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

[bsrizpac]

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

You are like a broken record. Please, shut up it's really tiresome.

Joe's best wins came when?

Tyson's best wins came when?

Step inside a ring, get some insight. Or better yet WATCH those fights from the 80's. I know no British fighter is involved but give it a chance, you might enjoy it.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

You are like a broken record. Please, shut up it's really tiresome.

Joe's best wins came when?

Tyson's best wins came when?

Step inside a ring, get some insight. Or better yet WATCH those fights from the 80's. I know no British fighter is involved but give it a chance, you might enjoy it.

Answer the question. Its a simple yes or no. Cheers

[bsrizpac]

Answer the question. Its a simple yes or no. Cheers

Already have about six times. Learn to read poltroon.

[Benny Leonard]

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.

Yes, but even with my own debate of Mental and Physical prime, we also must realize that it was Tyson's fault for letting his decline happen, while Joe Calzaghe is given little choice at his age for a start of a slide.

Tyson's was mental

Joe's is Physical

Both were still with their original trainers; both were still fighting at a high level, especially Tyson.

However, since Joe is a certain age, there is more of a chance he is on the slide at the point he is facing Jones Jr. even if he was fighting on a high level and arguably showed his greatest performance in 2007 against Kessler.

If JOe really is past his prime, I don't know; he hasn't shown it...except for keeping his hand problems at the front, but he's always had that. But I wouldn't trust it and I would look carefully.

The point being: Even if Joe is still relatively in or close to his prime, this argument favors Tyson being 100% in his prime given what we know and saw, and Joe, the possibility of 100% isn't 100%

So it's slight, but slight enough to win if we are measuring in centimeters.

[bsrizpac]

Yes, but even with my own debate of Mental and Physical prime, we also must realize that it was Tyson's fault for letting his decline happen, while Joe Calzaghe is given little choice at his age for a start of a slide.

Tyson's was mental

Joe's is Physical

Both were still with their original trainers; both were still fighting at a high level, especially Tyson.

However, since Joe is a certain age, there is more of a chance he is on the slide at the point he is facing Jones Jr. even if he was fighting on a high level and arguably showed his greatest performance in 2007 against Kessler.

If he really is, I don't know; he hasn't shown it...except for keeping his hand problems at the front, but he's always had that.

The point being: Even if Joe is still relatively in or close to his prime, this argument favors Tyson being 100% in his prime given what we know and saw, and Joe, the possibility of 100% isn't 100%

So it's slight, but slight enough to win if we are measuring in centimeters.

I understand what you're saying but compare Tyson physically even at 33 to Joe at 36. For whatever the reasons are, Tyson peaked very early. Period.

Joe peaked late. I base peaking on their best performances and wins.

Unless everyone suddenly thinks Joe against david starie was amazing and Tyson vs. Frans Botha was an epic masterpiece.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

There you go with excuses for Joe again. He was in his peak and "couldn't get big fights". Who cares?

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.

I mean this is hilarious. YOU ARE THE GUY who argued that Hopkins is better at 43 then when he was 36.

No I didnt.

Now you turn it around to say that Joe is faded at 36 and his magical peak was earlier?

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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

[Benny Leonard]

I understand what you're saying but compare Tyson physically even at 33 to Joe at 36. For whatever the reasons are, Tyson peaked very early. Period.

Joe peaked late. I base peaking on their best performances and wins.

Unless everyone suddenly thinks Joe against david starie was amazing and Tyson vs. Frans Botha was an epic masterpiece.

I don't think Dirk was talking about that.

He's comparing a 22 year old Tyson to a 36 year old Joe Calzaghe that fought Roy Jones Jr.

Like I said: "it's slight, but slight enough to win if we are measuring in centimeters" when discussing this argument.

We really don't know where exactly Joe is as far as prime. He is still fighting at a very high level, but how high compared to 1 year ago, we don't know. He could be at 98%; that 2% decline is what we are discussing...I think.

Tyson at the times of Holmes, was still at 100%.


We are working in centimeters.


But, overall, I agree with you. Especially since we saw what Tyson did to Holmes and what Joe couldn't do to a Shot Roy Jones Jr. that both Glen Johnson and Tarver did...win by brutal KO.


Tyson's prime decline was Mental: It was due to stress.

Without Rooney, he was a complete mess and went down hill.

Tom Patti said that bold spot we all saw on a young Tyson was actually caused by stress.

Tyson was under tremendous stress at a very young age and he didn't know how to deal with it.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Already have about six times. Learn to read poltroon.

No you waffled on at length about something completely irrelvent.

Try a yes or no.

Tyson at 22 is directly comparable to Calzaghe at 36?

Yes or no.

[bsrizpac]

No you waffled on at length about something completely irrelvent.

Try a yes or no.

Tyson at 22 is directly comparable to Calzaghe at 36?

Yes or no.

Already responded. Get off your high horse clown.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Tyson vs Holmes.........Calzaghe vs Jones = Horrible Comparison, in fact shouldnt even be called a "comparison".

Calzaghe vs Jones..........Lewis vs Tyson = Better comparison.