By Alex Mcmillan: A couple of weeks back, Hopkins vs. Pavlik. Veteran gunslinger meets Billy the Kid. Easy Pavlik win? Hopkins too old to avoid the right hand? Or just old enough to know best?
In retrospect of course, it was obvious. Bernard had called it all along. Kelly Pavlik is an exciting fighter. A tremendous puncher. A KO specialist. But he’s not Bernard Hopkins. He’s not spent 15 years boxing some of the greats. He’s not fought Winky Wright, Roy Jones, Oscar De la Hoya, Tito Trinidad, Antonio Tarver, Joe Calzaghe, Glen Johnson and William Joppy. Hopkins had fought much higher class. Had won and lost and drawn against much higher class. He was always going to win that fight.
Did I pick Hopkins to win? Of course I didn‘t.
So to Saturday night. Calzaghe vs. Jones. Yet another intriguing match up in a calendar year as full of them as any I remember. Yes we all know it should’ve happened five years ago. We’d all have loved to have seen it then. But boxing thrives on ifs and buts. At Madison Square Garden we’ll get a taster at least of how it might’ve gone. But who wins?
Calzaghe is 45-0. Which sounds impressive, and impressive it is. But let’s not focus on that 0. Kelly Pavlik had one. So too earlier in the year did Miguel Cotto. The question is, how good is Calzaghe right now? Is he as good as he’s ever been? Just how good is that anyway? Against Hopkins I felt he struggled. He got the decision, arguably just edged the fight too. But styles make fights and Saturday’s contest will be far different. Having built a career on speed of punches, he’s about to fight perhaps the one guy faster.
And what of Jones? What’s left in the tank? Just a few short years ago the prospect of this fight seemed implausible. Jones was shot. Washed up. Unable to compete with the likes of Tarver and Johnson. But it’s Roy Jones; he can do anything, right? Saturday night we’ll find out.
Of all the variables in this contest – and there are many – the single most glaring is whether Jones can honestly step back into world class. His wins over Anthony Hanshaw and Prince Badj Ajamu give little gauge as to the reserves of his ability which once seemed endless. Personally I found the latter of those two fights painful. I wished Jones hadn’t come back at all. It was far closer than the 9 round victory one of the judges afforded the returning superstar. Then of course he fought Trinidad. A big name. One time conqueror of the undefeated De la Hoya. But that was eight and a half years ago. Two defeats and 22 pounds lighter. Jones looked sharp against Felix, no question. In bursts he was almost his old self. Almost. But let’s not get carried away.
Age may have stripped little from Hopkins’ powers, but Bernard should best be viewed as an exception. Who could bet against him winning his next fight? Whoever he goes after? Such super longevity can’t realistically be expected of either of these fighters. Calzaghe, for his part, has had a sensible career. He’s won often and won easy, and only in the latter part of his career really taken the step up to world class. Opinions on his greatness conflict – and so they should; this is boxing after all – but as usual the facts are fairly straightforward. A simple formula to test the worthiness of a fighter’s record is to look at what each loser has done since they were defeated. Aside from the improving Kessler and aforementioned Hopkins, there’s very little to be impressed by. Jeff Lacy’s tumble from the echelons of the sport can be attributed solely to Calzaghe’s relentless destruction of his craft, certainly, but what since has been noted of Sakio Bika? Evans Ashira? Peter Manfredo Jnr or Mario Veit? And these are some of Joe’s more noteworthy opponents. Clearly, as much as we can view his record with a understandable air of scepticism, few fights have taken their toll on the Welshman.
Jones on the other hand is an interesting career study. Untouchable all the way through to John Ruiz – the Montell Griffin loss understandably ignored – he then endured a savage four fights. He got the decision against Tarver first time round, but history writes its own scorecard, and suffered clinical knockouts in both the rematch and his subsequent return against Glen Johnson. His 2005 points defeat again to Tarver had the look of a man with nothing left but the desire for it to be as easy as it once was. The ’padded’ nature of Jones’ record is often highlighted. Perhaps over so. For eight or nine years he was beyond compare. He made ordinary fighters of Hopkins and Toney and the fading McCallum. How were the likes of Glen Kelly or Derrick Harmon ever supposed to cope? Of the fighters he outclassed – and there were many – Julio Cesar Gonzalez, Clinton Woods, Richard Hill and, yes, even John Ruiz – aside from Toney and Hopkins – can realistically be argued to have fought on at top class level. Which makes the comparison of Jones vs. Calzaghe’s records an interesting one. But who has had more taken from them?
It’s simply impossible to ignore Jones’ decline. Impossible too to ignore Calzaghe’s work rate. Joe can be got at, certainly. And by fighters far lesser skilled than Roy Jones. But will ‘Superman’ be able to fight in bursts as he always has? Will the bursts be enough? Perhaps of greatest significance will be the judges view. As recently as the Trinidad fight his speed and power remained. There’s little question he can hurt the Welshman. But how will two or three of Jones’ combinations equate in the judges eyes to a minute of two of Joe’s frenetic, side of the head punches?
It’s a salient point that Calzaghe has gone the distance in 5 of his last six. Even more so that the exception was a stoppage against the ridiculously outmatched Manfredo Jnr. While Johnson and Tarver were able to stop Jones cold, it’s unlikely he’ll suffer a KO come Saturday night. If there is to be a knockout, it follows that it will be of the sensational variety, i.e. a Jones one of Calzaghe.
If the fight reaches its duration, which seems the likeliest scenario, we once again reach the issue of how the exchanges will be scored. When Calzaghe fought Hopkins all that could be said for certain of the judges scoring was that between them they really didn’t know how best to pick the fight. But when Glen Hamada scores Michael Katsidis somehow beating Juan Diaz in their September bout (a master class by Diaz) it’s hard to argue any sense of the scoring process.
Which leaves the fight wide open. As characters I like both Calzaghe and Jones. But purely as a boxing fan I’m desperate to see Roy roll back the years and take the fight by a wide margin. I guess I belong the to the crowd who believe that’s exactly how it would’ve gone had they fought in their prime. What can I say?
But those crowds are often full of gamblers who bet with the heart when the head knows better. Tyson vs. Lewis anyone? Holmes vs. Tyson? Ali vs. Holmes? Common sense and the stages of each fighter’s career both point to Calzaghe by either a wide decision, should Jones fail to bring at least some of what he once possessed to the ring, or a tight decision, should Jones – as can most realistically be expected – have regained some of his powers but not quite enough. Simple facts rarely lie. It’s five years since Roy fought at top class. Whatever anyone has to say of Joe Calzaghe, he’s fought better fighters than ever before in the last few years. And he’s always won. When the heart’s ignored it’s hard to build a case for his defeat.
But then Roy Jones is Roy Jones? Who cares what didn’t happen five years ago; I can’t wait to see how this one goes.
Comments are closed.