Compare: Tyson vs. Holmes and Joe Calzaghe Vs. Roy Yones

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Already responded. Get off your high horse clown.

Whats so hard about saying "yes" or "no"? Im not trying to trick you, I just want a serious straight answer.

[bsrizpac]

Errrm I do. You claim his best wins were later on. But they could've been earlier had he been given the fights that he wanted. So it kills one of your points.



No I didnt.



Joe is clearly faded in some areas. Power being a key one due to numerous hand breaks. But he's got other things to fall back on. Same with Hopkins. He had things to fall back on. Roy Jones didnt. When his speed and reflexes faded, he had nothing to fall back on. So shouldnt Joe and Hopkins be credited for longevity and having more strings to their bows?




Spinks was fighting 25lbs out of his natural weight and weighed 20lbs less than Holmes. I guess we should ignore that.



Spinks was not considered anything at Heavyweight because he'd never fought there. I believe it was called the Upset of the Year.



So if Roy Jones fights again and strings off a few wins, he's not shot? Ok then.



I never said anything about what the Tito win meant. I said Roy was active, Holmes was not. You dont get this "comparison" lark, do you?



I think it was a good win. You dont. Fair enough.



You give Lewis props but not Calzaghe......why?

Hooray boxrec! Coming to save you. Spinks was an upset, but how many times did fight Holmes? It's easy to factor in things like weight and call it an upset when ignoring that a lot of heavyweights fight guys way bigger than them. It's part of the game.

Why do you keep bringing up Roy fighting again? Have you lost your mind? My whole point was Roy's three wins before mean jack **** and he was shot the whole time. So how do you twist that into "If Roy has more wins he's not shot"?

Holmes had more GOOD Wins and good performances against a lot of opponents for a long time. And in fact did very well against Evander (in his prime) even though he lost. He clearly showed that he still had it. And of course Vander could not KO him like Tyson did.

As for Tito, you have said it was a good win otherwise I can't imagine how you could say Joe's win over Jones is any good, since Tito is the only name win on Jones resume for years.

Actually I've called Calzaghe a very good fighter for a long time, so that's another point of yours that makes no sense. But Lewis approached his career much differently than Calzaghe and took on all comers. But I don't expect you to understand any of that.


I do not see Calzaghe as being faded the way his fans do other than his hands and power. That's the only real thing that so far has changed. His workrate has not suffered. He's still as active as he was before. His reflexes seem to be the same. If they are slower, so far it's been so slight it's not noticeable yet. His speed is the same (again if it's slower with age it's barely noticeable). It's an exaggeration to say he's past his prime because despite his age (and other than his hands which are not a factor of age, but just bouts, genetics, luck, bad training method etc) he still fights at a very high activity level with a lot of speed and good reflexes.

Again I don't know what you're on about.

[rorymac]

I think it's more similar to Calzaghe vs Hopkins

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Hooray boxrec! Coming to save you. Spinks was an upset, but how many times did fight Holmes? It's easy to factor in things like weight and call it an upset when ignoring that a lot of heavyweights fight guys way bigger than them. It's part of the game.

So its ok for you to factor in weight with Jones vs Tito but it becomes a non factor when its heavyweights?

Cool.

Why do you keep bringing up Roy fighting again? Have you lost your mind? My whole point was Roy's three wins before mean jack **** and he was shot the whole time. So how do you twist that into "If Roy has more wins he's not shot"?

Because you said Holmes fighting again after Tyson and winning a few fights meant he wasnt shot. So if Roy fights again and racks off some wins, he's not shot?

Holmes had more GOOD Wins and good performances against a lot of opponents for a long time. And in fact did very well against Evander (in his prime) even though he lost. He clearly showed that he still had it. And of course Vander could not KO him like Tyson did.

What were his "good wins"? Mercer? Just because Evander Holyfield - who is by no means a big puncher at HW - couldnt KO him doesnt mean he still "had it".

As for Tito, you have said it was a good win otherwise I can't imagine how you could say Joe's win over Jones is any good, since Tito is the only name win on Jones resume for years.

Joe's win over Jones does not have anything to do with Tito.

Actually I've called Calzaghe a very good fighter for a long time, so that's another point of yours that makes no sense. But Lewis approached his career much differently than Calzaghe and took on all comers. But I don't expect you to understand any of that.

How did Calzaghe not take on all comers? He like Lennox beat everyone he had to beat in a weak weight class and was avoided and or ignored by the "names" like Holyfield, Bowe and Tyson. I dont see how their careers were that much different.

I do not see Calzaghe as being faded the way his fans do other than his hands and power. That's the only real thing that so far has changed. His workrate has not suffered. He's still as active as he was before. His reflexes seem to be the same. If they are slower, so far it's been so slight it's not noticeable yet. His speed is the same (again if it's slower with age it's barely noticeable). It's an exaggeration to say he's past his prime because despite his age (and other than his hands which are not a factor of age, but just bouts, genetics, luck, bad training method etc) he still fights at a very high activity level with a lot of speed and good reflexes.

His punch output hasnt changed because he's had to throw more punches/slaps as he's gotten older because of hand trouble. Power was a big part of his early career. His reflexes are clearly not the same seeings as he's been getting tagged a lot recently, dropped twice in 2 fights. Unlike Jones......he got up. Perhaps another key difference. Hopkins and Calzaghe are smarter fighters than Jones, and have shown they have weapons to fall back on. As big a fan of Jones as I am, he's a bit of a one-trick pony in the sense that once his reflexes had faded, he had no technical or defensive ability to fall back on. He couldnt adapt.

Again I don't know what you're on about.

Evidently.