-
-
I'm not up to date on Roy or Joe, but who did Roy fight in his prime???? I remember a rematch with Hopkins never got made, and Calzaghe is the same ****. Who has he fought for prime????
Since they both (Roy and Joe) can be considered "older guys," is this the fairest fight either have been in?Comment
-
Well he may have had a few consecutive losses and not what he was, but he's still ranked the #6 LHW.Comment
-
roy fought a **** load of worthy competitors, a bunch of undefeated prospects plenty of which went on to be champs, he fought the 1 p4p champion at the time also beating the number 1 ranked middleweight at the time, i mean come on, who has calzaghe fought in his prime?Comment
-
Great post mate. The sad fact here is though that the majority of people will use this loss, if indeed Calzaflappy did lose, to completely discredit his entire career. Hopkins will be forgotten and people will say he fought as a twenty year old against Pavlik but against Joe he was showing his age and was old and had a bad night. Kessler, Lacy, Eubanks, Mitchell, Brewer, Woodhall, Veit etc etc will all become over-the-hill or nobodies that he fought and that will simply make a loss against an over-the-hill Jones that much worse. Things like "If Jonhson and Tarver could KO Jones years beforehand but Calzonie lost then that means he's worse than both of those guys. He was never anything to begin with but an overrated, hyped up Euro-trash bum that was overly protected.", will become the staple thread of NSB for months afterwards.
I personally think they're both pretty **** at this stage, comparative to their earlier selves, and that either guy winning should still be considered great in fact. There are still very few fighters out there that could beat either guy, like it or not. A win for Jones is of course much greater because he is more shot than Blow, but it is still a very solid win for Joe Blow and anyone that thinks otherwise should try and remember what they were saying right after Jones beat Tito.
As you yourself said, most fighters after their mid thirties are shells of their former selves and both of these guys are after their mid thirties, with Joe being closer than Jones though. When it comes down to it, he posses' the one thing that made him great in a time of slow come-forward fighters, his speed. His reflexes are gone and his defense has suffered because of that. Nonetheless, he was knocked down in his prime, and I personally believe that a Tarver would have demolished him 7 times out of ten. Most people forget that he was very nearly KO'd early in his career, when he was in his utter prime freak stage being very, very hurt. I'm trying to remember if it was against a southpaw or not though ... ? I digress!
The thing that really gets my goat at the moment is that everyone has already, within two weeks, moved onto the next person that Calzanie is ducking and needs to fight to prove himself. The big man was Pavlik and the talk before the Hopkins fight was getting to the 'loony' type stage. "CAlzaghe has been ducking Pavlik 'The Destroyer' for years now! That Euro bums whole career means nothing unless he fights the true prime, undefeated champ Pavlik!". Now that Pavlik has been destroyed horribly by Hopkins, the guy that Calzonie just beat, nothing more has been heard about it, from anybody, even the most psychotic of that lot.
Nonetheless, the excuses suddenly start coming out. "Calzonie didn't even hit him at all", "Hopkins had a bad night", "Calzonie lost that fight anyway and Hopkins was brutally robbed...in Vegas", "Shilstone ruined Hopkins, even though he had him in the best shape ever for Tarver, but that didn't matter anyway." etc etc.
So, as always, their is a new guy Calzonie needs to prove himself against and that is now not Jones, Hopkins or PAvlik but Dawson. Another young, undefeated fighter without a great deal of experience and with only a couple of defenses none of which have been up against serious other young prospects. He beat an old Johnson and Tarver and a decent fighter in Adamek. He had trouble in both the Johnson fight, which many think he may have even lost (I don't at all) and was knocked down and hurt against Adamek.
Triangle theory doesn't work, but if a similar fighter beats another similar fighter ie. Calzaghe and Hopkins (both are great at spoiling their opponents best weapons and taking them off their game plan, it certainly helps to see possible or more likely outcomes. If Cazonie had beat Pavlik as well as Hop, which I personally think he would have, he would have had not even close to the amount of appreciation that Hop got. It would have been "Pavlik was untested and green and hadn't fought anyone just like Lacy and Kessler. Hoplins was over the hill just like Eubanks"
He is simply one of those strange guys that it will never end with. I'm not even a great fan, I just absolutely love reading the ****e criticism and hypocrisy that come from the majority of people with this subject. Long, long, long rant over.
Good post mate.
Comment
-
Hop wasn't the No. 1 ranked MW at the time. Toney was, however, the number one P4P by most folks consensus. Jones has an underrated resume. Sure, the best fighters he fought, as in the big names that would have given him a serious run for his money and may have even beaten him, were over it by then, but he still fought a lot of young good fighters and even the old guys would have given all but the top fellas serious problems. Case in point: McCallum. Toney got him in his prime. Jones got him when he was done and done.Comment
-
^i agree, you should never take away a whole career off one loss. Calzaghe has had a great career.Comment
Tweet
............
Comment