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

[Benny Leonard]

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

Ok then.

Ah, no. WOW.

Compare both at 22, and then compare both at 36.

Compare both at 30 and so on.

And then go over what would cause them to age differently, and it starts with genetics and moves to the way you live.


And you really miss the point, didn't you.

Are you always this clueless or is it a language and understanding barrier.

If you are incapable of certain abilities of thought process, let me know.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Ah, no. WOW.

Compare both at 22, and then compare both at 36.

Compare both at 30 and so on.

And then go over what would cause them to age differently, and it starts with genetics and moves to the way you live.


And you really miss the point, didn't you.

Are you always this clueless or is it a language and understanding barrier.

If you are incapable of certain abilities of thought process, let me know.

No, YOU missed the point.

You see for a direct comparison to work, the components of that comparison need to be in the least bit......COMPARABLE.

This thread makes a comparison between Calzaghe vs Jones to Tyson vs Holmes. With Joe playing the role of Tyson and Jones as Holmes.

Now you have admitted that Calzaghe at 36 is in no way comparable to Tyson at 22.

That makes it a **** comparison.

Let me know if you have any trouble comprehending. Cheers.

[Benny Leonard]

No, YOU missed the point.

You see for a direct comparison to work, the components of that comparison need to be in the least bit......COMPARABLE.

This thread makes a comparison between Calzaghe vs Jones to Tyson vs Holmes. With Joe playing the role of Tyson and Jones as Holmes.

Now you have admitted that Calzaghe at 36 is in no way comparable to Tyson at 22.

That makes it a **** comparison.

Let me know if you have any trouble comprehending. Cheers.

Larry Holmes resume before Tyson:

1988: Loss to Mike Tyson: knocked out cold in round 4

1986: Loss to Spinks by SD....went the distance
1985: Loss to Spinks by UD.....wen the distance
1984: Won against James"BC" Smith
1983: Won against Marvis Frazier
1983: Won against Scott Frank
1983: Won against Tim Witherspoon


Larry Holmes career after Tyson:

1991: Won 5 straight fights, 2 by KO, and 2 by Decision.
1992: Beat Prime Ray Mercer by UD; Lost to Prime Champion Evander Holyfield by UD.

Skip ahead to 1995: Lost to a prime Oliver McCall by UD. Remember, McCall knocked out Lewis to become Champion one year before.




Roy Jones Jr.

2008: Lost to Joe Calzaghe by UD

2008: Beat Felix Trinidad by UD. Tito was a former Welter who had lost to Wright in his previous fight 3 years prior.

2007: UD over Anthony Hanshaw
2006: UD over Pauper Badi Ajamu
2005: Lost to Antonio Tarver by UD
2004: Knocked out cold by Glen Johnson
2004: knocked out by Tarver
2003: Won a MD over Tarver in a fight that was telling the weight loss and age had caught up to him; he would never look the same.


Joe Calzaghe:

2007: UD over Mikkel Kessler
2007: TKO over Peter Manfredo Jr
2006: UD over Sakio Bika
2006: UD over Jeff Lacy

I'll let you figure it out and hopefully you watched Roy Jones Jr's entire career, as well as Tyson, Holmes, and Calzaghe...as well as what was happening on the outside.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Larry Holmes resume before Tyson:

1988: Loss to Mike Tyson: knocked out cold in round 4

1986: Loss to Spinks by SD....went the distance
1985: Loss to Spinks by UD.....wen the distance
1984: Won against James"BC" Smith
1983: Won against Marvis Frazier
1983: Won against Scott Frank
1983: Won against Tim Witherspoon


Larry Holmes career after Tyson:

1991: Won 5 straight fights, 2 by KO, and 2 by Decision.
1992: Beat Prime Ray Mercer by UD; Lost to Prime Champion Evander Holyfield by UD.

Skip ahead to 1995: Lost to a prime Oliver McCall by UD. Remember, McCall knocked out Lewis to become Champion one year before.




Roy Jones Jr.

2008: Lost to Joe Calzaghe by UD

2008: Beat Felix Trinidad by UD. Tito was a former Welter who had lost to Wright in his previous fight 3 years prior.

2007: UD over Anthony Hanshaw
2006: UD over Pauper Badi Ajamu
2005: Lost to Antonio Tarver by UD
2004: Knocked out cold by Glen Johnson
2004: knocked out by Tarver
2003: Won a MD over Tarver in a fight that was telling the weight loss and age had caught up to him; he would never look the same.


Joe Calzaghe:

2007: UD over Mikkel Kessler
2007: TKO over Peter Manfredo Jr
2006: UD over Sakio Bika
2006: UD over Jeff Lacy

Your point being...........?

[Benny Leonard]

Your point being...........?

Larry Holmes was past his prime, but he wasn't Shot. Shot = Dead. It doesn't matter what age you are, Dead is Dead.


Holmes went on to have a decent career after Tyson, proving he was still capable of winning and showing he was always in the fight against Top level fighters.

Jones on the other hand, had to carefully pick certain fighters out to win his fights after being starched by both Johnson and Tarver...and even in those fights, he didn't look good in winning.


Hopkins was 35 when he fought Tito. Hopkins showed that a fighter can be still in his prime at 35, as long as that fighter takes care of himself and has the proper genes to go along. Of course, after that fight, it was a struggle to stay near that level and he started to slowly slide.

Calzaghe beat Kessler in 2007 and Lacy in 2006. They were arguably his best wins and best performances, showing us that he was still fighting at a high level...unless we want to get into thinking both were overrated and then it would be different. Either way, it was the way he fought them that showed he was not an "Old" fighter.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Larry Holmes was past his prime, but he wasn't Shot. Shot = Dead. It doesn't matter what age you are, Dead is Dead.


Holmes went on to have a decent career after Tyson, proving he was still capable of winning and showing he was always in the fight against Top level fighters.

Jones on the other hand, had to carefully pick certain fighters out to win his fights after being starched by both Johnson and Tarver...and even in those fights, he didn't look good in winning.


Hopkins was 35 when he fought Tito. Hopkins showed that a fighter can be still in his prime at 35, as long as that fighter takes care of himself and has the proper genes to go along. Of course, after that fight, it was a struggle to stay near that level and he started to slowly slide.

Calzaghe beat Kessler in 2007 and Lacy in 2006. They were arguably his best wins and best performances, showing us that he was still fighting at a high level...unless we want to get into thinking both were overrated and then it would be different. Either way, it was the way he fought them that showed he was not an "Old" fighter.

This has nothing to do with my point.

My point: Calzaghe at 36 is NOT DIRECTLY COMPARABLE to Tyson at 22.

Do you accept?

[Benny Leonard]

this Has Nothing To Do With My Point.

My Point: Calzaghe At 36 Is Not Directly Comparable To Tyson At 22.

Do You Accept?

Yes.......

[bsrizpac]

No, YOU missed the point.

You see for a direct comparison to work, the components of that comparison need to be in the least bit......COMPARABLE.

This thread makes a comparison between Calzaghe vs Jones to Tyson vs Holmes. With Joe playing the role of Tyson and Jones as Holmes.

Now you have admitted that Calzaghe at 36 is in no way comparable to Tyson at 22.

That makes it a **** comparison.

Let me know if you have any trouble comprehending. Cheers.

No it really doesn't.The problem is evident in your complete lack of boxing experience both in the ring and around it. And your lack of experience in watching it.

Boxing is not math. So fighters peak at different ages.

Tyson peaked and was in decline by 22. This can easily be evidenced by how the fighter is fighting and their best wins.

Calzaghe's best wins have come late in his career. When was his Hopkins win, regarded by people LIKE YOU to be one of his best wins (since you always claimed Hopkins was not old and had not slowed down at all).

If you base it on best wins it's simple.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

No it really doesn't.The problem is evident in your complete lack of boxing experience both in the ring and around it. And your lack of experience in watching it.

Boxing is not math. So fighters peak at different ages.

Tyson peaked and was in decline by 22. This can easily be evidenced by how the fighter is fighting and their best wins.

Calzaghe's best wins have come late in his career. When was his Hopkins win, regarded by people LIKE YOU to be one of his best wins (since you always claimed Hopkins was not old and had not slowed down at all).

If you base it on best wins it's simple.

So you think Tyson at 22 is directly comparable to Calzaghe at 36?

[bsrizpac]

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.



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.




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.



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



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.




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.




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?

There you go with excuses for Joe again. He was in his peak and "couldn't get big fights". Who cares? I mean this is hilarious. YOU ARE THE GUY who argued that Hopkins is better at 43 then when he was 36. Now you turn it around to say that Joe is faded at 36 and his magical peak was earlier? What was your basis for the claim that Hopkins is better now as an older fighter? Good God.

You think Spinks was more out of his depth than Tito? Wow. Way to reveal you've never EVER watched boxing before Calzaghe. Look- just stop lying, admit that you've never ever seen any of those fights. It's okay. Stop acting like you know what you are talking about.

Spinks was considered a good scrappy heavyweight champion who was small sure, but had good wins at the weight. He fought Holmes to a standstill.

Holmes may have retired for 2 years but then WHY DID HE HAVE SO MANY GOOD WINS after he came back? The whole point of bringing that up was to show that the man wasn't shot.

And speaking of retirements you think Roy fighting Tito means something. Which is hilarious. It was a sparring session at best, one where Roy got hit a LOT for the first four rounds by a guy who was RETIRED since 05 after getting humiliated. Against a guy who didn't even bother to show up in shape. Against a guy who had his last big win against who? Mayorga? When was that. Yet you keep bringing up Roy being "active" as if that wasn't anything more than simply hard sparring. Get real.

It's hilarious how you still say it was a Good win for Joe. It was absolutely not a good win for Joe. That fight meant nothing. Roy was shot. Sorry that reality check causes you to lose your mind.

And what's this bull**** about British fighters lasting longer than Yanks? And me being upset about it? Good lord you little *****, have you completely lost your mind? Yeah I'm real mad about that, that's why I'm constantly giving Lewis props on here. Dumbass.