i'll put you down as an ESPN brainwashed viewer then shall i? go on, give it a go. what have you got to lose?:think i wouldn't mind getting my teeth into your response.
yeah, Joe should have haggled a little bit with the money and shouldn't have given in so easily. but there was big money there... and as i say, Jones was from Joe's era so wanted to clean up because he was denied by Jones years earlier. Calzaghe was THE champ. no one cares about straps. Dawson wouldn't have brought any money to the table. i mean, he's not fighting this weekend in Canada because he likes the place, he's fighting there because he can't sell tickets at home. it made no sense. Dawson was and is overrated. if Joe had beat him people would still have claimed it meant nothing. 1) Joe had been making 168 for years, when he went to 175 late in his career there was no way he was going back down. 2) fight Pavlik instead of the Lightheavy champ and ATG? are you ****ing serious? apart from beating Taylor, what had Pavlik done to be considered a hot win? 3) after Joe had beat Hopkins, Hopkins went and dominated Pavlik 6 months after. Pavlik wasn't on either of their level. Pavlik made comments after the Taylor rematch about him being sluggish at the higher weight. he said he was a Middle and that's were he was at his best. the only reason he took on Hopkins at a higher weight is due to him not having any options, making a lot of money and thinking that Hopkins was there for the taking. he was so wrong on that last point wasn't he? :yep apart from Dawson and Pavlik, who else wanted to fight Joe that made more sense than a fight with the Lightheavy champ in Hopkins? if you could refresh my memory because no one comes to mind. :good
this **** again? even though it was contradicted by Joe going after and fighting the best? you're taking it out of context. but i'm bored of people bringing this up all the time. it's been answered far too many times already.
Typical fanboy. Distorting and ignoring facts to suit your agenda. Barely anything I've posted is opinion. And I'm not sayi g he shouldn't have fought Hopkins, I'm saying he shouldn't have fought Jones.. Pavlik was middleweight champion of the world. Dawson was a belt holder. Jones didn't have a belt. And I don't care about "tickets and money" I'm a fan of boxing the sport, not boxing the business. I want the best match ups from a competitive stand point. Did Evans Ashira draw big numbers then? He wasn't from Joe's era. Jones' best wins came in 1993 against Hopkins, and 1994 against Toney. Calzaghe's best wins came in 2007 against Kessler and 2008 against Hopkins. Their primes were 10 or so years apart.
Hey I agree with you about Calzaghe going out when he did. Most people thought Roy was nearing retirement and Calzaghe was just getting started. In the HBO post-fight they were talking about Calzaghe's next opponent. Then Calzaghe surprised us all and retired. And Roy Jones was the one who went on to win 4 of his next 7 fights, and one of those 3 losses was a "loss" to Bernard Hopkins in 2010, in a fight where Roy Jones was clearly the better fighter, fouled way less then Hopkins, landed by far the cleaner more effective punches, and knocked Hopkins down 3 times, none of them counting as knockdowns when they all should have. So the way I see it, Jones is the one who kept fighting. Calzaghe is the one that hung up the gloves. Jones also knocked down Calzaghe and Calzaghe never knocked down Jones. I'm just stating facts, don't hate the player, hate the game. I don't think the faded Eubank possessed more of a challenge to Calzaghe then faded Jones did. Jones knocked down Calzaghe in the very first round and badly hurt him, and it was a very competative fight until Jones got cut badly. Jones still fought decently after the cut, but the cut obviously changed the fight. Not saying Jones would have won, but it would have been much closer on the card had their not been a cut. (Jones was up by 3 points after the first two rounds) Hopkins went on to school Pavlik, Pascal and Cloud, sure, though I just watched Pascal II again and it was pretty close, closer then I remembered it, and the first Pascal fight Hopkins got knocked down twice, rallied, but certainly didn't "school" Pascal if you look at the majority of that fight. Cloud was just a boring fight. Cloud didn't attempt to even hurt Hopkins, it was like a sparring session. On the other hand, Hopkins was completely schooled and exposed by Jones in 2010, even though no one wants to admit it. I've watched that fight about 30 times, and each time I have Roy winning. Jones did get stopped by Danny Green and Lebedev, but lets be real, that Green stoppage was premature. Hopkins said so himself, maybe to promote his fight with Jones, but still. Danny Green at that time was a fierce fighter, and Jones fought him in his backyard on a weekday. Green wasn't the same fighter two years later when he lost to Tarver, not to take anything away from Tarver's victory, which was his most impressive that I can remember in recent years. Lebedev - Jones was very close on the cards, until the final seconds. Jones nearly had Lebedev out of there seconds before he was stopped himself. If you disagree with anything I'm saying, please enlighten me and explain your opinion.
Joe is better than Marvin Hagler? What's the point in arguing the toss with you? If you can't see Hagler is better at EVERYTHING than Joe you are blind. I was never a Leonard fan but he was quality. He outboxed Benitez, ffs! Joe showed his true standing when Hopkins and Jones floored him. Jones was shot and Joe couldn't stop him. Again; lack of power. Hopkins beat him and was robbed. Joe is very good not an all time great, IMO.
Mate, don't bother. The guy would be more fitting being a wrestling fan. "My fighter is better than your fighter" His knowledge of the sport is clearly lacking. You can't debate with people who have that wrestling fan mentality.
Very true!! :good Even with a bad cut, a faded Jones still went the distance and was competitive against Calzaghe. Do you think Jones KD of Calzaghe had something to do with why he retired? Maybe he was hurt badly with that and it forced him to retire, but no one ever talks about this stuff. Jones connected with the arm. (but it wasn't a foul by Jones, it was just Calzaghe was out of position) Same thing with the fouls in Jones - Hopkins II, Roy wasn't fouling. The other guy was just out of position and creating a problem for himself...against Jones. Hopkins was holding his arm after bull rushing him at the end of the 6th round and Jones threw a punch to the side of the head with the arm that Hopkins wasn't holding on to. And RJJ was deducted a point. This the round after Hopkins nailed Roy in the junk with an extremely low blow, and wasn't even warned or deducted any points! The next knockdown was when Roy was showboating, Hopkins hit Jones with a blatant rabbit punch in the clinch, and Roy retaliated back, and Bernard went down. If you're going to let rabbit punches go, then call it a knockdown if someone goes down from one, especially if that was the guy who was initiating the fouls! (or deduct a point from the guy who started the rabbit punching) Then the 3rd knockdown was a lightning-fast double left Hook by Roy, and the 2nd punch landed on the belt-line, the exact same position that Khan's body shot landed on Judah, which was ruled a KD and the ref started the count. In all those situations in Jones Hopkins II, Hopkins got 5 minutes each time, when it was him who was blatantly fouling Roy all night. Calzaghe had a great career, but he's a different style fighter then Roy Jones or Hopkins. He's a volume puncher, and Jones and Hopkins both are mostly counter punches. Jones and Hopkins are very different, but they don't throw as many punches as Calzaghe. Instead they use timing and outboxing, setting up punches, etc.
Average Joe was a great boxer who utilized his best tools, which included taking a fight he knew he would win. He had good straight flurries to the head and body, as well as good all-around movement. He left boxing at the right time to retire undefeated.
Remind me again. When Hopkins and Jones knocked Calzaghe down he was counted out wasn't he? He lost by KO didn't he? No? Then why do the knock downs matter more than the fact that got up and recovered from them and went on to win? And, as an asside, Hopkins wasn't robbed. It was a very close fight that people are still split over today and either man winning could have been justified. For Hopkins to have been robbed he would have had to have been clearly the better fighter with a big lead on everyone's scorecards but the judges. That wasn't the case though was it - considering the controversy it still conjures up today?
How many more times???? Stop implying that Roy ducked him. It's not Roy's fault, that while he was prime, Joe was an unknown European WBO belt holder, fighting in the division BELOW. The fight was never viable.
Here's a few FACTS for you to consider. 1. Roy was knocked out in 2 rounds by Tarver in May 2004. Which was FOUR years and 6 months BEFORE he fought Joe. 2. Roy was DOMINATED and KNOCKED unconscious for 3 mins against Glen Johnson in Sept 2004. Which was FOUR years and 2 months BEFORE he fought Joe. 3. Roy hadn't won at elite level for FIVE years going into the fight with Joe. 4. He was just 9 weeks away from his 40th birthday. 5. Joe dismissed him as a threat in his 2007 autobiography, claiming he hadn't been the same since his 2004 knockout defeats, and a fight against him would be POINTLESS. 6. In a 2008 interview with Setana Sports, Joe said Roy wasn't the same fighter, and he'd be disappointed if Roy was to be his last fight. All of the above are FACTS and not opinions. :good We don't have to claim that Roy was shot, because it was a fact, which Joe himself had admitted on TWO separate occasions.