Prime for prime who wins at 168..Joe Calzaghe or GGG

[robertzimmerman]

tbh i had forgot about the reid fight and im not going to watch the whole thing so i can refer to it on a forum lol. Hopkins fight was not close, calzaghe landed literally double the amount of punches hopkins did, that 114-113 card was disgusting. i had calzaghe winning 9 rounds out of 12, although hopkins got that early flash knockdown so 116-111. same as lederman scored it

Why are you making bold statements when you've never seen the fights?

His fight with Bernard was close.

It was quality vs quantity.

A lot of Joe's punches were ineffective cuffs with no accuracy.

He used to concentrate more on volume than accuracy.

It's not: who lands the most punches wins.

[daggum]

Why are you making bold statements when you've never seen the fights?

His fight with Bernard was close.

It was quality vs quantity.

A lot of Joe's punches were ineffective cuffs with no accuracy.

He used to concentrate more on volume than accuracy.

It's not, who lands the most punches, wins.

it was quality vs missed quantity. hopkins actually landed more than calzaghe. it's been proven. some people just refuse to believe it. calzaghe's punches simply weren't landing for the most part. hopkins should get credit for defense but instead calzaghe gets credit for clean punching when they weren't clean? makes no sense. that was a very bad decision. it wasn't a pac/marquez type fight where both guys were landing good solid punches. one guy was landing and one guy wasn't. the guy who wasn't won? bad judging.

[Graz]

I just watched Calzaghe's fight with Eubanks Sr. again. Eubanks was a bit past his prime but fought well. Calzaghe really never hurt Eubanks but won the decision. Joe is a volume puncher but not a real power puncher IMO. Golovkin's power seems to negate his opponents "plan" in the ring. So I think GGG would take out a prime Calzaghe and it wouldn't be pretty.

[robertzimmerman]

it was quality vs missed quantity. hopkins actually landed more than calzaghe. it's been proven. some people just refuse to believe it. calzaghe's punches simply weren't landing for the most part. hopkins should get credit for defense but instead calzaghe gets credit for clean punching when they weren't clean? makes no sense. that was a very bad decision. it wasn't a pac/marquez type fight where both guys were landing good solid punches. one guy was landing and one guy wasn't. the guy who wasn't won? bad judging.

It happened all throughout Joe's career.

Joe was very frustrating.

Sometimes he was technically brilliant, landing crisp shots. At other times, his technique and accuracy were awful and he just threw shot after shot.

I remember you posting the gif of the Manfredo stoppage.

[Madison Boxing]

Once again, in 2004, Glen Johnson bullied Roy for 9 rounds and then knocked him cold.

Go and find me one person who thinks Glen Johnson would have beaten Roy at his peak.


Joe Calzaghe wrote in his autobiography:

"I never rated Tarver. He only beat Roy Jones because he was shot. And Johnson did the same"

"A fight with me and Roy would now be pointless"

That was published in 2007, a year before they fought.


Going into their 2008 fight, Roy was touching 40, and he was 3-3 in his previous 6, and he hadn't had a top level win for exactly 5 years.

Although Joe was 36, he was still an elite fighter.

Age and ring age are 2 very different things.

Joe beating Roy easily in 2008, has no bearing whatsoever when predicting the outcome of an earlier fight.


If you have some spare time, go and watch Roy when he was prime from 1993-2003.

He was on another level to Joe.

He was faster, he had more variation, better footwork, better reflexes, he was more accurate, he had better timing, and he was more powerful.

Joe was a great fighter in his own right, but he was always relatively easy to hit, especially with right hands. A guy who struggled with Reid and who was dropped by the likes of Salem and Mitchell while prime, wasn't good enough to have beaten Roy when he was in his mid 20's.


Too smart for him? Please!


He was just that bit better? Please!


You have never seen full fights of Roy when he was in his prime. I know for a fact that you haven't.

You're a big fan of Joe's, but who knows nothing about the career of Roy Jones.

Go and educate on the matter.

Finally, Joe wouldn't have gone anywhere near Roy when he was in his prime.

i know a lot about both fighters. Both great, joe was greater. WOuld have outworked roy in his prime. Joe was also past prime when they fought.

[Madison Boxing]

Stop with the fantasy BS.

You can't pick any fighter against Joe at 168?

Go and watch some more boxing.

There's no way Joe would have beaten Roy in his prime. Forget the fight in 2008, which was 4 years after Glen Johnson had bullied him and knocked him cold. Roy was on another level in his prime.

Eubank? Eubank had 11 days notice to hit a weight he hadn't hit in 2 years, and he had no southpaw sparring, and he couldn't do his roadwork due to having bad knees that he he had to have infections in before the fight. Yes, he still had a lot left in the tank. Yes, he was motivated. But he was clearly faded. He was never the same after Watson, and he'd lost twice to Collins. Whilst it was a great win for Joe personally, it wasn't a great win in the boxing world.

No one was even close to beating him? I guess you must have missed his fights with Reid and Bernard.

Back on topic, I'd have to favour Joe over GG at 168. We haven't even seen GG at 168 yet. We don't know if he carries his power up. Joe was bigger. He had a walking around weight of 190 plus pounds. He also has a bigger reach and a huge advantage in speed. He's also obviously a southpaw, and he had a great stamina and work rate. So I think he'd have won a UD.

youre deluded mate, theres never been a better fighter at 168 than joe calzaghe, unbeaten for a reason, cause he couldnt be beaten

[W1LL]

Joe Calzaghe is invincible.

[Madison Boxing]

Why are you making bold statements when you've never seen the fights?

His fight with Bernard was close.

It was quality vs quantity.

A lot of Joe's punches were ineffective cuffs with no accuracy.

He used to concentrate more on volume than accuracy.

It's not: who lands the most punches wins.

ive seen hopkins calzaghe twice and it wasnt close...

[robertzimmerman]

i know a lot about both fighters. Both great, joe was greater. WOuld have outworked roy in his prime. Joe was also past prime when they fought.

You don't know anything about either guy, which is evident in your laughable posts.

You spout nonsense about Joe not even coming close to losing, and then you admit that you've never seen the Reid fight.

He would have out worked Roy in his prime?

Laughable.

He wouldn't even have fought Roy in his prime.

Again, yes, Joe was past his best in 2008. But he was still an elite level guy.

How can you ignore what he wrote in his autobiography?

No knowledgeable fan thinks that Joe was greater than Roy. On the night, clearly. But not overall.

Your posts are complete fantasy.

[robertzimmerman]

youre deluded mate, theres never been a better fighter at 168 than joe calzaghe, unbeaten for a reason, cause he couldnt be beaten

You're the one who is deluded.

I know you've never seen footage of Roy in his prime. It's obvious.

He couldn't be beaten? Joe was a great fighter, but it's not as though beat a lot of great fighters.

He could never have been beaten, on the grounds that he wasn't. Great logic there. I guess Ali was inferior to Marciano, seeing as though nobody ever beat him yet Ali lost 5 times.

Stop posting **** and go and watch some fights.

Robin Reid gave Joe all he could handle, and we never saw him fight a top southpaw in his career. So it's laughable to say he'd have beaten any other SMW in history, and he was the best. He wasn't the best.

Again, he got dropped by Kabary Salem and Byron Mitchell, but he'd have beaten Roy at 25? Ha! I don't think so chief. You can't beat Roy if you're struggling with Reid and getting caught by those guys.

Get yourself on YouTube and stop pretending that you know things when you don't.