10 fighters that would beat a Prime Roy Jones jr

First topic message reminder :

A prime RJJ was a great fighter a sight to behold, lighten reflexes, dazzling combinations, unorthodox punches from unorthodox angles and big power in both hands.

But here are 10 fighters from middleweight to light heavyweight that would beat a prime Roy Jones jr.



Gene Tunney:
The Fighting Marine, maybe the best light-heavy ever, beat the Heavyweight Champ Jack Dempsey Twice, only ever lost 1 fight, on a decision.

Archie Moore:
The Old Mongoose, one of the first to use the shoulder roll, huge power stopped a lot of heavyweights and no other boxer has had as many KOs as him

Harry Greb:
The Human Windmill, never stopped punching never got out your face, would hit you with fists, elbow and head, one tough S.O.B.

Sugar Ray Robinson:
Considered the greatest boxer ever by many, SRR had it all, fast hand, footwork, power, chin, heart, he has many HOFs on his record.

Carlos Monzon:
They say the way to beat speed is to have a good jab, they were too many that had better than Monzon, granite chin and would walk you down and make you pay.

Marvin Hagler:
Much like Monzon Hagler just kept on coming forward, but had more intensity but didn't have the jab of Monzon.

Ezzard Charles:
The Cincinnati Cobra, slick and skillful, threw accurate punches and had great defensive skill and had to move up to heavyweight to get titles shot.

Bob Fitzsimmons:
RJJ emulated him by winning the middleweight and heavyweight title but unlike Roy, Bob beat the man rather than a paper champion.

Michael Spinks:
Considered by many to be the one of the greatest light-heavies of all time a pure boxer with great technical skills handed Holmes his first defeat and stopped him equaling Marciano's record.


Dwight Muhammad Qawi:
Only started boxing at 25, stood only 5 ft 5½ in but was a natural and had great slick skills took Holyfield to a SD over 15 rounds.



Anyone else that you would pick to beat a prime Roy Jones jr.

What has resumes got to do with anything??????

Tyson had a better resume than Douglas.......Ali had a better rersume than Norton!!

Sure I'd rank Tunney higher at 175.....Doesn't mean a guy that unlocked Hoppo and Toney couldn't unlock this guy....

You're crazy...............

Who did he work out at light heavyweight Trussie?

You can keep darting around the weight issue, but seeing as though that's where they'd meet i think it's a pretty important factor as it wasn't RJJs best weight by a fair distance.

Got to agree with Truss here even though I think Tunney would have the edge over RJJ to write of RJJ is a joke one of the great fighters of our time.

The most talented fighter I have seen contemporaneously.

Not the most accomplished, nor my favourite.

But by far the most gifted, talented athlete I have seen during my own time watching boxing live.

D4thincarnation wrote:Got to agree with Truss here even though I think Tunney would have the edge over RJJ to write of RJJ is a joke one of the great fighters of our time.

Then why did you write the article "10 historical fighters that beat RJJ"?

People often forget that despite being older than Jones Hopkins was in shape or form at his best in their fight, it would another 6/7 years before he became the great fighter we know him for.

Jones does live of his reputation, beat very little top level opposition and when he got found out that was the end of him

Tunney does in my opinion KO Jones fairly quickly and Robinson who fought far better opposition at middleweight hence the losses beats him too. It's very easy to look good when your fighting nobodies.

oxring wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:Got to agree with Truss here even though I think Tunney would have the edge over RJJ to write of RJJ is a joke one of the great fighters of our time.

Then why did you write the article "10 historical fighters that beat RJJ"?

I find bold statements create debate, but that was the name of your title not mine, mine was, "10 fighters that would beat a Prime Roy Jones jr"

KO a prime Jones quickly? Sorry mate, not buying that one. Even if you think Tunney wins, he would have big trouble with Jones's speed an unorthodox style. Reckon it would be a hard fight for either man regardless of who you think would win.

I genuinely think that Moore, Charles or Tunney would KO Jones with relative ease, they would connect flush at some point and it's then fight over. Tunney has the skill and ring smarts to get to him and a prime Jones would be a outsized middleweight.

Maybe you should post on the football forum ATOM....Stop us seeing your silly wum views on RJJ..........

You've obviously never seen him fight.

What because I think 5/6 boxers beat him?

The Mighty Atom wrote:People often forget that despite being older than Jones Hopkins was in shape or form at his best in their fight, it would another 6/7 years before he became the great fighter we know him for.

Jones does live of his reputation, beat very little top level opposition and when he got found out that was the end of him

Tunney does in my opinion KO Jones fairly quickly and Robinson who fought far better opposition at middleweight hence the losses beats him too. It's very easy to look good when your fighting nobodies.

Well heres the thing. It isnt as easy as you are suggesting to look good against "nobodies". Looking at the ease and manner which Jones defeated guys and then looking at how they fared against the other top names in the division highlights this.

Hopkins - would not lose for 12 years after the Jones fight. Jones was also effectively fighting one handed against him.

Malinga - Beat Benn, lost a SD to Eubank. Outclassed and KOed in 6 rounds by Jones.

Virgil Hill - lasted the distance with Michaelswecki, KOed in 4 rounds by Jones.

James Toney - p4p number 2, outclassed by Jones.

Montel Griffen - beat Toney twice, KOed in 1 round by Jones.

Julio Cesar Gonzales - shut out by Jones, beat Glen Johnson and Darius Michaelswecki

Eric Harding - beat Tarver and Griffen, stopped by Jones.

This is just a few examples which I think puts to bed this idea that Jones was all just flash and looked great only against "nobodies". Nobody else decimated the level of opposition so consistently.

Only when Jones got old and after dropping down from heavyweight did he begin to look vunerable. He was 35 at this point.

With the exception of Hopkins none of those names were great, Toney was very good but lacked obvious commitment and was severely drained. The rest were good but nothing special, for the all time great many make him out to be i'd expect a better resume personally. Top 50 without a doubt but any higher than 35/40 is far too high for what he actually achieved.

The Mighty Atom wrote:With the exception of Hopkins none of those names were great, Toney was very good but lacked obvious commitment and was severely drained. The rest were good but nothing special, for the all time great many make him out to be i'd expect a better resume personally. Top 50 without a doubt but any higher than 35/40 is far too high for what he actually achieved.

But thats not what you were saying and its not nearly as relevant in determining how he would he fare against the guys on the list.

If you want to argue resumes or c.vs then he may well rank below most of the guys on the list in a pure record sense - although his record is better than its given credit for and suffers from weight jumping.

But to argue that he just looked good against nobodies and was found out is off the mark. If that were the case then how come nobody else was looking so good against them?

Jones wasnt out either. He got old and for a fighter with an unorthodox style and dependant on reflexes this was a disaster. Not to mention shedding 20 pounds to come back down a couple of divisions. Its not like Ray Robinsons record after his mid thirties is all that great either.

Robinson had far more fights by his late 30's so the age thing doesn't work quite the same, even when he was past his best he still managed to compete against the best around, Jones gets found out and he does nothing. A truly great fighter would be able to adapt but Jones could never do that.

On a head to head basis I can't see him beating Moore, Charles or Tunney at all, they were simply a different class to Jones.

Moore had the sort of one punch power that would relieve him of his senses, he had a very under rated defence and was only ever outboxed by Charles who along with Tunney are a different class to any other light Heavyweights.

Tunney would have the nouse to use his jab and strength to keep Jones at a distance and packed a punch at the weight also

Charles is simply too good for anyone at 175lbs, he had it all, speed, handspeed, defence, chin and most of all power, his record at the weight stands comparison with anyone at any weight.

Mate no one is trying to say you're not entitled to your opinion...

Just that statements like he gets blasted out off everybody is a bit disrespectful and far fetched......

The guy is a great technician.

I have 4/5 guys at Middleweight and also at Light Heavyweight who im confident would beat him so not how that is him getting blasted out by everybody?

He had a different style but think his technical deficiences get him into trouble against an on form great like Tunney or Charles. He was good very good but against the elite i'm not so sure.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Robinson had far more fights by his late 30's so the age thing doesn't work quite the same, even when he was past his best he still managed to compete against the best around, Jones gets found out and he does nothing. A truly great fighter would be able to adapt but Jones could never do that.

On a head to head basis I can't see him beating Moore, Charles or Tunney at all, they were simply a different class to Jones.

Moore had the sort of one punch power that would relieve him of his senses, he had a very under rated defence and was only ever outboxed by Charles who along with Tunney are a different class to any other light Heavyweights.

Tunney would have the nouse to use his jab and strength to keep Jones at a distance and packed a punch at the weight also

Charles is simply too good for anyone at 175lbs, he had it all, speed, handspeed, defence, chin and most of all power, his record at the weight stands comparison with anyone at any weight.

Why are they a different class to Jones?

If you are going to compare then at least level the field. Charles was done at 35. He wasnt remotely mixing it with the best after that. He was getting hammered by novices. But I am not about to use this as some kind of evidence that he couldnt adapt or was found out. He was just done and that was that. Likewise for Jones at 35. He was all but finished.

Charles was a great fighter but seeping statements like "Charles is simply to good for anyone at 175" makes little sense when he never even held the title there and had losses at the weight.

I try to avoid an old v new debate where possible but the criteria cant be a one way street in favour one era. Older fighters get slack for more losses and more dud fights due to the circumstances which is fair enough but you have to be prepared to do the same for the modern era fighters whos losses get scrutinised to maximum. Jones was finished at 35 because he was old and his speed went. Charles was finished at 35 as he was old and had a hard career. He wasnt unbeatable even at his peak.

Charles for example may well beat Jones,but its because hes a great fighter and not because Jones is some kind of style over substance guy who is leagues below him. There is no real evidence of this is what I am saying. The people that point to his post 35y old career or opposition are happy to ignore it when talking about the older generations. If you look at what Jones did to his opposition in comparison to his contempories then it overwhelmingly supports the idea he was a class and a level above everyone else in his time.



Where is the evidence Jones couldnt adjust? I would say his ability to capture titles across 4 weight classes against a range of styles is plenty of evidence that he could adjust if he needed to.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Robinson had far more fights by his late 30's so the age thing doesn't work quite the same, even when he was past his best he still managed to compete against the best around, Jones gets found out and he does nothing. A truly great fighter would be able to adapt but Jones could never do that.
.

Which is exactly why Leonard was rubbish...hammered by Norris when he was only 34...couldn't adapt.

Other notable fighters that "couldn't adapt" are Morales, Barrera, Hank Armstrong, Chavez, Whitaker, Sandy Sadler, De La Hoya and a hundred other notables who found their ability wained in their early to late thirties and began to lose to guys they shouldn't have.

Lets for a second compare Charles and Tunney to Jones and i'll show what a pointless comment it is bringing up the fact they never held the title.

Notable wins

Jones: Hopkins and Toney

Charles: Bivins, Maxim, Walcott, Louis, Lesnevich, Ray, Moore, Marshall and Burley

Tunney: Dempsey, Greb, Carpentier, Loughran, Gibbons and Levinsky

Now tell me how Jones comes even close to comparing to that?

Charles was unfortunate in his early career for two reasons, he was good and he was black, so having to fight the sort of quality he did over and over again your going to have the odd loss here and there. Some fighters get away with late career losses more than others because of what they achieved earlier on. Jones still had a lot to prove whereas Charles didn't, he had roughly 20 wins over 8/9 hall of fame boxers. With the exception of Hopkins and Toney, how many of Jones' opposition is getting anywhere near the HOF?

The Mighty Atom wrote:Lets for a second compare Charles and Tunney to Jones and i'll show what a pointless comment it is bringing up the fact they never held the title.

Notable wins

Jones: Hopkins and Toney

Charles: Bivins, Maxim, Walcott, Louis, Lesnevich, Ray, Moore, Marshall and Burley

Tunney: Dempsey, Greb, Carpentier, Loughran, Gibbons and Levinsky

Now tell me how Jones comes even close to comparing to that?

Charles was unfortunate in his early career for two reasons, he was good and he was black, so having to fight the sort of quality he did over and over again your going to have the odd loss here and there. Some fighters get away with late career losses more than others because of what they achieved earlier on. Jones still had a lot to prove whereas Charles didn't, he had roughly 20 wins over 8/9 hall of fame boxers. With the exception of Hopkins and Toney, how many of Jones' opposition is getting anywhere near the HOF?

RJJ never had the fortune of being around at a time when their wasn't that much talent in the MW division. Personally I don't think he beats Charles or Tunney either but don't think you can use his record against him. He beat who was available at the time which is all he could do.

Am I the only person who'd give Hearns a fair chance at 160? Neither had much to brag about in the way of chin, both had immense speed and power but Tommy was a more rounded boxer by that time in my opinion. Above 160 I give Jones a clear edge but at 160 I'd put my dime on Hearns.

For whatever reason he never rematched Hopkins, nor did he seek to fight Calzaghe or DM, he could have tried to legitimise his heavyweight title, there was more he could have done if he really wanted to. Collins, Eubank and Benn would have been viable opposition in the mid 90's.
There was definitely room for improvement on his record

Can't argue with that at MW Hearns would outbox RJJ for me as well but with either one not having a geat chin and immense power it could have been a case of whoever lands the first big one wins.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Lets for a second compare Charles and Tunney to Jones and i'll show what a pointless comment it is bringing up the fact they never held the title.

Notable wins

Jones: Hopkins and Toney

Charles: Bivins, Maxim, Walcott, Louis, Lesnevich, Ray, Moore, Marshall and Burley

Tunney: Dempsey, Greb, Carpentier, Loughran, Gibbons and Levinsky

Now tell me how Jones comes even close to comparing to that?

Charles was unfortunate in his early career for two reasons, he was good and he was black, so having to fight the sort of quality he did over and over again your going to have the odd loss here and there. Some fighters get away with late career losses more than others because of what they achieved earlier on. Jones still had a lot to prove whereas Charles didn't, he had roughly 20 wins over 8/9 hall of fame boxers. With the exception of Hopkins and Toney, how many of Jones' opposition is getting anywhere near the HOF?

My point about Charles not holding the title was to illustrate that your own comment that Charles was "simply to good for anyone at 175" is wholly innaccurate and makes no sense. You are just shifting the goalposts now to try and make out I was insinuating something I wasnt.

Again, you go back to resumes in order to try and prove your point. This isnt what I am arguing. Charles and Tunney has better resumes than Jones. I dont dispute that. But it doesnt mean that it makes Jones incapable of beating them or belonging in their league. Fighters are dictatd by their eras and many top class fighters have had their overall standings curtailed by simply not having the opposition needed to place higher in the ranks. I would say Jones suffers from this. His record doesnt match his talent in my view.

But all those who bang on about this seem to try and use this as evidence that he couldnt therefore beat a higher standard. I am saying there is little basis to this when you look at how easily he beat the guys in his era and then how those same guys were able to give other good fighters a hard time or beat them.

I also think that this whole measuring of eras suffers too much from a one way system. Its acceptable for Charles to be rubbish after 35 and have no bearing on his career yet Jones is considered to be found out and unable to adapt? How does this make sense? Its blatantly obvious that someone like Glen Johnson who was capable of losing to the likes of Clinton Woods was miles below Jones class and simply got Jones when he was finished.

If you are talking pure records then Charles has a better one by virute of his era. But it doesnt mean Jones couldnt beat him or doesnt belong with him.

prettyboy1304 wrote:Can't argue with that at MW Hearns would outbox RJJ for me as well but with either one not having a geat chin and immense power it could have been a case of whoever lands the first big one wins.

Based on what? Hearns being stopped early by Barkley and Hagler, or labouring to beat DeWitt?

The Collins/DM/JC argument is another one that people clutch at with Jones.

Nevermind that Eubank had no intention of fighting him and Benn was basically finished when Jones was a world champ.

Had Jones beat any of Collins or DM would it have changed anything? Neither of them are all time greats which is wht the basis for people questioning Jones is anyway. Calzaghe might potentially have added something had he gone on to dominate the divsion as he did after Jones beat him but Calzaghe had a fear of flying.

Jones schooled McCallum and Johnson who both beat Collins and DM stayed in Germany fighting Jones leftovers.

Manos

Your making excuse after excuse here

Charles not holding the title doesn't illustrate anything, he comfortably beat the 3 most notable champions of his day and proved beyond doubt to be the best at the weight, he was never going to be given the chnace to win the title so using that to prove anything simply doesn't work.

I'm not going to assume that Jones could beat either Charles or Tunney based on him beating inferior opposition, he could have proved himself in a rematch against Hopkins or in a battle for 175lb supremacy against DM but he didn't want to.

To put it in terms you may understand, I do consider both Charles and Tunney out of Jones' league, you have to prove your talent rather than say you are that good.

I've already explained why someone like Charles is given a bit of slack for later career losses because he'd proved himself against the best time and time again, Jones simply didn't do that. Bang on about double standards all you want but for a fighter to completely and utterly finished after 50 fights having never been a particularly difficult fight is worlds apart from a veteran of over 100 fights against some fairly special opposition.

Bob wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:Can't argue with that at MW Hearns would outbox RJJ for me as well but with either one not having a geat chin and immense power it could have been a case of whoever lands the first big one wins.

Based on what? Hearns being stopped early by Barkley and Hagler, or labouring to beat DeWitt?

Sorry Bob I got that wrong I forgot he was poor at MW it was LMW where he was a top fighter. I'm only 25 wasn't around at the time just watch old footage. Sorry if you got excited their mate bet thought you were going to get to have a good go at me there.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Manos

Your making excuse after excuse here

Charles not holding the title doesn't illustrate anything, he comfortably beat the 3 most notable champions of his day and proved beyond doubt to be the best at the weight, he was never going to be given the chnace to win the title so using that to prove anything simply doesn't work.

I'm not going to assume that Jones could beat either Charles or Tunney based on him beating inferior opposition, he could have proved himself in a rematch against Hopkins or in a battle for 175lb supremacy against DM but he didn't want to.

To put it in terms you may understand, I do consider both Charles and Tunney out of Jones' league, you have to prove your talent rather than say you are that good.

I've already explained why someone like Charles is given a bit of slack for later career losses because he'd proved himself against the best time and time again, Jones simply didn't do that. Bang on about double standards all you want but for a fighter to completely and utterly finished after 50 fights having never been a particularly difficult fight is worlds apart from a veteran of over 100 fights against some fairly special opposition.

You are the one making the excuses. Its entirely plausible for a speed based fighter who had to lose 20 pounds to be finished at 35. If you cant tell the difference between a Jones being knocked out by Glen Johnson and one at his best who made mincemeat out of the kind of guys that Johnson struggled with then its a lost cause. Again if Jones had beaten Darius Michaelswecki how would this be relevant to this discussion? Is his claim to beat Ezzard Charles all the stronger by virute of beating Darius Michaelswecki? We arent talking records here. Ive alreay said Charles has a better record. You say you arent basing this on records yet you are bringing up fights with Collins and Michaelswecki which bear no relevance on how Jones would have fared against Charles. If you were to say beating them would enhance his record I would agree. But its means squat as to whether he could beat Charles. The excuses for Charles rubbish showing after 35 yet Jones has none? Im sorry but thats just a double standard whatever way you cut it. Fighters peak and trough at different times.

Jones didnt have the all time greats that Charles had and he did prove that he was a class above everyone else at the time. He was basically unbeaten until the age of 35 and had comfortably dominated any and all world class opponents he had faced over several weights. His record could have been extended and improved but again theres no allowance for circumstances. Jones is expected to chase the likes of Michaelswecki and Calzaghe who werent interested or give up 50% of the purse to a Hopkins at a catchweight who wasnt selling the fight? Come on. Jones said for 60% he would face Hopkins again, hell he even offered him winner take all. Hopkins was unreasonable.

There is nothing to suggest that Jones would not a world class elite fighter entitled to be considered in the same bracket as Charles. Using post 35 defeats or a failure to face someone like Darius Michaelswecki is just clutching at straws.

I'm not basing this on records at all just highlighting why Jones isn't in Charles' league which your trying to suggest he is. You say there's nothing to suggest that Jones couldn't beat him but i'm saying there's nothing that suggests to me he could beat him, works both ways.

Fighters do peak at different times and some prove themselves during that peak whilst others don't, Jones could have made a fight with Dariusz but it was Jones who wasn't interested, he even refused to appear on HBO if they merely mentioned his name.

I have Jones just about in my top ten Light Heavyweights which is quite a lofty position in one of if not the most talent stacked division in the history of the sport but head to head I don't see Jones beating the elite based on what i've seen. He looked good, very good but his post Ruiz form highlighted vulnerabilities many of us didn't know existed, which better fighters would have exploited sooner. For the record I see Jones beating DM or Calzaghe but think a fight with a more mature Hopkins could go either way.

I simply fail to see where Jones did not prove himself at his peak. The evidence is right there.

He was the generally recognised best fighter on the planet at his peak.

All his post Ruiz career highlighted was that he was finished. Im more than happy to excuse Charles, Holyfield, Duran, Robinson and countless fighters who hang around too long and discount the unimportant bits of their careers. I cant see why people dont extend this to Jones except the people who try to use it as a way to discredit him.

He didn't prove himself to be a true all time elite fighter is what i'm saying, obviously others benefit from circumstance but whilst the best of the late 90's that doesn't necessarily quantify as being in the upper echelons of greatness

Again I have to disagree. I think between 1993-2003 he did more than enough to prove he was an all time great as evidenced by his performances, results and titles.

Even if you felt he didnt, I think its too rigid not to look at his talent and appreciate he was a great that perhaps lacked the competition as opposed to a guy that benefitted from it. His talent was clear and in my mind left little ambiguity as to his class. Some fighters that operate in weak eras can be difficult to assess but Jones isnt one of them to me. His record is not as good as a Charles or a Moore but his talents are up there. There just is very little evidence to cause any doubts to that as far as Im concerned.

For me you have prove your talent and unfortunately Jones didn't, for whatever reason career enhancing fights with Michalzewski, Calzaghe and a Hopkins rematch never happened, would have given a better indication of his talents than beating the likes of Griffin. That's my take on it anyway and while he is an all time great he could have been better than that.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

Bob wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:Can't argue with that at MW Hearns would outbox RJJ for me as well but with either one not having a geat chin and immense power it could have been a case of whoever lands the first big one wins.

Based on what? Hearns being stopped early by Barkley and Hagler, or labouring to beat DeWitt?

Sorry Bob I got that wrong I forgot he was poor at MW it was LMW where he was a top fighter. I'm only 25 wasn't around at the time just watch old footage. Sorry if you got excited their mate bet thought you were going to get to have a good go at me there.

Totally disagree, check him out agaist Shuler at 160. Also, Jones was a different beast to Hagler and Barkley. Hagler outbrawled Hearns (who wasn't built to brawl) and Barkley was on the verge of being stopped and pulled one out of the bag. Both had to go through alot of punishment on the way there. RJJ could never take what Barkley took and survive, that guy was like Frankenstein. He doesn't have a glittering record at 160, but for head to heads Hearns is a big obstacle at the weight. Styles make fights and I don't think RJJ's is a great one to beat Hearns. Nobody ever got close to beating him anywhere near his best without shipping alot of punishment first. Was RJJ capable of that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWIqZKhNY90&NR=1

The Mighty Atom wrote:For me you have prove your talent and unfortunately Jones didn't, for whatever reason career enhancing fights with Michalzewski, Calzaghe and a Hopkins rematch never happened, would have given a better indication of his talents than beating the likes of Griffin. That's my take on it anyway and while he is an all time great he could have been better than that.

I dont really follow your take. He didnt prove his talent, but he is an all time great, and he could have been even more? Doesnt make sense to me.

He did prove his talents on numerous occasions and was the stand out fighter in his division.

I dont really see how he can blamed for fights with Calzaghe, Michaleswecki and Hopkins not happening. Hopkins was 2 divisions below him, wanted a catchweight and 50% of the split. Entirely unreasonable given their respective positions. Its like blaming Lewis for not fighting Bowe.

Calzaghe wasnt interested, didnt move to lightheavy until the end of his career.

Michalswecki was another fighter that refused to travel. Had Jones beat him he would have become just a run of the mill opponent. Instead hes painted out as this major threat to Jones despite any and all indications being he would have got royally schooled had he bothered to make the trip. Ended up losing to Gonzales who could barely win a round against Jones.

Manos-you say Calzaghe didn't move to light heavy until the end of his career, but RJJ leapfrogged super middle. They're both to blame.

Calzaghe vs Roy was viable at no point in history. When would it have been a big fight? Calzaghe made his name in 06.

BALTIMORA wrote:Manos-you say Calzaghe didn't move to light heavy until the end of his career, but RJJ leapfrogged super middle. They're both to blame.

He didnt leapfrog supermiddle. He moved up there and beat the recognised best Supermiddleweight in the world and a top p4p fighter in James Toney.

He was already at Lightheavy then when Calzaghe became a world champion so its not like he avoided him.

Well, to be fair you could say most of the good Heavyweights, he would be too quick for most of them but he won the HW world title against John Ruiz... Not exactly someone I would call all time great but he did have a solid chin and would keep going I guess.