Wacko's Round by Round of Roy Jones jr vs Tito Trinidad! Happy New Year bwoyo's!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wacko3205

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Oh come on thats a petty excuse you lost just admit it ;)

---

I often find your adolescent assumptions ammusing half way through...but considering myself having lost something? Nah...only flesh off of my finger tips typing text that you quite often shift a few words to better suit a later purpose in your favor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Nah but seriously i find it easier to do it that way, i can't believe some people find it hard to read. I think it breaks long sentences down and its easier to read.

---

This coming from the man who quite often refused puncuation...or was that 140? I so often confuse the two. ;) ;D :-*

---

I often find your adolescent assumptions ammusing half way through...but considering myself having lost something? Nah...only flesh off of my finger tips typing text that you quite often shift a few words to better suit a later purpose in your favor.

You backed out first old man, can't you handle me oldie ?? ;)

This coming from the man who quite often refused puncuation...or was that 140? I so often confuse the two. ;) ;D :-*

So what ?? im not very good at punctuation as you can see, but at least im trying :-\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snakey

Who ever said jones is not technically sound...WTF? Thats the biggest load of S*** ive ever heard. The guy used to outbox guys so they looked stupid, he used his reflexes...so does every boxer.

---

Uhh no it isn't Jones was never a great technical boxer thats obvious, thats why when his reflexes slowed down and he couldn't use his athletic ability anymore he was KO because he was never a great technical boxer. Jones had amazing talent but he was unorthodox and nothing he did was technically sound or boxing basics. Jones was a great boxer, and one of my favorite boxers of all time. But to say he is technically sound is a bit silly.

---

ICB you gotta be shitting me here.
Mate you alright? Seems to me as of late your posts get more and more irrational.
RJJ not technically sound? Wow!
Argueably the most athletic boxer to step into a ring not technically sound.

---

How is Jones a great technical fighter ?? he does most things wrong, if you want a perfect example of a textbook technical fighter. Look at fighters like Juan Manuel Marquez, Floyd Mayweather Jr Winky Wright. Now they are what i would call text book technical fighters. Jones has amazing athletic ability's and amazing reflexes, but he is not technically sound. He is one of the most unorthodox fighters ever in the history of the sport, certainly not what i would class as a great technical fighter. In fact one of the reason's he lost is because he isn't technically sound he relied purely on his athletic ability, and once that went he got KO x2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wacko3205

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wacko3205

quote author=Ice Cold Boxing link=topic=56686.msg739917#msg739917 date=1199029785]
Didn't beat Oscar...no matter how many different ways it get's argued by how many different people.

Of course he beat him who else beat him ?? the ref ?? Tito made Oscar run all night, Oscar knew the danger and Tito forced him to run all night along eventually Oscar got tired from all the running, and Tito took advantage and won the later rounds, if Oscar would of stood toe to toe he would of got KO, he knew it so did everyone else thats why he had to use his legs and keep on the move, your not giving Tito enough credit for that win.

---

So in saying that…you feel that I should respect him for a win that I do not believe that he deserved?

I have watched that bout (much to my sickness) over & over again, I have read the articles supporting & opposing the decision, seen that HBO Legendary Nights bit also & nothing sways me from my position. Oscar handily out boxed Trinidad up until about the 8th round. Yes he took the last few rounds off…but had already boxed comfortably to a position of dominance. Oscar’s stamina was never a question back then…but the amount of punches he threw against Trinidad & the amount of movement he used to stay out of reach of Tito’s shots definitely wore him out.

I don’t credit Tito with that win because I don’t think that he deserved it.

I noticed you said “running”…surely that’s not your stance on that game plan?

I’d be shocked to hear you say that’s your point of view.

quote author=Ice Cold Boxing link=topic=56686.msg739917#msg739917 date=1199029785]Pernell. I hate it when people bring that one up because Pernell was not even a shade of himself when Tito handled that bout.

I know Pernell wasn't in his prime, but he was still good respected name at the time. Tito is the only boxer who has beaten Whitaker without controversy. Yes Whitaker wasn't in his prime but Tito still deserves credit for the win.

---

Sure he got the win…yes it was over a faded champion…I never said that he didn’t deserve it noted…just a fact that it shouldn’t raise Tito to the elite due to Sweet Pea’s faded status.

A win over a champion is a win…but it’s hard to fully respect it unless in his prime…but that’s just my thoughts. He still get’s the W on his script & that’s that I reckon.

quote author=Ice Cold Boxing link=topic=56686.msg739917#msg739917 date=1199029785]I don't think Tito's that effective as a middleweight...even though he did handle Joppy...who I rated back in his days. If he wasn't effective at middle...I just can't imagine him being anymore effective at light heavy...or whatever we'll be calling his catch weight.

I think it was more to do with Tito not being able to fight his fight, and not being able to use his power against Wright, Hopkins. Because of how well they boxed with there great technical skills. Jones is nowhere near as good technically, even though im a big Jones fan lets get real he basically used athletic ability. But now that has gone there is always a chance Tito could catch him.

---

I disagree here.

Totally…Jones is technically sound. Yes he does rely on reflexes a lot…but lately, he’s been focusing on adapting to his aging body & weight, as evident in his last 2 bouts.

Sure there’s a chance that Tito could catch him…but I don’t believe Jones is that stupid anymore.

quote author=Ice Cold Boxing link=topic=56686.msg739917#msg739917 date=1199029785]Tito's just not that intelligent of a boxer. He's a fighter...plain & simple. He doesn't really box all that well unless he has established the upper hand. If he's boxed into a corner...you can see the deer actually start batting it's eyelids in front of the headlights...just prior to getting struck.

I disagree with that slightly, Tito has comeback when he has been behind like in Oscar, Reid, fights. But i do agree with your other comments, Tito has no Plan B he can't adjust and thats why he got dominated against Wright, Hopkins.

---

Oscar let that happen…by his own stupidity…& years later by his own admission. Reid…yeah he came back…but the length of distance between Jones, Reid, Oscar, Wright, & Hopkins…well…it aint even worth discussing.

On Jones’ worst day…he’s thrice the man Reid is.

quote author=Ice Cold Boxing link=topic=56686.msg739917#msg739917 date=1199029785]I blame a lot of this on his father. I think that he's a terrible fit as a trainer & that, far to often, he's let his son drive down many a one way street into a semi or cement truck...head on, so to speak.

Agreed didn't he say that Tito was winning the Hopkins fight :-\
[/quote]

Yes he did. He’s always kept Tito in left field when it comes to what’s really what out on the mat.
[/quote]

So in saying that…you feel that I should respect him for a win that I do not believe that he deserved?


Yep because it wasn't a robbery, I thought Barrera got a draw against Marquez and would of won if knockdown would of been scored. But you said to other members here the ones who thought Barrera won that they have to give Marquez his dues even if they didn't think Marquez won. So basically you have to do the same in this case because it wasn't a robbery plus Tito done very well to get back into the fight he was losing by about 3 or 4 rounds.

I noticed you said “running”…surely that’s not your stance on that game plan?

I’d be shocked to hear you say that’s your point of view.

For most of the fight Oscar was running hardly throwing any punches, he would throw flurries every once in a while, and throw some jabs but most of the time he was on the back foot and he was way to cautious. Thats why he got tired at the end because he was wasting energy by dancing/running for the entire 3 minutes of the round no one can keep up that pace.

Sure he got the win…yes it was over a faded champion…I never said that he didn’t deserve it noted…just a fact that it shouldn’t raise Tito to the elite due to Sweet Pea’s faded status.


Well not long before that fight Whitaker gave Oscar a very razor thin close fight, in which many thought Oscar got a gift decision. So i think Tito deserves bit more credit.

Totally…Jones is technically sound. Yes he does rely on reflexes a lot…but lately, he’s been focusing on adapting to his aging body & weight, as evident in his last 2 bouts.

Well i can't change your mind on that so we will leave it at that.

Oscar let that happen…by his own stupidity…& years later by his own admission.

Tito forced Oscar on the back foot so Tito played a part into Oscar tiring late in the fight. I just think Oscar was moving way too much he almost seemed scared of Tito's power, and he never really got his body weight into the shots.

Reid…yeah he came back…but the length of distance between Jones, Reid, Oscar, Wright, & Hopkins…well…it aint even worth discussing.

Not saying it has anything to do with Jones fight, its just you said Tito doesn't box well unless he has the upper hand. So i just pointed of them fights because he was losing in those fights and comeback well in both fights.


[/quote]
What the F*** is all of this?

You guys need to learn how to fwocken quote.... :(
[/quote]

That is what Ice COLD Boxing calls "winning".

Almost dizzying...his intellect...when you put all that hammer type with it, I mean. ;D
[/quote] I was actually joking when i said that comment, no one actually wins in a debate. Although you did back out ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

How is Jones a great technical fighter ?? he does most things wrong, if you want a perfect example of a textbook technical fighter. Look at fighters like Juan Manuel Marquez, Floyd Mayweather Jr Winky Wright. Now they are what i would call text book technical fighters. Jones has amazing athletic ability's and amazing reflexes, but he is not technically sound. He is one of the most unorthodox fighters ever in the history of the sport, certainly not what i would class as a great technical fighter. In fact one of the reason's he lost is because he isn't technically sound he relied purely on his athletic ability, and once that went he got KO x2.

---

Alright...this is what I always find amusing with you about this winning thing.

When things start going south with you on the "winning scale" you always throw in that extra word that I never used.

In this arguement...it would be the fact that I said Jones was a "technically sound boxer" & you toss in "textbook technical fighter".

Now you know that I never said that...pretty much the contrary when I describe Jones's abilities & the fact that he fires of multiple punch combos & then slides out or puts his hands behind his back.

Floyd & Jones are very similar fighters in the volume & atletically sound departements...the difference being that Jones's defense relies more on his reflexes where as Floyd operates a sure fire defense.

Now I aint sure what you consider technical or the likes...but apparently you are going to curb whatever I say with "textbook" or maybe you'll even throw in a "technical smhenical" or two & then say you won & that I backed out...when in fact...I implore you...just stick to the search engine answers instead of tweaking mine.

Now...I bid you good evening & wish you a Happy New Year...keep that post count up...you know that even though I may slack off...or maybe even back down from these...arguements of ours...I'll still be here fighting you & GOOGLE...shoulder to shoulder...toe to toe...boxing brain vs keyboard & search engine...so you just remember...there's no easy way out...there's no short cut home...and in the end...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCPPP4giSqc

I WILL BRRRRRRRRRRRRREAK YOU!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snakey

Who ever said jones is not technically sound...WTF? Thats the biggest load of S*** ive ever heard. The guy used to outbox guys so they looked stupid, he used his reflexes...so does every boxer.

---

Uhh no it isn't Jones was never a great technical boxer thats obvious, thats why when his reflexes slowed down and he couldn't use his athletic ability anymore he was KO because he was never a great technical boxer. Jones had amazing talent but he was unorthodox and nothing he did was technically sound or boxing basics. Jones was a great boxer, and one of my favorite boxers of all time. But to say he is technically sound is a bit silly.

---

ICB you gotta be shitting me here.
Mate you alright? Seems to me as of late your posts get more and more irrational.
RJJ not technically sound? Wow!
Argueably the most athletic boxer to step into a ring not technically sound.

---

How is Jones a great technical fighter ?? he does most things wrong, if you want a perfect example of a textbook technical fighter. Look at fighters like Juan Manuel Marquez, Floyd Mayweather Jr Winky Wright. Now they are what i would call text book technical fighters. Jones has amazing athletic ability's and amazing reflexes, but he is not technically sound. He is one of the most unorthodox fighters ever in the history of the sport, certainly not what i would class as a great technical fighter. In fact one of the reason's he lost is because he isn't technically sound he relied purely on his athletic ability, and once that went he got KO x2.

---

ICB, Athletisim & Technicality is something that IMO goes hand in hand.
So what your saying is RJJ was able to go to the Olympics and win a gold medal (I know he lost) then go undefeated for that long, he was able to reign supreme at Ligh Heavy win a title as a Heavy on Athletisim alone? Come on ICB...
Theres different types of technical fighters, B-Hops a techinical fighter cause he breaks you down and takes where he wants knowing he'll get the best of you thru 12. Ricardo Lopez was a technical fighter who could take you the distance but if given the oppourtunity he'll take you out.
RJJ was a technical fighter who threw 3 jabs, then did a faint and threw a right hook to the liver droping You can't get more techincal then that.

Also heres something to think about RJJ was able to beat Toney who at that moment in time was P4P fighter and I know you would agree he was a damn! fine technical fighter on sheer athletisim. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snakey

Who ever said jones is not technically sound...WTF? Thats the biggest load of S*** ive ever heard. The guy used to outbox guys so they looked stupid, he used his reflexes...so does every boxer.

---

Uhh no it isn't Jones was never a great technical boxer thats obvious, thats why when his reflexes slowed down and he couldn't use his athletic ability anymore he was KO because he was never a great technical boxer. Jones had amazing talent but he was unorthodox and nothing he did was technically sound or boxing basics. Jones was a great boxer, and one of my favorite boxers of all time. But to say he is technically sound is a bit silly.

---

ICB you gotta be shitting me here.
Mate you alright? Seems to me as of late your posts get more and more irrational.
RJJ not technically sound? Wow!
Argueably the most athletic boxer to step into a ring not technically sound.

---

How is Jones a great technical fighter ?? he does most things wrong, if you want a perfect example of a textbook technical fighter. Look at fighters like Juan Manuel Marquez, Floyd Mayweather Jr Winky Wright. Now they are what i would call text book technical fighters. Jones has amazing athletic ability's and amazing reflexes, but he is not technically sound. He is one of the most unorthodox fighters ever in the history of the sport, certainly not what i would class as a great technical fighter. In fact one of the reason's he lost is because he isn't technically sound he relied purely on his athletic ability, and once that went he got KO x2.

---

ICB, Athletisim & Technicality is something that IMO goes hand in hand.
So what your saying is RJJ was able to go to the Olympics and win a gold medal (I know he lost) then go undefeated for that long, he was able to reign supreme at Ligh Heavy win a title as a Heavy on Athletisim alone? Come on ICB...
Theres different types of technical fighters, B-Hops a techinical fighter cause he breaks you down and takes where he wants knowing he'll get the best of you thru 12. Ricardo Lopez was a technical fighter who could take you the distance but if given the oppourtunity he'll take you out.
RJJ was a technical fighter who threw 3 jabs, then did a faint and threw a right hook to the liver droping You can't get more techincal then that.

Also heres something to think about RJJ was able to beat Toney who at that moment in time was P4P fighter and I know you would agree he was a damn! fine technical fighter on sheer athletisim. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

---

I disagree. Athleticism and technicality do not go hand in hand, and furthermore, a fighter can have a hall-of-fame career without being technically sound. The alternative is to be unorthodox, which is what Roy Jones was. Athleticism will help both a fighter who is technically sound and a fighter who is unorthodox. Larry Holmes is a perfect example of a fighter who is technically sound. Roy is an example of a fighter who is unorthodox. Both are hall of famers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wacko3205

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

How is Jones a great technical fighter ?? he does most things wrong, if you want a perfect example of a textbook technical fighter. Look at fighters like Juan Manuel Marquez, Floyd Mayweather Jr Winky Wright. Now they are what i would call text book technical fighters. Jones has amazing athletic ability's and amazing reflexes, but he is not technically sound. He is one of the most unorthodox fighters ever in the history of the sport, certainly not what i would class as a great technical fighter. In fact one of the reason's he lost is because he isn't technically sound he relied purely on his athletic ability, and once that went he got KO x2.

---

Alright...this is what I always find amusing with you about this winning thing.

When things start going south with you on the "winning scale" you always throw in that extra word that I never used.

In this arguement...it would be the fact that I said Jones was a "technically sound boxer" & you toss in "textbook technical fighter".

Now you know that I never said that...pretty much the contrary when I describe Jones's abilities & the fact that he fires of multiple punch combos & then slides out or puts his hands behind his back.

Floyd & Jones are very similar fighters in the volume & atletically sound departements...the difference being that Jones's defense relies more on his reflexes where as Floyd operates a sure fire defense.

Now I aint sure what you consider technical or the likes...but apparently you are going to curb whatever I say with "textbook" or maybe you'll even throw in a "technical smhenical" or two & then say you won & that I backed out...when in fact...I implore you...just stick to the search engine answers instead of tweaking mine.

Now...I bid you good evening & wish you a Happy New Year...keep that post count up...you know that even though I may slack off...or maybe even back down from these...arguements of ours...I'll still be here fighting you & GOOGLE...shoulder to shoulder...toe to toe...boxing brain vs keyboard & search engine...so you just remember...there's no easy way out...there's no short cut home...and in the end...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCPPP4giSqc

I WILL BRRRRRRRRRRRRREAK YOU!

---

Alright...this is what I always find amusing with you about this winning thing.

Im not trying to win anything we are debating simple as there is no winner or loser.

When things start going south with you on the "winning scale" you always throw in that extra word that I never used.

In this arguement...it would be the fact that I said Jones was a "technically sound boxer" & you toss in "textbook technical fighter".

I really don't know what your implying Wacko, can't we just have a debate without you thinking that im trying to beat you ?? im not trying to win anything.

All im saying is that Jones is not a great technical boxer no matter which way you look at it. He relied purely on his athletic ability. Once that went he was KO twice he is not technically sound in any department, i would describe Jones as a amazingly gifted /unorthodox fighter.

Now you know that I never said that...pretty much the contrary when I describe Jones's abilities & the fact that he fires of multiple punch combos & then slides out or puts his hands behind his back.

Thats not technical sound, thats talent mixed in with unorthodox fighting.

Floyd & Jones are very similar fighters in the volume & atletically sound departements...the difference being that Jones's defense relies more on his reflexes where as Floyd operates a sure fire defense.

There nothing alike Mayweather is a perfect textbook technical fighter, he does everything by the book.

Now I aint sure what you consider technical or the likes...but apparently you are going to curb whatever I say with "textbook" or maybe you'll even throw in a "technical smhenical" or two & then say you won & that I backed out...when in fact...I implore you...just stick to the search engine answers instead of tweaking mine.

You are taking this way too far i was just describing what fighters i consider great technical fighters. And you honestly took my other comment about *Winning* seriously ?? i thought my smiley face would of gave that away.

Now...I bid you good evening & wish you a Happy New Year...keep that post count up...you know that even though I may slack off...or maybe even back down from these...arguements of ours...I'll still be here fighting you & GOOGLE...shoulder to shoulder...toe to toe...boxing brain vs keyboard & search engine...so you just remember...there's no easy way out...there's no short cut home...and in the end...


I don't search up on Google i watch fights i also compete in boxing, i may not know as much as some guys here. But i do know a lot about boxing so don't get that into your head i search up Google 24/7. I have watched thousands of fights from Minimumweight all the way up to Heavyweight.

And Happy New Year to you as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

You backed out first old man, can't you handle me oldie ?? ;)

---

Saying one's piece & knowing when words are wasted on the "deef" are two totally different things.

Now...that being said...after my last two or three posts in your favor...I would say that your next words will be flowing in that favor & falling on "deef ears"...also...that burn your'e feeling right now...while it may sting like gonoria or feel like a straffing of your adolescent ass cheeks with a leather strap...it's neither...it is merely a well placed verbal assault issued from this old man.

This old man...who has once again gone toe to toe with you...youngin'. You & your precious back up...with the geriatric once coming out with the belt in tow & a smile upon my old wrinkled face.

Once again my fellow forum goer...I say to thee...Cheers...& koneecheewah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

I really don't know what your implying Wacko, can't we just have a debate without you thinking that im trying to beat you ?? im not trying to win anything.

---

Did you really think that I was trying to do anything outside of that? I mean...do I ever? Nope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

And Happy New Year to you as well.

---

No...Happy New Year to you...first. ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Oh come on thats a petty excuse you lost just admit it ;)

---

Okay...shit break time...this does not mean that I have folded.

Unless yins wanna go to the terlet with me...you'll extend this time to me. :los:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snakey

Who ever said jones is not technically sound...WTF? Thats the biggest load of S*** ive ever heard. The guy used to outbox guys so they looked stupid, he used his reflexes...so does every boxer.

---

Uhh no it isn't Jones was never a great technical boxer thats obvious, thats why when his reflexes slowed down and he couldn't use his athletic ability anymore he was KO because he was never a great technical boxer. Jones had amazing talent but he was unorthodox and nothing he did was technically sound or boxing basics. Jones was a great boxer, and one of my favorite boxers of all time. But to say he is technically sound is a bit silly.

---

ICB you gotta be shitting me here.
Mate you alright? Seems to me as of late your posts get more and more irrational.
RJJ not technically sound? Wow!
Argueably the most athletic boxer to step into a ring not technically sound.

---

How is Jones a great technical fighter ?? he does most things wrong, if you want a perfect example of a textbook technical fighter. Look at fighters like Juan Manuel Marquez, Floyd Mayweather Jr Winky Wright. Now they are what i would call text book technical fighters. Jones has amazing athletic ability's and amazing reflexes, but he is not technically sound. He is one of the most unorthodox fighters ever in the history of the sport, certainly not what i would class as a great technical fighter. In fact one of the reason's he lost is because he isn't technically sound he relied purely on his athletic ability, and once that went he got KO x2.

---

ICB, Athletisim & Technicality is something that IMO goes hand in hand.
So what your saying is RJJ was able to go to the Olympics and win a gold medal (I know he lost) then go undefeated for that long, he was able to reign supreme at Ligh Heavy win a title as a Heavy on Athletisim alone? Come on ICB...
Theres different types of technical fighters, B-Hops a techinical fighter cause he breaks you down and takes where he wants knowing he'll get the best of you thru 12. Ricardo Lopez was a technical fighter who could take you the distance but if given the oppourtunity he'll take you out.
RJJ was a technical fighter who threw 3 jabs, then did a faint and threw a right hook to the liver droping You can't get more techincal then that.

Also heres something to think about RJJ was able to beat Toney who at that moment in time was P4P fighter and I know you would agree he was a damn! fine technical fighter on sheer athletisim. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

---

ICB, Athletisim & Technicality is something that IMO goes hand in hand.
So what your saying is RJJ was able to go to the Olympics and win a gold medal (I know he lost) then go undefeated for that long, he was able to reign supreme at Ligh Heavy win a title as a Heavy on Athletisim alone? Come on ICB...

Yep thats exactly what im saying and Technical Ability/Athletisim do not go hand in hand. Jones does most things wrong looking at it from a technical point of view. He is fast has amazing reflexes etc, but he is not great technical fighter. Like i said to Wacko earlier the reason why he lost later in his career because he wasn't a great technical fighter, and once his best asset went his athletic ability he lost simple as. And plenty of boxers have relied mostly on athletic ability and had good career's take Sugar Ray Leonard for example.

Theres different types of technical fighters, B-Hops a techinical fighter cause he breaks you down and takes where he wants knowing he'll get the best of you thru 12. Ricardo Lopez was a technical fighter who could take you the distance but if given the oppourtunity he'll take you out.
RJJ was a technical fighter who threw 3 jabs, then did a faint and threw a right hook to the liver droping You can't get more techincal then that.

Jones rarely threw a jab, he would throw leaping left hooks etc. That is called talent mixed in with unorthodox fighting not great technical fighting. Lopez is completely different from Jones, because he was a great text book technical fighter. He done everything by the book. Great defense, threw punches so accurate and beautifully etc.

Also heres something to think about RJJ was able to beat Toney who at that moment in time was P4P fighter and I know you would agree he was a damn! fine technical fighter on sheer athletisim. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Toney is a good technical fighter never denied that but just because Jones beat him with amazing speed, athletism, unorthodox fighting. Doesn't make him a great technical fighter. It makes him one of the most talented/unorthodox fighter's we have ever seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wacko3205

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Oh come on thats a petty excuse you lost just admit it ;)

---

Okay...S*** break time...this does not mean that I have folded.

Unless yins wanna go to the terlet with me...you'll extend this time to me. :los:

---

I could do with a break myself haven't had any sleep yet bro :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clean

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snakey

Who ever said jones is not technically sound...WTF? Thats the biggest load of S*** ive ever heard. The guy used to outbox guys so they looked stupid, he used his reflexes...so does every boxer.

---

Uhh no it isn't Jones was never a great technical boxer thats obvious, thats why when his reflexes slowed down and he couldn't use his athletic ability anymore he was KO because he was never a great technical boxer. Jones had amazing talent but he was unorthodox and nothing he did was technically sound or boxing basics. Jones was a great boxer, and one of my favorite boxers of all time. But to say he is technically sound is a bit silly.

---

ICB you gotta be shitting me here.
Mate you alright? Seems to me as of late your posts get more and more irrational.
RJJ not technically sound? Wow!
Argueably the most athletic boxer to step into a ring not technically sound.

---

How is Jones a great technical fighter ?? he does most things wrong, if you want a perfect example of a textbook technical fighter. Look at fighters like Juan Manuel Marquez, Floyd Mayweather Jr Winky Wright. Now they are what i would call text book technical fighters. Jones has amazing athletic ability's and amazing reflexes, but he is not technically sound. He is one of the most unorthodox fighters ever in the history of the sport, certainly not what i would class as a great technical fighter. In fact one of the reason's he lost is because he isn't technically sound he relied purely on his athletic ability, and once that went he got KO x2.

---

ICB, Athletisim & Technicality is something that IMO goes hand in hand.
So what your saying is RJJ was able to go to the Olympics and win a gold medal (I know he lost) then go undefeated for that long, he was able to reign supreme at Ligh Heavy win a title as a Heavy on Athletisim alone? Come on ICB...
Theres different types of technical fighters, B-Hops a techinical fighter cause he breaks you down and takes where he wants knowing he'll get the best of you thru 12. Ricardo Lopez was a technical fighter who could take you the distance but if given the oppourtunity he'll take you out.
RJJ was a technical fighter who threw 3 jabs, then did a faint and threw a right hook to the liver droping You can't get more techincal then that.

Also heres something to think about RJJ was able to beat Toney who at that moment in time was P4P fighter and I know you would agree he was a damn! fine technical fighter on sheer athletisim. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

---

I disagree. Athleticism and technicality do not go hand in hand, and furthermore, a fighter can have a hall-of-fame career without being technically sound. The alternative is to be unorthodox, which is what Roy Jones was. Athleticism will help both a fighter who is technically sound and a fighter who is unorthodox. Larry Holmes is a perfect example of a fighter who is technically sound. Roy is an example of a fighter who is unorthodox. Both are hall of famers.

---

Fuck! Me...
Then I must have been watching the another RJJ all his career.
Here I thought RJJ was a very good technical fighter turns out he's just a good athlete.
I'll be back tomorrow gonna try and find the right RJJ career on DVD cause apparently I've been watching the wrong one all this time.

Thanks ICB & clean for clearing that up I need to make note of this.

Note Pad

• A gallon of Milk
• A bag of Tortillas
• RJJ is NOT a technical fighter
• RJJ is unorthodox fighter
• RJJ doesn't do anything technical
• RJJ did all of his accomplishments on athletisim alone
  

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clean

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snakey

Who ever said jones is not technically sound...WTF? Thats the biggest load of S*** ive ever heard. The guy used to outbox guys so they looked stupid, he used his reflexes...so does every boxer.

---

Uhh no it isn't Jones was never a great technical boxer thats obvious, thats why when his reflexes slowed down and he couldn't use his athletic ability anymore he was KO because he was never a great technical boxer. Jones had amazing talent but he was unorthodox and nothing he did was technically sound or boxing basics. Jones was a great boxer, and one of my favorite boxers of all time. But to say he is technically sound is a bit silly.

---

ICB you gotta be shitting me here.
Mate you alright? Seems to me as of late your posts get more and more irrational.
RJJ not technically sound? Wow!
Argueably the most athletic boxer to step into a ring not technically sound.

---

How is Jones a great technical fighter ?? he does most things wrong, if you want a perfect example of a textbook technical fighter. Look at fighters like Juan Manuel Marquez, Floyd Mayweather Jr Winky Wright. Now they are what i would call text book technical fighters. Jones has amazing athletic ability's and amazing reflexes, but he is not technically sound. He is one of the most unorthodox fighters ever in the history of the sport, certainly not what i would class as a great technical fighter. In fact one of the reason's he lost is because he isn't technically sound he relied purely on his athletic ability, and once that went he got KO x2.

---

ICB, Athletisim & Technicality is something that IMO goes hand in hand.
So what your saying is RJJ was able to go to the Olympics and win a gold medal (I know he lost) then go undefeated for that long, he was able to reign supreme at Ligh Heavy win a title as a Heavy on Athletisim alone? Come on ICB...
Theres different types of technical fighters, B-Hops a techinical fighter cause he breaks you down and takes where he wants knowing he'll get the best of you thru 12. Ricardo Lopez was a technical fighter who could take you the distance but if given the oppourtunity he'll take you out.
RJJ was a technical fighter who threw 3 jabs, then did a faint and threw a right hook to the liver droping You can't get more techincal then that.

Also heres something to think about RJJ was able to beat Toney who at that moment in time was P4P fighter and I know you would agree he was a damn! fine technical fighter on sheer athletisim. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

---

I disagree. Athleticism and technicality do not go hand in hand, and furthermore, a fighter can have a hall-of-fame career without being technically sound. The alternative is to be unorthodox, which is what Roy Jones was. Athleticism will help both a fighter who is technically sound and a fighter who is unorthodox. Larry Holmes is a perfect example of a fighter who is technically sound. Roy is an example of a fighter who is unorthodox. Both are hall of famers.

---

F***! Me...
Then I must have been watching the another RJJ all his career.
Here I thought RJJ was a very good technical fighter turns out he's just a good athlete.
I'll be back tomorrow gonna try and find the right RJJ career on DVD cause apparently I've been watching the wrong one all this time.

Thanks ICB & clean for clearing that up I need to make note of this.

Note Pad

• A gallon of Milk
• A bag of Tortillas
• RJJ is NOT a technical fighter
• RJJ is unorthodox fighter
• RJJ doesn't do anything technical
• RJJ did all of his accomplishments on athletisim alone
  

---

When did I say Roy did all of his accomplishments on athleticism alone ??? I said athleticism will help both a fighter who is technically sound and a fighter who is unorthodox. He, like any great, achieved his accomplishments because he was a better fighter than his opponent most of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snakey

Who ever said jones is not technically sound...WTF? Thats the biggest load of S*** ive ever heard. The guy used to outbox guys so they looked stupid, he used his reflexes...so does every boxer.

---

Uhh no it isn't Jones was never a great technical boxer thats obvious, thats why when his reflexes slowed down and he couldn't use his athletic ability anymore he was KO because he was never a great technical boxer. Jones had amazing talent but he was unorthodox and nothing he did was technically sound or boxing basics. Jones was a great boxer, and one of my favorite boxers of all time. But to say he is technically sound is a bit silly.

---

Mate ever heard of slick boxers, i guarentee you guys like zab judah and floyd mayweather would be in trouble if they lost their speed. Floyd would be, jones started slowing down a bit. Guys like hopkins and wright arent known for their speed, yes they are technical boxers but they are a different kind to roy jones. Would you call ali not technically sound just coz he didnt hold his hands like the book says they should or didnt evade like the book said he should. It worked and he could outbox any man he wanted to. Face it man, jones is a technical fighter. He didnt beat hopkins and toney with just pure reflexes mate ;)

Roy is gonna light Tito up early, then it'll be lights out for Tito in the 8th or 9th. Watch and see. Mismatch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clean

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snakey

Who ever said jones is not technically sound...WTF? Thats the biggest load of S*** ive ever heard. The guy used to outbox guys so they looked stupid, he used his reflexes...so does every boxer.

---

Uhh no it isn't Jones was never a great technical boxer thats obvious, thats why when his reflexes slowed down and he couldn't use his athletic ability anymore he was KO because he was never a great technical boxer. Jones had amazing talent but he was unorthodox and nothing he did was technically sound or boxing basics. Jones was a great boxer, and one of my favorite boxers of all time. But to say he is technically sound is a bit silly.

---

ICB you gotta be shitting me here.
Mate you alright? Seems to me as of late your posts get more and more irrational.
RJJ not technically sound? Wow!
Argueably the most athletic boxer to step into a ring not technically sound.

---

How is Jones a great technical fighter ?? he does most things wrong, if you want a perfect example of a textbook technical fighter. Look at fighters like Juan Manuel Marquez, Floyd Mayweather Jr Winky Wright. Now they are what i would call text book technical fighters. Jones has amazing athletic ability's and amazing reflexes, but he is not technically sound. He is one of the most unorthodox fighters ever in the history of the sport, certainly not what i would class as a great technical fighter. In fact one of the reason's he lost is because he isn't technically sound he relied purely on his athletic ability, and once that went he got KO x2.

---

ICB, Athletisim & Technicality is something that IMO goes hand in hand.
So what your saying is RJJ was able to go to the Olympics and win a gold medal (I know he lost) then go undefeated for that long, he was able to reign supreme at Ligh Heavy win a title as a Heavy on Athletisim alone? Come on ICB...
Theres different types of technical fighters, B-Hops a techinical fighter cause he breaks you down and takes where he wants knowing he'll get the best of you thru 12. Ricardo Lopez was a technical fighter who could take you the distance but if given the oppourtunity he'll take you out.
RJJ was a technical fighter who threw 3 jabs, then did a faint and threw a right hook to the liver droping You can't get more techincal then that.

Also heres something to think about RJJ was able to beat Toney who at that moment in time was P4P fighter and I know you would agree he was a damn! fine technical fighter on sheer athletisim. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

---

I disagree. Athleticism and technicality do not go hand in hand, and furthermore, a fighter can have a hall-of-fame career without being technically sound. The alternative is to be unorthodox, which is what Roy Jones was. Athleticism will help both a fighter who is technically sound and a fighter who is unorthodox. Larry Holmes is a perfect example of a fighter who is technically sound. Roy is an example of a fighter who is unorthodox. Both are hall of famers.

---

F***! Me...
Then I must have been watching the another RJJ all his career.
Here I thought RJJ was a very good technical fighter turns out he's just a good athlete.
I'll be back tomorrow gonna try and find the right RJJ career on DVD cause apparently I've been watching the wrong one all this time.

Thanks ICB & clean for clearing that up I need to make note of this.

Note Pad

• A gallon of Milk
• A bag of Tortillas
• RJJ is NOT a technical fighter
• RJJ is unorthodox fighter
• RJJ doesn't do anything technical
• RJJ did all of his accomplishments on athletisim alone
  

---

I said that Jones relied on his athletisim, Jones had amazing speed, great reflexes, good variety of punches, unorthodox fighting. If Jones was technically sound he wouldn't of lost to Tarver, Johnson. The reason why he lost is because he isn't technically sound and once his reflexes slowed down and he couldn't rely on his athletisim and he lost. You see guys like Hopkins who are 40+ can still win fights, you know why ?? because of his great technical fighting, fighters like Mayweather, Hopkins, etc would still be able to win most of there fights based on there technical ability alone. Take away the speed from Mayweather and he will still be able to win most fights based on his great technical ability, but if you took away Jones speed, see how many fights Jones could win based on *Technical* ability as you put it.

Anyways i don't want to argue with you, your one of my favorite posters here. We have different opinion's on the matter so i'll leave it at that have a CC on me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snakey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snakey

Who ever said jones is not technically sound...WTF? Thats the biggest load of S*** ive ever heard. The guy used to outbox guys so they looked stupid, he used his reflexes...so does every boxer.

---

Uhh no it isn't Jones was never a great technical boxer thats obvious, thats why when his reflexes slowed down and he couldn't use his athletic ability anymore he was KO because he was never a great technical boxer. Jones had amazing talent but he was unorthodox and nothing he did was technically sound or boxing basics. Jones was a great boxer, and one of my favorite boxers of all time. But to say he is technically sound is a bit silly.

---

Mate ever heard of slick boxers, i guarentee you guys like zab judah and floyd mayweather would be in trouble if they lost their speed. Floyd would be, jones started slowing down a bit. Guys like hopkins and wright arent known for their speed, yes they are technical boxers but they are a different kind to roy jones. Would you call ali not technically sound just coz he didnt hold his hands like the book says they should or didnt evade like the book said he should. It worked and he could outbox any man he wanted to. Face it man, jones is a technical fighter. He didnt beat hopkins and toney with just pure reflexes mate ;)

---

Mate ever heard of slick boxers, i guarentee you guys like zab judah and floyd mayweather would be in trouble if they lost their speed.


Mayweather would still be able to win a lot of his fights based on his great technical abilities. The difference is once Jones lost his reflexes he lost because he relied on his athletic ability, and one of the reason's he did lose was because he wasn't a great technical fighter. Thats why you see guys like Hopkins even though he is 40+ and has lost his speed etc, he can still win fights based on his great technical fighting. Mayweather is a perfect textbook technical fighter, Jones and Mayweather aren't even comparable. Mayweather's defense, etc is all by the book. Thats a perfect example of a textbook technical fighter. Jones is an unorthodox athletically gifted fighter there is a difference.

. Guys like hopkins and wright arent known for their speed, yes they are technical boxers but they are a different kind to roy jones.

What different kind ?? your telling me holding your hands at your waist, throwing leaping left hooks, putting your hands behind your back etc, that is technical brilliance ?? no it isn't how many times do i have to say it. Thats amazing athletic ability mixed in with unorthodox fighting plus great talent.

It worked and he could outbox any man he wanted to. Face it man, jones is a technical fighter. He didnt beat hopkins and toney with just pure reflexes mate

Face what ?? he didn't beat Toney or Hopkins with great technical fighting. He beat them with unbelievable speed, unorthodox fighting, great reflexes etc.

Would you call ali not technically sound just coz he didnt hold his hands like the book says they should or didnt evade like the book said he should.

Ali is not what i would consider a great textbook technical fighter either. More like intelligent fighter, with great foot speed, amazing reflexes, etc. I believe Bert Sugar once said Ali actually does most things in the ring. And in boxing terms he does.

I'll say it for the last time that Jones is one of my favorite fighters of all time, but i disagree that Jones is a great technical fighter. He IMO is a amazingly talented fighter, with amazing athletisism, unorthodox fighting style.

This fight is gonna come down to something as simple as whos the younger fighter.

Roy is coming down yet again, his legs arent there and neither is his defence, Tito will stop Roy before halfway.

Roy has never been a defensive master, I remember Bryant Brannon wailing away at roy and Roy just covering up, all that saved him then and every other time was his quicker fists. People were intimidated to throw anything in case Roy landed back.

His fists are slower and his legs cant keep him out the way, Tito will nail him

In the end...if Jones was not a technically sound fighter...his athleticism wouldn't mean shit to him.

You can be fit as a fiddle & flat as a frying pan's bottom...but if you can't put your shots together then you're wasted.

When Jones went through the first half of his career...he didn't pull that much showboating out of his ass because he was focusing on his craft. Had he not perfected his foundations...he'd not been able to be "athletic" in the ring.

Jones is a technically sound boxer with a large wealth of skills...much more than Tito, IWHO.

Seriously the quoting system is disconcerting ;D

Although I kind of see ICB's point.

Its not like Jones was tecnically bad by any means but was he as good technically as guys like Floyd, Hopkins, Toney, Whitaker, not IMO. Offensively he was very good technically, all his punches were short, compact, straight, beautiful punches. But defensively I don't put him on the same level as Hopkins, PBF, Toney, etc. All those guys were good defensively inside, outside, everywhere. Jones' defense was reflexes and if a guy got inside keeping his hands up. I can't remember which issue of the Ring it was but Glen Johnson made a good comparison with Roy and Hopkins and how much better Hopkins was technically on defense and how that helped him stay at a high level even when he got much older.

I think PBF, if he decides to keep on fighting late into his career, could maintain a higher level of fighting, like Hopkins, even if he loses some of his athleticism just cause of how skilled he is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OumaFan

Seriously the quoting system is disconcerting ;D

Although I kind of see ICB's point.

Its not like Jones was tecnically bad by any means but was he as good technically as guys like Floyd, Hopkins, Toney, Whitaker, not IMO. Offensively he was very good technically, all his punches were short, compact, straight, beautiful punches. But defensively I don't put him on the same level as Hopkins, PBF, Toney, etc. All those guys were good defensively inside, outside, everywhere. Jones' defense was reflexes and if a guy got inside keeping his hands up. I can't remember which issue of the Ring it was but Glen Johnson made a good comparison with Roy and Hopkins and how much better Hopkins was technically on defense and how that helped him stay at a high level even when he got much older.

I think PBF, if he decides to keep on fighting late into his career, could maintain a higher level of fighting, like Hopkins, even if he loses some of his athleticism just cause of how skilled he is.

---

I see what you are saying...& in a sense I see what Ice is saying...but it's not just a closed book on Jones technical abitlites by saying it's his athletic abilities that carry him. Again...early in his career when honing his abilities...Jones was more conscious of his abilities.

Now...I never said that Jones was no a level with those names...as I said...Jones uses his defense in a totally different manner.

I voted with my heart. I'm not crazy about this matchup, for all the reasons that have already been mentioned ad nauseaum. Tito never handled 160 really well (except for William Joppy, of course).... he's had a 2-year layoff..... Roy Jones Jr. fought at heavyweight once and will be the bigger man at 170.... blah, blah, blah.

I'm not involved in Tito's match-making, so I have no say-so in the matter.

Hopefully, it will be a wild and entertaining affair. I know Tito will give his all, and I figure he's got that "puncher's chance" to nail RJJ with a good shot. Some have said that Roy would shake it off, but I don't know. Two devastating KO's can soften the chin of any man. And Tito packs a punch to be sure.

Will I be watching? You betcha. And cheering for Tito like a madman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clean

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snakey

Who ever said jones is not technically sound...WTF? Thats the biggest load of S*** ive ever heard. The guy used to outbox guys so they looked stupid, he used his reflexes...so does every boxer.

---

Uhh no it isn't Jones was never a great technical boxer thats obvious, thats why when his reflexes slowed down and he couldn't use his athletic ability anymore he was KO because he was never a great technical boxer. Jones had amazing talent but he was unorthodox and nothing he did was technically sound or boxing basics. Jones was a great boxer, and one of my favorite boxers of all time. But to say he is technically sound is a bit silly.

---

ICB you gotta be shitting me here.
Mate you alright? Seems to me as of late your posts get more and more irrational.
RJJ not technically sound? Wow!
Argueably the most athletic boxer to step into a ring not technically sound.

---

How is Jones a great technical fighter ?? he does most things wrong, if you want a perfect example of a textbook technical fighter. Look at fighters like Juan Manuel Marquez, Floyd Mayweather Jr Winky Wright. Now they are what i would call text book technical fighters. Jones has amazing athletic ability's and amazing reflexes, but he is not technically sound. He is one of the most unorthodox fighters ever in the history of the sport, certainly not what i would class as a great technical fighter. In fact one of the reason's he lost is because he isn't technically sound he relied purely on his athletic ability, and once that went he got KO x2.

---

ICB, Athletisim & Technicality is something that IMO goes hand in hand.
So what your saying is RJJ was able to go to the Olympics and win a gold medal (I know he lost) then go undefeated for that long, he was able to reign supreme at Ligh Heavy win a title as a Heavy on Athletisim alone? Come on ICB...
Theres different types of technical fighters, B-Hops a techinical fighter cause he breaks you down and takes where he wants knowing he'll get the best of you thru 12. Ricardo Lopez was a technical fighter who could take you the distance but if given the oppourtunity he'll take you out.
RJJ was a technical fighter who threw 3 jabs, then did a faint and threw a right hook to the liver droping You can't get more techincal then that.

Also heres something to think about RJJ was able to beat Toney who at that moment in time was P4P fighter and I know you would agree he was a damn! fine technical fighter on sheer athletisim. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

---

I disagree. Athleticism and technicality do not go hand in hand, and furthermore, a fighter can have a hall-of-fame career without being technically sound. The alternative is to be unorthodox, which is what Roy Jones was. Athleticism will help both a fighter who is technically sound and a fighter who is unorthodox. Larry Holmes is a perfect example of a fighter who is technically sound. Roy is an example of a fighter who is unorthodox. Both are hall of famers.

---

F***! Me...
Then I must have been watching the another RJJ all his career.
Here I thought RJJ was a very good technical fighter turns out he's just a good athlete.
I'll be back tomorrow gonna try and find the right RJJ career on DVD cause apparently I've been watching the wrong one all this time.

Thanks ICB & clean for clearing that up I need to make note of this.

Note Pad

• A gallon of Milk
• A bag of Tortillas
• RJJ is NOT a technical fighter
• RJJ is unorthodox fighter
• RJJ doesn't do anything technical
• RJJ did all of his accomplishments on athletisim alone
  

---

I said that Jones relied on his athletisim, Jones had amazing speed, great reflexes, good variety of punches, unorthodox fighting. If Jones was technically sound he wouldn't of lost to Tarver, Johnson. The reason why he lost is because he isn't technically sound and once his reflexes slowed down and he couldn't rely on his athletisim and he lost. You see guys like Hopkins who are 40+ can still win fights, you know why ?? because of his great technical fighting, fighters like Mayweather, Hopkins, etc would still be able to win most of there fights based on there technical ability alone. Take away the speed from Mayweather and he will still be able to win most fights based on his great technical ability, but if you took away Jones speed, see how many fights Jones could win based on *Technical* ability as you put it.

Anyways i don't want to argue with you, your one of my favorite posters here. We have different opinion's on the matter so i'll leave it at that have a CC on me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snakey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snakey

Who ever said jones is not technically sound...WTF? Thats the biggest load of S*** ive ever heard. The guy used to outbox guys so they looked stupid, he used his reflexes...so does every boxer.

---

Uhh no it isn't Jones was never a great technical boxer thats obvious, thats why when his reflexes slowed down and he couldn't use his athletic ability anymore he was KO because he was never a great technical boxer. Jones had amazing talent but he was unorthodox and nothing he did was technically sound or boxing basics. Jones was a great boxer, and one of my favorite boxers of all time. But to say he is technically sound is a bit silly.

---

Mate ever heard of slick boxers, i guarentee you guys like zab judah and floyd mayweather would be in trouble if they lost their speed. Floyd would be, jones started slowing down a bit. Guys like hopkins and wright arent known for their speed, yes they are technical boxers but they are a different kind to roy jones. Would you call ali not technically sound just coz he didnt hold his hands like the book says they should or didnt evade like the book said he should. It worked and he could outbox any man he wanted to. Face it man, jones is a technical fighter. He didnt beat hopkins and toney with just pure reflexes mate ;)

---

Mate ever heard of slick boxers, i guarentee you guys like zab judah and floyd mayweather would be in trouble if they lost their speed.


Mayweather would still be able to win a lot of his fights based on his great technical abilities. The difference is once Jones lost his reflexes he lost because he relied on his athletic ability, and one of the reason's he did lose was because he wasn't a great technical fighter. Thats why you see guys like Hopkins even though he is 40+ and has lost his speed etc, he can still win fights based on his great technical fighting. Mayweather is a perfect textbook technical fighter, Jones and Mayweather aren't even comparable. Mayweather's defense, etc is all by the book. Thats a perfect example of a textbook technical fighter. Jones is an unorthodox athletically gifted fighter there is a difference.

. Guys like hopkins and wright arent known for their speed, yes they are technical boxers but they are a different kind to roy jones.

What different kind ?? your telling me holding your hands at your waist, throwing leaping left hooks, putting your hands behind your back etc, that is technical brilliance ?? no it isn't how many times do i have to say it. Thats amazing athletic ability mixed in with unorthodox fighting plus great talent.

It worked and he could outbox any man he wanted to. Face it man, jones is a technical fighter. He didnt beat hopkins and toney with just pure reflexes mate

Face what ?? he didn't beat Toney or Hopkins with great technical fighting. He beat them with unbelievable speed, unorthodox fighting, great reflexes etc.

Would you call ali not technically sound just coz he didnt hold his hands like the book says they should or didnt evade like the book said he should.

Ali is not what i would consider a great textbook technical fighter either. More like intelligent fighter, with great foot speed, amazing reflexes, etc. I believe Bert Sugar once said Ali actually does most things in the ring. And in boxing terms he does.

I'll say it for the last time that Jones is one of my favorite fighters of all time, but i disagree that Jones is a great technical fighter. He IMO is a amazingly talented fighter, with amazing athletisism, unorthodox fighting style.

---

Wacko took the words right out of my mouth, you are correct...jones is not a textbook fighter like hopkins and wright. BUT he is technically sound, i never claimed him to be a text book fighter.

Bump.

Just trying to keep us up near the front prior to the bout materializing.

I'm surprised at the level in this fight actually.
Tito's fans have always been amazing and it appears they have remained loyal.
However, I think a true teller of the situation is the silence. Can you recall another Trinidad fight where his fanbase have been so silent?
Sure, they're there. When asked, they confirm their support for their guy, but they don't shout about it. I think silently they know Tito's best days were left way back when at 147 and I think they wish they could just cherish those great memories without this fight interfering.

Jones too is faded but his last couple of fights have displayed him altering his style to attempt to be succesful using the remainder of his natural physical abilities. Jones by UD.

This is a fight that is of no benefit to anyone in any way other than financially

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

I'm surprised at the level in this fight actually.
Tito's fans have always been amazing and it appears they have remained loyal.
However, I think a true teller of the situation is the silence. Can you recall another Trinidad fight where his fanbase have been so silent?
Sure, they're there. When asked, they confirm their support for their guy, but they don't shout about it. I think silently they know Tito's best days were left way back when at 147 and I think they wish they could just cherish those great memories without this fight interfering.

Jones too is faded but his last couple of fights have displayed him altering his style to attempt to be succesful using the remainder of his natural physical abilities. Jones by UD.

This is a fight that is of no benefit to anyone in any way other than financially

---

CC Cuchulian. I'm a big Tito fan and you hit the nail in the head with your opening coments. Many of us fans of Tito and here in PR have mixed emotions on this fight. We are excited that our man is going back in the ring and we all have our hopes that he will be his old self. But deep down we all know it is all just wishful thinking. No matter what happends we know very little will come out of this come back.

I am one of the few here that thinks he should've never retired so young and in his prime after his loss to Hopkins. But after he did retire than it woul've been best if he stayed there. The shit he gets for the Wright fight is just unberable for us fans.

It does bother me though that he is put down so much lately. Wacko's opening statements talking about how Tito has never beat a good boxer with a good fight plan is just silly. What the heck was he doing throughout his career and his 15 title defenses as a welterweight? Fighting stiffs who just stood there and said come on and hit me?

I find most people that put him down have only seen him fight sinse he fought DLH. Which means they hardley ever really saw him at his very best.

Tito is a great fighter. And like any great fighter he has a good chance of winning any fight. It is not like Jones is in his 20s, heck, Jones is older than Tito. This will not be a mismatch. It will be a competitive fight and I expect it to be more entertaining than expected.

For all these guys have given us. I think they more than deserve us chuging out another $50. I will gladly pay and watch the fight and cheer my man Tito to the end.

Well CC returned Rookie fan.
The fact is Puerto Rican fans are amongst the most loyal in the world and I applaud them for that.
Tito is a legend and deserves to be remembered for his services as a welter and junior middleweight.

Good to see your nearly at 1000 posts too Rookie fan!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

Good to see your nearly at 1000 posts too Rookie fan!!!

---

Oh yeah, Maybe I'm not such a rookie anymore :)

Nah, I don't reckon you are :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Rookie Fan

Wacko's opening statements talking about how Tito has never beat a good boxer with a good fight plan is just silly. What the heck was he doing throughout his career and his 15 title defenses as a welterweight? Fighting stiffs who just stood there and said come on and hit me?

I find most people that put him down have only seen him fight sinse he fought DLH. Which means they hardley ever really saw him at his very best.

---

You think that statements silly huh?

Throughout Tito’s career he beat a lot of decent fighters…but not boxers. I’ve seen almost every Trinidad fight out there & I saw Tito when he was at his best…but his best weren’t shat when he faces boxers with a defense & game plan backed by a boxing mind.

Whitaker, Carr, & Campos were Trinidad’s most impressive wins to me…but beating Pernell was just cracking the shell of what he once was…so it’s hard to rate that one.

I never said that Tito sucked or that he didn’t beat good fighters in his rise…but there is a huge difference between beating a good fighter & a good boxer.

Rookie Fan or not…you know that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wacko3205

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Rookie Fan

Wacko's opening statements talking about how Tito has never beat a good boxer with a good fight plan is just silly. What the heck was he doing throughout his career and his 15 title defenses as a welterweight? Fighting stiffs who just stood there and said come on and hit me?

I find most people that put him down have only seen him fight sinse he fought DLH. Which means they hardley ever really saw him at his very best.

---

You think that statements silly huh?

Throughout Tito’s career he beat a lot of decent fighters…but not boxers. I’ve seen almost every Trinidad fight out there & I saw Tito when he was at his best…but his best weren’t shat when he faces boxers with a defense & game plan backed by a boxing mind.

Whitaker, Carr, & Campos were Trinidad’s most impressive wins to me…but beating Pernell was just cracking the shell of what he once was…so it’s hard to rate that one.

I never said that Tito sucked or that he didn’t beat good fighters in his rise…but there is a huge difference between beating a good fighter & a good boxer.

Rookie Fan or not…you know that.

---

Hector Camacho was a good boxer and Tito beat him comfortably and also ODLH. Even if you don't consider it a victory its still on the record books and it was a close fight that could of gone either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wacko3205

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Rookie Fan

Wacko's opening statements talking about how Tito has never beat a good boxer with a good fight plan is just silly. What the heck was he doing throughout his career and his 15 title defenses as a welterweight? Fighting stiffs who just stood there and said come on and hit me?

I find most people that put him down have only seen him fight sinse he fought DLH. Which means they hardley ever really saw him at his very best.

---

You think that statements silly huh?

Throughout Tito’s career he beat a lot of decent fighters…but not boxers. I’ve seen almost every Trinidad fight out there & I saw Tito when he was at his best…but his best weren’t shat when he faces boxers with a defense & game plan backed by a boxing mind.

Whitaker, Carr, & Campos were Trinidad’s most impressive wins to me…but beating Pernell was just cracking the shell of what he once was…so it’s hard to rate that one.

I never said that Tito sucked or that he didn’t beat good fighters in his rise…but there is a huge difference between beating a good fighter & a good boxer.

Rookie Fan or not…you know that.

---

Hector Camacho was a good boxer and Tito beat him comfortably and also ODLH. Even if you don't consider it a victory its still on the record books and it was a close fight that could of gone either way.

---

Camacho was a decent boxer...yes...& there are a few on Tito's list worth mentioning. Joppy is one that I like to credit Tito for utterly destroying...but I still don't buy into that Oscar win...not matter who tries to convince me of it.

That being said...bringing Camacho into it is all well & good...but once again...let me clarify...beating good fighters & a good boxer is different...or atleast in my eyes it is.

I just can;t believe that people try to over look the Hopkins, Wright, & even Oscar fights as Trinidad losing to overly accomplished boxers.

You feel me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wacko3205

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wacko3205

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Rookie Fan

Wacko's opening statements talking about how Tito has never beat a good boxer with a good fight plan is just silly. What the heck was he doing throughout his career and his 15 title defenses as a welterweight? Fighting stiffs who just stood there and said come on and hit me?

I find most people that put him down have only seen him fight sinse he fought DLH. Which means they hardley ever really saw him at his very best.

---

You think that statements silly huh?

Throughout Tito’s career he beat a lot of decent fighters…but not boxers. I’ve seen almost every Trinidad fight out there & I saw Tito when he was at his best…but his best weren’t shat when he faces boxers with a defense & game plan backed by a boxing mind.

Whitaker, Carr, & Campos were Trinidad’s most impressive wins to me…but beating Pernell was just cracking the shell of what he once was…so it’s hard to rate that one.

I never said that Tito sucked or that he didn’t beat good fighters in his rise…but there is a huge difference between beating a good fighter & a good boxer.

Rookie Fan or not…you know that.

---

Hector Camacho was a good boxer and Tito beat him comfortably and also ODLH. Even if you don't consider it a victory its still on the record books and it was a close fight that could of gone either way.

---

Camacho was a decent boxer...yes...& there are a few on Tito's list worth mentioning. Joppy is one that I like to credit Tito for utterly destroying...but I still don't buy into that Oscar win...not matter who tries to convince me of it.

That being said...bringing Camacho into it is all well & good...but once again...let me clarify...beating good fighters & a good boxer is different...or atleast in my eyes it is.

I just can;t believe that people try to over look the Hopkins, Wright, & even Oscar fights as Trinidad losing to overly accomplished boxers.

You feel me?

---

Camacho NOT a good boxer? Yeah, right wacko. Camacho was an AWESOME boxer. Is what you should be sayin is that he was old as hell by the time Tito fought him, which is the truth. But in his prime and even after it for a while, Hector "Macho" Camacho could box extremely well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hulk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wacko3205

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wacko3205

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Rookie Fan

Wacko's opening statements talking about how Tito has never beat a good boxer with a good fight plan is just silly. What the heck was he doing throughout his career and his 15 title defenses as a welterweight? Fighting stiffs who just stood there and said come on and hit me?

I find most people that put him down have only seen him fight sinse he fought DLH. Which means they hardley ever really saw him at his very best.

---

You think that statements silly huh?

Throughout Tito’s career he beat a lot of decent fighters…but not boxers. I’ve seen almost every Trinidad fight out there & I saw Tito when he was at his best…but his best weren’t shat when he faces boxers with a defense & game plan backed by a boxing mind.

Whitaker, Carr, & Campos were Trinidad’s most impressive wins to me…but beating Pernell was just cracking the shell of what he once was…so it’s hard to rate that one.

I never said that Tito sucked or that he didn’t beat good fighters in his rise…but there is a huge difference between beating a good fighter & a good boxer.

Rookie Fan or not…you know that.

---

Hector Camacho was a good boxer and Tito beat him comfortably and also ODLH. Even if you don't consider it a victory its still on the record books and it was a close fight that could of gone either way.

---

Camacho was a decent boxer...yes...& there are a few on Tito's list worth mentioning. Joppy is one that I like to credit Tito for utterly destroying...but I still don't buy into that Oscar win...not matter who tries to convince me of it.

That being said...bringing Camacho into it is all well & good...but once again...let me clarify...beating good fighters & a good boxer is different...or atleast in my eyes it is.

I just can;t believe that people try to over look the Hopkins, Wright, & even Oscar fights as Trinidad losing to overly accomplished boxers.

You feel me?

---

Camacho NOT a good boxer? Yeah, right wacko. Camacho was an AWESOME boxer. Is what you should be sayin is that he was old as hell by the time Tito fought him, which is the truth. But in his prime and even after it for a while, Hector "Macho" Camacho could box extremely well.

---

Yes Camacho was a pretty good boxer. He was passed his best but I wouldn't say he was very old at the time. He did win some 20+ fights after that. He was over his best weight though. But there are others, Carr boxed pretty good, Roger Turner was pretty slick, Reid was boxing good till he got cought. And than there is DLH against whom Tito still held his own even though he was loosing, he still kept it close enough.

Look Wack all I'm saying is that it didn't just take any good boxer to beat him, it took an exceptionally great boxer to do it. Heck, Tito never went in there to try and outbox anybody. He went in there to beat you up. The only question was what could you do about it. Up till now, only three have been able to do something about it. One of which could not do it for the full 12 rounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Rookie Fan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

Good to see your nearly at 1000 posts too Rookie fan!!!

---

Oh yeah, Maybe I'm not such a rookie anymore :)

---

Your rookie card has gone up in value significantly! ;)

Tito Trinidad was undersized at 160 in his first stint there, I also thought he was undersized at 160 in his second stint, so I know for a fact his will be undersized at 170, but he will still bring brutal punching power and that soft chin of RJJ, can't wait to see Tito's ring entrance, he has the best ring entrances ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Bookkeeper

Tito Trinidad was undersized at 160 in his first stint there, I also thought he was undersized at 160 in his second stint, so I know for a fact his will be undersized at 170, but he will still bring brutal punching power and that soft chin of RJJ, can't wait to see Tito's ring entrance, he has the best ring entrances ever.

---

Lol, we know as RJJ has slowed the slight weakness in his chin has come to the fore, but it was a proper light-heavy who brought that to the fore, and I'm not sure Tito's power will be all that brutal when he's fighting so far above his peak weight.

And grats on the new name BB, sorta reminds me of a librarian who also has a sideline in something a little more unwholesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superheavyrhun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Bookkeeper

Tito Trinidad was undersized at 160 in his first stint there, I also thought he was undersized at 160 in his second stint, so I know for a fact his will be undersized at 170, but he will still bring brutal punching power and that soft chin of RJJ, can't wait to see Tito's ring entrance, he has the best ring entrances ever.

---

Lol, we know as RJJ has slowed the slight weakness in his chin has come to the fore, but it was a proper light-heavy who brought that to the fore, and I'm not sure Tito's power will be all that brutal when he's fighting so far above his peak weight.

And grats on the new name BB, sorta reminds me of a librarian who also has a sideline in something a little more unwholesome.

---

Good times Superheavy, I noticed that you took a risk in the last prediction fight (Paulie Vs Herman) but it looks like your going with RJJ in this one, I will PM you the link in a couple of day's, can you give me a sneak peak prediction?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Bookkeeper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superheavyrhun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Bookkeeper

Tito Trinidad was undersized at 160 in his first stint there, I also thought he was undersized at 160 in his second stint, so I know for a fact his will be undersized at 170, but he will still bring brutal punching power and that soft chin of RJJ, can't wait to see Tito's ring entrance, he has the best ring entrances ever.

---

Lol, we know as RJJ has slowed the slight weakness in his chin has come to the fore, but it was a proper light-heavy who brought that to the fore, and I'm not sure Tito's power will be all that brutal when he's fighting so far above his peak weight.

And grats on the new name BB, sorta reminds me of a librarian who also has a sideline in something a little more unwholesome.

---

Good times Superheavy, I noticed that you took a risk in the last prediction fight (Paulie Vs Herman) but it looks like your going with RJJ in this one, I will PM you the link in a couple of day's, can you give me a sneak peak prediction?

---

I dunno bro, I'll probably go with what my brain says and say that RJJ will hammer out a 12 round victory, but I hope it's a little more exciting than what I expect it to be. The ageing guys aren't going to have the stamina to go toe-to-toe for 12 rounds, but some nice exchanges and excitement would be a boon for the sport, and for the casual fans drawn back in by the legendary names.

I voted Jones decision. It really should be Jones by stoppage but though I think Jones will bring out-pointing skills I am not so certain that he'll bring killer domination at this point.

Always liked Tito though I was all for Hopkins in their matchup, where Hopkins was 3-1 underdog. Jones is a skilled boxer, the kind Tito struggles with.

Of course, there are so many variables now with layoff, age, mindset, etc ... that not all of the normal evaluative factors carry the same kind of weight they generally do, and it's hard to know where they do and don't apply.

Fight night will tell the tale. This is an interesting but not important fight.

;D Is like what i said Trinidad cant win Roy Jones ,even if Jones burn again but the fight is going be fix for Tito win, you know Why? Tito is apparently more the Biggest Purse than jones, may be one of both going put the 170lb up to make a big money, that what i espect. 8)