Prime Roy would beat prime Calzaghe at 168

didn't answer a simple question. just responded with bs. nice.

 

if its so simple why are you asking it?

is it a complex one for you? u so easy to destroy, mate.

 

By prime Roy do you mean PED-enhanced Roy? If so, we'd have to match him up against a PED-enhanced Calzaghe. See what drug cheats like Jones do the sport? they make a mockery of it and sell you a lie.

 

It's a boxing forum.

This is what we do here. We speculate on what we think would have happened, by giving our honest opinions based on what evidence we have to hand.

 

yeah cos brian neilsen beat a prime holmes too.

stupid post.

 

Joe had everything to make it big in America. He had great skills, an exciting style, the ego, the looks, and his Italian heritage etc.

 

I can remember when Roy used to get criticised for not trying to close the show. But then again, if he beat a decent fighter easily, people then said he wasn't fighting anybody.

I used to feel for him. Because I honestly believe that at certain times in his career, he was in a no-win situation.

 

Literally only a 3 year difference between them. Joe was born in 1972 and Roy was born in 1969. Again stupid thread is STUPID!

When Roy lost to Calzaghe it's his own fault. Don't blame it on his genetics making him age and lose his edge

And the same for goes Manny. When Pacquiao lost to Mayweather don't blame it on him being out of his "prime" or already have suffered a brutal KO loss like Jones jr.

Tired of the excuses. They BOTH failed in trying to defeat the undefeated Calzaghe and the undefeated Mayweather.

Haters will make threads trying to discredit their records rather than accept this reality. Losers

 

:good

 

Just over 3 years. But the point is, Joe was still an elite fighter in 2008, coming off of two of his best wins, whereas Roy hadn't had a top level win for 5 years.

 

Well on this occasion, I feel as though I've a right too.

1. As you know, I've just served a 10 day ban for using abusive language in describing Indian Flyweight 'Prince' Patel.

2. I was on a promise last night, but my girl fell asleep.

3. More importantly, that bloody Enzo Mac has ruined my Christmas.


In the words of Roy Levista: "Pepsi cola in the house!"

Merry Christmas!

 

If you think the thread is stupid, find a different one.

Again, this is what we do on a boxing forum.

Again, boxing is defined by levels and the timing of the fights. Age is only one factor. Joe was a top Pound for Pound fighter in 2008, whereas Roy was 3-3 in his previous 6, without a top level win for 5 years. So although Joe himself was faded, he was clearly still elite.

Their fight in 2008, isn't really relevant to this discussion.

Losers?

Joe was the better man on the night. He was a great fighter. But it doesn't mean he was greater overall.

What excuses?

 

The obvious excuse, blaming how they performed and what happened on their age. And no because people that come to this thread should know that there was only a 3 year difference between them.

It's bs when people try to find excuses on why someone lost or why they would win an imaginary rematch up if things were different (e.g. Pac's shoulder not being injured, Floyd not being on IV)

When these fighters enter the ring THEY KNOW 100% WHAT THEY'RE GETTING INTO. Roy knew he was 3-3 in his last previous bouts and that Joe was still undefeated. Accept the consequences good or bad of what happens when you're fully aware of your decision. Roy felt he could win against Joe in that 2008 match, and guess what? He didn't.

 

Roy really fell apart when his speed faded. It's because he didn't have the fundamentals to fall back on.