joe calzague couldnt lace roy jones boots in his prime

This is what I mean..

Hopkins win over Tarver would not have meant near as much if Tarver didn't knock out Roy Jones. I also honestly thought Tarver clearly beat G. Johnson the first time, but didn't raise a stink because I hated Tarver.

I felt Roy had done enough to be considered the man at LHW when he was knocked out by Tarver, so I have no problem with calling Hopkins and Calzaghe the man, but only because Roy once was.

Lineal champion is not always the man of the division, Cotto is a good current example of a lineal champ that is not the man at the weight.

 

In Hopkins case, 7 years later and him still a champ.
He's been in the top 3 LHW since his defeat to Joe.
It makes the win all that more impressive.
People were saying Hopkins was over the hill when Joe fought him!
Over the hill boxers don't spend 7 extra years at the top end of the division.

 

Teddy Atlas " Hopkins your not beating these guys because your not greater than them they simply aren't that good "

Friday Night Fights "

Don't forget that Hopkins started at LHW but never dared to venture there u til Jones started to decline !

 

First, just to be clear, I'm telling you what the US scene reflected at the time. There was no one that was THE MAN. If Hopkins was THE MAN wherever you are then state that. He wasn't considered that in the US.

Second, to your question, I'm always going to be partial to BHOP because of following him from long before he fought RJJ. But, we know that Tarver had weight issues and was still cutting far too close to the encounter in '06. The differences in those wins is not really substantive because of this, and because of their ages. Bernard was way past prime at over 41 and Tarver was over 37. Adamek was just over 30 and and Dawson 25. Dawson demonstrated that his comparative youth was superior to Tarver, Johnson, and everyone else in these years. It does not matter whether he was the better boxer in '07, '08, '09, & half of '10 than Tarver, Johnson, Hopkins, RJJ, Calzaghe, etc., or not, or not historically or not in the aggregate from the viewpoint or benefit of hindsight today. At that time, he proved he was the best of '07 to August '10 with two wins against Tarver and Johnson. It is evident in the reluctance of Hopkins, Calzaghe, and even RJJ to consider entering the ring with the much younger fighter in '08 or '09.

Dawson may well have failed to exceed his standing of those years. He may never get there again. But, at that time, he was considered by those in the US boxing establishment to be a viable and legitimate champion and real threat to ALL of these much older past prime fighters. As such, there was no THE MAN at LHW in any other names.

The first part is correct. Dawson fought both Tarver and Johnson once each in '08 and again once each in '09. Four consecutive fights. Four consecutive wins.

But, he actually failed to dominate the division past the middle of '10. Because, in his first fight after the second Glen Johnson win he had the loss to Jean Pascal. So, after the four straight wins over Tarver and Johnson he has been blowing hot and cold (more cold than hot) ever since. He has been among those at the top but inconsistent and unable to claim being THE MAN.

Are you suggesting that if Calzaghe had continued fighting in '09 he would have dominated LHW? Because as I've pointed out, during this period, Dawson would have been quite happy and prepared to see how that plays out. His youth, size, length, had already proven to be a problem for old rather capable (understatement) fighters in Tarver and Johnson. He twice gave a prepared Tarver as much trouble as Bernard gave a surprised weight troubled one. I was in Vegas for Calz/Hopkins. Joe looked athletically poor in the fight (and BHOP looked old ('cos he was OLD) and poorly conditioned). There was no way that Calzaghe who struggled to gain an upper hand against a fighter he was seven years younger than was going to find some fountain of youth at 37 (if he continued on) to have an easy road at LHW. And, he wouldn't have been allowed or able to follow the course of his WBO years and pick scrubs when it suited FW. He would have had to face the other capable old veterans as well as Dawson, Pascal, etc. Every fight would have been competitive and compelling in '09 and '10.

After the poor performance in garnering a narrow MD against BHOP, he chose to face the ghost of RJJ in late '08. A "version" of RJJ that had been twice knocked unconscious in '04 by both Tarver and Johnson. [A RJJ that has even been dropped to the canvas and stopped by such historical mediocrity or irrelevancies as Danny Green and Denis Lebedev.]

So, Joe only fought two 40+ year olds at LHW (and one was completely shot). Instead of remaining to grab a division and put a stamp on it against someone actually in their prime he quickly retired. Even a rematch in Wales would have sold and sold well there against Bernard.

He could have made a third straight match against a 40+ year old at LHW (instead of two) and retired without facing someone with a younger pulse. And, at least against BHOP, Joe would always have a seven year age advantage. It should have been an acceptable risk/reward for him to take and to add another great pay day and name to his CV. And, a nice reward to his home fans.

But he didn't take it.


As for BHOP, he is an ATG of course. He has continued fighting and has remained in the mix at the top. However, really none of his wins at LHW have been easy. Even against Ornelas, Murat, and Shumenov he has struggled in rounds and had to find ways to rest, conserve energy, and to get the win. Why? Because he is OLD! He struggles against everyone and wins narrowly. Pascal and Dawson each gave him major difficulties. If Joe could barely edge an ancient BHOP he certainly is not going to mop up LHW with any ease or any certainty. If he could have done it easily, he would have stayed and done it.

 

It took Joe ten years to unify.

He then moved up by scraping past Hopkins, beating Roy, who he said was shot, before retiring saying he'd got nothing left to achieve.

Roy unified at LHW, and the only fighter he missed was DM.

Again, neither guy would travel.

But it seems that you have a problem with Roy not travelling, even though you're ok with the fact that Joe didn't want to go over for Sven.

When the DM fight couldn't be made, Roy went to HW and back, which was more of an achievement.

I've no problem with you saying Joe moved up and beat the man, but you can't claim that he was a two weight champ, and the IBO's got nothing to do with anything. He wouldn't have been a two weight champ had he gotten the IBO and the Ring belt.


With regards to the other points, how could Collins' victory over Benn be great?

He was finished.

He'd retired once, and had to have a large bet just to motivate himself.


With regards to a unification, do you think if Roy had beaten Collins and he'd have been the IBF and the WBO champ, that he'd have been regarded throughout the boxing world as the unified champ at SMW?

You're kidding yourself.

 

Im delighted the Collins-Jones fight that was RECENTLY mooted didnt happen.

Id like to think no commision in the world would OK that fight.

Would have been a complete circus. Im surprised Roy is still allowed fight, let alone a 17 year retired 50 year old Collins

 

Serge,


Your post was great!

Ha!


Unfortunately, all my posts are from my girlfriends iphone, so I can't quote everything you've typed and respond to it in it's entirety.


Now you know about my man crush on Roy.

Everyone on here knows about it.

I wouldn't even try and deny it.

But I'm not clicking on a link that shows his c**k, you crazy b*stard!

Ha!

Did you see the girl he was seeing?


Now I'll try and address everything else.


First off, Steve Collins deserves an enormous amount of respect.

There's not many guys who truly wanted to fight Roy in his prime.

He chased Roy and was desperate to fight him, and he was convinced that he could beat him.

The guy was a warrior.

Everyone knows that Roy wanted nothing to do with him.


But there's a difference in not wanting to fight someone, and ducking them out of a fear of losing.

When a guy doesn't fight someone, I look at two things:


1. Did/does the opponent present a huge stylistic problem?

2. What did the fighter in question (Roy) do instead?


That's what I look at, along with other factors as well.


Now Collins wasn't a devastating puncher.

He didn't possess more skill.

He wasn't as fast.

He wasn't a southpaw.

He didn't hold any physical advantages over Roy.


Now look who Roy fought in his career.

He fought Hopkins, Toney, Tarver, Ruiz and Joe etc.

Also, he offered Liles a fight, Bernard priced himself out of a rematch, and a fight with Evander at HW was almost made.


Now surely, Roy fighting Joe at almost 40, had to have been a bigger challenge than fighting Collins at 27?

Surely, fighting Ruiz at 34, had to have been a bigger challenge?

Surely, dropping back from HW to fight Tarver at almost 35 at LHW, had to have been a bigger challenge?

Yes/no?


Collins was a great fighter in his own right, and he was as hard as nails. But the truth is, his biggest wins were over two faded fighters.

What exactly would have made Roy so scared?

It's illogical for a guy to run from a SMW at 27, to pursue fights at HW in his mid 30's.


Now Roy didn't have a lot to gain by fighting Collins, especially when he'd moved to LHW.

Roy would have been trashed had he fought a retired SMW who'd never fought at the weight.

Yes, he collapsed three months after he'd gotten in the ring with Roy. So clearly it was a blessing that he didn't fight anyone at that stage.


Now IMHO, had Collins brought huge money, or a major belt to the table, Roy would have fought him.

You're only looking from Collins's perspective.

He didn't bring a lot to the table, and he wasn't a mandatory.

Now you can't deny that Roy fought and beat better fighters than Collins.


So while I respect Collins, I don't see what all the fuss is about.


With regards to Gunn, of course he was upset. But the last I heard, they couldn't sell the TV rights. Now you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Gunn's fight with Glen Johnson was televised?


Vlad Hyrnov is trying to steer Roy towards a CW title shot. Which IMHO, is a huge mistake. But he has contacts in Europe, and can get Roy certain fights, plus exposure.

Now Roy got brutally knocked out by Lebedev, yet still signed to fight Kostecki, and is still chasing down other hard hitters.

Which tells me that he swerved Gunn, on the advice of Hrynov, and it was a business decision.

If Roy had've been afraid of Gunn, he would never have fought Lebedev etc.

Again, it's illogical, just like the notion that Roy feared Collins.


Great debate!

 

I believe Joe could have boxed till 2010 and beat Tarver by UD, Johnson by UD and Dawson by UD during that time.
Joe was only 35 when he retired, if he was motived and wanted more he would have boxed on.
After his split with FW he would have picked the fights he wanted and would have beaten what LHW had to offer at the time.

I base this on a few things.

1 - G Johnson is older than Joe, Joe woulnd't have lost to Clinton Woods for example
2 - Tarver was past his prime and lost to Hopkins who Joe would beat the following year. In ugly fashion as you say, hardly Joe's fault seeing Hopkins clearly spoiled that fight.
3 - Dawson, was Dawson from 2007 a different animal to the one who lost to Pascal in 2010? I think they were the same fighter.
Pascal lost a UD to Carl Froch in 2008. Joe wouldn't be losing a UD to Carl Froch in 2008.
If Froch can outbox Pascal who went on to outbox Dawson... Then, Joe would beat Dawson without too many problems because the general consensus around here is that Joe would handily beat Carl Froch.

As for a rematch with Hopkins in Wales?
I won't deny the first fight was close, it was. It was only THAT close due to the knock-down. 10-8 rd to Hopkins
If Joe just played safe in a rematch and did what he did to Hopkins in the 2nd half of their first fight I don't see any pitfalls to this encounter.
It would merely be a case of what Floyd did to Maidana recently.
Joe adapted to Hopkins style and outworked him in the 2nd half of the fight.
As Floyd did.
He'd simply continue that trend in any rematch.

 

Speaking of the rematch, it would be in Wales also.

Hopkins won't get away with his fouling.

He'd lose by wide UD in that fight.

 

DM was stripped of 2 of the titles in suspicious circumstances and then Jones avoided him.
That's not unifying a division.
That's using politics to your advantage.

DM was the Unified champion because he never lost the titles. They were stripped off him to please Don King, and feed the hype machine.

Christ, could you imagine Wlad getting stripped of the titles because he won't leave Germany these days.

Fact, DM was the unified champion. He won them fairly.
Jones, if he wanted the titles was obligated to travel to Germany and win them.
WBA and IBO never wanted Jones to travel to Germany so screwed DM out of the belts.

 

So, using your logic, Hopkins wasnt "The man" when Calzaghe beat him.

Hopkins gained his recognition from beating Tarver, who beat Jones.

If Jones wasnt the man at 175, then neiother was Hopkins when Calzaghe fought him.

The fact is that everyone considered Jones the #1 LHW at the time, lineal title be damned.

Cotto is the lineal champ at MW now, does that make him superior to GGG?

 

Imperial has explained in detail what happened with the belts.

He's also posted links in the past.

Roy didn't avoid DM, he just didn't want to go to Germany.

Now if DM felt hard done by, and he wanted his titles back, why didn't he try and fight Roy, instead of fighting his leftovers plus other subpar opposition in Germany?

 

!!!!

I never said Jones wasn't the man after DM lost for the first time.

When DM was active and able. HE was the man, whenever you like it or not.

97-03 DM was unified champion, politics aside.

03 onwards

There's been a few guys, Jones was the man till Tarver broke his glass.
Top two LHW going at it as it should have been with Jones and DM when they were the top 2

When Tarver was the man he beat Johnson in the 2nd bout and had the belt till he ran into Hopkins, who at the time was number 2 in the division.
Hopkins beat Tarver and now was THE guy.
Hopkins vacated the IBO belt!
That doesn't relegate him to not being the guy.

When Joe faced Hopkins, he was still THE guy, belt or not.