(Prime) Roy Jones Jr vs Joe Calzaghe

[Clegg]

yes but Calzaghe's style is not dependent on reflexes when u hit 34 its commonsense your reflexes are gonna slow down & if u keep your hands as low as Jones thier is a huge possibilty u aint gonna get up if u do get caught & it dont matter if u are Calzaghe or Jones when u get caught like that

Calzaghe was older when hit by Hopkins than Jones was when hit by Tarver. Reflexes may explain why Jones was caught, but not why he couldn't get up.

Marco Barrera has been knocked out & he has a solid chin

He was TKO'd, not KO'd. If you watch that fight, he actually might've made it to the end of the round if his corner hadn't run in. Either way, he didn't take a ten count twice like Jones did.

certain styles are more conducive to fight for longer than others ,watch Ray Leonard when his reflexes slowed down he was stopped by Hector Camacho & hurt many times against Terry Norris ,J C Chavez was on the deck against Frankie Randall & got stoped by Kostya Tszyu

Chavez was old and shot, had been in many wars and already lost several times by the time he fought Tszyu. He spent 6 rounds getting beaten up by one of the p4p hardest punchers in the sport, and still didn't take a ten count(he was knocked down but got up and took more flush shots before being stopped on his feet). Jones was KO'd by a single shot in the 2nd round. It's not the same thing at all.

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.

[bsrizpac]

No, he didn't KO Griffin the first time. If you want to say that the DQ was unfair then fine, but don't try and claim it as a KO win for Jones. The official result is what it is, fair or not. And it wasn't Jones giving Griffin a rematch, it was the other way around. Griffin was the one with the W and the belts.

And how was the Mitchell fight anymore of a life and death battle than Jones-Del Valle? The KD's aside, Calzaghe and Jones dominated those fights and won clearly and convincingly.

From where I stand, and I'm no mind reader, but Griffin was not making it to the end of that fight DQ or not. You really think he was?

As for the rematch Jones took it. Something your boy Joe is incapable of doing.

[Sweet Pea 50]

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

[abadger]

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.

[bsrizpac]

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.

Oh wait, so when people get old at the end of their career bad things happen? Way to go Captain Obvious. I'm stunned by your boxing intellect.

[SkillspayBills]

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.

[abadger]

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.

[napkin]

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.

[Knicksman20]

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.

[abadger]

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.