Jones and Calzaghe generation

[DavidPayne]

Much used phrase.

If we make a case that a fighter needed debut after say 1989 [Jones debut].

Who are the best three fighters of that generation?

Runners and riders......

[EddieShredder]

There's so many to cut it down to just 3, but there's 15-20 or so who are better than JC... that's not me being dramatic, but there are at least 15 boxers since 1989 who were/are better fighters than JC.

If I get 5mins later, I'll list them

As for the 3 (without naming Jones), Toney, Mayweather and Pacman were all better than JC. Start adding guys like Barrera, Morales, Lopez, Tszyu, Mosley, Hopkins, Lewis to the list, and it starts filling up without even thinking.

[Autobarn]

Who cares. I think Joe has to go down as a major name - one of the elite - for getting recognition in the 168 and 175 divisions for big fights won in the UK and one in America. There's something we can be picky with in any fighter's career.

There are many major names from many different weights, and it seems too general a term. He's one of the main fighters who fought at super middle or light heavy, with RJJ & Hopkins.


What concerns me. allegedly's in the hall of fame. Fair enough, massive events like JC-Lacy/Kessler, Hatton-Tszyu with his fighter winning & going back Naz. But Lewis doesn't get voted in. I find that troubling with most of Warren's big shows being for dubious titles, and with Lewis being THE MAN at heavyweight with many big wins in America. I think this is something Brits will pick up on.

[EddieShredder]

Who cares. I think Joe has to go down as a major name - one of the elite - for getting recognition in the 168 and 175 divisions for big fights won in the UK and one in America. There's something we can be picky with in any fighter's career.

There are many major names from many different weights, and it seems too general a term. He's one of the main fighters who fought at super middle or light heavy, with RJJ & Hopkins.


What concerns me. allegedly allegedly's in the hall of fame. Fair enough, massive events like JC-Lacy/Kessler, Hatton-Tszyu with his fighter winning & going back Naz. But Lewis doesn't get voted in. I find that troubling with most of Warren's big shows being for dubious titles, and with Lewis being THE MAN at heavyweight with many big wins in America. I think this is something Brits will pick up on.

Lewis will make it in, in time - no doubt. He simply has to....

Joe will go down as a major name, no arguments there - but it has to be in perspective against the truly great fighters of this generation.

[Autobarn]

I think he can go down as a great, can Joe. I wish he had the Darchinyan attitude, ie just take the big fights, take down everyone in your path, get knocked out, and come back even better.

Joe's obviously gone the "unbeaten", fussy careful route. Get guys in the right place or the right time. On those terms he seems to have done it. You still have to be exceptionally good to succeed in this way.

Joe came on the scene vs an ageing but fairly dangerous Eubank, and will likely leave boxing vs an ageing and hopefully dangerous Jones, so there's a nice bit of symmetry in there.

Shame that fights with Taylor and Pavlik - both under 30, heavy hitters and generously rated aong top 10 p4p briefly - never happened, but I think events have proven that those two will never quite be top level.

[EddieShredder]

Shame that fights with Taylor and Pavlik - both under 30, heavy hitters and generously rated aong top 10 p4p briefly - never happened, but I think events have proven that those two will never quite be top level.

A truly great fighter, would have made those fights, along with a whole host of other missed opportunities.

[Ezzard]

IMO Calzaghe has done little different than Jones and Toney who both managed to miss a lot of competitive fights. Jones' reluctance to fight even started the unprecedented Roycott movement.

They're all guilty of the same thing.

[Autobarn]

IMO Calzaghe has done little different than Jones and Toney who both managed to miss a lot of competitive fights. Jones' reluctance to fight even started the unprecedented Roycott movement.

They're all guilty of the same thing.

I agree, especially if you replace Toney with Hopkins. Then you have Joe, Jones and Hopkins, 3 long time alphabet champions who had lots of routine fights. Jones obviously was getting paid great money to do this, whereas the other 2 didn't seem to want to risk what they had. Now they take the big fights on their own terms. Hopkins has ppl blow themselves up from middleweight to fight, and Joe fights older "name" fighters that HBO still deem bankable.

[DavidPayne]

Hopkins cannot be blamed for a lack of natural opponents - Joe had stacks of fellow champions he never faced.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Amen to that.

What Joe has going for him is that big fat 0. So what - had he fought all of the available competition I very much doubt he would be unbeaten.

[Billy_Boy]

IMHO, Mayweather will probably go down in history as the best P4P fighter of this generation.

[bobcat]

this is the last time im going to do this,im kind of tired of people who just seem to dislike J.C. and want to discredit him at all costs.

eubank
reid
woodhall
sheika
brewer
mitchell
lacy
bika
kessler
hopkins
and now jones
not to mention,a bunch of very decent b level type defenses in amongst all that.

now i KNOW,someone will come along and post holes in each and every of those fights"that guy was too old,that guy was too young,that guy was too small,that guy was too slow,he didnt fight EVERY great fighter of his generation in their primes,on their terms....he has never lost,so that must mean he isnt a true champion and hasnt taken enough risks.....and so on"

i suppose calzaghe cant be great,because he didnt want to go to germany to chase sven ottke around an oversized ring for 12 rounds and lose because its hard to hit a guy on a bicycle. or i suppose he was ducking beyer......give me a break:S

he's one of the greatest smw's in history,and one of the best u.k. fighters in history too,so there you go,you can flame me for that as well.

i guess darchinian will be remembered as a great,as he showed against donaire.and pavlik will be remembered as well,as he showed against hopkins.they took risks,right? they are champions.

calzaghe never took risks,right?.....how quickly people forget that they were saying lacy was this great force,and was gonna walk through joe.and the many who picked kessler to beat him.and the many who believed that even at his age,that hopkins was going to beat him as well.

sheika,reid,brewer,mitchell,eubank,etc.....these guys were never dangerous to fight,right?:S

ffs,it doesnt matter,j.c. could move up to cw and beat steve cunningham,and people would be whinging cause he avoided david haye.

this is all getting very tedious.

[EddieShredder]

this is the last time im going to do this,im kind of tired of people who just seem to dislike J.C. and want to discredit him at all costs.

eubank
reid
woodhall
sheika
brewer
mitchell
lacy
bika
kessler
hopkins
and now jones
not to mention,a bunch of very decent b level type defenses in amongst all that.

now i KNOW,someone will come along and post holes in each and every of those fights"that guy was too old,that guy was too young,that guy was too small,that guy was too slow,he didnt fight EVERY great fighter of his generation in their primes,on their terms....he has never lost,so that must mean he isnt a true champion and hasnt taken enough risks.....and so on"

i suppose calzaghe cant be great,because he didnt want to go to germany to chase sven ottke around an oversized ring for 12 rounds and lose because its hard to hit a guy on a bicycle. or i suppose he was ducking beyer......give me a break:S

he's one of the greatest smw's in history,and one of the best u.k. fighters in history too,so there you go,you can flame me for that as well.

i guess darchinian will be remembered as a great,as he showed against donaire.and pavlik will be remembered as well,as he showed against hopkins.they took risks,right? they are champions.

calzaghe never took risks,right?.....how quickly people forget that they were saying lacy was this great force,and was gonna walk through joe.and the many who picked kessler to beat him.and the many who believed that even at his age,that hopkins was going to beat him as well.

sheika,reid,brewer,mitchell,eubank,etc.....these guys were never dangerous to fight,right?:S

ffs,it doesnt matter,j.c. could move up to cw and beat steve cunningham,and people would be whinging cause he avoided david haye.

this is all getting very tedious.

Calm down Enzo.... don't make me post a list of people and champions he could and should have fought

[bobcat]

sorry to double post,but to answer the op's question,id say the 2 best fighters,since 89 would have to be RJJ and Floyd,no doubt whatsoever to me there.

as to the third,im really not sure,theres a whole bunch of guys who could be placed in there.....lewis,pac,tszyu,barrera,calzaghe,etc etc....i really dont know who id put in 3rd.but the first 2 are clear cut,imho.

[bobcat]

this is the last time im going to do this,im kind of tired of people who just seem to dislike J.C. and want to discredit him at all costs.

eubank
reid
woodhall
sheika
brewer
mitchell
lacy
bika
kessler
hopkins
and now jones
not to mention,a bunch of very decent b level type defenses in amongst all that.

now i KNOW,someone will come along and post holes in each and every of those fights"that guy was too old,that guy was too young,that guy was too small,that guy was too slow,he didnt fight EVERY great fighter of his generation in their primes,on their terms....he has never lost,so that must mean he isnt a true champion and hasnt taken enough risks.....and so on"

i suppose calzaghe cant be great,because he didnt want to go to germany to chase sven ottke around an oversized ring for 12 rounds and lose because its hard to hit a guy on a bicycle. or i suppose he was ducking beyer......give me a break:S

he's one of the greatest smw's in history,and one of the best u.k. fighters in history too,so there you go,you can flame me for that as well.

i guess darchinian will be remembered as a great,as he showed against donaire.and pavlik will be remembered as well,as he showed against hopkins.they took risks,right? they are champions.

calzaghe never took risks,right?.....how quickly people forget that they were saying lacy was this great force,and was gonna walk through joe.and the many who picked kessler to beat him.and the many who believed that even at his age,that hopkins was going to beat him as well.

sheika,reid,brewer,mitchell,eubank,etc.....these guys were never dangerous to fight,right?:S

ffs,it doesnt matter,j.c. could move up to cw and beat steve cunningham,and people would be whinging cause he avoided david haye.

this is all getting very tedious.

Calm down Enzo.... don't make me post a list of people and champions he could and should have fought

post it,i made my point.and my name isnt enzo.youll notice i made a quite coherent post and backed up my arguments.if enzo posted here,he'd probably sound more like an italian version of goodson or something.

[mark thompson]

this is the last time im going to do this,im kind of tired of people who just seem to dislike J.C. and want to discredit him at all costs.

eubank
reid
woodhall
sheika
brewer
mitchell
lacy
bika
kessler
hopkins
and now jones
not to mention,a bunch of very decent b level type defenses in amongst all that.

now i KNOW,someone will come along and post holes in each and every of those fights"that guy was too old,that guy was too young,that guy was too small,that guy was too slow,he didnt fight EVERY great fighter of his generation in their primes,on their terms....he has never lost,so that must mean he isnt a true champion and hasnt taken enough risks.....and so on"

i suppose calzaghe cant be great,because he didnt want to go to germany to chase sven ottke around an oversized ring for 12 rounds and lose because its hard to hit a guy on a bicycle. or i suppose he was ducking beyer......give me a break:S

he's one of the greatest smw's in history,and one of the best u.k. fighters in history too,so there you go,you can flame me for that as well.

i guess darchinian will be remembered as a great,as he showed against donaire.and pavlik will be remembered as well,as he showed against hopkins.they took risks,right? they are champions.

calzaghe never took risks,right?.....how quickly people forget that they were saying lacy was this great force,and was gonna walk through joe.and the many who picked kessler to beat him.and the many who believed that even at his age,that hopkins was going to beat him as well.

sheika,reid,brewer,mitchell,eubank,etc.....these guys were never dangerous to fight,right?:S

ffs,it doesnt matter,j.c. could move up to cw and beat steve cunningham,and people would be whinging cause he avoided david haye.

this is all getting very tedious.

SPOT ON BOBCAT it's the usual British bullshit for some reason this country loves a loser

[EddieShredder]

post it,i made my point.and my name isnt enzo.youll notice i made a quite coherent post and backed up my arguments.if enzo posted here,he'd probably sound more like an italian version of goodson or something.

I'm only winding you up..

I've said in previous posts, as much as I dislike him, I've a lot of respect for what he's achieved, and appreciate that he's an excellent boxer, one of our best ever.

However - he could have been a true great. The difference between calzaghe, and a real legend is that they DO fight all challengers - they make sure the fights happen.

I don't like the way Calzaghe will (probably) beat another old legend and talk about how he's beaten the best fighters of his era etc etc... when we all know whilst he did fight some good fighters, he also avoided the best - and picked his final opponents very carefully. No way would he have beaten a prime Jones, or even a prime Hopkins - yet he and the media would have you believe it...

I don't disagree that he's a very talented guy, and one of our best ever.... but he could have been so much more if he had the drive of some other fighters.

A very good fighter yes. The best of his generation... nowhere near.

[Ezzard]

Like I said, Calzaghe's career choices are not that bad in context of the era in which he fought. I think it stands up well to his peers.

Shame though that Jones, Toney, Hopkins and Calzaghe (throw in Nunn too) could not have engaged in a true set of rivalries with multiple fights. They all had the ability but in the end lacked the ambition.

When you compare them with the likes of Pac and Barerra who basically took on anyone and everyone in and around their weight classes then I don't think it's close.

[stujones]

Hopkins is a completely different perspective - he properly cleaned out the Middleweight devision, something Hagler gets applauded for. You could argue, that Marvin could have stepped up to Light Heavy and faced some good fighters up there, or called upon more Welters/Light Middles to step up to the plate.... but he beat all the true contenders at Middleweight.

Hopkins did the same - and then moved up and beat "the man" at Light Heavyweight and beat the best the Light Middleweight had to offer - as both a Middle and a Light Heavyweight.

Dariusz Michaelswecki aside, Roy Jones did the same.... yes, its a big "aside" - and one in which I think does affect his legacy.... but then, look what he did when it was becoming clear the DM wouldn't play - only win the Heavyweight title. That is some achievement, irrespective of the quality of the champion.

At a push you can say Hopkins missed 1 natural rival. Thats Harry Simon who reign as Middleweight and career was very short.... Toney was never a Middleweight when Hopkins was on the scene, and maybe that fight could happen still.

Jones missed a few natural rivals - Collins, Benn, Eubank, and JC and DM.... However, you have to give him his dues he won the Heavyweight title, and DM aside he did beat the lot at Light Heavyweight - guys who are still in the top 10 now. So when Jones couldn't get these matches, he found other challenges and challengers.

Joe - missed out on his two key natural rivals. The two fighters with a legitimate claim of being called the Best Super Middleweight of the last 10 years. If Joe couldn't secure those fights, then maybe he should have done a Roy and seeked pastures new for a challenge.

[stujones]

sorry to double post,but to answer the op's question,id say the 2 best fighters,since 89 would have to be RJJ and Floyd,no doubt whatsoever to me there.

as to the third,im really not sure,theres a whole bunch of guys who could be placed in there.....lewis,pac,tszyu,barrera,calzaghe,etc etc....i really dont know who id put in 3rd.but the first 2 are clear cut,imho.

1989 - is a long time ago.

Roy
Floyd
And these should be ahead of all the others you have mentioned.
Holyfield
Chavez
Ricardo Lopez
Whittikar
Oscar
Nelson

[Autobarn]

Hopkins is a completely different perspective - he properly cleaned out the Middleweight devision, something Hagler gets applauded for. You could argue, that Marvin could have stepped up to Light Heavy and faced some good fighters up there, or called upon more Welters/Light Middles to step up to the plate.... but he beat all the true contenders at Middleweight.

Hopkins did the same - and then moved up and beat "the man" at Light Heavyweight and beat the best the Light Middleweight had to offer - as both a Middle and a Light Heavyweight.

Dariusz Michaelswecki aside, Roy Jones did the same.... yes, its a big "aside" - and one in which I think does affect his legacy.... but then, look what he did when it was becoming clear the DM wouldn't play - only win the Heavyweight title. That is some achievement, irrespective of the quality of the champion.

At a push you can say Hopkins missed 1 natural rival. Thats Harry Simon who reign as Middleweight and career was very short.... Toney was never a Middleweight when Hopkins was on the scene, and maybe that fight could happen still.

Jones missed a few natural rivals - Collins, Benn, Eubank, and JC and DM.... However, you have to give him his dues he won the Heavyweight title, and DM aside he did beat the lot at Light Heavyweight - guys who are still in the top 10 now. So when Jones couldn't get these matches, he found other challenges and challengers.

Joe - missed out on his two key natural rivals. The two fighters with a legitimate claim of being called the Best Super Middleweight of the last 10 years. If Joe couldn't secure those fights, then maybe he should have done a Roy and seeked pastures new for a challenge.

yeah but Kessler and Lacy do help make up for it quite a bit. Kessler and Lacy thankfully had more aggressive promoters than, say Sauerland, who had two super middle champs that he even kept away from each other.

It is a glaring hole, admittedly, not unifying earlier - but thakfully the world was interested when he finally got round to it.

Joe's achivements do need putting into check (21 defenses, unbeaten) as there are some who go overboard on what he's done. But I think you can do that to anyone, & pick holes in their career (Toney getting lucky v Tiberi & all the times he turned up out of shape; Hopkins fouling & fiddling his way through bouts with Echols & Allen during his "fearsome" middleweight reign...).


Wouldn't hail Joe as an all time great or anything, but he deserves to go down as a modern great. Hopefully he deals with Jones in a polished effort, and maybe has one more fight against someone a bit younger. What's missing for me, is a contender seen as being on the way up.

[Asterix]

sorry to double post,but to answer the op's question,id say the 2 best fighters,since 89 would have to be RJJ and Floyd,no doubt whatsoever to me there.

as to the third,im really not sure,theres a whole bunch of guys who could be placed in there.....lewis,pac,tszyu,barrera,calzaghe,etc etc....i really dont know who id put in 3rd.but the first 2 are clear cut,imho.

1989 - is a long time ago.

Roy
Floyd
And these should be ahead of all the others you have mentioned.
Holyfield
Chavez
Ricardo Lopez
Whittikar
Oscar
Nelson

Holyfield, Chavez, etc. debuted BEFORE 1989.

[stujones]

Was it talking debuted - or best fighters since 1989?

[Asterix]

Was it talking debuted - or best fighters since 1989?

Just read the first post, Stu.

If we make a case that a fighter needed debut after say 1989 [Jones debut].

[fist]

post it,i made my point.and my name isnt enzo.youll notice i made a quite coherent post and backed up my arguments.if enzo posted here,he'd probably sound more like an italian version of goodson or something.

I'm only winding you up..

I've said in previous posts, as much as I dislike him, I've a lot of respect for what he's achieved, and appreciate that he's an excellent boxer, one of our best ever.

However - he could have been a true great. The difference between calzaghe, and a real legend is that they DO fight all challengers - they make sure the fights happen.

I don't like the way Calzaghe will (probably) beat another old legend and talk about how he's beaten the best fighters of his era etc etc... when we all know whilst he did fight some good fighters, he also avoided the best - and picked his final opponents very carefully. No way would he have beaten a prime Jones, or even a prime Hopkins - yet he and the media would have you believe it...

I don't disagree that he's a very talented guy, and one of our best ever.... but he could have been so much more if he had the drive of some other fighters.

A very good fighter yes. The best of his generation... nowhere near.

Hi Eddie, who do you think he should have fought? Who are the big names missing? You see I just dont believe that he ducked fighters, I think his manager may have... Kessler is a good example of this and the reason being is that Kessler was dangerous, he was a two belt champ with an unbeaten record and the ability to hurt. People said he was ducking Kessler, the more this was said, the more he wanted the fight. My point is that as a fighter, a talented world champ at that, bravery, pride and confidence are part of his make-up, pride in particluar. He wanted to fight Hopkins, the fight was made, but Hoppkins pulled out - IMO probably due to the risk reward ratio back then not being good enough (today its different for RJJ and Hopkins cos they have zero to lose, and evrything to gain by taking Joe's zero).

RJJ has also said numerous times that the fight with Calzaghe would have happened years ago had it not been for management taking a select route. So in terms of blaming Calzaghe for not fighting certain fights - which ones do you mean and can they be attributed to Calzaghe's doing?

On another note, I personally have never been over impressed with the notion of moving through weights, in the sense that I feel it is completely valid to stay at one weight and dominate. Just my opinon. The likes of Nigel Benn speculate that had Calzaghe been fighting in his era, his prime, that Joe would have beaten the lot of them. Now I dont know about that, no one can, particularly as Joe has got better and better with age, with his prime being in his early thirties - though comparing primes, Nigel may have a point. That said, it would be a tough call as Benn, Watson, Eubank and G Man were outstanding.