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

[The Noose]

Umm......

First you didn't read my post- then post twice : BAD COMPARISON? Are you serious?

Second, Umm Jones has been shot for a long time. He is not still fast, as I've said for many years now. So yeah. On top of that Mike Tyson dismantled Holmes from the outset. He ate some jabs in the beginning but so what? Have you even seen that fight?

Maybe ur seeing things, i didnt post 'bad comparison' twice. But anway.

I heard people saying Jones was still fast, even at the beginning of their fight that weasley commentator was talking about Jones had speed. And before the fight i spoke to people here who stated Jones was still fast.


For me the fights and outcomes are very different. Im sure there are alot of Calzaghe fans making it out to be the best win of his career, which it obviously wasnt. And at the time im sure many people thought Holmes was totally shot, which he wasnt.

I can only agree that people take things way out of perspective.

[bsrizpac]

Maybe ur seeing things, i didnt post 'bad comparison' twice. But anway.

I heard people saying Jones was still fast, even at the beginning of their fight that weasley commentator was talking about Jones had speed. And before the fight i spoke to people here who stated Jones was still fast.


For me the fights and outcomes are very different. Im sure there are alot of Calzaghe fans making it out to be the best win of his career, which it obviously wasnt. And at the time im sure many people thought Holmes was totally shot, which he wasnt.

I can only agree that people take things way out of perspective.

Jones hands were still fast to some degree. Faster than say the corpse of Tito. Fair enough on that. But not "fast" compared to any real current top LHWS. Who has he beaten to the punch? Hanshaw? Tito? Prince Badi? I mean come on.

His reflexes are completely shot, so is his footwork he's essentially flat footed now. I could go on but I've been saying he was shot for about three years now and my point still stands.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

1. Roy Jones was 39, Calzaghe was 36.

Holmes was 39, Tyson was 22.

2. Roy Jones fought this year in a dominating victory over a guy who was 15lbs out of his natural weight class.

Holmes hadnt fought for 2 years when he'd lost twice to a guy who was fighting 25lbs out of his natural weight and who Holmes outweighed by 20lbs at the scales.

3. Roy Jones hasnt fought again yet. So you cant compare Holmes record post-Tyson.

4. Your idea of how historically each win is recorded is based on your own ******, angry, frustrated opinion. Joe fans and boxing fans alike would have recognised Joe as a great fighter with or without Roy Jones on his resume. This to me was like how Lennox had to slay the myth of Tyson at the end of their careers.

So the entire point of your thread is shot to **** and should be thrown out immeditely.

Now go ahead and revert to type like we all know you will.

[them_apples]

1. Roy Jones was 39, Calzaghe was 36.

Holmes was 39, Tyson was 22.

2. Roy Jones fought this year in a dominating victory over a guy who was 15lbs out of his natural weight class.

Holmes hadnt fought for 2 years when he'd lost twice to a guy who was fighting 25lbs out of his natural weight and who Holmes outweighed by 20lbs at the scales.

3. Roy Jones hasnt fought again yet. So you cant compare Holmes record post-Tyson.

4. Your idea of how historically each win is recorded is based on your own ******, angry, frustrated opinion. Joe fans and boxing fans alike would have recognised Joe as a great fighter with or without Roy Jones on his resume. This to me was like how Lennox had to slay the myth of Tyson at the end of their careers.

So the entire point of your thread is shot to **** and should be thrown out immeditely.

Now go ahead and revert to type like we all know you will.

Holmes was 38

also, different fighters are better at sifferent ages. Tyson was amazing at 22, i know a lot of fighters that were much better at 30 than 22.

Just to add fuel to the fire..if age is all that matters.. B-Hop 43, Zaghe 36.

Jones was clearly shot and he's younger than B-Hop

[bsrizpac]

1. Roy Jones was 39, Calzaghe was 36.

Holmes was 39, Tyson was 22.



2. Roy Jones fought this year in a dominating victory over a guy who was 15lbs out of his natural weight class.

Holmes hadnt fought for 2 years when he'd lost twice to a guy who was fighting 25lbs out of his natural weight and who Holmes outweighed by 20lbs at the scales.

3. Roy Jones hasnt fought again yet. So you cant compare Holmes record post-Tyson.

4. Your idea of how historically each win is recorded is based on your own ******, angry, frustrated opinion. Joe fans and boxing fans alike would have recognised Joe as a great fighter with or without Roy Jones on his resume. This to me was like how Lennox had to slay the myth of Tyson at the end of their careers.

So the entire point of your thread is shot to **** and should be thrown out immeditely.

Now go ahead and revert to type like we all know you will.

1. We've been over this. Primes come at different ages. A boxers age does not predict his prime. I already answered this earlier and yet you repeat it again. Try boxing for a while and you might learn this.

Tyson peaked 18-21. Holmes Peaked and had his best wins in his later years 33+. Calzaghe peaked late also and had his best wins. Roy had his best wins before 33. Simple really but you'll ignore it or go off on some semantics lesson that means **** all. I doubt you've seen Tyson Holmes outside of highlights of it on youtube.


2. And this means what? Holmes fought Spinks...and Spinks was very good and they were CLOSE fights. He then retired and then went ON after Tyson to have some quality wins.

Not fighting vs. fighting a retired overweight scrub who hasn't had a good win in years and doesn't even bother to show up in shape?

3. Who cares? I only mentioned Holmes fighting again to show that he wasn't shot.


4. Okay this is your usual angry bitter prattle. Who gives a ****. Yes, I do think Joe, whatever his legacy was, had it sealed before the Roy fight. The point being as I've said all along, the Roy fight meant nothing. Of course luckily most Joe fans are not like what you say, and are instead morons and have been saying all kinds of stuff like ATG after this fight, and other nonsense. Glad you admit this fight meant nothing.

Also, Lennox slayed the myth of Tyson? Proof further that you don't know anything. Forget about Buster or Evander? Guess you just love it when fighters who are peaking from their best wins beat up on washed up Americans.


The entire point of the thread is shot to ****? What? You missed the point. As usual. ****ing imbecile. Seriously, if you're going to follow me around like a schoolgirl on her period you need to do better than this.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Holmes was 38

also, different fighters are better at sifferent ages. Tyson was amazing at 22, i know a lot of fighters that were much better at 30 than 22.

Just to add fuel to the fire..if age is all that matters.. B-Hop 43, Zaghe 36.

Jones was clearly shot and he's younger than B-Hop

Oh..SORRY! I missed his age by a few months. SORRY!

The point is Tyson was over 15 years younger, coming off a KO hotstreak while Holmes had been on his arse for 2 years.

Whereas Jones, although not prime had fought this year and is not that much older than Calzaghe.

[bsrizpac]

Oh..SORRY! I missed his age by a few months. SORRY!

The point is Tyson was over 15 years younger, coming off a KO hotstreak while Holmes had been on his arse for 2 years.

Whereas Jones, although not prime had fought this year and is not that much older than Calzaghe.

Jesus, that was the entire point of saying Holmes CONTINUED to fight and win. Which you tried to shoot down. Clearly Holmes was not shot.

Clearly Roy jones has not had a good win in years. You keep bringing up Roy and Joe's age over and over like a ****ing broken record. Too bad Joe's had all his best wins recently and Roy hasn't done **** since 03.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

1. We've been over this. Primes come at different ages. A boxers age does not predict his prime. I already answered this earlier and yet you repeat it again. Try boxing for a while and you might learn this.

I didnt say anything about primes. My first point was merely to illustrate that Tyson was 22 when he fought Holmes. Whereas Joe was 36. If you dont see the difference and why the comparison is awful, then I seriously think you need help.

Tyson peaked 18-21. Holmes Peaked and had his best wins in his later years 33+. Calzaghe peaked late also and had his best wins. Roy had his best wins before 33. Simple really but you'll ignore it or go off on some semantics lesson that means **** all. I doubt you've seen Tyson Holmes outside of highlights of it on youtube.

This is all opinion. Just because Joe's best wins were at the end of his career, doesnt mean this is his "peak". His peak may have been earlier but he couldnt get big fights for whatever reason.

Tyson was beaten up and knocked out in his 20s. That doesnt mean he wasnt at his peak, maybe it means he wasnt very good in the first place.

2. And this means what? Not fighting vs. fighting a retired overweight scrub who hasn't had a good win in years and doesn't even bother to show up in shape?

For someone who claims to have boxed, to not see the difference between sitting on your arse for 2 years and actually being reasonably active is quite stunning.

Like I pointed out, Holmes last 2 fights were against "an overweight scrub" in Spinks who was more out of his depth than Tito.

3. Who cares? I only mentioned Holmes fighting again to show that he wasn't shot.

So if Roy fights again, he isnt shot. Cool.

4. Okay this is your usual angry bitter prattle. Who gives a ****. Yes, I do think Joe, whatever his legacy was, had it sealed before the Roy fight. The point being as I've said all along, the Roy fight meant nothing. Of course luckily most Joe fans are not like what you say, and are instead morons and have been saying all kinds of stuff like ATG after this fight, and other nonsense. Glad you admit this fight meant nothing.

I never said the fight meant nothing. I merely said it didnt make or break Joe's career. Its still a good win and a fight Joe needed for his own peace of mind. Like Ive alluded to, you call these fans "idiots" and "trolls" yet you still dedicate ALL YOUR TIME to them on this forum by writing these threads. Surely if they're idiots, you wouldnt even give them the time. But they clearly bother you.

Also, Lennox slayed the myth of Tyson? Proof further that you don't know anything. Forget about Buster or Evander? Guess you just love it when fighters who are peaking from their best wins beat up on washed up Americans.

People were still asking if Lennox could beat Tyson even at that stage. Both guys were past their primes (like Calzaghe/Jones) but Lennox had to put it to bed. And if you want to talk about historical praise, I'd think Lennox gets a tonne more than Joe for that win and for his career in general.

Lennox was not peaking either. I guess it just hurts you that British fighters have greater longevity than your American heroes.

The entire point of the thread is shot to ****? What? You missed the point. As usual. ****ing imbecile. Seriously, if you're going to follow me around like a schoolgirl on her period you need to do better than this.

Its thrown in the trash. The comparison is dire. I would compare it to Lewis-Tyson if I was going to compare. But Holmes - Tyson?

[Benny Leonard]

Oh..SORRY! I missed his age by a few months. SORRY!

The point is Tyson was over 15 years younger, coming off a KO hotstreak while Holmes had been on his arse for 2 years.

Whereas Jones, although not prime had fought this year and is not that much older than Calzaghe.

Seriously...are you this shallow in thinking or are you just trying to sway it your way and hope people don't think outside the little box?

Here is something to think about: Besides the "everybody ages different" theory that we've discussed over and over...look at this: Tyson was 20 years old. If Tyson is fighting someone that is 29, that is a 9 year difference. That sounds like a lot, right? Well, everything is going to sound a lot when someone is 20 years old. Tyson was 18 fighting fighters in their 20's and that would be a big age difference.

How's Morales doing by the way?


Jones was a shot fighter. You should really look into everything before you keep brining up small minded arguements.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Seriously...are you this shallow in thinking or are you just trying to sway it your way and hope people don't think outside the little box?

Here is something to think about: Besides the "everybody ages different" theory that we've discussed over and over...look at this: Tyson was 20 years old. If Tyson is fighting someone that is 29, that is a 9 year difference. That sounds like a lot, right? Well, everything is going to sound a lot when someone is 20 years old. Tyson was 18 fighting fighters in their 20's and that would be a big age difference.

How's Morales doing by the way?


Jones was a shot fighter. You should really look into everything before you keep brining up small minded arguements.

So Tyson at 22 is directly the same as Calzaghe at 36.

Ok then.