Calzaghe, jones and pavlik

[Pullcounter]

i know im i the minority here but i really do believe that JC has gone and taken the tougher fight in RJJ - sounds crazy i know but hear me out. yes pavlik is higher up in the p4p rankings but think about it styles make fights -

pavlik is an orthodox power puncher with good stamina, its a style that is tailor made for anyone who has good ring smarts like hopkins or calzaghe. besides theres another problem with kelly - lets say joe does beat him which most of us do see him doing, you get the feeling that the majority of US fight fans will just turn around and say what they said when he beat lacey. throw in the fact that i see kessler beating pavlik in the next few years and suddenly pavlik doesn't seem like a worthy foe.

iv watched calzaghe since his early days and in his latter years he has always spoken of the need for the fighter hes fighting to really motivate him. roy jones however does, roy is mutli weight champion, and without doubt a top 10 p4p fighter if you were to look solely at fighters primes. his achievements cannot be taken away from him, whats more there is an element of recogntion that has eluded calzaghe when he was in his prime (parly his won fault). by beating roy jones Jr now id does open up the argument of how wold joe have handled roy in his prime, who the better SMW was and more importantly who really has been the better fighter over the last 10/15 years.

calzaghes success is mostly down to his ring smarts, imo he is the best in-ring tactician and his boxing brain is second to none. he takes his oppoents best punches away from them he never let lacy really set himself with a peek-a-boo style, he never let kessler work behind his jab and he took hopkins counter right hand out of the fight after round 4.

now its hard to see what he will do with RJJ roy is capable of leading with left hooks and straight rights instead of his jab because he is simply that damn good. throw in the fact that roy is quicker than joe (considerably so), more powerful than joe (again considerably so), and so far his biggest weakness (his chin) isn't something that calzaghe can exploit.

suddenly the fight with pavlik seems to look alot easier?

your thouhgts?

I think calzaghe can beat both rjj and pavlik, but I don't think rjj is the tougher fight. rjj fights scared and that effects how much he puts on his punches and how willing he is to take risks in the ring. its a boring tactical fight.

pavlik is the tougher fight because calzaghe's brittle hands and slaps won't hurt pavlik but at the same time pavlik is a much harder puncher than calzaghe and we all saw what happened to calzaghe when a punch is shot straight down the pipe (hopkins put him down). I think calzaghe's chin is good enough to get up, but I don't know how many punches he can eat like that.

bottomline, rjj is the fight of least resistance.

[roundingace]

RJJ = No way to know if 40% of Roy comes in or 60% of Roy comes in
Kelly = You KNOW what's in front of you when he comes in.

I think minus the style match-up argument, based solely on power, heart and youth, he is the tougher fight.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Yup. Another dead on post. But of course Dirk will repeat the "styles make fights" because it fights his obvious agenda. Roy's "style" will only work for the 20 seconds a round he might be capable of fighting at this point.

Cue : the "But they are around similar ages"...argument

Aww talking about me again?

I'll repeat the "styles make fights" argument because........ummmm.........styles make ****ing fights.

I read Clegg's post and he makes good points as always but I dont think its as clear cut as to say Roy is totally shot. Yes he would've made fairly easy work of Glen Johnson in the past, but I dont think Johnson was the best opponent to choose for a comeback fight after being knocked out. Whatever you say about the guy, he'll push you to the brink as we saw recently with Chad Dawson.

I think Roy came back well in the 3rd Tarver fight and then in his next 3 fights. Clearly he's lost a step and he fights more cautiously but if he was totally shot, surely competent to very good opponents like Hanshaw and Tito would've exposed that. Surely Roy wouldnt have dominated them with such relative ease?

I actually think Roy fighting more cautiously helps him against someone like Calzaghe. Again I go back to styles making fights. Calzaghe doesn't like to lead and if Roy sits on the ropes and counters all night, it could become very frustrating for Joe. If Roy were on the front foot, trying to throw combinations, Calzaghe would thrive on the counter because he's quicker than Roy at this stage of their careers. But we all know what Pavlik would do hence Joe wouldnt have to spend time figuring him out at all.

And they ARE at similar ages. Neither have been in many wars. If you look at Calzaghe's fights recently barring Lacy and Kessler, he hasnt looked particularly impressive in any of them. He also cant do things he could do in his prime - first of all, he cant punch anymore. If thats not taking something away from your game, I dont know what is.

I still expect Joe to win a decision but even if Joe was fighting Pavlik, I'd still say Roy Jones was a more difficult fight simply because STYLES MAKE FIGHTS.

[dstew]

And they ARE at similar ages. Neither have been in many wars. If you look at Calzaghe's fights recently barring Lacy and Kessler, he hasnt looked particularly impressive in any of them. He also cant do things he could do in his prime - first of all, he cant punch anymore. If thats not taking something away from your game, I dont know what is.

Roy hasn't had a major win in the last five years.

Calzaghe has had most of his major wins in the last five years.

But keep arguing that they are at similar stages of their careers. It fits with your usual BS.

[abadger]

Roy hasn't had a major win in the last five years.

Calzaghe has had most of his major wins in the last five years.

But keep arguing that they are at similar stages of their careers. It fits with your usual BS.

I think the point about this is that Roy was 'old' when he lost to Tarver and Johnson, but was younger than Calz is now. It's not a tremendously big deal, but those who bring this up probably feel that Calzaghe deserves credit for his longevity, since Roy Jones is living proof such longevity is not so easily come by.

[dstew]

I think the point about this is that Roy was 'old' when he lost to Tarver and Johnson, but was younger than Calz is now. It's not a tremendously big deal, but those who bring this up probably feel that Calzaghe deserves credit for his longevity, since Roy Jones is living proof such longevity is not so easily come by.

Calz does deserve some credit for his longevity, no doubt.

But "old" isnt' necessarily about age in boxing, as you pointed out, so I don't see the point of mentioning that Roy was younger than Joe when he lost to Tarver and Johnson, unless you were using it as an example of the variances in how certain fighters age.

[AntDawg]

true the fight does depend on how much roy has left but i watched the fight with tito and i watched roy in the build up to the fight in the gym as well and i think he does have that 80%.

anway in reagrds to the fighters 10/15 years ago i think i was being a bit unclear. the fight that is gonna happen will give us the chance to look at the 2 fighters and see how they do against each other. neither fighter has really changed their style from their repective primes, and on a superfical level having the right name on the resume will confirm who was te better out of hopkins/JC/RJJ triangle.

as i said before neither fighter has really changed their styles alot - therefore the gameplan thatthey come in with now and the gameplan they would have come in with in their primes is likely going to be the same, so it would leave us the fans asking would Roy have executed the gameplan alot better if he was in his prime and had a bit more in the tank or was joe just too smart and too active.

An 80% Jones would have knocked Tito out in 1-2 rounds.

[IMDAZED]

Calz does deserve some credit for his longevity, no doubt.

But "old" isnt' necessarily about age in boxing, as you pointed out, so I don't see the point of mentioning that Roy was younger than Joe when he lost to Tarver and Johnson, unless you were using it as an example of the variances in how certain fighters age.

It's not even necessarily about age in real life! LOL. Being old depends on the individual.

[Dan...]

I think the point about this is that Roy was 'old' when he lost to Tarver and Johnson, but was younger than Calz is now. It's not a tremendously big deal, but those who bring this up probably feel that Calzaghe deserves credit for his longevity, since Roy Jones is living proof such longevity is not so easily come by.

Age is an overrated measuring stick. WHen you're shot you're shot. Look at a guy like Benitez. Roy's actual age in those fights is inconsequential, if you couldn't see that he was barely a shell of his former self you weren't watching closely enough. Also, I think Calzaghe does get credit for his longevity - perhaps more than anything else.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Roy hasn't had a major win in the last five years.

Calzaghe has had most of his major wins in the last five years.

But keep arguing that they are at similar stages of their careers. It fits with your usual BS.

Calzaghe hadnt had a major win in years and looked terrible prior to Lacy.

Say whatever you want, but I know better than to write off Roy Jones Jr.

Like I said, even before Calzaghe had signed anything, I said Roy would be the more difficult fight. You can check my history. So this isnt some way of talking up Roy just cos Joe chose to fight him.

I've said all along that Pavlik would be Lacy Part 2 - but like all sequels, not quite as good as the first one.