Who ranks highest in the ATG list? roy jones, hopkins or calzaghe.

in 2008 roy realised he was never going to get back to being good again, and was starting his paycheque bum of the year tour of the world, its still running.

 

bailey,

We've covered all of this before. But here goes.

I shouldn't have to explain to you why it was weak. Your stats aren't going to change anything. Once again, you need to put things into context. Because even in the weakest division in boxing, there will be a champ with a belt. There could be an undefeated champ that's 30-0, and on paper he looks amazing. But you need to look at things objectively.

We've discussed this many times before. I said from 93-98 there were great fighters who fought there. Then in 2004, things started brightening up with Kessler and Lacy starting to emerge.

In between it was weak, with Joe facing substandard WBO mandatories for the most part

What don't you understand about that?

What do you mean JUST the one?

Roy unified at 175, then dropped then belts to go to HW, then dropped back and reclaimed them.

No.

Different circumstances. Rival promoters etc. Joe wasn't an interesting enough proposition for the worlds best fighter in the late 90's/early 00's.

You're just throwing around names. He beat Hill, Griffin, De Valle, Johnson, Gonzalez, Harding and Tarver. Tiozzo wasn't at 175, Erdei?

No fiction at all. Roy was universally recognised as the best fighter in the world. Joe won the vacant WBO against Eubank, before beating Lacy and Kessler who had won vacant belts, 9 years later.

He proved that he was a good fighter.

What do you want me to note? Tarver was a good fighter. The rubber match was pointless in my opinion, because Roy hadn't fought since Johnson, and didn't even have a tune up.

You've asked me this about 5 times previously. Are you saying that Jirov wasn't a good win? What if I analyse the majority of Joe's opponents and ask what their best five wins were? I'd just get stats thrown at me, right?

Yes, that happens. But again, Hill was only knocked out that one time, and he went on to beat Tiozzo in a round two years later. He'd also recently beaten Maske. Hill was a decent fighter, and that was a great body shot. He deserves credit.

Stop spinning things. Toney at LHW was still a good fighter. After LHW, he had success at CW and HW. He'd proved before and after LHW that he was a great fighter. Griffin also proved in those two fights that he was a very good fighter. Again, who did Veit beat who was in Toney's league?

 

bailey,

Correct. Because you're not allowing for circumstances, because you're narrow minded. All you can see is - Hopkins beat Tarver, and Joe beat Hopkins.

Roy beat a dangerous southpaw, at 35, after burning muscle, having had 50 fights. But you're telling me that Joe scraping past Hopkins in 2008 was better? No chance.

What other wins of Joe's do you rate better than Roy's win over Tarver?

???

You can't automatically give Joe a pass for not wanting Tarver in 2004, because he ended up beating Hopkins in 2008, who'd beaten Tarver.

You didn't need to type any of the above. Because I said in my previous post "I could say...." as in using your logic. I was just giving you an example of something using the logic that you use, and not allowing for circumstances and looking at things objectively.

We're not debating the above. We're looking from Roy's own perspective, and the circumstances at the time.

This is what I'm trying to get across to you.

I think that Eubank was a better fighter than Tarver. But I think that Roy's win over Tarver was better than Joe's over Eubank.

The reason I think that, is because of circumstances.

Once again, looking from Roy's perspective, Tarver was a tall, dangerous southpaw with a point to prove. Roy was almost 35, and he'd burnt actual muscle, and he'd had 50 fights.

Eubank was a great fighter, who had great wins over Watson and Benn etc. But at the time he fought Joe, he wasn't that same guy. He'd had close fights with Schommer, Close and Benn II, and he'd been beaten by Collins, was at the end of his career, and was preparing for a LHW, when on 11 days notice had to prepare for Joe.

This is what annoys me with you.

You only see black and white stats.

Joe didn't beat the guy who'd beaten Watson and Benn etc.

It would be like me saying how great Danny Green is, because he'd knocked out the guy who'd beaten Hopkins, Toney, Tarver and Ruiz etc.

You need to put things into context.

So I'm not saying that Tarver is/was better than Eubank, Kessler and Hopkins.

But under the circumstances, I believe that Roy's win over him, was better than Joe's wins over those guys.

Do you understand?

Even if Tarver wasn't as good as Hopkins, Roy's win over him can still be better than Joe's over Hopkins.

I agree, I'm just stating that you can't automatically assume that Joe would have won, just because he'd beaten Hopkins, who'd beaten Tarver.