Calzaghe would've gotten his ass kicked if this was 8 years ago

This was a depressing fight. I am glad that I didn't buy it... I'm still not a Calzaghe fan. His record is still built on the backs of UK bums and old men. It sickens me that Roy Jones's name is now added to this list, but with his name, there should be an *. Calzaghe is nowhere near the legend status of RJJ. And the win tonight doesn't mean jack shit because he didn't fight the real RJJ, the way boxing fans remember him. Calzaghe is an old man as well. They are both a shadow of their former selves. No excuses.

Stop posting? Son, I think people respect me more than you. You are a nobody, and should learn how to write properly as well. You say his boxing technique changed, which is true. It became BETTER, just like every fighter gets better with time. I don't think there was a beter version of Calzaghe than the one that fought Lacy. Lacy made him look better than he was, but that was around the time he became complete as a fighter and was younger as well. He might have had more planet nuking power, but that was it. I know what you guys' agenda is. You want to act as if Joe is so far past it, that it must mean that both him and Jones are at around the same amount of quality. So that gives you goofs a better argument as to why you say Calzaghe would beat Jones prime 4 prime. Stupid argument son. I don't care who respects you. Listen to this...... Joe IS 37, has half the power he did, and has top notch ring generalship. Enough to beat B-Hop. Argue with that?

This was a depressing fight. I am glad that I didn't buy it... I'm still not a Calzaghe fan. His record is still built on the backs of UK bums and old men. It sickens me that Roy Jones's name is now added to this list, but with his name, there should be an *. Calzaghe is nowhere near the legend status of RJJ. And the win tonight doesn't mean jack shit because he didn't fight the real RJJ, the way boxing fans remember him. You have little knowledge of Joe's career, very little. Stop saying how sh*t Roy was and start praising Joe. Are you one of the people who said Hopkins was gone?

well it wasn't eight years ago, it was this saturday so that's too bad,roy lost and he wanted this fight so you can't take credit away from joe

if joe is so great than why didnt he move up in weight 7-8 years ago What is your opinion of Bernard Hopkins?

if joe is so great than why didnt he move up in weight 7-8 years ago when RJJ was in his prime? why did he wait till RJJ was 2 months away from 40 to fight him? Cause he knew a prime Roy would hav whooped his a$$. So instead he stayed in his home country fighting bums and journeymen in a weak division for over a decade. In the UK Calzaghe maybe an ATG but outside the UK he aint sh!t. He will never be considered an ATG outside of the UK. End of.

calzaghe never should have tried to make it in the usa. it takes a lot more than a girly style and fighting old men to impress us cause we are real fans. he has tarnished any legacy he ever built by looking like such a clown in his last 2 fights. the biggest joke in history. as far as im concerned joe calzage killed boxing. couldn't hav said it better my self

Are you suggesting that Calzaghe is in his prime now? YES, they are saying that. Some anyways. Ridiculous isn't it. Solid post through and through squiggy.

oh and Calzaghe would've gotten his ass kicked if this was 8 years ago Me auntie would be me uncle if she had a pair o bollocks.

calzaghe never should have tried to make it in the usa. it takes a lot more than a girly style and fighting old men to impress us cause we are real fans. he has tarnished any legacy he ever built by looking like such a clown in his last 2 fights. Joe looked good in his last fight, what are you on about? He looked bad against Hopkins but it's been a long time since anyone looked good against Bernard Hopkins! You think he would have beaten Roy, prime for prime? I mean, respect paid and all.. But do you? My perspective is that Roy would likely have won a decision but it would be close, and it would be tough. Calzaghe was a good puncher and very fast. I think that Jones never had quite Calzaghe's output but Calzaghe never quite had Roy's power but in terms of skill, fitness and overall ability they were a good match. It would have been a good fight probably and I think that Roy would have taken it. But there's a world of difference between that and the ludicrous notion that it would be uncompetitive. Lets say he fought this version of Joe while he was 10 years younger Let's say he fought a 27 year old Joe while he was 10 years younger... That would be better. If Bernard Hopkins had fought this version of Jones the outcome would have been different, no? His WIIIIDEEE looping shots If you don't like a fighter it has become de rigeur on NSB to describe their punches as "wide looping shots". What's with that? It sounded good when Brian Kenny said it once? One of the fighters in this gif is throwing a "wide looping shot". The other is throwing a punch as straight as an arrow. http://www.fightreport.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/joe-calzaghe_roy-jones_b.gif Lennox Lewis was at his greatest fighting years in his mid 30s, when he declined a bit physically. He had his greatest wins, won the most titles and simply looked the best version of a boxer at THAT age. But in his mid 20s, he was much more explosive, faster, YOUNGER. But he was KO'd by McCall, had a sloppy slugfest with a washed up Mercer, was technically nowhere near the fighter he was to become. Are you going to tell me that Lewis wasn't in his prime in his mid 30s? Seriously? Or how about Bernard Hopkins? In his 20s he was a raw, fast, powerful and young Lion that lost against easily against elite fighter Jones. In his 30s and even 40s he had learned so much technically, that while he wasn't as fast and young as he was before, he was a much better fighter because of his skills that progressed. Tell me, when was Hopkins' prime? Are you suggesting that Calzaghe is in his prime now?

JC is pretty much in his prime,, That shows How mutch you no. id stop posting if i was you. So after been the world champ 4 11 years, coursing a very bad left hand. His boxing technique had to change to protect the hand. Less power also.I hoppe he retires. Joe was in is peak 29,30. His words not mine. Its plaine obvious too. you can see the diffrence if u watch jjoe at 28, and now he nearly 37. theres a massive diffrrence. How can u say joe at his peak 37 looool. you hooligan lol. Stop posting? Son, I think people respect me more than you. You are a nobody, and should learn how to write properly as well. You say his boxing technique changed, which is true. It became BETTER, just like every fighter gets better with time. I don't think there was a beter version of Calzaghe than the one that fought Lacy. Lacy made him look better than he was, but that was around the time he became complete as a fighter and was younger as well. He might have had more planet nuking power, but that was it. I know what you guys' agenda is. You want to act as if Joe is so far past it, that it must mean that both him and Jones are at around the same amount of quality. So that gives you goofs a better argument as to why you say Calzaghe would beat Jones prime 4 prime.

"stannish"? I suppose saying Calzaghe would have beaten PRIME RJJ based on last night isn't far stretched? Tell me what was so diffirent about Calzaghe before this. This is the kind of fighter that ages very well. I think i'm gonna vomit the next time I hear someone say "Jones is only 2 years older than Joe". EVery fighter ages diffirently, peaks at a diffirent time and declines at a diffirent time. Joe is really not that old and I haven't seen anything that would suggest that he is declining physically, and if anything he is much better technically. Good job of ignoring the rest. Tarver was in his prime. Johnson was like B-hop, older physically but better technically. JC is pretty much in his prime. JC is pretty much in his prime,, That shows How mutch you no. id stop posting if i was you. So after been the world champ 4 11 years, coursing a very bad left hand. His boxing technique had to change to protect the hand. Less power also.I hoppe he retires. Joe was in is peak 29,30. His words not mine. Its plaine obvious too. you can see the diffrence if u watch jjoe at 28, and now he nearly 37. theres a massive diffrrence. How can u say joe at his peak 37 looool. you hooligan lol.

LOL. Either it went over your head again, or you just refuse to acknowledge it. I think it's a combination of the 2. Sorry to say it but you're a typical biased fan, and it is clear to anyone that you are not willing to accept it with your close minded lack of knowledge. Actually, you're the biased one. You're saying fighters in their mid 30s who beat Roy Jones are in their primes. That is a joke.

Sorry guy, you have no point. Roy Jones is out of his prime as are the fighters that beat him. If Jones in his 30s lost a step or two, so did the guys who are roughly the same age, meaning they are not in their primes either. The funny thing that kills your entire argument, Roy beat Tarver the first time. LOL. Either it went over your head again, or you just refuse to acknowledge it. I think it's a combination of the 2. Sorry to say it but you're a typical biased fan, and it is clear to anyone that you are not willing to accept it with your close minded lack of knowledge.

I see, why didn't you tell me earlier that this is the only thing that wasn't clear to you. I did explain it, though. The way YOU define prime is by looking at numbers i.e. AGE. Ok then, lets see if that holds any credibility here. Lennox Lewis was at his greatest fighting years in his mid 30s, when he declined a bit physically. He had his greatest wins, won the most titles and simply looked the best version of a boxer at THAT age. But in his mid 20s, he was much more explosive, faster, YOUNGER. But he was KO'd by McCall, had a sloppy slugfest with a washed up Mercer, was technically nowhere near the fighter he was to become. Are you going to tell me that Lewis wasn't in his prime in his mid 30s? Seriously? Or how about Bernard Hopkins? In his 20s he was a raw, fast, powerful and young Lion that lost against easily against elite fighter Jones. In his 30s and even 40s he had learned so much technically, that while he wasn't as fast and young as he was before, he was a much better fighter because of his skills that progressed. Tell me, when was Hopkins' prime? I think you're getting my point, I hope. I could give you more examples but I don't have the time for it. My point stands. Sorry guy, you have no point. Roy Jones is out of his prime as are the fighters that beat him. If Jones in his 30s lost a step or two, so did the guys who are roughly the same age, meaning they are not in their primes either. The funny thing that kills your entire argument, Roy beat Tarver the first time.

Sorry mija, I'm the one who educated you. Only a Jones stan would say that about fighters in their mid 30s. I see, why didn't you tell me earlier that this is the only thing that wasn't clear to you. I did explain it, though. PRIME doesn't always mean "physical peak". It doesn't always mean that when a fighter is at his fastest and has his best reflexes, he is somehow the best he will ever be. When Lennox Lewis, Bernard Hopkins etc. were at their greatest fighting years, they were already past their physical peak. The way YOU define prime is by looking at numbers i.e. AGE. Ok then, lets see if that holds any credibility here. Lennox Lewis was at his greatest fighting years in his mid 30s, when he declined a bit physically. He had his greatest wins, won the most titles and simply looked the best version of a boxer at THAT age. But in his mid 20s, he was much more explosive, faster, YOUNGER. But he was KO'd by McCall, had a sloppy slugfest with a washed up Mercer, was technically nowhere near the fighter he was to become. Are you going to tell me that Lewis wasn't in his prime in his mid 30s? Seriously? Or how about Bernard Hopkins? In his 20s he was a raw, fast, powerful and young Lion that lost against easily against elite fighter Jones. In his 30s and even 40s he had learned so much technically, that while he wasn't as fast and young as he was before, he was a much better fighter because of his skills that progressed. Tell me, when was Hopkins' prime? I think you're getting my point, I hope. I could give you more examples but I don't have the time for it. My point stands.

Glad I could educate you. Have a good day. Sorry mija, I'm the one who educated you. Tarver was in his prime. Johnson was like B-hop, older physically but better technically. JC is pretty much in his prime. Only a Jones stan would say that about fighters in their mid 30s.

Looking at the whole picture, Tarver, Johnson and Joe weren't in their best fighting years either. Deal with it. Glad I could educate you. Have a good day.

No, i'm going to sit here and tell you that PRIME doesn't always mean "physical peak". It doesn't always mean that when a fighter is at his fastest and has his best reflexes, he is somehow the best he will ever be. When Lennox Lewis, Bernard Hopkins etc. were at their greatest fighting years, they were already past their physical peak. You really have a LONG way to go if you can't even define this. Jones did not suffer trough more wear and tear etc. I never said that was the reason he is so past it nowadays. Boxing is simply not that simple, you have to look at the whole picture. Jones is past it because he is losing his greatest fighting assets because of his AGE. Speed, reflexes, stamina and durability, practically MADE RJJ the great fighter he was. But he is now nearly 40 years old, and so he can't be at that "superhuman level" anymore. Can't get away with it anymore. Looking at the whole picture, Tarver, Johnson and Joe weren't in their best fighting years either. Deal with it.

So you're going to sit here and tell me that men who are in their mid 30s have the same speed and reflexes that they do in their mid to late 20s? If Jones at 35 and beyond wasn't in his prime, neither are any of the fighters who are pretty much the same age. If you want to go the route of saying Jones had a longer career and suffered through wear and tear, try it. For years Jones was known as someone who rarely if ever was touched cleanly. How much damage could he have suffered if he was rarely hit flush? None of these fighters were or are in their primes at the time of beating Jones, Tarver, Johnson or Calzaghe. No, i'm going to sit here and tell you that PRIME doesn't always mean "physical peak". It doesn't always mean that when a fighter is at his fastest and has his best reflexes, he is somehow the best he will ever be. When Lennox Lewis, Bernard Hopkins etc. were at their greatest fighting years, they were already past their physical peak. You really have a LONG way to go if you can't even define this. Jones did not suffer trough more wear and tear etc. I never said that was the reason he is so past it nowadays. Boxing is simply not that simple, you have to look at the whole picture. Jones is past it because he is losing his greatest fighting assets because of his AGE. Speed, reflexes, stamina and durability, practically MADE RJJ the great fighter he was. But he is now nearly 40 years old, and so he can't be at that "superhuman level" anymore. Can't get away with it anymore.