Roy Jones Jr: "I'm The Best Calzaghe Has Faced"

[WESS]

Joe can't throw 100 punches a round against a guy like Jones and Roy hasn't thrown 50 per round for years now.
I just hope Roy tags Joe often enough a lot with his straight right to win the fight

LOL I know, I just say a 100 punches for joe so I don't hurt the Joe Calzaghe fans feelings. They are VERY VERY VERRRRRRY sensitive and I always tend to sound bias towards little Joey so I say 100 punches so no one dirties there panties... I'm always hurting someone's vagina.... I'm trying to play it fare know what i'm saying.....

[Chase8400]

Chris Eubank, Robin Reid, Byron Mitchell, Charles Brewer, Richie Woodhall, Mikkel Kessler, Bernard Hopkins and possibly even Jeff Lacy would have had a chance against this version of Roy. I'm telling you, he is too old.

Roy beat Hopkins in his prime and B-hop is basically trash now. (3 losses in his last 6, too)

Lacy can barely beat fringe contenders Vitali Tsypko and Manfredo. What does that do to indicate having a shot at Jones? Nothing.

Kessler is way too robotic and slow to have a chance at Jones. See the Tito fight for a look at how it would go. I gaurantee Tito would even beat Kessler now. Kessler is decent but nothing to sit here in awe of.

As far as Robin Reid? Are you joking? He was beat by not only Calzaghe in his prime but Branco right after that. If you think Branco is better than Jones (now) at any point in his career , you are seriously mistaken or don't know much about boxing.

Byron Mitchell: Ha Ha , gimme a break. Mitchell is not only a has been, but he was a never was. He did absolutely **** and beat nobody. I am astonished at how lowly you rate Jones.
Hell he lost his last 3 fights (2) by KO , one by Richard Hall. LOL.

Richie Woodhall, Who? The only names on his resume' are Calzaghe and Beyer who both beat him easily. You gotta be kidding with adding him.


Charles Brewer was beat by a 9-40 fighter in his prime. man, this is getting sad. You're not serious are you? Beat Jones (now) at any point? No Way. That's like saying he could have beat Tarver or Johnson. NEVER.

Ok, now we come to Chris Eubank. Lets see. He only beat one name oponent in his career and that was Nigel Benn. The problem is that Nigel beat absolutely nobody in his career worth a ****, so there ya go.

Nobody on Calzaghe's resume' can beat the current "old" Roy Jones. You may disagree, but until they meet will this truly be resolved. That wont be until November now. Maybe by then, I can afford to come to the UK and we can see the fight together. I would love to venture into my native land. I'm part Scott and Irish. There is a little German in there somwehere too.

[Clegg]

Roy beat Hopkins in his prime and B-hop is basically trash now. (3 losses in his last 6, too)

Now, what you've said later in thread is that we should place great importance upon who beat who. So I'm going to use some of your logic in responding to your posts. For example old Roy lost to Tarver. Tarver lost to old Hopkins. Therefore, apparently, old Hopkins>old Roy.

Lacy can barely beat fringe contenders Vitali Tsypko and Manfredo. What does that do to indicate having a shot at Jones? Nothing.

Ok, so Lacy is discounted simply because of the quality of his opposition.

Someone who just looked at boxrec without watching the fights could point out that Lacy beat Vanderpool and Sheika, both of whom beat Johnson. Who beat Roy.

Kessler is way too robotic and slow to have a chance at Jones. See the Tito fight for a look at how it would go. I gaurantee Tito would even beat Kessler now. Kessler is decent but nothing to sit here in awe of.

What you've done here is to change your criteria. Lacy's power punching style (which would be a big danger to Jones' chin)is ignored, and instead we hear about his resumé. But when Kessler is the subject, you decide that fighting style is the thing to consider?

Also, how can you guarantee that old Tito would beat Kessler? I cannot guarantee that any world class fighter beats any other world class fighter in their division. Too many variables and unknown quan****** to be absolutely sure of such a thing, but I think Kessler would KO Tito. It doesn't matter either way though because you cannot use one opinion as evidence in favour of another opinion.

As far as Robin Reid? Are you joking? He was beat by not only Calzaghe in his prime but Branco right after that. If you think Branco is better than Jones (now) at any point in his career , you are seriously mistaken or don't know much about boxing.

Here you use an opinion to back up an opinion. You think old Jones>prime Reid. Your justification for this? You think that old Jones would beat Branco.

Let me do the same. Robin Reid took Calzaghe to a split decision. In my opinion, old Jones will not do as well as that, therefore Reid>old Jones.

See what I did there? I used my opinion of how Calzaghe-Jones will be to prove how Reid-Jones would be, even though my opinion of how a future fight will go is worth nothing at all.

Another thing worth noting is that Branco beat Glen Johnson. Who beat Roy. So obviously Branco beats Roy. Triangle theory=perfect, right?

Byron Mitchell: Ha Ha , gimme a break. Mitchell is not only a has been, but he was a never was. He did absolutely **** and beat nobody. I am astonished at how lowly you rate Jones.
Hell he lost his last 3 fights (2) by KO , one by Richard Hall. LOL.

Again when it comes to a power puncher, we hear only about resume, not an explanation of how the styles would go together and why Jones has the style and ability to win.

Yes, Mitchell lost some fights, but Glen Johnson lost even more! I guess he'd have no chance against Jones by that logic. And it's worth remembering that Mitchell was coming off of 4 and a half years of inactivity when he lost to Hall, which maybe, just maybe, hampered his performance somewhat.

The fact that a boxer was 'a nobody' may be enough for you to discount them, but it's hardly as if Glen Johnson was an international superstar. All he had done is win a vacant title (in a rematch) against Clinton Woods. And remember, Woods gave Johnson a lot more trouble (one win each and a draw from 3 fights) than he gave Jones (a one sided TKO6), so you would expect Jones to beat Johnson quite easily.

Richie Woodhall, Who? The only names on his resume' are Calzaghe and Beyer who both beat him easily. You gotta be kidding with adding him.

What did you see in the Calzaghe-Woodhall fight that made it look like an easy night? Woodhall clearly won some of the rounds and made things competitive.

Beyer knocked Woodhall down twice, and without those KDs the fight would've been a draw. That does not sound like an easy victory to me, although I have not seen the fight, what was it that made it seem easy from your viewing of it?

Charles Brewer was beat by a 9-40 fighter in his prime. man, this is getting sad. You're not serious are you? Beat Jones (now) at any point? No Way. That's like saying he could have beat Tarver or Johnson. NEVER.

I'm not sure if age 22 is a fighters prime. To me it is before it, although not in all cases. Funnily enough, the 9-40 guy had a draw with Harding only a few weeks before that (small world eh?) and Harding beat Tarver. So 9-40 guy>Tarver>Jones. See how silly all this is?

Ok, now we come to Chris Eubank. Lets see. He only beat one name oponent in his career and that was Nigel Benn. The problem is that Nigel beat absolutely nobody in his career worth a ****, so there ya go.

Iran Barkley in one round? Gerald McClellan? Are you not familiar with the careers of these people?

Now again, let's take your logic and use it in response. You're judging a fighter by saying that he is only as good as the best fighter than he has beaten. I think that's ridiculous, but I'll use it here:

Old Roy's best win is against a blown up, ring rusty, old of shape old Trinidad at 170. Who did old Tito beat at anything near that weight? No one. A guy with a 0-99999999999 record is better than no one, and Roy's best win is over some who beat no one, therefore Roy is equally as good as no-one, therefore 0-99999999999 guy beats Roy!

Ya'll must've forgot...

[ALT-Assassin]

Now, what you've said later in thread is that we should place great importance upon who beat who. So I'm going to use some of your logic in responding to your posts. For example old Roy lost to Tarver. Tarver lost to old Hopkins. Therefore, apparently, old Hopkins>old Roy.



Ok, so Lacy is discounted simply because of the quality of his opposition.

Someone who just looked at boxrec without watching the fights could point out that Lacy beat Vanderpool and Sheika, both of whom beat Johnson. Who beat Roy.



What you've done here is to change your criteria. Lacy's power punching style (which would be a big danger to Jones' chin)is ignored, and instead we hear about his resumé. But when Kessler is the subject, you decide that fighting style is the thing to consider?

Also, how can you guarantee that old Tito would beat Kessler? I cannot guarantee that any world class fighter beats any other world class fighter in their division. Too many variables and unknown quan****** to be absolutely sure of such a thing, but I think Kessler would KO Tito. It doesn't matter either way though because you cannot use one opinion as evidence in favour of another opinion.



Here you use an opinion to back up an opinion. You think old Jones>prime Reid. Your justification for this? You think that old Jones would beat Branco.

Let me do the same. Robin Reid took Calzaghe to a split decision. In my opinion, old Jones will not do as well as that, therefore Reid>old Jones.

See what I did there? I used my opinion of how Calzaghe-Jones will be to prove how Reid-Jones would be, even though my opinion of how a future fight will go is worth nothing at all.

Another thing worth noting is that Branco beat Glen Johnson. Who beat Roy. So obviously Branco beats Roy. Triangle theory=perfect, right?



Again when it comes to a power puncher, we hear only about resume, not an explanation of how the styles would go together and why Jones has the style and ability to win.

Yes, Mitchell lost some fights, but Glen Johnson lost even more! I guess he'd have no chance against Jones by that logic. And it's worth remembering that Mitchell was coming off of 4 and a half years of inactivity when he lost to Hall, which maybe, just maybe, hampered his performance somewhat.

The fact that a boxer was 'a nobody' may be enough for you to discount them, but it's hardly as if Glen Johnson was an international superstar. All he had done is win a vacant title (in a rematch) against Clinton Woods. And remember, Woods gave Johnson a lot more trouble (one win each and a draw from 3 fights) than he gave Jones (a one sided TKO6), so you would expect Jones to beat Johnson quite easily.



What did you see in the Calzaghe-Woodhall fight that made it look like an easy night? Woodhall clearly won some of the rounds and made things competitive.

Beyer knocked Woodhall down twice, and without those KDs the fight would've been a draw. That does not sound like an easy victory to me, although I have not seen the fight, what was it that made it seem easy from your viewing of it?



I'm not sure if age 22 is a fighters prime. To me it is before it, although not in all cases. Funnily enough, the 9-40 guy had a draw with Harding only a few weeks before that (small world eh?) and Harding beat Tarver. So 9-40 guy>Tarver>Jones. See how silly all this is?



Iran Barkley in one round? Gerald McClellan? Are you not familiar with the careers of these people?

Now again, let's take your logic and use it in response. You're judging a fighter by saying that he is only as good as the best fighter than he has beaten. I think that's ridiculous, but I'll use it here:

Old Roy's best win is against a blown up, ring rusty, old of shape old Trinidad at 170. Who did old Tito beat at anything near that weight? No one. A guy with a 0-99999999999 record is better than no one, and Roy's best win is over some who beat no one, therefore Roy is equally as good as no-one, therefore 0-99999999999 guy beats Roy!

Ya'll must've forgot...

Good counter response

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Good thing you started watching boxing yesterday little boy. Calzaghe himself said he never thought he could beat Jones back in his prime. The quote is widely circulated. Guess you wouldn't know since you've started watching boxing last week and have never boxed.

Little crybaby.

I hear you like dressing up in womans clothing. Your quote is widely circulated.

[Chase8400]

Now, what you've said later in thread is that we should place great importance upon who beat who. So I'm going to use some of your logic in responding to your posts. For example old Roy lost to Tarver. Tarver lost to old Hopkins. Therefore, apparently, old Hopkins>old Roy.



Ok, so Lacy is discounted simply because of the quality of his opposition.

Someone who just looked at boxrec without watching the fights could point out that Lacy beat Vanderpool and Sheika, both of whom beat Johnson. Who beat Roy.



What you've done here is to change your criteria. Lacy's power punching style (which would be a big danger to Jones' chin)is ignored, and instead we hear about his resumé. But when Kessler is the subject, you decide that fighting style is the thing to consider?

Also, how can you guarantee that old Tito would beat Kessler? I cannot guarantee that any world class fighter beats any other world class fighter in their division. Too many variables and unknown quan****** to be absolutely sure of such a thing, but I think Kessler would KO Tito. It doesn't matter either way though because you cannot use one opinion as evidence in favour of another opinion.



Here you use an opinion to back up an opinion. You think old Jones>prime Reid. Your justification for this? You think that old Jones would beat Branco.

Let me do the same. Robin Reid took Calzaghe to a split decision. In my opinion, old Jones will not do as well as that, therefore Reid>old Jones.

See what I did there? I used my opinion of how Calzaghe-Jones will be to prove how Reid-Jones would be, even though my opinion of how a future fight will go is worth nothing at all.

Another thing worth noting is that Branco beat Glen Johnson. Who beat Roy. So obviously Branco beats Roy. Triangle theory=perfect, right?



Again when it comes to a power puncher, we hear only about resume, not an explanation of how the styles would go together and why Jones has the style and ability to win.

Yes, Mitchell lost some fights, but Glen Johnson lost even more! I guess he'd have no chance against Jones by that logic. And it's worth remembering that Mitchell was coming off of 4 and a half years of inactivity when he lost to Hall, which maybe, just maybe, hampered his performance somewhat.

The fact that a boxer was 'a nobody' may be enough for you to discount them, but it's hardly as if Glen Johnson was an international superstar. All he had done is win a vacant title (in a rematch) against Clinton Woods. And remember, Woods gave Johnson a lot more trouble (one win each and a draw from 3 fights) than he gave Jones (a one sided TKO6), so you would expect Jones to beat Johnson quite easily.



What did you see in the Calzaghe-Woodhall fight that made it look like an easy night? Woodhall clearly won some of the rounds and made things competitive.

Beyer knocked Woodhall down twice, and without those KDs the fight would've been a draw. That does not sound like an easy victory to me, although I have not seen the fight, what was it that made it seem easy from your viewing of it?



I'm not sure if age 22 is a fighters prime. To me it is before it, although not in all cases. Funnily enough, the 9-40 guy had a draw with Harding only a few weeks before that (small world eh?) and Harding beat Tarver. So 9-40 guy>Tarver>Jones. See how silly all this is?



Iran Barkley in one round? Gerald McClellan? Are you not familiar with the careers of these people?

Now again, let's take your logic and use it in response. You're judging a fighter by saying that he is only as good as the best fighter than he has beaten. I think that's ridiculous, but I'll use it here:

Old Roy's best win is against a blown up, ring rusty, old of shape old Trinidad at 170. Who did old Tito beat at anything near that weight? No one. A guy with a 0-99999999999 record is better than no one, and Roy's best win is over some who beat no one, therefore Roy is equally as good as no-one, therefore 0-99999999999 guy beats Roy!

Ya'll must've forgot...

I'm sorry it has taken so long to respond to this, but please LISTEN UP.

First of all, my comments were not even directed to YOU and by you responding shows some type of malice toward either myself or the fighter in question. In either case, that will promp me to speak to you rather uncordially, but I will refrain from that since it would be ignorant.

There is an easy way to sum up my thinking on the Calzaghe Vs Jones issue, which will really only be resolved after they have acually fought and a winner is declared. Before I get started, I want to mention that I am neither a child nor am I a MORON, so i expect to not be spoken to like I am either.

Please keep in MIND, I am an avid Roy Jones Jr. fan, so my opinion will tend to be a little biased even though Calzaghe is one of my fav's as well.

I really have no set criteria as to why I say that Jones is better than anyone Joe has faced other than to say that he has more athletic ability, ring smarts and combination of reflexes, power and speed than any of Joe's prior opponents. Dissagree with that? Probably. YOU'RE opinion seems to be the opposite of what i believe, so why not write to me and advise of your OWN opinion rather than to send a smart ellic response in an attemp to degrade me or something I sent to someone else?

As for the fighters which I asked "Abadger" to type down and send to me , I simply mentioned why I think that Jones is better than they are and based my opinion partially on their quality of opposition and who they managed to beat. I'm sure you must have known that I was not just using a who beat who chart from Boxrec to determine fighter quality or fight outcomes. Jones is simply still better than the mentioned fighters in every way, even now. I'm sorry for giving plausable record indications as partial proof and ****ING you up , but trust me that was not my intention. Do you see where "I" am going with this yet?

In closing, I will use the only real needed method to determine the possible outcome. Here goes! There is none! Boxing is strange enough that anything can happen. A fight can end instantly at any time and you should appreciate that as much as I do. You have your opinion and I have mine, so lets try and just enjoy the fight and see who is right after the BUSINESS in the ring has been settled.

P.S. Using my so called "theory" you say I only use , I could have just said that Jones already beat a better, faster, younger, more energetic version of B-hop (Calzaghe's best opponent) than Joe fought with a broken hand , more convincingly than Calzaghe did. That would mean that Old "nowhere near his best" Jones>Old "at his best" Calzaghe , right? LOL. No, as you have implied , the triangle theory does not always work.

Believe me however, I have not forgotten anything and neither has Roy. Calzaghe has his "0" stripped away in November if he makes it to the fight.

*Read all my capitalized words from each paragraph to find out what I really think about your response to me. You are now dissmissed. I want an apple the next time you butt in.

[moofo]

I'm sorry it has taken so long to respond to this, but please LISTEN UP.

First of all, my comments were not even directed to YOU and by you responding shows some type of malice toward either myself or the fighter in question. In either case, that will promp me to speak to you rather uncordially, but I will refrain from that since it would be ignorant.

There is an easy way to sum up my thinking on the Calzaghe Vs Jones issue, which will really only be resolved after they have acually fought and a winner is declared. Before I get started, I want to mention that I am neither a child nor am I a MORON, so i expect to not be spoken to like I am either.

Please keep in MIND, I am an avid Roy Jones Jr. fan, so my opinion will tend to be a little biased even though Calzaghe is one of my fav's as well.

I really have no set criteria as to why I say that Jones is better than anyone Joe has faced other than to say that he has more athletic ability, ring smarts and combination of reflexes, power and speed than any of Joe's prior opponents. Dissagree with that? Probably. YOU'RE opinion seems to be the opposite of what i believe, so why not write to me and advise of your OWN opinion rather than to send a smart ellic response in an attemp to degrade me or something I sent to someone else?

As for the fighters which I asked "Abadger" to type down and send to me , I simply mentioned why I think that Jones is better than they are and based my opinion partially on their quality of opposition and who they managed to beat. I'm sure you must have known that I was not just using a who beat who chart from Boxrec to determine fighter quality or fight outcomes. Jones is simply still better than the mentioned fighters in every way, even now. I'm sorry for giving plausable record indications as partial proof and ****ING you up , but trust me that was not my intention. Do you see where "I" am going with this yet?

In closing, I will use the only real needed method to determine the possible outcome. Here goes! There is none! Boxing is strange enough that anything can happen. A fight can end instantly at any time and you should appreciate that as much as I do. You have your opinion and I have mine, so lets try and just enjoy the fight and see who is right after the BUSINESS in the ring has been settled.

P.S. Using my so called "theory" you say I only use , I could have just said that Jones already beat a better, faster, younger, more energetic version of B-hop (Calzaghe's best opponent) than Joe fought with a broken hand , more convincingly than Calzaghe did. That would mean that Old "nowhere near his best" Jones>Old "at his best" Calzaghe , right? LOL. No, as you have implied , the triangle theory does not always work.

Believe me however, I have not forgotten anything and neither has Roy. Calzaghe has his "0" stripped away in November if he makes it to the fight.

*Read all my capitalized words from each paragraph to find out what I really think about your response to me. You are now dissmissed. I want an apple the next time you butt in.

Your fantasy was ruined 4 years ago.

Roy is finished.

[Chase8400]

Your fantasy was ruined 4 years ago.

Roy is finished.

Here's another guy butting in. I'll let you live by saying that I could not care less about your opinion so **** off.

You can kiss my ass when Jones beats Calzaghe too.

[abadger]

I'm sorry it has taken so long to respond to this, but please LISTEN UP.

First of all, my comments were not even directed to YOU and by you responding shows some type of malice toward either myself or the fighter in question. In either case, that will promp me to speak to you rather uncordially, but I will refrain from that since it would be ignorant.

There is an easy way to sum up my thinking on the Calzaghe Vs Jones issue, which will really only be resolved after they have acually fought and a winner is declared. Before I get started, I want to mention that I am neither a child nor am I a MORON, so i expect to not be spoken to like I am either.

Please keep in MIND, I am an avid Roy Jones Jr. fan, so my opinion will tend to be a little biased even though Calzaghe is one of my fav's as well.

I really have no set criteria as to why I say that Jones is better than anyone Joe has faced other than to say that he has more athletic ability, ring smarts and combination of reflexes, power and speed than any of Joe's prior opponents. Dissagree with that? Probably. YOU'RE opinion seems to be the opposite of what i believe, so why not write to me and advise of your OWN opinion rather than to send a smart ellic response in an attemp to degrade me or something I sent to someone else?

As for the fighters which I asked "Abadger" to type down and send to me , I simply mentioned why I think that Jones is better than they are and based my opinion partially on their quality of opposition and who they managed to beat. I'm sure you must have known that I was not just using a who beat who chart from Boxrec to determine fighter quality or fight outcomes. Jones is simply still better than the mentioned fighters in every way, even now. I'm sorry for giving plausable record indications as partial proof and ****ING you up , but trust me that was not my intention. Do you see where "I" am going with this yet?

In closing, I will use the only real needed method to determine the possible outcome. Here goes! There is none! Boxing is strange enough that anything can happen. A fight can end instantly at any time and you should appreciate that as much as I do. You have your opinion and I have mine, so lets try and just enjoy the fight and see who is right after the BUSINESS in the ring has been settled.

P.S. Using my so called "theory" you say I only use , I could have just said that Jones already beat a better, faster, younger, more energetic version of B-hop (Calzaghe's best opponent) than Joe fought with a broken hand , more convincingly than Calzaghe did. That would mean that Old "nowhere near his best" Jones>Old "at his best" Calzaghe , right? LOL. No, as you have implied , the triangle theory does not always work.

Believe me however, I have not forgotten anything and neither has Roy. Calzaghe has his "0" stripped away in November if he makes it to the fight.

*Read all my capitalized words from each paragraph to find out what I really think about your response to me. You are now dissmissed. I want an apple the next time you butt in.

To be honest I wouldn't have bothered arguing back against Clegg on this issue, he explained the reason I mentioned those guys better than I ever could have. Basically the mistake you make is to think that all these guys are 'nobodies' and that old Roy must be better than them just because he is Roy Jones. The reality is that while none of these guys are 'greats' they were all good enough to be world champions at one time or another, some of them were good enough to give prime Calzaghe a hard fight, others of them didn't, but what every single one of them was a credible top level SMW boxer not that far behind the level of guys like Tarver and Johnson.

No-one doubts for a second that prime Roy would beat them all, but Roy is simply not prime anymore. In his most recent fights against guys at about the level of Calzaghe's best opponents, that is boxers capable of fighting for and winning world championships he has lost, badly. This is fact. Now you may argue that Roy has 'improved' since then and perhaps, stylistically, he has, the problem is that he has done this by fighting boxers that are not at the level of the guys under discussion, so it proves nothing. While doing this he has also got even older. I would suggest to you that it is not a bad thing to be able to admit the weaknesses in a fighter you like when the evidence of them is there for all to see. Doing so shows you are smart and understand boxing.

[Chase8400]

To be honest I wouldn't have bothered arguing back against Clegg on this issue, he explained the reason I mentioned those guys better than I ever could have. Basically the mistake you make is to think that all these guys are 'nobodies' and that old Roy must be better than them just because he is Roy Jones. The reality is that while none of these guys are 'greats' they were all good enough to be world champions at one time or another, some of them were good enough to give prime Calzaghe a hard fight, others of them didn't, but what every single one of them was a credible top level SMW boxer not that far behind the level of guys like Tarver and Johnson.

No-one doubts for a second that prime Roy would beat them all, but Roy is simply not prime anymore. In his most recent fights against guys at about the level of Calzaghe's best opponents, that is boxers capable of fighting for and winning world championships he has lost, badly. This is fact. Now you may argue that Roy has 'improved' since then and perhaps, stylistically, he has, the problem is that he has done this by fighting boxers that are not at the level of the guys under discussion, so it proves nothing. While doing this he has also got even older. I would suggest to you that it is not a bad thing to be able to admit the weaknesses in a fighter you like when the evidence of them is there for all to see. Doing so shows you are smart and understand boxing.

I have a couple of problems with your arguments. The fighters that you mention being better than Jones is even now have done nothing to prove that they are. If you think that Tarver and Johnson are anything less than the best in the LHW division I would call you ignorant. Since I know that you are not ignorant, I will further explain why Jones really has not changed as much as you think he has. In the first Tarver fight he faced a very, very hungry and envious fighter after winning the heavyweight championship and having to drop a good 18 lbs. of nothing but muscle. Yes, it took a toll on Roy's stamina and he was even sited for making excuses for not blowing Tarver out. Nobody disputed his win however and Tarver even realized what a weight cut like that can do to a fighter in the B-hop fight. The second Tarver fight was the case of anything happening in boxing. Tarver had done literally nothing but land like 3 jabs up until the point when he landed that one in a million punch that put Jones on his a55. (Jones did make it to his feet at 9, TKO) Legit, but freak loss. Fast forward a whopping 4 months to the Johnson fight. (I was in attendence in Memphis, TN) Again, fighting a very determined and envious fighter coming off of a devastating 2nd round TKO just 4 months prior. It was obvious that Jones was cautious because his workrate had seriously dropped. I was screaming for him to throw punches because he landed easily every time he did. We all know what happened under the Glenn Johnson assault after Jones covered up for 9 rounds. He simply came back too fast against a world class opponent, which he did'nt have to do. The 3rd Tarver fight was just over a year later after rethinking his career etc.. and getting his father back involved. It was obvious for whatever reason that Jones did'nt even try to win the fight. Maybe being too cautious since Tarver was his first real loss he kept it half way close doing basically nothing. After that Jones did what he should have done after the first Tarver loss. He took a fight with decent fighters to get his rythym and confidence back and then he stepped it up a bit with a former world class fighter Tito. Regaurdless of what you think, Trinidad was a world beater and can still be if given the right fights. See his record for proof. He only lost to outstanding fighters with exceptional defenses. Jones is said to have a weak defense but managed to still beat him mixing in a fast , steady offense. That being said, Calzaghe has just now started to come into his own and fight the real challenges and i applaud him for it. But Jones is still a force in boxing and will be Joe's biggest test. Jones was given the gifts of a century and will show that even through this all, he still has what it takes to come back from adversity and be one of boxings elite fighters again before calling it a career. I can admitt that Jones can be knocked out and beaten as can anyone including Calzaghe. But I refuse to believe that he can be outboxed when he is properly motivated.