BoxRec

Noone (or at least very few) would argue that the fight with Roy Jones Junior was no Toney's first serious fight. He was the sport of boxing's top fighter since 1991.

Max Molyneux wrote:

dr_devious wrote:

Max Molyneux wrote: I think It's 50/50 with Calzaghe, Roy was too reliant on reflexes and wouldn't of been able to do weird shotgun showboating tatics like with who he fought.

Calzaghe has skills and reflexes to relie on and a better chin.

Roy Is one of the only reasonable fighters you could favour over Calzaghe though.

Jones - Calzaghe 50:50 this is BVLLSH1T. Who has Calzaghe beat that comes anywhere near to Jones' class?

Who has Jones beaten near to Calzaghe's class?

Hopkins, Toney......... oh yeah youre right, they are both above Calzaghe's class
Who has Calzaghe beaten that is near to RJJs class...........Jeff Lacy?

They are both different than Calzaghe class and style wise.

Calzaghe fights clean as well style and drug wise.

STP wrote:Noone (or at least very few) would argue that the fight with Roy Jones Junior was no Toney's first serious fight. He was the sport of boxing's top fighter since 1991.

No, it was of course not his first serious fight. You know what I meant though. But let me phrase it out more precisely:

Noone (or at least very few) would argue that the fight with Roy Jones Junior was no Toney's biggest at this point in his carreer.

So, you are arguing that Toney was being dumber than everyone already knows? You are claiming that he has the self-control of a cockroach?

Well, I don't know.

Either it is an excuse because:
A) It is not true.
B) It is true, but it is common for Toney to do that and therefore he has no business suddenly using it as an excuse.

Or

C) It is true and it was completely unusual and actually hindered him in the fight - in which case, he DOES have the self-control of a cockroach and it certainly an unworthy champion and rolemodel.

STP wrote:

Autobarn wrote:

STP wrote:I actually think Toney at his best would maybe beat Jones. We all know he wasn't 10% of his self in the Jones fight for obvious reasons. I know Toney was made for Jones stylistically, but I do see Jones having a nightmare trying to land clean on James and one time he jumps in to let off three or four hooks with a hand at once he gets timed and taken by Toney, IMO. There's a reason Jones hasn't given him a rematch.

As for Jones's opponents.... Hopkins was a terror and accurate, and what he did to Malinga and Thornton compared to Eubank shows how hard he punched at 168 (ie VERY). Joe is too square-on and gets taken out by Jones soon enough.

Jones is quite a bigger bloke than Calzaghe. Would Jones have been considered such a great supe rmiddle if he'd stayed there? I don't know - he would have been pretty weight drained if he's stayed there for long. Whereas Calzaghe can stil make 168 since 1993 & fight a fast pace.

Calzaghe is a bigger bloke than Jones. Joe walks around at 195lbs without looking the least bit chubby, and has been talking about light-heavy/cruiser since before he even turned pro!

Jones, for example, says it won't be a problem making 170 for Trinidad in Jan because he's weighing 172 right now. He was never a light-heavy.

He won the 1984 Jr Olympics as a BANTUMWEIGHT, fought at featherweight in 1985 and light-welterweight in 1986. He was a super-welterweight in 1992.

when the Tito fight was announced Jones said he "didn't like the weight."

vs Hopkins, in 1993, Jones came in the ring at 175-80 pounds. That was Jones' 1st ever middleweight bout...Jones won a piece of the heavyweight title also, scaling what, 193-lbs or something. Afterwards, he's looked shrunken and sunken in every fight he's had at 175.

Don't get me wrong, I know Calzaghe would have long outgrown 168 without day before weight ins. Maybe the size difference isn't that much then. I don't think Jones could have kept making 168 though because he was massive & muscled, whereas it's a fact that Joe kept making 168 forever.

Jones could have been on Cap'n America's Super Soldier Serum and prime Nunn or Liles wouldhave hd his number. Jones had that unbeatable look but a good tall lefty is the key. Had he challenged JC Gomez up at cruiser I have no doubt Roy would be dead now.

Sven Ottke's position is too low IMO.

Max Molyneux wrote:They are both different than Calzaghe class and style wise.

Calzaghe fights clean as well style and drug wise.

Look Max if Calazage said in an interview 'I'd beat anyone except for Roy Jones because hes unbeatable' he would have lost the fight phychologically before he got in the ring.

Calazage isnt as fast as RJJ with his first punch anyway, hes only fast when hes inside and hes doing his slapping thing

RJJ has much faster feet, better timing, hits much harder, not to mention Calazage is open to straight right hands

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

Max Molyneux wrote:They are both different than Calzaghe class and style wise.

Calzaghe fights clean as well style and drug wise.

Look Max if Calazage said in an interview 'I'd beat anyone except for Roy Jones because hes unbeatable' he would have lost the fight phychologically before he got in the ring.

Calazage isnt as fast as RJJ with his first punch anyway, hes only fast when hes inside and hes doing his slapping thing

RJJ has much faster feet, better timing, hits much harder, not to mention Calazage is open to straight right hands

Fair enough, I haven't seen where he said he's lose to Roy so If he says he would he would I guess.

But I think he had the style to make It 50/50 but you need to believe you'd win too.

Plus how do we know If Roy was that good since he was tested for banned substances?

Calzaghe said In his book he would of been pissed If he found out he fought and lost to a Roy testing positive.

Roy Jones Isn't special without his reflexes. He wouldn't of played Into Roy's showboating.

Max Molyneux wrote:They are both different than Calzaghe class and style wise.

Calzaghe fights clean as well style and drug wise.

But Jones still beat them both, and Calzaghe's best win was Jeff Lacy. Calzaghe simply hasnt beaten the quality of opposition to suggest he would beat Jones.

Beating Lacy IMO is comparable to Larry Holmes beating Cooney.

I liked Darrin Van Horn.....


PS wonder what he's doing now? Anyone got a clue? He's one of those guys who just disappeared...

E wrote:I liked Darrin Van Horn.....


PS wonder what he's doing now? Anyone got a clue? He's one of those guys who just disappeared...

Didn't Barkley basically rip his head off

Deserter wrote:

E wrote:I liked Darrin Van Horn.....


PS wonder what he's doing now? Anyone got a clue? He's one of those guys who just disappeared...

Didn't Barkley basically rip his head off

I'm taking the p1ss. But yes he did - KO 2. Got caught early.

E wrote:

Deserter wrote:

E wrote:I liked Darrin Van Horn.....


PS wonder what he's doing now? Anyone got a clue? He's one of those guys who just disappeared...

Didn't Barkley basically rip his head off

I'm taking the p1ss. But yes he did - KO 2. Got caught early.

Sorry fella, didn't read it as you thinking he warranted a place in the top 10, just thought you meant you liked him stylistically - he was actually a pretty good junior middle and beat some decent names, but got ruined early. Had a look at his record just now out of curiousity and at least he got out of the game on a winning streak and didn't make any abortive comebacks. If only Barkley had taken a leaf out of his book!

dr_devious wrote:

Max Molyneux wrote:They are both different than Calzaghe class and style wise.

Calzaghe fights clean as well style and drug wise.

But Jones still beat them both, and Calzaghe's best win was Jeff Lacy. Calzaghe simply hasnt beaten the quality of opposition to suggest he would beat Jones.

Stylewise though has Jones beaten anyone like Joe to suggest he'd beat Joe?

He might well beat as I said you can reasonably favour Jones but Toney and Hopkins are not as good as Calzaghe no matter who they beat.

And who has Joe beaten who resembles Jones? Toney and Hopkins not as good as Calzaghe, no matter who they beat? You defy belief at times Max. I'm not putting the likes of Toney on a pedestal, but you really take the piss with your rating of Calzaghe. I know you like to dismiss achievements, but how else are you meant to judge a fighter? What, exactly, makes you consider Calzaghe so great?*



* Is it performance, longevity, what? I'm really keen to know. I rate Calzaghe highly, he's had a fine career at the highest level. But what is it that makes him so special in your eyes?

I don't totally dismiss achievements.

Hops achieved lots and Toney won some some IBF belts but they haven't put In the dominant performances Joe has done. Plus when he steps up he still does It.

Yes It's the performances and blazing handspeed matched with fine skill. Seriously only guys like Jones Jr have been that good and no British fighter has been that good. I prefer watching fine displays of boxing over stuff like something Gatti would do. A brawl can be exciting though still.

I use achievements to rate people too but I don't over use It like some.

I don't take the piss either.

Max Molyneux wrote: Hops achieved lots and Toney won some some IBF belts but they haven't put In the dominant performances Joe has done

Toney's performances against Barkley and Littles and Hopkins's against Johnson and Trinidad were just as dominant and impressive as Calzaghe's against Lacy. Toney's against Barkley probably the best performance ever seen in the super-middleweight division - it was absolutely fornicating sublime.

If Calzaghe was any good, why would he go tooth-and-nail with slow, old, methodical lumps in Charles Brewer and this Byron Mitchell?

He didn't show me much in the Lacy fight because it wasn't against anything. You could see the tension in Lacy's shoulders at the weigh-in. He was absolutely, bloody awful. Quite literally a punching bag. I've only seen Lacy's last four fights but to me he doesn't look very good at all (infact, he looks very bad)! Maybe he was better in the past or something?

Robin Reid, David Starie, Omar Sheika, Kabary Salem, Sakio Bika - they all gave Calzaghe a run for his money! These fighters are distinctly average. Even a weight-drained Eubank at his worst, who always looked awful against southpaws, took Joe to hell and back!

I don't know where this Calzaghe myth has come from to be honest. He squares up and leaves his chin in the air like second nature, or he looks at the fornicating canvas while throwing punches - one or the other. That's not good, in my book. If you don't wail away with him, he can't do fornicate all but wail away himself. That's why I'm tipping Kessler, to expose him.

come on now max, how can you say that toney and gopkins haven't put in the dominant performances that calzaghe has?
not only have they done that but they have at a much higher level. I think it is pretty safe to say that joes most dominant performance was against lacy, which was fantastic, but then what. He wasn't exactly over dominant against woodhall, he was, some might say very fortunate to get away with a split decision win over reid, in which one judge gave it to reid 115-111.
Sheika though fair opposition at the time wasn't top shelf, eubank was a good four years past his best, not to down grade the victory cos it was a good one. Brewer performance was good but he wasn't exactly a toney, and although he done mitchall in two, we all know what happened there.

Hopkins dominant performances- glenn johnson, Holmes, Joppy, Trinidad, Eastman, de la hoya, Tarver.

Toney dominant performances- jirov, holyfield, barkley, dewitt.

It hardly compares does it?

As much as i do rate joe, toney would have been to hot for him and jones , forget about it!

jimmy the gent wrote:come on now max, how can you say that toney and gopkins haven't put in the dominant performances that calzaghe has?
not only have they done that but they have at a much higher level. I think it is pretty safe to say that joes most dominant performance was against lacy, which was fantastic, but then what. He wasn't exactly over dominant against woodhall, he was, some might say very fortunate to get away with a split decision win over reid, in which one judge gave it to reid 115-111.
Sheika though fair opposition at the time wasn't top shelf, eubank was a good four years past his best, not to down grade the victory cos it was a good one. Brewer performance was good but he wasn't exactly a toney, and although he done mitchall in two, we all know what happened there.

Hopkins dominant performances- glenn johnson, Holmes, Joppy, Trinidad, Eastman, de la hoya, Tarver.

Toney dominant performances- jirov, holyfield, barkley, dewitt.

It hardly compares does it?

As much as i do rate joe, toney would have been to hot for him and jones , forget about it!

Roy beats Joe 6 times out of 10.

Roy beats Toney 10 times out of 10.

Joe beats Toney 9 times out of 10.

Roy beats Hopkins 9 times out of 10.

Joe beats Hopkins 5 times out of 10.

Hopkins beats Toney 7 times out of 10.

Toney was a cut above Hopkins

STP wrote:Toney was a cut above Hopkins

In terms of what? Shirt size?

In terms of ability. I've seen nothing from Hopkins to suggest he's quite on Toney's level, and I've seen him looking awesome against Glen Johnson, Echols, Holmes and Joppy (albeit average opposition).

jimmy the gent wrote:come on now max, how can you say that toney and gopkins haven't put in the dominant performances that calzaghe has?
not only have they done that but they have at a much higher level. I think it is pretty safe to say that joes most dominant performance was against lacy, which was fantastic, but then what. He wasn't exactly over dominant against woodhall, he was, some might say very fortunate to get away with a split decision win over reid, in which one judge gave it to reid 115-111.
Sheika though fair opposition at the time wasn't top shelf, eubank was a good four years past his best, not to down grade the victory cos it was a good one. Brewer performance was good but he wasn't exactly a toney, and although he done mitchall in two, we all know what happened there.

Hopkins dominant performances- glenn johnson, Holmes, Joppy, Trinidad, Eastman, de la hoya, Tarver.

Toney dominant performances- jirov, holyfield, barkley, dewitt.

It hardly compares does it?

As much as i do rate joe, toney would have been to hot for him and jones , forget about it!

Come on, the Lacy win was superb. You can't say he didn't show a lot when he literally fought off a quite ferocious young titlist with 5-7 punch combos. Lacy DID go in there to do the things he wanted - he did try to go for the body and Joe volleyed him off like a football every round. It was awesome and if Lacy was one-dimensional then what are Barkely/Williams/DeWitt (Toney's best wins according to you)?

Persnally I rate both very highly.

The win over Reid was close but fair - and this is coming from a Calzaghe criticiser - the win over Woodhall was world class - despite showing a suspect defense, Joe showed a pace that super mids can't really live with - , the Brewer fight was hardly "tooth and nail" - I gave Joe 9 rounds at least though he got hurt right at the end -, and he showed a champion's heart to get up from a massive shot from Byron.

The Reid performance was a bad one, a near-loss, but what of Hopkins-Robert Allen 1? That was dreck & Bernard looked like he was going to lose. And he did lose to Taylor who's proven to be a B-level champion who can't win in the trenches. Thank God Calzaghe didn't wind up vs Taylor as he would have win no credit.

The Kessler fight will ultimately prove Joe's place. He has left himself open to huge criticism by not always acting like a champ. This may come across as blasphemy but in some ways Joe's and Toney's title reigns have been similar (though of different lenghts). They both got their big wins vs sturdy sluggers, for instance. The thing is, Toney had lots of non title fights on network TV, while in Calzaghe's case the WBO basically sanctioned the easy fights he took as world title fights for bigger money.

I believe even in close loss Calzaghe will elevate himself, vs Kessler. The fight will be fought at a standard of classy, fast paced mutual action probably for 12 bitter rounds. Joe's 14 yrs of weight making will probably catch up with him and the bad hands too, but it'll be the perfect excuse if he comes close to winning.

I'm not convinced by these "what has he done to suggest" arguments. I've heard this twice this year on Pavlik threads - what has Pavlik done to suggest he can beat Miranda, who has Kelly beat to show he can beat Taylor.

'd say Hopkins is a bit better than Toney - JT's a cleaner puncher by far but Hopkins uses movement which gives him an extra dimension and his discipline is vastly superior which means everything in boxing. Hopkins and Calzaghe share a fanaticism (about winning and about getting the fights THEY want).