(Prime) Roy Jones Jr vs Joe Calzaghe

77.94% :bukkake:

O Rly.......

Very good points & I agree but we have to remember that Jones fighting age was alot older than Tarver & Johnson. Jones has been fighting for a VERY long time (and at the highest level) & that catches up to you no matter who you are or how great your skills are. There's a huge difference between the Jones that fought Tarver & Johnson to the Jones from 1994-2001 where Jones IMO was in his physical prime. That may very well be so. The way I look at is this: When a boxer gets into the ring with an opponent, he is basically saying "here I am, I'm ready to fight". If he has a legacy to defend, then just by being in the ring he is putting it on the line by making that fight a part of it. All fights count, and as boxing fans we shouldn't be making excuses when it doesn't go our fighters way, so long as they are beaten fair and square. I'm sure neither Jones nor the majority his fans suggested he was shot or predicted that he would lose before the fights in which he did so. Hindsight is 20/20 but we have to live with the consequences of our actions in the here and now, whatever they may be. I really do mean this by the way. I get called a nuthugger a lot on these boards, but I promise you that should Joe get beat in his next fight I will happily admit that he wasn't as great as I thought, and I said the same before Hopkins. The whole basis of the claims by me (and other Calzaghe fans too I think) that he is a great boxer rests on my belief that right now, aged 36, he is the best between MW and LHW. If he lost to any of the inferior boxers around him then he wouldn't be the fighter I think he is, end of story.

No. I don't judge a guy on losses that occur after his prime, but I don't discount them either. I'm not saying that Roy Jones was anything other than a brilliant fighter, but in the end he did lose to two very much inferior boxers, both of whom were a similar age to him. He's still excellent, but I feel it just puts a question mark next to the 'unbeatable' tag that seems to have fixed itself to him. Let me put it this way, a fighter seems to be in his prime until he loses, then suddenly he's out of prime and the loss doesn't count. My own favourite, Joe Calzaghe is almost two years older now than Jones was when he lost to Tarver, but if he were to lose to his next opponent, absolutely no-one here would allow Calzaghe fans to make the 'he was shot' excuse that seems to be almost completely acceptable in the case of Roy Jones. Very good points & I agree but we have to remember that Jones fighting age was alot older than Tarver & Johnson. Jones has been fighting for a VERY long time (and at the highest level) & that catches up to you no matter who you are or how great your skills are. There's a huge difference between the Jones that fought Tarver & Johnson to the Jones from 1994-2001 where Jones IMO was in his physical prime.

How anyone could vote for Calzaghe is beyond me. There should not be one vote for him. Calzaghe is a great fighter, but he would get the hell beat out of him. The RJJ of 93-97 would murder Calzaghe. There is not one fighter from 100 to 175 that could have beat roy during his prime. Also anyone who thinks a prime Toney would also lose to Calzaghe is blind. Toney was 44-0 when he fought roy and lost. Toney was fighting 4 to 5 to 6 times a year. Calzaghe is way to soft for that.

So you are saying you judge a guy on his losses that occured after his prime? So I am guessing you think SRR isn't anything special considering he lost 18 times after his best years. No. I don't judge a guy on losses that occur after his prime, but I don't discount them either. I'm not saying that Roy Jones was anything other than a brilliant fighter, but in the end he did lose to two very much inferior boxers, both of whom were a similar age to him. He's still excellent, but I feel it just puts a question mark next to the 'unbeatable' tag that seems to have fixed itself to him. Let me put it this way, a fighter seems to be in his prime until he loses, then suddenly he's out of prime and the loss doesn't count. My own favourite, Joe Calzaghe is almost two years older now than Jones was when he lost to Tarver, but if he were to lose to his next opponent, absolutely no-one here would allow Calzaghe fans to make the 'he was shot' excuse that seems to be almost completely acceptable in the case of Roy Jones.

This is what I think too. On talent, no doubt Roy is the man, its what happened to him in the ring later in his career that puts the question marks there. So you are saying you judge a guy on his losses that occured after his prime? So I am guessing you think SRR isn't anything special considering he lost 18 times after his best years.

Don't get me wrong, I rate Jones higher than Calzaghe, but I think some people rate him too highly/seem too willing to accept excuses for his flaws. This is what I think too. On talent, no doubt Roy is the man, its what happened to him in the ring later in his career that puts the question marks there.

That Ether... That shit that makes your soul burn slow..

u were asking a question would roy have done as well without steroids... which means u didnt do your research... u think roy was on steroids his whole career... which makes u a retard where the fuck did i say he was on roids his whole career you stupid fuck.

u were asking a question would roy have done as well without steroids... which means u didnt do your research... u think roy was on steroids his whole career... which makes u a retard

What I think, is you should do your research before saying retarded shit. no need to call me a retard i was just asking jeez is this what this forum is all about name calling some of you need to grow up.

Joe would be a handful for any fighter. But Jones at SMW was jaw-dropping. Yet i think many people didnt see Calzaghe fight in the years before Lacy. He hit harder and faster and was tenacious. Also being a southpaw he could give Jones real trouble. Its very difficult to pick against Jones at his best. He would have taken both Johnson and Tarver apart.

obviously mojack is a prick... seems to be the general concensus

It's ok girls, put your dummies back in. You need not try to convince me about Roid Jones Junior, just the millions of others. :D ________ SIDE EFFECTS FROM PRILOSEC

Ok, fair enough if he gets TKOed through exhaustion but roy got knocked out cold! Which in effect makes joe look worse... because Roy TOWERS over joe on the ATG list... WITH the knockout losses

Oh no! don't mess with me or else I'll argue with you over the Internet. I'll challenge you to a boxing quiz, you bring your books on Roid Jones Junior entitled "I didn't even know they were illegal" and I can bring my fishing books. Then we'll really see who's got the biggest willy! :D Actually why dont you bring your book... about THEY WERE LEGAL, when he took them... 3 years later when they banned the substance, they went BACK and tested his samples and it came up positive... why do u think nothing ever happened? he was never suspended? WHY? for the reason i just gave you. When he took andro... andro was LEGAL.

Ok, fair enough if he gets TKOed through exhaustion but roy got knocked out cold!

Yeah the truth hurts: you've never trained boxing, or studied it. And don't know **** about Andro/Steroids/GNC/Supplements. So keep swinging off Joe's nuts. It's funny how far you have to reach. Here's the truth that hurts you: Roy jones = all time great. Calzaghe = a good fighter who won't be remembered in the same breath. Oh no! don't mess with me or else I'll argue with you over the Internet. I'll challenge you to a boxing quiz, you bring your books on Roid Jones Junior entitled "I didn't even know they were illegal" and I can bring my fishing books. Then we'll really see who's got the biggest willy! :D ________ Hurt from avandia

Reid would have got KOed by a Calzaghe with fresh hands, lucky sod. Joe Looked like a coward by not giving Ried a rematch.