Log in or Sign up

How would prime Antonio Tarver do against prime Sven Ottke?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by bailey, Jul 20, 2012.

Page 12 of 15

Mind Reader J-U-ICE Full Member

Joined:

Oct 26, 2006

Messages:

16,769

Likes Received:

32

bailey said: ↑

I wouldnt want to discredit him at all. Not sure what you are on about though because I said he was a paper champ who shouldnt have been just awarded the ring belt

As said, possibly so? But also as said, Calzaghe WON the Ring belt, wasnt just awarded it, which is a big difference and beat the #1 LHW which Jones didnt, and the fighter Calzaghe beat went back to become the Ring champ.
Get the differences?
Click to expand...

So the ring title is more legit when Jones is not holding it??:huhAnd Roy was not just handed the belt.. There was a reason why Jones was thought of as the best LHW in the world, which is why the belt was his...

You also say Bernard was the #1 LHW in the world when Joe beat him.. Ranked by who, and who did he beat to be thought of as the #1 LHW in the world? Oh yeah... Tarver, who beat Roy, the man considered to be the best.

After all that crap you just said about lineal, and to be considered the man you have to beat the man, and Roy was never the man because he didn't beat DM?? Doesn't that mean Calzaghe has to beat Erdei to beat the #1 LHW?

Double standards at its finest...

There is a reason Tarver called out Roy Jones and not DM... Because he knew Roy was the best, beating Roy was his shot at greatness.. Beating DM would not have shot him into boxing mainstream, just as Gonzalez was not considered the "man" at LHW when he beat DM.

You consider Hopkins the #1 LHW, because he beat Tarver who beat Jones, but don't consider Erdei, who beat Gonzalez who beat DM... See the holes?? Oh yeah, Calzaghe is involved...:deal
Click to expand...

Mind Reader, Jul 21, 2012

#166

Mind Reader J-U-ICE Full Member

Joined:

Oct 26, 2006

Messages:

16,769

Likes Received:

32

Bailey, you should like my argument... It means Calzaghe was eventually the best LHW in the world...

Mind Reader, Jul 21, 2012

#167

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

Joined:

Dec 11, 2009

Messages:

39,980

Likes Received:

3,110

Loudon said: ↑

All fighters look different in different fights against different comp. Just look at how Hopkins was flopping to the floor against Calzaghe but looking amazing against Pavlik, or how Calzaghe looked fast and strong against Lacy but sloppy against Bika. Both those examples were the very next fight, so you cant go on that.
What I did do was present you two videos and you have never once given a straight answer to that[/QUOTE

I've told you three times!

Stop comparing two similar fight sequences, and look at the facts.

Roy in 2000 = slightly past his peak at 31 years of age. Considered the best fighter in the world.

Roy late 2008 = way past his peak, 9 weeks from his 40th birthday. 3-3 in his last 6 fights. His legs weren't the same. He'd lost his amazing footwork. His punch resistance had diminished. His great reflexes had diminished. His hand speed was pretty much the same, but he was hampered due to his legs. On top of all of the above, his crushing knockout defeats had destroyed his once supreme confidence!

You have no argument against any of the above!

In 2006 Joe said a lot of the above.

In the video that zod posted the other day from 2008, Joe again says that Roy wasn't great anymore. You love posting videos of Joe up, so what have you got to say about that?

Stop being silly, and think about what you're saying from a logical point of view.

How can Roy have been the same at 40, as what he was when he was 31, taking into consideration everything I've said?

Think about it, before you respond.
Click to expand...

To make life easier, learn to quote parts of sentences. If you dont know how, PM me and I will explain.

Anyway...
I never said Jones was the same. I asked you to tell me the difference when I produced 2 videos, where Jones did just the same and you couldnt do that.
One was Jones when he failed a test and he laid on the ropes, but one opponent wouldnt let him just lay there. The other would.
Now you couldnt tell the difference about Jones.

Also do me another favour and have this different subject on the correct thread. This is Ottke/Tarver

bailey, Jul 22, 2012

#168
bailey Loyal Member Full Member

Joined:

Dec 11, 2009

Messages:

39,980

Likes Received:

3,110

Mind Reader said: ↑

So the ring title is more legit when Jones is not holding it??
Click to expand...

Never said that. Dont try and twist things because you are being schooled.
I think the Ring is only legit if you beat who is considered the man at the time. In the case of Jones/Michalczewski, Michalczewski had lefit claim to all the titles, did that before Jones in most cases and beat the men. Jones didnt do that, he collected alot of titles Dariusz vacated.
Dariusz beat who was considered the man. Jones didnt

And Roy was not just handed the belt.. There was a reason why Jones was thought of as the best LHW in the world, which is why the belt was his...

Click to expand...

The Ring mag is based in America and Jones is American. V Hill was the champ and Dariusz beat him, yet they gave the belt to Jones. This has been well documented and The Ring was questioned for this. Michalczewski won the belt, so it was given to Jones

You also say Bernard was the #1 LHW in the world when Joe beat him.. Ranked by who, and who did he beat to be thought of as the #1 LHW in the world? Oh yeah... Tarver, who beat Roy, the man considered to be the best.

Click to expand...

Ranked #1 isnt champ, its #1. Erdei had claim to be called champ.
Due to how the belt was altered it all became messy. It was really between Dariusz and Jones and Jones had moved on to HW and Dariusz then retired. In that time Tarver had won and lost to Jones who came in as the #1 and Tarver the #2 and a new line formed. Thats where Hopkins then beat Tarver and Calzaghe beat Hopkins.
So as said, its hard to say but Calzaghe beat who was considered the best LHW regardless of titles.
Dont know what you dont understand about that. Maybe you need a title to make a fight?

After all that crap you just said about lineal, and to be considered the man you have to beat the man, and Roy was never the man because he didn't beat DM?? Doesn't that mean Calzaghe has to beat Erdei to beat the #1 LHW?

Double standards at its finest...

Click to expand...

Look at my post history. Look at what I answered you with. I said Erdei had claim all along.
Here is what I wrote earlier

Hard to say.
What Calzaghe did do was beat The Ring champ for what thats worth and beat who was then considered the best, and who whether the line is followed correctly or not, did become the champ after.

With Jones/Michalczewski, Jones was awarded a belt that should have been given to the true champ Dariusz

Click to expand...

Difference was Calzaghe beat who was considered the top LHW, Jones didnt beat someone who had the same amount of claim as him.
Thats not saying the belt line was followed correctly. Erdei had claim, but Hopkins for his win over Tarver was considered the best LHW and thats who Calzaghe beat to win that belt

There is a reason Tarver called out Roy Jones and not DM... Because he knew Roy was the best, beating Roy was his shot at greatness.. Beating DM would not have shot him into boxing mainstream, just as Gonzalez was not considered the "man" at LHW when he beat DM.

Click to expand...

Tarver and Jones were both local, it was local bragging rights.
No when DM lost to Gonzalez and knowing that Gonzalez had lost to Jones it then didnt seem as bad as it had been. But if the true line had of been followed then Gonzalez would have been called the ring champ. I suppose a bit like Dawson having the Ring LHW belt now even though Pascal has beaten him

You consider Hopkins the #1 LHW, because he beat Tarver who beat Jones, but don't consider Erdei, who beat Gonzalez who beat DM... See the holes?? Oh yeah, Calzaghe is involved
Click to expand...

No. I would say Erdei had claim to be called champ, rather than #1. Erdei never got the claim and fighters just go after a belt. Poor example in that Martinez is also considered the best but, Like how Chavez Jnr has the WBC title, but we know that was a title stripped from Martinez, but A Lee was bidding for a world title regardless of where it came from.
If you look at the Rings LHW ratings now, Dawson is champ, Hopkins #1. Erdei then had a champ claim whilst Hopkins could have been considered the #1, and thats who Calzaghe beat, who was considered the #1 and it just so happened to have the Ring title.
You see there are not the holes you wish for, because the Jones situation was some years previously and was between Michalczewski and Jones. Where Jones was just handed a title rather than winning it. Calzaghe won a title and that is a fact, regardless of its history line. He beat a champ who was considered the best. Jones ducked that challenge. The Jones/Michalczewski situation had long passed and Calzaghe beat who was considered champ.
Get it
Click to expand...

bailey, Jul 22, 2012

#169

pirao666 Boxing Addict Full Member

Joined:

Jun 18, 2011

Messages:

3,327

Likes Received:

2

With or without roids?

pirao666, Jul 22, 2012

#170
bailey Loyal Member Full Member

Joined:

Dec 11, 2009

Messages:

39,980

Likes Received:

3,110

pirao666 said: ↑

With or without roids?
Click to expand...

I guess we wont know until further investigation has taken place

bailey, Jul 22, 2012

#171
Loudon Loyal Member Full Member

Joined:

Mar 7, 2012

Messages:

40,836

Likes Received:

10,233

bailey said: ↑

To make life easier, learn to quote parts of sentences. If you dont know how, PM me and I will explain.

Anyway...
I never said Jones was the same. I asked you to tell me the difference when I produced 2 videos, where Jones did just the same and you couldnt do that.
One was Jones when he failed a test and he laid on the ropes, but one opponent wouldnt let him just lay there. The other would.
Now you couldnt tell the difference about Jones.

Also do me another favour and have this different subject on the correct thread. This is Ottke/Tarver
Click to expand...

Seriously, what's the point then? You know that the two versions of him weren't the same, yet you take the time to post two fight sequences up, that last how long? So again, what's the point?

I've had to chase you in this thread, because you couldn't answer me on the other one! Then you have the nerve to say that you owned me on it? Ha!

You constantly contradict yourself, and you're triangle theories are ridiculous!

Loudon, Jul 22, 2012

#172

Jordan_Davies Boxing Junkie Full Member

Joined:

Jul 28, 2011

Messages:

8,502

Likes Received:

0

Sven Ottke gets knocked out and wins via technical decision

Jordan_Davies, Jul 22, 2012

#173
Jordan_Davies Boxing Junkie Full Member

Joined:

Jul 28, 2011

Messages:

8,502

Likes Received:

0

pirao666 said: ↑

With or without roids?
Click to expand...

Dont you mean with or without cocoa butter? :think

Jordan_Davies, Jul 22, 2012

#174
bailey Loyal Member Full Member

Joined:

Dec 11, 2009

Messages:

39,980

Likes Received:

3,110

Loudon said: ↑

Seriously, what's the point then? You know that the two versions of him weren't the same, yet you take the time to post two fight sequences up, that last how long? So again, what's the point?
Click to expand...

Are you going to talk about whats rellevant to this thread or talk about something you couldnt answer from another?
If you can compare those vids and give a straight answer, then go back on that thread and do so. Otherwise, stay on the fantastic subject of this thread

I've had to chase you in this thread, because you couldn't answer me on the other one! Then you have the nerve to say that you owned me on it? Ha!

Click to expand...

Chase me for what? What do you want me to answer? If you have a question. I told you. PM me telling me you have bumped a thread and the question.
Whats so difficult?

You constantly contradict yourself, and you're triangle theories are ridiculous
Click to expand...

Where have I contradicted myself. It is you who answers for Roy Jones as if you are him, when Jones himself has said completely different to you .
Give me the triangle theories then. I suppose you will say about Ottke beating Johnson who beat Tarver, but even there you cant come back at me as Ottke was never defeated.
Now run along Loudon :hi:
Click to expand...

bailey, Jul 22, 2012

#175
bailey Loyal Member Full Member

Joined:

Dec 11, 2009

Messages:

39,980

Likes Received:

3,110

Jordan_Davies said: ↑

Sven Ottke gets knocked out and wins via technical decision
Click to expand...

Well its happened in America before atsch.
Think -
Jones/Griffin
Dirrell/Abraham
Mendy/Bika

I dont think Tarver would cheat in that sense, just pointing how hard it was to catch Ottke cleanly

bailey, Jul 22, 2012

#176

Natural1 Guest

Jordan_Davies said: ↑

Sven Ottke gets knocked out and wins via technical decision
Click to expand...

Nobody knocks SVEN out, NOBODY.

Natural1, Jul 22, 2012

#177
Loudon Loyal Member Full Member

Joined:

Mar 7, 2012

Messages:

40,836

Likes Received:

10,233

bailey said: ↑

Are you going to talk about whats rellevant to this thread or talk about something you couldnt answer from another?
If you can compare those vids and give a straight answer, then go back on that thread and do so. Otherwise, stay on the fantastic subject of this thread

Chase me for what? What do you want me to answer? If you have a question. I told you. PM me telling me you have bumped a thread and the question.
Whats so difficult?
Where have I contradicted myself. It is you who answers for Roy Jones as if you are him, when Jones himself has said completely different to you .
Give me the triangle theories then. I suppose you will say about Ottke beating Johnson who beat Tarver, but even there you cant come back at me as Ottke was never defeated.
Now run along Loudon :hi:
Click to expand...

Ha! When you're faced with something you can't answer, you conveniently change the subject.

I think you'll find that I've given you an answer. I've gone into detail on how Roy wasn't the same, and then you've said, "Well I never said he was the same" So if that's the case, why post up two different videos, that are 9 years apart, asking a stupid question that makes no sense?

You contradict yourself on every thread, probably without even realising it.

You said that Roy got exposed when his competition stepped up at 175 against Tarver and Johnson, then admit to another poster, that Johnson was just a jouneyman. That's just one example. You post videos up of Joe talking bollocks, and I prove that he was lying, and then you say I'm splitting hairs. You big up Joe's win over Roy, but then can't comment on a video of Joe dismissing Roy before they fought. I could give loads of examples.

You're always implying that Roy was on roids, and he lost after he stopped taking them, even though it was four years afterwards.

I said Joe would have been better off moving upto 175 earlier to fight the likes of Tarver, but according to you, he didn't need to, and it didn't matter anyway because he'd beaten Hopkins, who'd beaten Tarver.

As if I'm going to pm you for an answer. If you couldn't give me one on wednesday, I'm not going to get one now am I?

Most of the posts on your threads, are based on triangle theory.
Click to expand...

Loudon, Jul 22, 2012

#178
bailey Loyal Member Full Member

Joined:

Dec 11, 2009

Messages:

39,980

Likes Received:

3,110

Loudon said: ↑

Ha! When you're faced with something you can't answer, you conveniently change the subject.

Click to expand...

:huh Changed the subject to what? What have I not answered?
Think you are losing it Loudon. You were the only one that hasnt been able to answer questions

I think you'll find that I've given you an answer. I've gone into detail on how Roy wasn't the same, and then you've said, "Well I never said he was the same" So if that's the case, why post up two different videos, that are 9 years apart, asking a stupid question that makes no sense?

Click to expand...

As said, I havent said there are not differences, I posted 2 vids and asked someone to tell me and you cannot do that. You havent gone into any detail, you said he was older but couldnt say much else or that it was pointless. dont lie Loudon.
Also why are you not just bumping the thread? WHY? Bring up the post. I have said to you, PM me and I will answer. Seems you are ducking bumping the thread for fear of further schoolings

You contradict yourself on every thread, probably without even realising it.

Click to expand...

Another statement that you cannot back up.
You said this before and couldnt back it up when questioned

You said that Roy got exposed when his competition stepped up at 175 against Tarver and Johnson, then admit to another poster, that Johnson was just a jouneyman.
Click to expand...

Yes at SMW Johnson was a journeyman with more losses than wins.
Johnson and Tarver was a bit of a step up for Jones at the time at LHW, Johnson was a world champ LHW who had beaten Woods, and would beat Tarver who had just beaten Jones

That's just one example. You post videos up of Joe talking bollocks, and I prove that he was lying, and then you say I'm splitting hairs.
Click to expand...

When someone said 5/6 years they are just saying years but you call that an exact and try to make more of it. I proved to you Calzaghe had called Jones out before those 5/6 years by showing videos and quotes, which showed when he said 5/6 years he was just saying he had called him out for a while. I showed how Calzaghe called Jones out at the time of Sheika, Woodhall and McIntyre yet you still try and say different. Why? Calzaghe said he was about 34 when he beat Kessler but was 35, he got a date wrong, I suppose that is a great lie to you and you could split hairs over that.

You big up Joe's win over Roy, but then can't comment on a video of Joe dismissing Roy before they fought. I could give loads of examples.

Click to expand...

Bring up the video. Joemay well not have rated his win over Jones. I think it was a fair win for the champ to beat the #6 LHW. Why should I care how highly Calzaghe rates one of his wins. I thought it was a good win where many experts picked Calzaghe to lose

You're always implying that Roy was on roids, and he lost after he stopped taking them, even though it was four years afterwards.
Click to expand...

Are you pretending he wasnt found to have levels over what they should have been?

I said Joe would have been better off moving upto 175 earlier to fight the likes of Tarver, but according to you, he didn't need to, and it didn't matter anyway because he'd beaten Hopkins, who'd beaten Tarver.

Click to expand...

Why fight Tarver who looked awful, when you could fight Hopkins who clearly beat Tarver? At LHW Tarver has had as many world title losses as he has wins and Calzaghe was a SMW where Lacy was considered the big challenge.
If you want to talk of contradictions, why would you expect Calzaghe to fight Tarver when Tarver lost to this so called shot version of Jones coming down from HW where he lost muscle and was weak?

As if I'm going to pm you for an answer. If you couldn't give me one on wednesday, I'm not going to get one now am I?

Click to expand...

What are you going on about now :huh. im sure you have lost it somewhere. I said if you have something to say, bump the thread and say it, but you are ducking that.

Now why do you keep mentioning Jones on a Tarver/Ottke thread, try and answer that question then work on to the others

Most of the posts on your threads, are based on triangle theory
Click to expand...

Which you cannot counter when I use them
Click to expand...

bailey, Jul 22, 2012

#179
Mind Reader J-U-ICE Full Member

Joined:

Oct 26, 2006

Messages:

16,769

Likes Received:

32

bailey said: ↑

Never said that. Dont try and twist things because you are being schooled.
I think the Ring is only legit if you beat who is considered the man at the time. In the case of Jones/Michalczewski, Michalczewski had lefit claim to all the titles, did that before Jones in most cases and beat the men. Jones didnt do that, he collected alot of titles Dariusz vacated.
Dariusz beat who was considered the man. Jones didnt
The Ring mag is based in America and Jones is American. V Hill was the champ and Dariusz beat him, yet they gave the belt to Jones. This has been well documented and The Ring was questioned for this. Michalczewski won the belt, so it was given to Jones
Ranked #1 isnt champ, its #1. Erdei had claim to be called champ.
Due to how the belt was altered it all became messy. It was really between Dariusz and Jones and Jones had moved on to HW and Dariusz then retired. In that time Tarver had won and lost to Jones who came in as the #1 and Tarver the #2 and a new line formed. Thats where Hopkins then beat Tarver and Calzaghe beat Hopkins.
So as said, its hard to say but Calzaghe beat who was considered the best LHW regardless of titles.
Dont know what you dont understand about that. Maybe you need a title to make a fight?

Look at my post history. Look at what I answered you with. I said Erdei had claim all along.
Here is what I wrote earlier

Difference was Calzaghe beat who was considered the top LHW, Jones didnt beat someone who had the same amount of claim as him.
Thats not saying the belt line was followed correctly. Erdei had claim, but Hopkins for his win over Tarver was considered the best LHW and thats who Calzaghe beat to win that belt
Tarver and Jones were both local, it was local bragging rights.
No when DM lost to Gonzalez and knowing that Gonzalez had lost to Jones it then didnt seem as bad as it had been. But if the true line had of been followed then Gonzalez would have been called the ring champ. I suppose a bit like Dawson having the Ring LHW belt now even though Pascal has beaten him
No. I would say Erdei had claim to be called champ, rather than #1. Erdei never got the claim and fighters just go after a belt. Poor example in that Martinez is also considered the best but, Like how Chavez Jnr has the WBC title, but we know that was a title stripped from Martinez, but A Lee was bidding for a world title regardless of where it came from.
If you look at the Rings LHW ratings now, Dawson is champ, Hopkins #1. Erdei then had a champ claim whilst Hopkins could have been considered the #1, and thats who Calzaghe beat, who was considered the #1 and it just so happened to have the Ring title.
You see there are not the holes you wish for, because the Jones situation was some years previously and was between Michalczewski and Jones. Where Jones was just handed a title rather than winning it. Calzaghe won a title and that is a fact, regardless of its history line. He beat a champ who was considered the best. Jones ducked that challenge. The Jones/Michalczewski situation had long passed and Calzaghe beat who was considered champ.
Get it
Click to expand...

Ok, So Jones beat the #1 LHW in the World, after dropping from HW in his very next fight?? As long as you can admit Jones established himself as the man at LHW I can live with that.

You are a good fact finder, how many fighters you know, dropped from HW to beat the #1 LHW in the very next fight?
Click to expand...

Mind Reader, Jul 22, 2012

#180

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 12 of 15