for the last couple of rounds when he clearly wasn't tired and Roy was a sitting duck. As for having 'zero punching power' at light heavyweight, ask Roy whether the shots had any weight behind them and ask BHop why he didn't walk straight through them instead of clinching all fight. You wouldn't describe them as bombs, but to say they have 'virtually zero power' is a ridiculous statement to make.

 

This is absolute nonsense. Calzaghe could not finish Jones off because he did not have sufficient punching power. I'm not going to bother replying again and debating it with you, if you believe that for some reason Joe Calzaghe forgot that Roy Jones had knocked him flat on his arse in round one and fell in love with him in the middle of the fight and so refused to return the favour and knock Jones down, well, in the words of the great Journey, "don't stop believin'"! atsch

 

I don't think there is any point in you replying either as you clearly spend your life in front of a computer screen with no first hand knowledge of the sport. I'm not saying Calzaghe would've finished Roy off but the fight was not a contest by the last couple of rounds. Similar to a soccer match when both sides effectively down tools when all each side needs is a draw to get through. In any case, it's common knowledge and if you spoke to Roy's backroom boys off the record they'd tell you. Although this would be difficult for someone who spends their life poring over BoxRec and creaming over youtube :tired

 

Definitely. Joe was winging in shots early that if he would've carried on he would've stopped Jones when he was backed up on the ropes....easy.

He reverted to his slaps to keep the guy in it, a man he clearly respected and had good rapport with in the build-up to the fight.

In their respective primes (say Joe moves up to LW at around 2000) I say Joe gives Roy a very good fight, but RJJ takes a (maybe even disputed) decision, in a fight where Joe throws more but Roy counters effectively, landing the cleaner shots.