Is Calzaghe TBE?

cool. i'll give them a bash on YT to see what they're made of.

 

you're all right Mind Reader, your reputation is still in tact. they're not bad actually. they're not a Dad Rock band or anything, more a Teen Rock band.

i wouldn't say they're my cup of Tea, but i could listen to them and not be offended.

he is trying to be Kurt Cobain in the Tomorrow video though. LOL.

 

assasin,

Part 1.

I agree.

Again, it depends on what criteria you use. Robin Reid was a good fighter, and it was a good win for Joe, especially if as Sege says, he wasn't 100%. So I don't mind if you call that a very good win, or a great win under the circumstances. But I don't see how it can be classed as better than Roy's win over Griffin, when he knocked him out with a lead uppercut in the first round. Have you ever seen any other fighter knock someone out with a lead uppercut before? I haven't. It was special. It wasn't a lucky shot, from a wild swing etc. It was a perfectly timed shot from distance, that knocked out a good LHW that weighed in the 180's on fight night.

I respect your opinion. But I don't agree. Toney was in reasonable shape back then, and Griffin showed what a good fighter he was when he fought Roy for the first time. Reid never beat anyone better than the versions of Toney that Griffin fought, IMHO.

Well, he clearly had a tough fight, and it was close at the end.

Why doesn't it make sense to you?

Yes, but you won't even give it a rating, which doesn't make sense. Reggie was past his peak, but he wasn't shot like Tyson was against Williams and McBride. That's what I class as a shot fighter. Reggie was still a capable fighter, so it has to be classed as a at least a good win.

The weight wasn't an issue at all for Joe. His camps for Hopkins and Roy, were two of his best, because he didn't have to shed as much weight and starve himself. No, Joe wasn't in his prime, but Roy was years past his. He hadn't won at the top level for 5 years. I can't class it as a good win, after Joe had said the following:

"I have no interest any more in Roy Jones and no interest in Antonio Tarver. Jones is washed up and Tarver was never that good anyway, he just caught Jones when Jones was shot and Johnson did the same."

Each to their own. But it's seems crystal clear to me. I've heard Buddy many times, but he was asking Tarver questions, and Tarver looked despondent.

I haven't contradicted anything. I haven't classed the win over Paz as good. Go and check. In my original post to you, I included it with some other notable wins, because of the incredible finish. Again, I haven't listed McCallum as even a notable win, and neither have I mentioned Kelly, even though that too was a great finish.

That doesn't make sense. If you don't class them as great fighters, how can you class them as great wins? The only way in which I'd class a win as great, even if the opponent wasn't great, was if there was any exceptional circumstances to consider, which I've alluded to in my criteria. The Lacy win was a truly great performance, and a great win for Joe and all his fans. But in the grand scheme of things, it can't be classed as a great win, because Lacy was far from great. The Kessler win was a great win, as in Joe unified the SMW division which he'd waited years to to achieve. How is Lacy better than Griffin and Tarver? I can't see that at all. I also think that Tarver and Kessler are/were at similar levels.

It was a great win from Joe's perspective. Not as a whole.

Again, these are the FACTS: (not opinions, but facts)

Eubank was preparing to fight Mark Prince at LHW, when he accepted the fight with Joe on 11 days notice. Which obviously meant, that his target weight was 168 or under, and not 175. He hadn't made that weight in over two years. He got his wife to put him on an extreme fruit diet to try and make the weight, and has admitted that Ronnie Shields wouldn't have let him take the fight, had they still being together. He was also at the end of of a long, hard career, and was having injections in his knees.

Apart from a lack of big fight experience, everything else was stacked in Joe's favour.

So I agree it was a great win for Joe at the time, for him personally, but it wasn't as a whole, because that was not a great version of Chris Eubank.

Just take another look at the circumstances.

Joe was young and fit at 25, and Eubank had weight issues, issues with his knees, and little time to prepare.

Again, this was not the version of Eubank, that had beaten Benn and Watson etc.

 

Part 2.

How were they?


Let's first compare the wins to Roy's win over Ruiz.

Joe was 25 years old and had fought 22 fights when he fought Eubank. Again, Eubank was at the end of his career, and had been beaten two years earlier by Collins.

Roy was 34 against Ruiz, and had fought almost 50 times. He gave up nearly 4 stone of natural weight, and dominated a top 5 HW, with absolute ease, who'd recently knocked down Holyfield and beaten him.

Look at the circumstances.

When Roy beat Ruiz it was the first time a former MW champion had won a version of the HW title for 106 years.

Roy had started out in the JMW division.

The wins don't even compare.

The Ruiz fight was a much bigger fight, and a far better win, all things considered.

With regards to Lacy, you can say that the performance was superior to Roy's wins over Ruiz and Tarver. I've no problem with that at all. But dominating Lacy was nowhere near the scale of dominating a top 5 HW, at that stage of Roy's career.

With regards to Kessler, Ruiz was a far bigger challenge to Roy, than what Kessler was to Joe. It was also a much bigger fight.


Now let's compare the Lacy, Kessler and Eubank wins, to Roy's win over Tarver.

Again, Joe was 25, and Eubank was past his best, with weight issues etc. Now let's look at Roy's circumstances.

He was almost 35, he'd had 50 fights, and he'd burnt ACTUAL MUSCLE to drop back for Tarver. He was exhausted but pulled of the win, whether you want to accept it or not.

So all things considered, how on earth can Joe's win over Eubank be better than Roy's win over Tarver?

It can't.

It's the same for Lacy. Again, the Lacy performance was spectacular, but Tarver was a far bigger challenge at that stage of Roy's career, than what Lacy was for Joe.

Again, I think Tarver was better than Lacy, and when you factor in the weight loss, and the fact that Roy reclaimed the LHW titles, it trumps the win.

With regards to Kessler, again I think that Tarver and Kessler are/were at a similar level, but Roy's circumstances makes his the better win.


It's all about where each fighter was at the time, and the circumstances involved.


So all things considered, there's no way that Joe's wins over Eubank, Lacy and Kessler, are better than Roy's wins over Ruiz and Tarver.

It wasn't a cherry pick, and it was a great win. Ruiz wasn't great, but the circumstances make it a great win for Roy.

What was special about the Kessler, Lacy and Eubank wins?

Who had Kessler beaten before he fought Joe? What were his best wins? What were Lacy's best wins? Again, Eubank had lost to Collins two years previously, and he was lucky not to have 5 defeats on his resume when he faced Joe.

If Ruiz wasn't a special win for Roy, then none of those wins can be classed as special for Joe.

It's Joe's best win on paper. But again, other fighters beat Hopkins easier, and they're not classed as great wins.

I don't remember anyone declaring Taylor's win over Hopkins as great.

 

assasin,

That's right. But Collins didn't face the best versions of Eubank, and Joe fought a version that wasn't even as good as those, IMHO.

I'd also need to watch it again. But I've always thought than Benn deserved it.

I agree 100%. So why are you claiming it as a great win for Joe, and saying that it was better than Roy's wins over Tarver and Ruiz?

I get that you don't think that Roy beat Tarver, (although I can't understand it) but it's an official win on paper, just like Joe's win over Hopkins.

But let's leave the Tarver fight to one side.

How can Joe's win over Eubank, (who we've established was past his best) eclipse Roy's win over Ruiz?

Of course it was out of the ordinary, because when he started his camp for Prince, his target weight was 175, and not 168.

He was also at the end of the road.

I know that, but the fact that the Prince fight was scheduled to be his third consecutive fight at 175, tells me that 168 was a big ask for him at that point of his career.

We can't just forget what Joe said. It's relevant when analysing the win.

It was Joe who phoned Roy up, and Joe accepted the 50/50 terms.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...wk_Oj_dtrWaqqdA&bvm=bv.67720277,d.ZGU&cad=rja

Roy was over three years older than Joe, (9 weeks away from his 40th birthday) with many more miles on the clock, and he'd also been out boxed and brutally knocked out, over four years earlier.

Mike was done.

But he was one of the greatest fighters I've seen, in his prime.

 

assasin,

Of course it's a great win. It's one the greatest wins in HW history, if not THE greatest win.

Under my criteria, I allow for exceptional circumstances.

Ali made the decision before the fight, that his only realistic chance of winning, was for Foreman to tire himself out.

George Foreman was a monster at 25, and hardly anyone gave Ali a chance.

I don't agree with anyone tampering with the ropes beforehand, but the ring and the ropes etc, should have been checked both after the ring had been erected, and before both fighters had made their ring entrances on the day/night of the fight.

But even if Ali and his team had loosened the ropes, Foreman still held most of the advantages, and he was still able to batter Ali's body for 7 rounds.

I think a DQ would have been a bit extreme.

I think your ratings need looking at again, allowing for more circumstances.

Overall, I think you've been fair in rating Joe's wins, but you haven't been when rating Roy's.

I don't see how you can call Roy's win over Hill as great, but not his win over Griffin.

That doesn't make much sense to me.

Although, I accept that we all see things from different perspectives.

Again, they were all great wins for Joe on a personal level, but not as a whole to the rest of the boxing world.

You certainly can't class them as better wins, than Roy's wins over Ruiz and Tarver IMHO, especially not the Eubank win.


Three questions for you, if that's OK.


1. Would you say that overall, Joe has a better resume than Roy?


2. Would you say that overall, Joe was a better fighter than Roy?


3. Would you say that overall, Joe achieved more in his career than what Roy did?


Thanks!


We're having a good debate. :good

 

@ Loudon

you still don't make any sense when saying Griffin was a better fighter than Reid BASED on the fact that he was knocked out in one round. that's the equivalent of saying that some girl is better looking than a Supermodel BASED on the fact that the girl in question, is pig ugly.

Toney was in an even worse place than he was for Jones when fighting Griifin up at LHW.

again, if you don't rank the Jones win for Calzaghe, then you most certainly can't rank the Johnson fight for Roy.

i don't know were you're going with the weight comment with Joe moving up to LHW, because i didn't even say there was an issue. so i'm confused again.

calling the Pazienza win "notable" means you at least class it as a good win, Loudon. you've even called it in this very Thread. so yes, you did contradict yourself.

you don't need to be a great fighter in order for it to be a great win. because if that were the case, there wouldn't be that many great wins in history.
both Kessler and Lacy had the potential to prove themselves great fighters, but didn't because of one reason or another. Lacy because he was ruined by Joe. if Lacy had of fought anybody in the division besides Joe and Kessler, he would have beaten them. but he never got the chance as i've said because he was ruined after what Joe did to him.

Kessler was one big win away from me calling him a great fighter. he has a great one in Froch, and a long list of good solid wins. one more big one, then i'd have no problem calling him as such. so he's close to being a great fighter.

if you don't think that beating a seasoned vet like Eubank when you haven't done anything in the Pro game, and is Green as they come, then fine. i won't ever think like that. but thinking that Ruiz and Tarver are great wins, is way out there.

i've already acknowledged that it wasn't the same version that Benn and Watson fought. you don't need to be slap bang in your prime for it to be a great win. especially if your a green fighter with no experience at that level.

Lacy and Kessler were big fights that everyone demanded and wanted to see. they were huge. no one was asking for Jones vs Ruiz. it was nothing more than a cherry pick. the style of Ruiz suited Roy down to the ground, which is why he went up and fought him, then came straight back down.

who was the favorite going into the Lacy/Calzaghe fight? Lacy. most were picking him to destroy Joe.
who was the big favorite going into the Jones/Ruiz fight? Jones. so no, no matter how much you want to change the FACTS about those fights and spin them to suit, it will never be what you say it is. these are not opinions here, Loudon, they're FACTS. try and minimize Joe all you want and refuse the FACTS while spinning to suit for Roy when they were never what you claim them to be. and they never will be.

so you claim to have a "criteria", but contradict that same "criteria" to suit whenever you fancy. therefore, you can't claim to have a criteria based on it's definition if you chop and change to suit. you contradict your points by claiming them as "special" for Roy under said "criteria", but then do the complete opposite when it comes to Joe or some other fighter that you're spinning in defence for by claiming (and i kid you not) "under my criteria, i allow for exceptional circumstance"

you chop and change EVERYTHING you claim your criteria is. EVERY time. but use the excuse that it comes under YOUR chosen "exceptional circumstances"

that's clearly biased, agenda driven, and repeatedly contradicted. therefore, you don't stand for anything other than minimizing fighters and situations with opinions, even though the FACTS say the complete opposite. you then do the opposite with Roy by putting a load of spin on situations by claiming them to be something they are not, even though the FACTS tell you different.

you do it all the time.

therefore, this cannot come under the description of a debate, because in a debate you stand for something without changing it. not change things repeatedly to suit.

you ignore the FACT that Ali and his team should have been DQ'd for cheating by claiming... "Foreman still held all the advantages, and he was still able to batter Ali's body for 7 rounds" WHAT!! oh, gee Thanks, you loosened the ropes to cheat so i couldn't get any head shots in, but you did me the kind service of letting me hit the body that was already something that was allowed in the rules.

just nothing but crazy spin here, Loudon.

so that's acceptable to you under your "criteria" because it suits YOUR argument. Jones is allowed to use performance enhancers because it suits YOUR argument.

if Joe had done either of these things, you would have ripped him into the ground. you even rip him into the ground with lies that aren't even true just to suit your contradicting "criteria"

that's not a debate Loudon. that's someone with a serious problem and an Axe to grind. and no matter what, you will never change your ways to suit. so, what is the point?

we're both wasting our time with this non debate. it won't get either of us anywhere.

 

assasin,

Even though we don't agree with each other, I really appreciate the fact that you've taken the time to respond.

No, I'm saying that IMHO, I think that Montell Griffin was a better fighter than Robin Reid. I think that his overall skills were better, and he had better wins than Reid had. Griffin showed me in his first fight with Roy, that he was a good fighter.

That's not to say, that I don't appreciate that Reid was also a good fighter.

So in relation to what I've wrote above, I believe that Roy knocking out Griffin with a lead uppercut in under 3 mins, was a better win than Joe's victory over Reid, even allowing for Joe not being at 100%.

I can't see it any other way.

Knocking a guy out who weighed in the 180's, with a lead uppercut, is special.

James has always suffered with the scales. He fought two close fights against Griffin, and if you're just going to blame the weight alone, then it takes credit away from Griffin.

But IMHO, Reid wouldn't have been able to have beaten those two versions of Toney.

How can I say it was a good win, when Joe said a fight between them would be pointless, because Roy was so washed up, and had been since Tarver had beaten him, four years previously?

You're splitting hairs.

Go to my initial post.

You asked me to name Roy's best wins, and I didn't mention Vinny.

It wasn't a good win, overall, but the finish was spectacular.

It depends what perspective you're looking from.

Any win for Joe, was great to him on a personal level.

I don't buy that Joe ruined him. Are you telling me that had he not fought Joe, he would have gone on to become a true world class fighter at elite level? I don't buy it. I'm not taking anything away from Joe's spectacular performance, but his skills were there to be seen from the outset.

I agree. But I can't really say that he's any better than Tarver was. I honestly believe that they are/were at a similar level.

Again, I think it was great for Joe personally. He was 25, inexperienced, and he beat a legend of British boxing. But it just doesn't alter the fact that Eubank was past his best, and he'd only had 11 days notice. It wasn't a great win on a global scale.

Even taking into account Joe's circumstances, how can the win compare to Roy's over Tarver and Ruiz? How does beating a past his best Eubank at 25, equal Roy beating Tarver at almost 35, after having had 50 fights, and having to have burnt muscle to make the weight?

Then add to the equation, that Tarver was better than the version of Eubank that Joe fought, and that Roy was absolutely exhausted after 9 rounds, and he had to come through adversity to win.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no contest when rating the wins.

Again, he was inexperienced and it was a great win for HIM. But it doesn't compare to dominating a top 5 HW, at 34, having started out at MW and JMW.

They weren't bigger fights on a global scale, than seeing Roy fight ANY HW.

When the Lacy fight was made, many U.S. fans had hardly seen Joe fight. Joe only got proper recognition from the U.S. after the fight.

The Kessler fight was bigger, but I still don't think it was bigger than Roy vs Ruiz. It also wasn't HUGE. For the simple reason, nobody had really seen that much of Kessler, and he was a bit of an unknown to most fans.

The reason Roy came back down from HW, was because he couldn't make more than what he'd made for Ruiz fighting anyone else. He was a 35 year old LHW. Any 35 year old LHW, who'd fought 50 times, would want huge money to remain at the weight.

If he wasn't going to get a huge amount, it wasn't worth risking his health and his reputation.

But I can tell you after reading excerpts from Jim Thomas's book, who was Evander Holyfield's attorney, that if Don King and Murad Muhammad hadn't have been as greedy, then we definitely would have seen Evander fight Roy instead of seeing him fight Toney.

Evander actually took less money to fight Toney, because he was so pissed with Don and Murad.

 

Part 2.

It doesn't matter what the odds were. Roy dominating Ruiz, was a bigger accomplishment than Joe dominating Lacy.

Joe was unknown and Lacy hadn't beaten any great fighters.

Ruiz had recently beaten and dropped Holy, and he outweighed Roy by 25 pounds.

My criteria is there for everyone to see, on page 8, post no. 111.

This is what I've wrote:


Taking a look at how good the opponent was.

Assessing where they were in their careers at the time of the fight.

Assessing what they'd achieved just prior to the fight.

Assessing what they went onto to achieve afterwards.

Taking into account, any circumstances. (age, no. of fights, weight loss/gain, disadvantages etc)

Taking into account, the manner of the victory.

Taking into account the accomplishment of the victory.


There it is, and that's what I work from.

I asked you if you agreed with it, and if there was anything you wanted to add.

The only thing that I think we could add, is personal/out of ring issues, that would fall under any circumstances.

Experience falls under age and the number of fights had.

Now I think that all of the above is fair.

I've taken into account that Joe wasn't 100% against Reid, after reading an in depth post from Serge, and of course I've also taken into account that Joe was inexperienced against Eubank.

So where exactly have I chopped and changed?

You'll have to give me examples where I've done any of the above.

Just because I've said that Roy has had better wins overall, that doesn't mean that I don't respect what Joe has also achieved.

Again, give me some specific examples.

I apply the same criteria to all fighters when rating wins and resumes.

I haven't ignored that the ropes may have been loosened, but a DQ would have been extreme in my opinion.

Again, the ring and the ropes should have been checked beforehand. But I don't condone it, if it happened.

Roy isn't allowed to use PEDS, but you've got no proof as to what exactly he'd taken, and how long for.

Add it to the criteria if you want, that's a good addition. But there has to be clear proof available to hand, before it can be taken into consideration.

Again, there'd have to be clear proof, for me to take it into consideration.

What lies have I told?

When has my criteria been contradicting?

Where has all this come from?

 

After the 120 best boxers of all time he might be one of the best

 

Loudon, do you really think i haven't been on to you for a long time??

i just wanted you to wash over things again for a bit of fun. watch you brush over things like only you can.

i have also been keeping an eye on you, Herol the Tit and Dinovelvet. watching as one goes into a Thread, only for the other two to immediately follow a couple of minutes later. all the time! you three have the same characteristics as each other like, you're all the same person.

not only that, but you three have the same characteristics as the guy on YT who always abuses Lennox and Calzaghe on all their videos.

that's why i wanted to get you in a discussion about Lewis to see if you had the same feelings about him, that you do with Joe. and what do you know, you use the same tactics there as well.

Dino and Herol the Tit go in on Joe, but not in on Lewis. Hmmmmmmm.... that would be TOO obvious.

wouldn't it???

what do you think i'd find if i checked all four of you to see what IP Address you all had??

tell me Loudon??

 

Ha!


WTF?


Have you been drinking?


Ha!


This has really made me laugh out loud.


I think the only time I've really discussed Lennox, is briefly on a HW tournament regarding him and Ali.

I've never discussed Lennox in depth on here.


This is just too funny.


1. I haven't got the time to make an alt/alts, and write for them as well as me. (most of my recent time has been tied up on the Classic, which is why I recently apologised to you for my late reply on this thread.)


2. I wouldn't be sad enough to make an alt/alts. (why would anyone?)


3. My writing style is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to Herol's, Dino's and just about anyone else on here. Go and see for yourself.


So, I'd have to be sad and unemployed, with a huge amount of time on my hands to pull it off.

I'd also have to be quite gifted, in employing three completely different writing styles. Because as far as I'm aware, I don't think Herol and Dino write alike.


So, I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree my friend.

 

Calzaghe finished his career fighting tough fighters (hitting the canvas twice in the process). Can't say the same thing with Mr Vaginaballz. But it aint too late for the latter.

 

well it's either that, or you're Trolling the **** out of this place.

the way your discussions go when Roy is concerned is truly weird if i'm honest. you claim to have one set of rules for Roy, then the complete opposite for Joe. none of it makes sense.

yes, you brush over things all the time. even though i've pointed out your contradictions, you brush over them all the time just so you don't have to face up to being wrong. i catch you out all the time with that Loudon. not once have you put your hands up.

same thing with the "criteria". you'll put all this spin on Roy to make it look better for him. but if Joe has done the same thing, and against better fighters, you change everything again to try and minimize it for Joe.

how can anyone debate with you if you keep on saying one thing for one fighter, but when the same applies to the other, you then come back and say that it's "different"?

you go against the definition of a debate.

with all the spin you put on for Roy, it makes you look like some besotted kid looking up to his Super Hero. you don't see me doing that with Joe. it's nothing but insecurity on your part.

Bull****, Loudon. you spin it to suit with the Ali and Jones situations like it doesn't even exist. you'd never give Joe that spin would you? would you?? you wouldn't let him off the hook in any way if he was guilty of doing those things. and you know it.

that's because you have nothing but an agenda. but you're not man enough to admit it.

i'll discuss anything on here with anybody if they're being straight. but there isn't anything to discuss if someone wishes to paint someone in a certain light with nothing but delusional bull**** and lies.

the truth though, is Jones was a cheat who refused to fight the best.

his fights with Tarver (first fight) and Ruiz were not asked for fights. no one was calling for them to happen. they were the usual cherry picks for Roy.

Calzaghe vs Lacy/Kessler were actual huge fights that everyone was asking for.

Calzaghe/Kessler was one of the biggest fights in European history. saying that a two bit cherry pick of a fight with John ****ing Ruiz was bigger is a disgusting insult. Ruiz was a hated fighter who fought in the ugliest manner pretty much every time he stepped into the ring. the fight only had interest because Roy was moving up to take on a Heavyweight. but a Heavyweight that was predictable and suited to Roy's style.

did you hear what people were saying when Roy picked John Ruiz? it was the complete opposite to what you say it was, that's for sure.

so with Roy being the cheat he was, his whole career should have a Black mark put right through it.

yes Loudon, your Hero was a DRUG cheat. nothing your spin will ever erase.

 

assasin,

Ha!

You've really gone off on one here.

How am I trolling?

We were having a decent debate to start with.

My opinions are always based on logic, and apart from disagreeing with you on rating Joe's wins, I haven't been disrespectful or insulted him etc.

To be honest, that's so ironic, because I could say the exact same thing about you.

I haven't contradicted anything.

If you think I have, then please show me and we'll discuss it.

I've asked you twice, if you think the criteria that I use is fair, and if you'd like to add anything.

The trouble with you, is that you only ever see things from Joe's perspective.

It's quite clear that you don't take the same things into consideration that I do.

I try and look from all angles.

You'll have to give me some specific examples.

Again, all my thoughts and opinions are based on logic.

I always tell you why I think the way that I do, and give you examples. Always.

You do that all the time with Joe, trying to reword statements that he's made in the past, etc.

What spin have I put on Roy?

Again, give me some specific examples and we'll discuss them.

What are you talking about?

What agenda?

You're going to have to back up this statement.

What delusional bull****?

What lies?

Tell me.

If you've got specific details of what he took and how long for, then show it to me.

You're wrong.

Roy had flirted with the idea of going up to HW for 7/8 years, and people were interested in him facing any HW. I'm not saying there was a demand to see him specifically fight John Ruiz, but there was a huge demand to see him fight a HW.

The fight with Ruiz was a big deal.

The Tarver fight was also big. Before Roy fought Ruiz, it was a fight that a lot of people wanted to see, because Tarver was the no.1 contender. But after Roy had fought Ruiz, it was even bigger. Tarver promoted the fight by crashing the Ruiz press conference, and saying that Roy was ducking him. Then the fact that Roy had to drop all of the weight made the fight intriguing, as well as the fact that Roy had the opportunity to make history, by reclaiming his old belts back.

This right here, is a prime example of your lack of perspective on things.

Who in the U.S. would have called for Lacy to fight Joe, when despite what you think, Joe was still relatively unknown at that point?

Also, how many people in the U.K had actually seen Lacy fight on a regular basis before Joe fought him?

How many times were Lacy fights on TV over here?

It wasn't some hugely anticipated fight.

The Kessler fight was bigger in the U.S. than the Lacy fight, because Joe had got his recognition at that point. But both in the U.S. and here, Kessler was an unknown quantity.

He wasn't popular in the U.S. and again, like Lacy, how many British boxing fans had seen Kessler fight?

The only thing the average British fan knew, was that it was a big fight because it was for a unification.

But let's not pretend that Joe had a huge following outside of Wales and that Kessler was a household name.

On a global scale the Lacy and Kessler fights were not huge, highly anticipated fights.

How is it an insult?

You don't know what you're talking about.

On a global scale, Roy Jones (the best fighter on the planet) fighting a HW, was a bigger event than Joe Calzaghe fighting Mikkel Kessler.

You can't even argue that, it's ridiculous.

John Ruiz wasn't a great fighter by any stretch of the imagination. He had an ugly style, that wasn't easy on the eye. But Roy was a 34 year old LHW, who'd had 50 fights, and that made the fight intriguing. Because even though Roy had huge advantages in speed and skill, nobody knew for sure what would happen when he faced a genuine top 5 HW, who weighed 220 pounds. Nobody knew what weight Roy would come in at, and nobody knew what would happen if he got leaned on, and was caught etc.

One of Roy's biggest critics over the years, was a guy called Ron Borges. Ron Borges thought that Roy had bitten off more than he could chew, and he predicted that Ruiz would win, along with many other people. Don't forget that Ruiz had dropped Holyfield, and nobody knew for sure how good Roy's chin was at that point.

So this is where my criteria comes into play.

If a decent HW had beaten Ruiz, it wouldn't have been a big deal, and I wouldn't have rated the win.

But the win for Roy is great, due to all of the circumstances.

Which were: his age, the number of fights he'd had, where he'd started from, his weight disadvantage, and his dominant display, that made him the first former MW champ to have won a version of the HW title in 106 years.

Again, an average fighter beating Ruiz = No big deal.

But Roy, who was a 34 year old LHW = A big deal.

How many other LHW's did you see, that were queuing up to try and fight Ruiz?

There weren't any.

So can you not see how all of the circumstances made it a great win?


It was the same for Tarver.

If Roy had've beaten Tarver on points, in 2000 (if he'd have beaten Harding in the eliminator) it would have just been a decent win, or a very good win, and nothing more.

But what made the 2003 win great, was because he had to drop from a solid 196 pounds, down to 175, in a short space of time, burning actual muscle in the process.

Roy had 49 fights before Tarver and was never tired.

But in the Tarver fight, he was running on fumes for the last three rounds, and he had to go through adversity to win.

It was the hardest fight of his career at nearly 35.


So it's the circumstances that made the win great.


It's all about the circumstances in both of those fights.


Now apart from Joe being the underdog, he didn't have any exceptional circumstances for the Lacy and Kessler fights.

So, if there's no exceptional circumstances, the wins have to be rated by focusing more on the quality of the opponents etc.


Is that not fair?


Am I speaking Japanese here?


That's fair in my book.


You can tell me that Kessler is/was a better fighter than John Ruiz, and you will get NO ARGUMENT from me.


But that doesn't mean that Joe's win over Kessler tops Roy's win over Ruiz.


Why?


Because of the circumstances.


Ruiz was a bigger challenge to Roy, than what Kessler was to Joe.


The prize on offer to Joe, was to unify the division.

The prize on offer to Roy, was to make history and win a version of the HW title.


Joe won a great, competitive fight.

Roy dominated Ruiz.


Mix all of that together, and it means that Roy's win was better, even if Kessler was better than Ruiz.


Again, it's all about perspective, and allowing for circumstances.


Also, Roy didn't cherry pick Ruiz.

You haven't got any information to hand to prove he was a drugs cheat.

He was caught with a substance once, and never again.

Until there's actual proof of exactly what he was taking, and for how long for, it's not worth discussing.

Because it's nothing but speculation.