is calzage an all time great if he beats rjj and retires undefeated???

[ATFsven]

I dont get it???

When, during JC's prime was he supposed to fight all the yank legends eh??

He was not popular even in his home country! and he had the WBO belt. so why the **** do all these forum posters who knock Joe blame him for not fighting toney or jones or whoever! how were these fights supposed to be made???

the yanks would not fight him whatever you people think while looking back on it!!
why should prime Jones fight a prime JC when JC is unknown and brings ZERO to the table. They could see he was a bad ass but they would not get any money for fighting him. I am not saying they was scared, far from it. but why risk against an undefeated champ when they can fight a bum for the same cash or more.

NOW joe is a big name he can get these fights. its not his fault.

And before anyone starts i aint a nut hugger! and i think he is an all time great in EUROPE and will be in the hall of fame EASY!

Prime Toney tho would have owned that ass, along with Benn's. Eubank tho would have beaten Toney. IMO

[Kris Silver]

He was clearly a shell of his former self after he had to shed the weight to make LHW. It is quite obvious if you watch the few fights prior to Ruiz then the 3 losses how different a fighter he was. It pretty much ruined him but I don't think he could admit it. He kept trying to fight the same way but without the same juice in the tank.

What double standard? I didn't say anything about Joe not fighting with adversity.

I think so much of it is based on appearances. When someone of Roys stature, held to such high regard with obvious flashy skills, is suddenly not quite able to hit that benchmark, the negative response can be very un balanced. People just see a slight dip in the guy they're used to seeing and think they must be shot and on a slippery slope downwards. That's a serious exaggeration that is all to common on Roy, it's a shame so many doubt athletes just for losing the odd ridiculously high skill benchmark in an area or two.

Truth is he still is pretty damn good, and even recently Tito's been spoken ok about, yet being dominated by Roy is just written off again. Oddly Roys in the position of not being able to do any right because ppl have written him off because their not getting the expected wildly skilful speed and such.

I wasn't accusing you of double standards, but they do exist from those whom don't like to mention or factor in Joe's adversities, whilst at the same time do Roy's. It can be second nature even from top posters because Roy's adversisites are so obvious, exposed and documented aswell.

Also there's a lot of ignorance on Joe's adversities because they aren't so obvious in the ring, and Joe keeps them quiet. Roy's was plain for all to see, he fought in front of everyone at HW, then again soon after back at LHW. So for me the former is not factored in enough, whilst the latter somewhat exaggerated sometimes.

Not to mention the fact most said Roy was an incredible athlete whom can achieve such things. Well he's a professional, so over 2 and a half years since a HW win, you'd expect such a guy to beat a top LHW, he didn't, and in addition, lost badly most of the time. People are too quick to put someone down largely for the wrong reasons at times.

Tito was a good win and Roys showing his class in developing his style to suite, and be more clever with his fights not relying on things - which most don't have the luxury of in the first place. This is something most have had to do at some time or another, adapt and get they're head around what they can do objectively, with a decent skill set, to win. Credit to Roy, I think he's got it sussed, has adapted much like Hops did to become LHW #1, Roy's doing the same, a deserves much more credit for doing so. At the same time he deserves much more criticism for not doing so sooner against Tarver and Johnson, not just the weight excuse applied as 100% of the reason, which isn't the case. The poll on skills shows Roys about even or better than Joe, he's clearly still got the skill set, but people just can't be positive about him anymore.

[IMDAZED]

Yeah, ok.......

So he did he beat for the lineal title? Or is that just bestowed upon the division's best fighter?

Not that I give two ****s about linear titles (Carlos Baldomir, for example) but I'm just curious how you reached this conclusion.

[hishaam15]

Jones didn't have Harding hurt one time during the fight. Harding was actually giving Jones his toughest defense until Harding's ankle broke and the fight was ruled a TKO win for Jones. By no means did he take control of the fight at any point.

Yeah but u cant knock out EVERY opponent. even a Prime Roy. if Harding's ankle didnt break roy would have won an easy UD.

[Brother Blues]

I'd put him in the Hall of Fame....the European one.

[bsrizpac]

I think so much of it is based on appearances. When someone of Roys stature, held to such high regard with obvious flashy skills, is suddenly not quite able to hit that benchmark, the negative response can be very un balanced. People just see a slight dip in the guy they're used to seeing and think they must be shot and on a slippery slope downwards. That's a serious exaggeration that is all to common on Roy, it's a shame so many doubt athletes just for losing the odd ridiculously high skill benchmark in an area or two.

Truth is he still is pretty damn good, and even recently Tito's been spoken ok about, yet being dominated by Roy is just written off again. Oddly Roys in the position of not being able to do any right because ppl have written him off because their not getting the expected wildly skilful speed and such.

I wasn't accusing you of double standards, but they do exist from those whom don't like to mention or factor in Joe's adversities, whilst at the same time do Roy's. It can be second nature even from top posters because Roy's adversisites are so obvious, exposed and documented aswell.

Also there's a lot of ignorance on Joe's adversities because they aren't so obvious in the ring, and Joe keeps them quiet. Roy's was plain for all to see, he fought in front of everyone at HW, then again soon after back at LHW. So for me the former is not factored in enough, whilst the latter somewhat exaggerated sometimes.

Not to mention the fact most said Roy was an incredible athlete whom can achieve such things. Well he's a professional, so over 2 and a half years since a HW win, you'd expect such a guy to beat a top LHW, he didn't, and in addition, lost badly most of the time. People are too quick to put someone down largely for the wrong reasons at times.

Tito was a good win and Roys showing his class in developing his style to suite, and be more clever with his fights not relying on things - which most don't have the luxury of in the first place. This is something most have had to do at some time or another, adapt and get they're head around what they can do objectively, with a decent skill set, to win. Credit to Roy, I think he's got it sussed, has adapted much like Hops did to become LHW #1, Roy's doing the same, a deserves much more credit for doing so. At the same time he deserves much more criticism for not doing so sooner against Tarver and Johnson, not just the weight excuse applied as 100% of the reason, which isn't the case. The poll on skills shows Roys about even or better than Joe, he's clearly still got the skill set, but people just can't be positive about him anymore.

This entire War and Peace length post has been brought to you in a shallow attempt to justify Calzaghe's beating a way past shot fighter. LOL.

[IMDAZED]

I dont get it???

When, during JC's prime was he supposed to fight all the yank legends eh??

He was not popular even in his home country! and he had the WBO belt. so why the **** do all these forum posters who knock Joe blame him for not fighting toney or jones or whoever! how were these fights supposed to be made???

the yanks would not fight him whatever you people think while looking back on it!!
why should prime Jones fight a prime JC when JC is unknown and brings ZERO to the table. They could see he was a bad ass but they would not get any money for fighting him. I am not saying they was scared, far from it. but why risk against an undefeated champ when they can fight a bum for the same cash or more.

NOW joe is a big name he can get these fights. its not his fault.

And before anyone starts i aint a nut hugger! and i think he is an all time great in EUROPE and will be in the hall of fame EASY!

Prime Toney tho would have owned that ass, along with Benn's. Eubank tho would have beaten Toney. IMO

Well that leaves only six other continents.

[Drunk Punch]

Most Americans know **** about Calzaghe so I wouldn't really expect any or many to agree he is ATG.

[Cletus Funk]

So he did he beat for the lineal title? Or is that just bestowed upon the division's best fighter?

Not that I give two ****s about linear titles (Carlos Baldomir, for example) but I'm just curious how you reached this conclusion.

When it's vacated I guess it passes to the next unified champ. In this case, Virgil Hill. Roy fought for titles vacated by Dariusz, he never lost them.

[IMDAZED]

I think so much of it is based on appearances. When someone of Roys stature, held to such high regard with obvious flashy skills, is suddenly not quite able to hit that benchmark, the negative response can be very un balanced. People just see a slight dip in the guy they're used to seeing and think they must be shot and on a slippery slope downwards. That's a serious exaggeration that is all to common on Roy, it's a shame so many doubt athletes just for losing the odd ridiculously high skill benchmark in an area or two.

Truth is he still is pretty damn good, and even recently Tito's been spoken ok about, yet being dominated by Roy is just written off again. Oddly Roys in the position of not being able to do any right because ppl have written him off because their not getting the expected wildly skilful speed and such.

I wasn't accusing you of double standards, but they do exist from those whom don't like to mention or factor in Joe's adversities, whilst at the same time do Roy's. It can be second nature even from top posters because Roy's adversisites are so obvious, exposed and documented aswell.

Also there's a lot of ignorance on Joe's adversities because they aren't so obvious in the ring, and Joe keeps them quiet. Roy's was plain for all to see, he fought in front of everyone at HW, then again soon after back at LHW. So for me the former is not factored in enough, whilst the latter somewhat exaggerated sometimes.

Not to mention the fact most said Roy was an incredible athlete whom can achieve such things. Well he's a professional, so over 2 and a half years since a HW win, you'd expect such a guy to beat a top LHW, he didn't, and in addition, lost badly most of the time. People are too quick to put someone down largely for the wrong reasons at times.

Tito was a good win and Roys showing his class in developing his style to suite, and be more clever with his fights not relying on things - which most don't have the luxury of in the first place. This is something most have had to do at some time or another, adapt and get they're head around what they can do objectively, with a decent skill set, to win. Credit to Roy, I think he's got it sussed, has adapted much like Hops did to become LHW #1, Roy's doing the same, a deserves much more credit for doing so. At the same time he deserves much more criticism for not doing so sooner against Tarver and Johnson, not just the weight excuse applied as 100% of the reason, which isn't the case. The poll on skills shows Roys about even or better than Joe, he's clearly still got the skill set, but people just can't be positive about him anymore.

Regardless of whether you think Jones is shot or not, he hasn't had a significant win in five years. And he's lost three times since. Thus, a Calzaghe victory over him means very, very little.