Peak Roy Jones vs. Peak Joe Calzaghe

True.

He was decent and nothing more.

But he did spar many rounds with Roy, which obviously gave him a small advantage over Roy's other opponents.

 

:good

I think the outcome would have depended on how Joe fought.

But Roy in his mid 20's, was on another level to any version of Joe.

 

At 168 a tough tough fight. When they did fight at 175 both were past there best and Joe was fighting at a weight above his best. I think Roy was highly talented but Joe could rise to the occasion and had a strong will to win. Joe could match Roy with the speed, Roy had the edge in power but Calzage could bang when he set down on his punches. Very athletic bout and I am thinking Joe sets the pace to his advantage.....close decision Calzage and I even surprised myself with that pick

 

I respect your opinion, but I can't see that at all.

It seems absolutely obvious to me, that Roy in his mid 20's, was on another level.

Roy didn't just have the edge in power and speed. He had better footwork, better reflexes, he threw more variations of shots, and he was far more accurate. Not forgetting, as great as Joe was, he was always relatively easy to hit, especially with straight and overhand rights. Roy would have landed without too much effort. Whereas Roy was hard to hit clean back in the mid 90's.

Roy was just a better fighter.

He had a better defence, and a better offense.


:good

 

yes true Roy destroys Cakezagghy, being superior to wbo joe in every department except brute fitness.

 

Prime RJJ destroys prime Calzaghe. End of.

 

Would that be in a similar manner in which Calzaghe schooled him?

 

Foxy,

What do you mean, what has he got to do with anything?

He was his manager for 90% of his career.

As I said in my previous post, Frank W, and Joe and Enzo, all claimed in 2007, that Joe was a more complete fighter, than what he was ten years earlier.

In a statement by Joe, (talking in third person) he said that the current Joe Calzaghe, would have kicked the ars* of the Joe Calzaghe that beat Chris Eubank.

He said that just prior to the Kessler fight.

Below is a similar statement.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/boxing/17804/Joe-s-perfect-ten


No, Roy at 37, was nothing at all like he was when he was 25.

But every fighter ages differently.

Many people claim that Hopkins was better in his 30's, than what he'd been in his 20's.

Do you seriously think that boxing fans who weren't fans of Roy's, rated that win?

Isn't it obvious what point I was making?

My point is, what Joe did, had been done four years earlier.

I've spoken to fans of Joe's who didn't think that the fight was in any way relevant.

What do you mean?

Of course Roy trained hard. But it still didn't make it a credible win.

He deserves zero credit.

Roy was washed up, and he admitted as much on three occasions.

Also, nobody mouthed off. Both fighters were very respectful to each other, and they negotiated a deal amongst themselves.

You're living in a fantasy.

Again, even Joe's fans don't rate the win.

Many of them wanted him to go out on a Pavlik or Dawson win.

I could ask you the exact same question when debating about Joe.

The only reference that I've made to this fight, is when I said that Joe's showboating, would have been like Holmes mocking Ali with an Ali shuffle.

Which obviously didn't happen, because Holmes had more class than Joe.

I said that Joe should have been embarrassed by his showboating, against a guy who'd he'd repeatedly said was shot.

 

We'll try again.

W****n was NOT the manager of Calzaghe at the time of the Jones fight. FACT

Therefore his opinion on Calzaghe's worth as a fighter at thjat time is no more valid than yours mine, or anyone elses, ,unless of course you believe that Fw**k takes a hands on approach to his fighters training.

The Kessler fight was a full year before the Jones fight, with Calzaghe fast approaching 37 by then. It is worse than nonsensical to claim Joe was nearer his prime at 37 than he was at 25, though he was obviously a lot more experienced. Why then would he retire 3 months after beating Jones if by your logic he was at the top of his game. Common sense tells you that there would have been a lot of easy money to be made if that were the case.

Here are 2 of your quotes that sum up your false argument.

" So what if Roy signed the contract and took the fight. "


" It doesn't make the win credible."

What you are in effect saying is Jones has every right to fight whoever he likes but if they win it doesn't count.

In fact what you are actually trying to put across is every defeat suffered by Jones post Ruiz doesn't count.

That is the sort of idiotic logic of those freaks who join a religious cult, and spend the rest of their lives trying to convince everyone that their leader is some kind of modern day god, who is above question, reproach, or criticism.

Total, and utter garbage.

 

Prime for prime, yes, it would be similar but in reverse.
Except Roy Jones wouldn't be knocked down by Calzaghe in the first round.

 

Foxy 01,

Look, I'm honestly loving these debates between us. But you're either not reading my posts in their entirety, or you're deliberately ignoring certain parts of them.

I initially said, that in 2007/2008, Frank, Joe, and Enzo, all agreed that Joe was a more complete fighter then, than what he was when he was younger.

You're right about him splitting with Frank before he fought Roy. I know that.

But how can you ignore what Joe himself said, and what his father Enzo said?

I posted you a link.

Did you not read it?

Joe said he was still on top, and he was better than he was five years ago.

If you don't think that Joe was still an elite fighter in 2008, then you are arguing against what Joe said.

Joe was still on top when he fought Roy.

Do some research.

Joe states that he retired while he was still on top, and after 25 years of boxing, he'd had enough. He said he'd reached his goals, and if he carried on, he knew he'd get beat. He said in 2007, he was a better fighter than when he fought Eubank.

You aren't reading what I've wrote.

I said that beating Roy at almost 40 years of age, after saying that he was washed up on three occasions, holds no value.

Especially, as Roy had also suffered bad knock out defeats over four years earlier.

I'm not saying that Roy's losses don't count.

I'm saying that after Tarver and Johnson had beaten him, any win after that point, held no value to the victor.

Where have I said that?

What are you talking about?

You have to see things as what they are.

When rating a win, you have to look at any and all circumstances involved.

On paper, it may appear that Joe's win was of value.

But when you dig deep and look at the circumstances, it clearly wasn't.

Why should we praise an elite fighter, for beating a near 40 year old washed up guy, who hadn't had a top level win in 5 years?

Why should we praise him, when he'd laughed that Roy was shot?

Why should we praise him for out boxing him to a decision win, when he'd been out boxed and destroyed over four years earlier?

You tell me.

Tell me why anyone should praise that.

All it was, was a 'cash in the chips fight'.

It was for Joe's bank balance, and for Roy's name to appear on his resume.

Nothing more.

He did nothing that hadn't already been done.

He doesn't deserve any credit for that.

 

:good

 

roy would be knocking joe down several times instead.

 

I think Roy would have been content to pot shot his way to a decision win, unless Joe was really aggressive and poured forward.

If that happened, I envisage Roy dropping him.