joe calzague couldnt lace roy jones boots in his prime

You're dodging my question. How are wins over the guys I listed good wins?

 

They weren't great wins, but they were good wins.

You should already know this.


You need to take certain things into consideration.

Reggie Johnson was still a capable fighter, and he was beaten with absolute ease.

Harding posed a stylistic problem, being a big southpaw, who'd also beaten Tarver.

Gonzalez was a decent fighter, and Roy beat him with absolute ease. Then a few years later, he went on to beat Dariusz. I can accept that Dariusz was past his best, but Gonzalez had to have been capable, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to have beaten even a faded version of Daruisz.

So they have to be classed as being good wins.


Roy's victory over Hill, was a very good win. He was faded, but that body shot was brutal. Roy was the only person to ever stop him.

Roy's rematch win over Griffin was great. He knocked a 180 plus fighter out, with a lead uppercut.

Roy's wins over Ruiz and Tarver were also great, due to the circumstances.


Now I've answered your question, so you can answer mine.


If you don't think Roy's wins over Tarver and Ruiz etc, were great, then why do you keep talking about Collins and Roch etc?

Because if you don't rate those wins for Roy, you damn sure wouldn't have rated a win over Collins etc.

That much is obvious.

If the knockout of Griffin doesn't impress you, then why would a victory over Roch have impressed you?

It clearly wouldn't have.


You're just looking for an angle all of the time.


Now list me the top wins for Roch, Collins and Dariusz etc, and we'll see how they compare.

 

or list joe calzaghes top only one -Kessler.

 

How have I failed when you have admitted Jones wasnt 40 when he fought Calzaghe. You self pwned atsch. What a joke

 

bailey,

I was quoting what Frank himself has said.

What's wrong with you?

Now don't you think it's odd, that Enzo talked him into it, even though Enzo has said that he wouldn't let him fight if he was injured?

Why would Frank have talked him into fighting while injured, when there was so much at stake?

Think about it.

 

He was only 9 weeks from his 40th.

 

You quoted what Frank was thinking, which you wouldnt know.
I agreed with you about a confidence issue, but you seem to be looking for more

 

He wasnt a 40 something then was he! Which is what Herol had said before

 

haha yes fortysomething with a few weeks to spare.

are you counting a few weeks, or are you understanding its only joe who does this? choose carefully. choose cowardzaghe.

 

No, I've quoted what he said.

Go and read the interviews.

He clearly thought that Joe had lost his bottle.


You haven't agreed with me, regarding his confidence.


Why can't you answer the two questions?


1. Why would Enzo have talked him into fighting?

2. Why would Frank have talked him into fighting?


Again, Enzo has said in the past, that he wouldn't let Joe fight if he was injured.

Again, it was one of Frank's most important nights as a promoter.

 

You're going to argue over 9 weeks?

 

Loudon as always fighting the good fight on these threads.
I've found arguing with Bailey to be completely pointless,but I admire you for doing so!

Has he done his bit where he explains how Mario Veit was a top win"

 

that's what I call a bailey flop.

waiting till the best turn are turning 40something plus before being miraculously cured of fear of flying and daring to face them. How utterly cowardzaghe.

now what is your explanation for joe's miraculous cure for his fear of flying once the legends were turning 40+?