Giving Joe Calzaghe Credit For Beating This Version Of RJJ.....

[Phil]

roy offered nothing so i dont think its that great an achievement, but that been said he did what he always does and beat the man in front of him. as for lacy it was the fight everyone wanted and joe put on a champions exhibiton, i give him credit for that

[Taeth]

Now that I've seen it clearly, I am not that impressed at all. Joe Calzaghe outworked a guy wasn't throwing punches, in the middle of the ring when Roy was punching even though he is way slower then in his prime Calzaghe couldn't react at all except throwing himself way out of position trying to get out of the way. If he did that against Prime Jones he would have been assaulted by combination after combination. After seeing it again its become clear to me that Roy's speed is too much.

[BIG H]

I don't think this win does anything for Calzaghe's legacy at all. I think beating Hopkins did though. I've been saying all day that RJJ, Hop and JC all have records that you can easily pick apart, but you can't argue with an unbeaten record, same as you can't say, Hopkins wouldn't have still been champ for 10 years if he didn't fight stiffs.

[Fenster]

Calzaghe deserves credit because PLENTY of people picked him to lose. Including PLENTY of "EXPERTS."

If Roy had won would no-one be giving him credit? Nobody would be gloating over Calzaghe's loss?

Calzaghe would have been SLAUGHTERED.

If the fight was even remotely close Calzaghe would have been slagged-off something cronic.

Now people are moaning about him winning too EASILY.. that he showboated too much.

[ICB]

Calzaghe deserves credit because PLENTY of people picked him to lose. Including PLENTY of "EXPERTS."

If Roy had won would no-one be giving him credit? Nobody would be gloating over Calzaghe's loss?

Calzaghe would have been SLAUGHTERED.

If the fight was even remotely close Calzaghe would have been slagged-off something cronic.

Now people are moaning about him winning too EASILY.. that he showboated too much.

Of course RJJ would get more credit isn't that obvious ? he was considered a shot fighter. And at 39 years old it would of been a great achievement beating a top 4 P4P fighter.

Just like if George Foreman would of lost to Michael Moorer, Michael Moorer wouldn't have gotten the credit George Foreman did. Thats the way it works.

Fenster you are biased to Joe Calzaghe, you do give facts/stats ETC but you twist them in a way to suit Joe Calzaghe.

People who were picking RJJ were "hoping" RJJ would turn back the clock. Hoping is the key word here Fenster.

The fact is RJJ hasn't had a stoppage win or the killer instinct since 2002. He couldn't finish off Felix Trinidad, Anthony Hanshaw, when he had them in huge trouble.

For the simple reason he hasn't got fire in his belly anymore. He has only shown "flashes" of his old self in his comeback fights. Again Fenster flashes being the key word here again.

And he has only shown flashes because of the opposition he was up against. Lets be fair here and give Joe Calzaghe his credit for beating Bernard Hopkins, because Bernard Hopkins is a very young 43 year old with plenty still left.

But giving Joe Calzaghe alot of credit for beating a fighter, who hasn't had a good showing for atleast 6 or 7 years, is being biased to Joe Calzaghe and not fair.

[Fenster]

Calzaghe deserves credit because PLENTY of people picked him to lose. Including PLENTY of "EXPERTS."

If Roy had won would no-one be giving him credit? Nobody would be gloating over Calzaghe's loss?

Calzaghe would have been SLAUGHTERED.

If the fight was even remotely close Calzaghe would have been slagged-off something cronic.

Now people are moaning about him winning too EASILY.. that he showboated too much.

Of course RJJ would get more credit isn't that obvious ? he was considered a shot fighter. And at 39 years old it would of been a great achievement beating a top 4 P4P fighter.

Just like if George Foreman would of lost to Michael Moorer, Michael Moorer wouldn't have gotten the credit George Foreman did. Thats the way it works.

Fenster you are biased to Joe Calzaghe, you do give facts/stats ETC but you twist them in a way to suit Joe Calzaghe.

People who were picking RJJ were "hoping" RJJ would turn back the clock. Hoping is the key word here Fenster.

The fact is RJJ hasn't had a stoppage win or the killer instinct since 2002. He couldn't finish off Felix Trinidad, Anthony Hanshaw, when he had them in huge trouble.

For the simple reason he hasn't got fire in his belly anymore. He has only shown "flashes" of his old self in his comeback fights. Again Fenster flashes being the key word here again.

And he has only shown flashes because of the opposition he was up against. Lets be fair here and give Joe Calzaghe his credit for beating Bernard Hopkins, because Bernard Hopkins is a very young 43 year old with plenty still left.

But giving Joe Calzaghe alot of credit for beating a fighter, who hasn't had a good showing for atleast 6 or 7 years, is being biased to Joe Calzaghe and not fair.

Show me where i twist the facts to suit Calzaghe? Facts are facts.

So all the people picking Jones were just "hoping" he does? Even though they KNEW about all these lack of "flashes" and "killer instinct" they STILL picked Jones just "hoping?" How fucking CONVENIENT. And completely GUTLESS!!!

JT made sound reasons for a Roy win along with Bernard Hopkins, Lennox Lewis, Jeff Lacy, Glen Johnson, Vernon Forrest, James Toney, Powderpuff Malignaggi, Winky Wright ETC... along with a ton of press "experts."

If Roy had won you'd be telling EVERYONE how great you are for picking Roy.

You can't have it both ways.

[ICB]

Calzaghe deserves credit because PLENTY of people picked him to lose. Including PLENTY of "EXPERTS."

If Roy had won would no-one be giving him credit? Nobody would be gloating over Calzaghe's loss?

Calzaghe would have been SLAUGHTERED.

If the fight was even remotely close Calzaghe would have been slagged-off something cronic.

Now people are moaning about him winning too EASILY.. that he showboated too much.

Of course RJJ would get more credit isn't that obvious ? he was considered a shot fighter. And at 39 years old it would of been a great achievement beating a top 4 P4P fighter.

Just like if George Foreman would of lost to Michael Moorer, Michael Moorer wouldn't have gotten the credit George Foreman did. Thats the way it works.

Fenster you are biased to Joe Calzaghe, you do give facts/stats ETC but you twist them in a way to suit Joe Calzaghe.

People who were picking RJJ were "hoping" RJJ would turn back the clock. Hoping is the key word here Fenster.

The fact is RJJ hasn't had a stoppage win or the killer instinct since 2002. He couldn't finish off Felix Trinidad, Anthony Hanshaw, when he had them in huge trouble.

For the simple reason he hasn't got fire in his belly anymore. He has only shown "flashes" of his old self in his comeback fights. Again Fenster flashes being the key word here again.

And he has only shown flashes because of the opposition he was up against. Lets be fair here and give Joe Calzaghe his credit for beating Bernard Hopkins, because Bernard Hopkins is a very young 43 year old with plenty still left.

But giving Joe Calzaghe alot of credit for beating a fighter, who hasn't had a good showing for atleast 6 or 7 years, is being biased to Joe Calzaghe and not fair.

Show me where i twist the facts to suit Calzaghe? Facts are facts.

So all the people picking Jones were just "hoping" he does? Even though they KNEW about all these lack of "flashes" and "killer instinct" they STILL picked Jones just "hoping?" How fucking CONVENIENT. And completely GUTLESS!!!

JT made sound reasons for a Roy win along with Bernard Hopkins, Lennox Lewis, Jeff Lacy, Glen Johnson, Vernon Forrest, James Toney, Powderpuff Malignaggi, Winky Wright ETC... along with a ton of press "experts."

If Roy had won you'd be telling EVERYONE how great you are for picking Roy.

You can't have it both ways.

I didn't say everyone there again your twisting what im saying, but most people were "hoping". Some people obviously had genuine arguments on how RJJ would win.

But again that doesn't change the fact that RJJ is a shot fighter, and hasn't had a good showing since 2002.

Im asking you right now on the spot what had RJJ done in the last few years, that warranted a shot against Joe Calzaghe ? other than being a name for his past achievements ?

Because according to Joe Calzaghe, Felix Trinidad vs RJJ. Was a fight between two old hasbeen's. So if thats true why did he fight RJJ ? because obviously he also considered RJJ a shot fighter based on that comment ? he contradicts himself all the time.

If your honestly going to sit there and tell me RJJ isn't a shot fighter, and based on his comeback fights that he done anything to warrant a shot against Joe Calzaghe. And that based on his comeback fights and his last fight against Joe Calzaghe, that Joe Calzaghe deserves alot of credit for this win.

Then we might aswell end this debate right now because were not going to get anywhere, i was hoping RJJ to win and if he did win i would consider it a great achievement and i would be very happy. Because of his age and how far he has dropped off the rankings, it would of course be a great comeback/achievement over a top 4 P4P fighter.

But facts are facts as you like to put it Fenster, RJJ hasn't been the same fighter since dropping down to Light Heavyweight. And just because a few experts picked RJJ does not mean he wasn't a shot fighter.

[RP33]

Calzaghe deserves credit because PLENTY of people picked him to lose. Including PLENTY of "EXPERTS."

If Roy had won would no-one be giving him credit? Nobody would be gloating over Calzaghe's loss?

Calzaghe would have been SLAUGHTERED.

If the fight was even remotely close Calzaghe would have been slagged-off something cronic.

Now people are moaning about him winning too EASILY.. that he showboated too much.

Of course RJJ would get more credit isn't that obvious ? he was considered a shot fighter. And at 39 years old it would of been a great achievement beating a top 4 P4P fighter.

Just like if George Foreman would of lost to Michael Moorer, Michael Moorer wouldn't have gotten the credit George Foreman did. Thats the way it works.

Fenster you are biased to Joe Calzaghe, you do give facts/stats ETC but you twist them in a way to suit Joe Calzaghe.

People who were picking RJJ were "hoping" RJJ would turn back the clock. Hoping is the key word here Fenster.

The fact is RJJ hasn't had a stoppage win or the killer instinct since 2002. He couldn't finish off Felix Trinidad, Anthony Hanshaw, when he had them in huge trouble.

For the simple reason he hasn't got fire in his belly anymore. He has only shown "flashes" of his old self in his comeback fights. Again Fenster flashes being the key word here again.

And he has only shown flashes because of the opposition he was up against. Lets be fair here and give Joe Calzaghe his credit for beating Bernard Hopkins, because Bernard Hopkins is a very young 43 year old with plenty still left.

But giving Joe Calzaghe alot of credit for beating a fighter, who hasn't had a good showing for atleast 6 or 7 years, is being biased to Joe Calzaghe and not fair.

Show me where i twist the facts to suit Calzaghe? Facts are facts.

So all the people picking Jones were just "hoping" he does? Even though they KNEW about all these lack of "flashes" and "killer instinct" they STILL picked Jones just "hoping?" How fucking CONVENIENT. And completely GUTLESS!!!

JT made sound reasons for a Roy win along with Bernard Hopkins, Lennox Lewis, Jeff Lacy, Glen Johnson, Vernon Forrest, James Toney, Powderpuff Malignaggi, Winky Wright ETC... along with a ton of press "experts."

If Roy had won you'd be telling EVERYONE how great you are for picking Roy.

You can't have it both ways.

eh, i've never really seen ICB gloat.. I think it was shane mosely who sort of summarized most of the RJJ fans views.. said something that he wanted RJJ to win but that calzaghe was too heavily favored..

In just about every pre-fight analysis, when asked who has more to gain/lose from this fight, the answer was always calzaghe.. if he lost he would've been slaughtered, you're right.. and now that he has won, he beat 39 year old shell of a fighter, and doesn't get credit..

If roy goes on to beat a young up and comer, like hopkins did, then calzaghe would get a lot more credit for this, but id on't see this happening..

[Taeth]

My question is when did guys like Bika ever give Roy problems when he was anywhere near his prime? The most similar guy to that is Merqui Sosa who Roy knocked out in 2 rounds. They are similar fighters Roy and Joe, but Roy is that much faster, and hits that much harder, and punches that much straighter.

Once again didn't Glen Johnson beat Roy THAT easily? And Roy was actually throwing combinations in that fight, Didn't Tarver beat Roy THAT easily in their third fight?

Thats why Joe is not getting any respect, because he doesn't deserve it FOR THIS FIGHT

Against Kessler I give him all the credit in the world, Kessler is a really good fighter and Joe beat him handily. Joe had a very close fight with Bernard where he kept on imposing himself more and more in the fight, but I think that was because Bernard is so old, but still Bernard is still an amazing fighter, and Joe gets a lot of credit for what he did, but still Jermain Taylor fought just as well against Bernard, Roy fought better against a much younger Bernard who was on the verge of his prime IMO.

[bambamdaddio]

Calzaghe deserves credit because PLENTY of people picked him to lose. Including PLENTY of "EXPERTS."

If Roy had won would no-one be giving him credit? Nobody would be gloating over Calzaghe's loss?

Calzaghe would have been SLAUGHTERED.

If the fight was even remotely close Calzaghe would have been slagged-off something cronic.

Now people are moaning about him winning too EASILY.. that he showboated too much.

Absolutely spot on

[jack2121]

Calzaghe deserves credit because PLENTY of people picked him to lose. Including PLENTY of "EXPERTS."

If Roy had won would no-one be giving him credit? Nobody would be gloating over Calzaghe's loss?

Calzaghe would have been SLAUGHTERED.

If the fight was even remotely close Calzaghe would have been slagged-off something cronic.

Now people are moaning about him winning too EASILY.. that he showboated too much.

sorry fenster i am a big jc fan but its IMPOSIBLE to give jc credit for beating a washed up roy jones, hes not even half the man he was. like ive said so many times the fight would have meant so much more 8 years ago heck even 10 yrs ago!

[Fenster]

Calzaghe deserves credit because PLENTY of people picked him to lose. Including PLENTY of "EXPERTS."

If Roy had won would no-one be giving him credit? Nobody would be gloating over Calzaghe's loss?

Calzaghe would have been SLAUGHTERED.

If the fight was even remotely close Calzaghe would have been slagged-off something cronic.

Now people are moaning about him winning too EASILY.. that he showboated too much.

sorry fenster i am a big jc fan but its IMPOSIBLE to give jc credit for beating a washed up roy jones, hes not even half the man he was. like ive said so many times the fight would have meant so much more 8 years ago heck even 10 yrs ago!

Yes, Roy was past his best, everyone can acknowledge that. But enough people thought Roy would win to make Calzaghe deserve SOME credit.

Anyone BEFORE the fight that said - "this is a pathetic shit mismatch, Roy is beyond SHOT, Calzaghe will humiliate and destroy him" .. then I don't expect them to give Calzaghe any credit.

[jack2121]

Calzaghe deserves credit because PLENTY of people picked him to lose. Including PLENTY of "EXPERTS."

If Roy had won would no-one be giving him credit? Nobody would be gloating over Calzaghe's loss?

Calzaghe would have been SLAUGHTERED.

If the fight was even remotely close Calzaghe would have been slagged-off something cronic.

Now people are moaning about him winning too EASILY.. that he showboated too much.

sorry fenster i am a big jc fan but its IMPOSIBLE to give jc credit for beating a washed up roy jones, hes not even half the man he was. like ive said so many times the fight would have meant so much more 8 years ago heck even 10 yrs ago!

Yes, Roy was past his best, everyone can acknowledge that. But enough people thought Roy would win to make Calzaghe deserve SOME credit.

Anyone BEFORE the fight that said - "this is a pathetic shit mismatch, Roy is beyond SHOT, Calzaghe will humiliate and destroy him" .. then I don't expect them to give Calzaghe any credit.

rjj fans and americans picked jones to win so they could stick it to us calzaghe fans if he did but they all knew deep down the outcome, and also after any fight everyone always looks for whom to give credit regardless, joe will not gain much from this fight, (apart from another notch on that amazing record) and its not joes fault he wont gain credit from it, he beats who ever they put in front of him its just the cicumstances unfortunatly.