Could Joe Calzaghe still be undefeated if he fought Roy Jones Jr's opponents?

atsch This idiot got run off this thread earlier on, but is now back, bigger, better, and even more toe-curlingly cretinous than ever.

As our dear ESB *****s say: YDKSAB! :nono

 

I have a feeling that post may follow 'zat' halfwit around...

 

Please 'zign' here:

This content is protected

:smoke

 

uhuh, figures. Zee hav vays of making him zhut-up'.

I'd agree that Hopkins beat Cazaghe in terms of damage delivered and easily on skill level, its just Calzaghe's highworkrate/low hitrate that was too much for his old man lungs to keep up with for 12 rounds. Its really Bernards fault that he didnt accept a paycut to face him earlier when he wouldnt have been outgassed and would have clearly wrecked Joe's face. He should have at least accepted a 10 round fight which would showcase his superior skills better and have won him the fight when he was too old to fly fast for 12 rounds.

Trouble for Bernard is that even if he kept hitting Calzaghe flush for 5 rounds, if he wasnt do anything for nearly every round after, and Calzaghe was doing a bit more than nothing for the rest of the 7 rounds, then the danger of losing contentiously is there.

One thing about Joe Cal was that he was a shrewd man when matching up his opponents - this was one of his special abilities. He knew Kessler was too thick to opt for a home rematch, and he knew Roy and Bernard had succumbed to old age in terms of lung and punchnig power. He knew that his still youngish chin could now take the faded bombs of Bernard and Roy that would have KOed him years ago. He knew full well that whatever these oldies did to him in the first 5 rounds, he could always outlast them and scrape a decision on workrate. He would never take a risk, would Joe, and always made sure he was the much bigger man before getting in the ring with anyone. Thats why he is coined 'Cowardzaghe'.

 

Calzaghe would have beat that Toney, as good as Roy was at his peak there seemed to be something wrong with Toney in that fight, maybe the weight losing excuse was very true.

 

Grow up you silly little man. I asked you to breakdown a fight earlier and you couldn't you just hid behind a load of waffle. And now I ask another question and you can't answer!

 

No. He would have several tough fights against, for example, Virgil Hill and Clinton Woods, who are better than most guys Calzaghe beat.

He might be defeated by Ruiz while weighing 190 or 200 pounds.

He would lose to Toney and could lose against young Hopkins.

 

I destroyed you in debate earlier on this thread, and have since already answered the question you are now asking. :smoke

 

Are you 12??? I wanna know how you destroyed me, coz I must've missed that

 

Read the thread, fool. Your pathetic point was refuted again and again, your criteria for deciding hypothetical fights is **** and doesn't stand up for a second. :smoke:smoke

 

James Toney was a natural heavy weight honestly. He played football in high school, and he was 200+. He has always struggled with weight at the MW/SMW. It's not a great excuse. Everyone always has an excuse why they lose, Toney nearly loss to Reggie Johnson, I guess he was weight drained then too? Or what about that time at MW he got a gift against that one guy, I don't remember his name, just that he was a white guy?

Could calzaghe have beaten that toney, I don't think so. Toney had trouble finding RJJ, RJJ by fighting the way he does, made Toney work more. Calzaghe doesn't fight anything like RJJ, and Toney would have no problem finding him, as Calzaghe is most effective in mid-range. I think Toney is all wrong for Calzaghe. Calzaghe vs a prime Hopkins though, would always be a tough one for hopkins, as he always struggles against fighters with fast hands that can outwork him. Toney on the other hand is completely different.

 

If you read, I said that you cannot decide who would win a fight from a Figher A beat figher B etc rationale, BUT that the great likleyhood is that a guy that lost more than a quarter of his fights at the point we were talking about, including losses to very ordinary guys, would not beat a guy who never lost and beat much better people than guy A lost too. So infact, I never said what you claim, infact I pointed out that you cannot accurately judge the potential outcome of a fight that way, but the amounts of time that somebody with a record like Johnsons, beat somebody with a record like Calzaghe's are so few, that it would be a pretty solid guess to say Jonhnson would not win that fight.

You need to read more carefully sweet pea.

Now stop typing coz your keeping your parenst awake ;-)

 

I didn't say Toney was at his best, but this weight issue is oversold. Think of it this way, what if Jones didn't move around so much and elected to stand right in front of James Toney, do you think he would have won the fight? It was as much Jones style that bothered Toney than it was any weight issues that may have had some effect. The closet fighter Toney fought with the ability that Jones had was Nunn, and Jones was much quicker on his feet, and all around much better Athletically and more elusive. Imagine if Toney loss to Nunn, he would be saying how he had to cut a lot of weight. There is always an excuse, always.

Had Jones fought Toney in the pocket, Toney would have landed more punches by far. Jones style of fighting was all wrong for Toney, despite him not being at his best, it was as much what Jones was doing that made toney look bad, then anything else. This is what boxing fans have to understand. It's why I said, put a person in the ring with Toney that fights in mid-range or in the pocket, and the Toney in that fight would look very good.

His loss to Jones had to do with Jones style of fighting, and the fact that he was too slick, and made Toney have to work even harder, which sapped him even more. Missing shots takes more out of you then shots landed.

 

The problem with that solid guess, Kate, is that Joe Calzaghe only ever fought when he knew he could easily win (although he underestimated Reid, whom he arguably lost to, and Kessler, and also slightly underestimated Bhop too - other than that he went for guaranteed wins). Whereas Glen took on challenges from allcomers without regard for keeping his loss record artificially clean, and at weights he wasnt prime at.

Glen certainly has a fair chance at Cal in my book, and its obvious why Joe avoided him - because he knew he might well lose, and then your zero loss theory would be worth ****. Whislt Joe did not lose to Glen, he did not win against Glen for a good reason.

I understand what you are trying to say in that its a reality that Joe didnt lose (to Glen), but its also as much a reality that he didnt win. Its as much a problem as calling a guess 'solid'.