Here's Why Joe Would've Beaten Hopkins And Jones Prime !!!!

atsch

 

americans just cant accept the reality that calzaghe was always better than hopkins and jones so they make thier excuses.

 

I'd like to say all 3 were almost equally great...but no one wants to hear that from either side:-(

 

Calzaghe still has most of what makes him so great, Jones however, does not.

 

This is something to carefully consider. 37 isn't exactly young for a fighter.

 

Fighters reach their prime at different stages, age isn't everything. Hopkins was in his prime in his mid-30's, why isn't Calzaghe if his best performances were in the past few years?

Hagler was over the hill by his early 30's, Moore was in his prime in his late 30's. It's all about their consistancy of top performances against top fighters, if Calzaghe's prime is over, then it must have ended quite recently considering the fact that he has looked better in the past 3 or 4 years than he ever did.

 

I'm a fan of this stance. In a nutshell...

Roy has the athleticism and strength, edge in speed.

Joe has the persistence, and adaptability.

Bernard has the cunning, and the ringcraft.

Both Joe and Bernard have incontestable chins. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please highlight.

Combine the attributes of these three and you have near enough the complete fighter imho.

 

serious?! i know this is supposed to make me feel dumb, but i feel really smart right now...

 

My brain is hurting. Why did I even click on this stupid thread.

Jones Jnr stopped Virgil Hill with THAT body punch in 98, Lou De Valle's head is still hurting and Otid Grant didn't fight for five years after what that version of Roy did to him.

While Joe had beaten Eubank the year before, he just wasn't seasoned enough to deal with that version of Roy.

 

His won over Hopkins is taken seriously and no one should even try to downgrade that after what Hopkins did to Pavlik, you remember what he did to Pavlik right? , looks like you recovered from the comma after that one, was seriously hoping you never do.

Jones however has been shot since 2003, don't believe me?, let me allow none other than Calzaghe to tell you about it!

For the 10th time, move to 6:30

[yt]AWDtzdAYTOA[/yt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWDtzdAYTOA

 

THANK YOU. Idiots don't understand that people peak at different ages. Always bringing the age card. Joe's only 3 years younger blah blah blah.
Joe is much closer to his prime(3,4 yrs) than Jones (11,12).
If Jones, Hopkins, Calzaghe all met each other at 33yrs of age( prime for Joe, a year off prime for Hopkins give or take, 5 yrs past prime for Roy) they would be really close fights.
But Roy would have beaten Joe and Hopkins even 5yrs past it by SD or like how he struggled but digged deep to win Tarver 1.
Hopkins fighting Joe would have been very close.

 

Age isn't indicative of how shot a fighter is.

The next person who tries to argue how shot a fighter is by listing his age as the primary reason will be kindly escorted out of the thread, out of the forum and directly to jail. No passing GO either.

 

There are alot of Joe Nuthuggers out there man. Joes is a top fighter no doubt about that but beating Jones and Hopkins at their peak?? Hell No. Lets face it Joe could have easily lost to Hopkins in their recent bout. The Executioner would have had him out of there on a stretcher in his heyday.

 

the world was very UNimpressed by Roy's performance against Tito.

It was a shitty performance. Actually, Roy said himself before the fight that if he couldn't KO Tito, he would retire. And sure enough he wasn't able to KO him.

ONLY PuertoRicans picked Tito to win that fight, noone else.