-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rjj tszyu
Quote:
Originally Posted by
njackets
I think RJJ had everything apart from 1 thing,he didn't have no killer instinct! I dont think he had the desire to really get his opponents out of there.I think he does in the 2nd Griffen fight and IMO theres no LHW in history that would of went the distance with Roy that night! If Roy had the attitude he had in the 2nd Griffen fight for the whole of his carrer,I think we'd all be talking about him diffrently.
He actually went on record saying that unless they did something to upset him he didn't want to hurt them too bad. I think this attitude came about after what happened to G-Man.
Shooting at the obscure but I remember an interview after a fight with Fermin Chirino and how he was boooo'd when coasting through the fight over 10 rounds.He said pretty much that,hey,Im in here fighting and getting hit & taking chances....They can booo all they want (Not an exact quote Lol).I really think it was from the initial outset....he lost no sleep over a few detractors of his style ;D .
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chris Nagel
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Markusdarkus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taeth
The only old fighter I've seen rely purely on skill is Hopkins to still win fights, and I admitted he was smart as well. Leonard didn't use the same skill he did in his prime when he was older, but he could take a punch better then Roy, and he didn't ruin his body like Roy did. The same story goes for almost every great old fighter. Do you really think Fulmer, Turpin, Olson, etc would have stood a chance against Prime Robinson? Now look at Mundine, look at Berto look how fast and athletically gifted these guys are, but why can't they dominate anywhere close to Roy Jones Jr.'s level? Because they don't have that intelligence. HIs combinations weren't wrought purely out of the physical ability, their speed was, but how he put them together so well is all due to Roy's boxing intelligence. Look how athletic Zab Judah is, how come when he tries to stand in front of an opponent he gets hit a lot? Because Roy is so focused in the ring, so sharp, and so smart.
Roy JOnes Jr often knew what his opponent was doing before they did it. He didn't just overwhelm opponents, he set them up. Watch him against Glenn Kelly I believe its the first knock down, Roy was throwing a lot of looping punches and Kelly began to just pay attention to blocking hooks and Roy came in with a left uppercut.
Mike MaCcallum said that Roy was better than Leonard, Duran, Hearns, and Hagler combined. This wasn't some noob saying this, but IMO HOF'er who got owned by a Roy that wasn't even trying and that was his first fight at 175. People say Mike was super old, but he fought two close fights around that time with a very good James Toney. He wasn't at his best, but Mike was still a highly formidable opponent.
Also Roy won the Olympics, he was a great amateur fighter, you need technical boxing skills to fight at the amateur level, and he had it all.
McCallum P4P would make Jones piss blood.
;D
Nice choice of words, I'd stake my money on that. Even when he was old he gave Jones something to think about, and he gave James Toney a lot of trouble.
When he was at his peak no one wanted anything to do with him, neither did Eubank, Hearns or Ray Leonard.
He didn't give Jones anything to think about, he was target practice, pull your head out of your ass. Nobody wanted anything to with Roy either, Calzaghe, Benn, Eubank, Hopkins the second time around, none of them were willing to come over. Not being they couldn't negotiate deals, but because they were scared of Roy JOnes Jr.. Before one of ROy's fights at 168 he told HBO to get a fight for him under his terms which HBO thought they could easily do, but they tried and nobody would fight him.
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Markusdarkus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ono
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Markusdarkus
"Now obviously Roy has been the best athlete to ever grace the sport of boxing" er no.
Great fighter yes but that is over playing it especially when you consider what went on with Roy from Tony - Tarver and the "ripped fuel" thing.
Was a great but not the best athlete in boxing history.
Leonard and Oscar looked human because of who they were fighting......... now who was Roy fighting when you made that assumption? i rest my case.
David Telasco i believe ;D
geez Jones fought more bums than anyone in boxing history.
Watch Tarver/Jones II now listen to Merchant before the KO:
"Roy isnt in with the local school teacher or the part-time bouncer this opponent is live and Roy.... for the most part has avoided this kind of challenge"
Wow your using the words of the bitterest piece of shit ever, your dumb, and stop trying to prove a point you don't have.
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
Truth is if Hopkins and Toney could not beat him neither would have Eubanks, Benn or McClellan. I would include Dariuz in that too.
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
[quote=Taeth;581920]
Now look at Mundine, look at Berto look how fast and athletically gifted these guys are, but why can't they dominate anywhere close to Roy Jones Jr.'s level?
Becasue Mundine actually tries to be Roy Jones while not quite ebing as fast or as powerfull as Roy While Berto i doubt is as fleet footed and has the reflexes Rouy had.
Look how athletic Zab Judah is, how come when he tries to stand in front of an opponent he gets hit a lot?
Because the only time Zab seems to be fast on his feet is when his jumpin in with a 1-2. And aslo again its an issue of reflexes. Zab is athletic but his reflexes dim quickly. If anything.
Roy JOnes Jr often knew what his opponent was doing before they did it.
Reflex reflex reflex...!!! ;D
Roy was truly Superman.
Ive never considered Roy as a boxing genius, just as a phenomenon ;D
With a Boxing Genius it always a case of them doing what they have to do to win.
With Roy it was almost a case of doing what ever he wanted!
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
Huge Jones fan here.
I persoanlly try to emulate his speed and velocity but he wasn't a fantastic boxer. He was easy to trap on the ropes (where he was Kayo'ed twice.) Jones also could never establish a jab.
What made Roy great was his physical ability, not his boxing.
His blend of spped and power was particularly potent when blended with his defensive reflexes.
Mayweather, Leonard and Whittaker were all much more textbook, with comparable physical abilities, that actually results in them being better than Roy in my eyes.
Roy was great. But not the best ever.
He's beaten by Monzon and Hagler at middle.
Beaten by a feew Light heavies (Charles, Moore.)
Gretest Super Middle of all time?
Yes, Roy deserves that mantle.
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hitmandonny
Huge Jones fan here.
I persoanlly try to emulate his speed and velocity but he wasn't a fantastic boxer. He was easy to trap on the ropes (where he was Kayo'ed twice.) Jones also could never establish a jab.
What made Roy great was his physical ability, not his boxing.
His blend of spped and power was particularly potent when blended with his defensive reflexes.
Mayweather, Leonard and Whittaker were all much more textbook, with comparable physical abilities, that actually results in them being better than Roy in my eyes.
Roy was great. But not the best ever.
He's beaten by Monzon and Hagler at middle.
Beaten by a feew Light heavies (Charles, Moore.)
Gretest Super Middle of all time?
Yes, Roy deserves that mantle.
Gotta disagree with you here Donny. He didn't use textbook boxing skills like Mayweather, Leonard and Whittaker because he invented his own style. To use this style you had to be blessed with athleticism beyond anything I've seen in boxing before Roy and I doubt We'll ever see anything like him again.
But just because he didn't box out of a textbook doesn't mean he wasn't a great boxer. In my eyes he is the greatest LHW of all time and I truly believe he would have beaten any middleweight in history but he certainly doesn't deserve the mantle as greatest because he wasn't there long enough. As for SMW I think you have to go for Calzaghe as greatest because even though a SMW Roy would have beaten Joe again he wasn't there long enough to cement a legacy there as being the greatest SMW of all time.
Just my opinion though
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rjj tszyu
Gotta disagree with you here Donny. He didn't use textbook boxing skills like Mayweather, Leonard and Whittaker because he invented his own style. To use this style you had to be blessed with athleticism beyond anything I've seen in boxing before Roy and I doubt We'll ever see anything like him again.
But just because he didn't box out of a textbook doesn't mean he wasn't a great boxer. In my eyes he is the greatest LHW of all time and I truly believe he would have beaten any middleweight in history but he certainly doesn't deserve the mantle as greatest because he wasn't there long enough. As for SMW I think you have to go for Calzaghe as greatest because even though a SMW Roy would have beaten Joe again he wasn't there long enough to cement a legacy there as being the greatest SMW of all time.
Just my opinion though
Well, Jones actually attempted to box quite well in the amateurs.
Although he was a standout amateur, he was not invincible, so famously beaten by McClellan.
Jones then turned pro. His speed, athleticism and power allowed him to destroy opposition.
Until he was opposed by fighters of good ability that could cope with his power.
In these situations Jones could not adjust, he didn't have skills per se.
He was easily cornered and not slick on defense in close as we can see against Tarver and Johnson.
I just imagine them the same size.
And skill beats natural ability.
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
As good as he was, genius no otherwise he would have retired by now
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Markusdarkus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rjj tszyu
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Markusdarkus
So you consider Jones a better fighter P4P than Hearns and Duran? he is good but if Jones was a Welterweight i couldnt see him beating Hearns or if he were a Lightweight lasting 5rds with Duran.
Yes I do. I think that Roy would KO Hearns, too much skill and would be able to dodge his big power shots all night long and he would DO a similar if not better job on Duran as Leonard did in the second fight when he QUIT.
P4P? a rather strange comment seen as a prime Leonard couldnt get away from Hearns jab and right hand. And a Lightweight Duran was an animal i think Roys lack of workrate and lack of chin would be exposed.
Like i said if Roy fought those guys at there best weight. A win over James Toney and a gift over Antonio Tarver doesnt cut it for me im affraid. And again Leonard did things that Jones did and it was always against cans he could get away with it.
How many Roberto Duran fights have you actually seen ? because its well known fact Roberto Duran struggled with fast fighters or good movers.........
Why do you think he lost to mediocre fighters like Kirkland Laing and Davey Moore ? plus lets not forget he also got outboxed by Wilfredo Benitez.........
I agree with Thomas Hearns P4P he would be terrible style match up for Roy Jones Jr with his excellent jab and right hand over the top..........
And i honestly don't think you have studied up on Sugar Ray Leonard either he had some troubles with lesser fighters like Randy Shields and Floyd Mayweather Sr just to name a few........
And lets not forget he was also knocked down by journeyman Kevin Howard in 1984 and also received a tough fight............
You talk about Roy Jones Jr's close fight with Antonio Tarver which is exactly like Sugar Ray Leonard's robbery draw against Thomas Hearns in there rematch........
Meaning both fighters were past there prime at that point except Sugar Ray Leonard wasn't badly weight drained like Roy Jones Jr was.........
And i honestly don't think Antonio Tarver vs Roy Jones Jr 1 was that close i had Roy Jones Jr comfortably ahead by 3 rounds i thought the fight was pretty close after 10 rounds but Roy Jones Jr went into a 2nd gear and clearly won the last 2 rounds giving him a clear cut decision...........
I think many people consider this fight a gift for Roy Jones Jr because people had never seen Roy Jones Jr in a tough close fight at that time but i honestly didn't think it was that close........
Roy Jones Jr's career is much more than those 2 fights you mentioned how about winning Heavyweight title which hadn't been done in like 100 plus years or how about KO'ing Virgil Hill for the first time in his career with one body shot..........
Or beating Bernard Hopkins with one hand or KOing the very durable Thulani Malinga who should have 2 wins over Nigel Benn and also gave Chris Eubank a razor thin close fight and also beat Robin Reid when he was 40 plus the same Robin Reid who went on to give Joe Calzaghe his toughest fight...........
I think you actually need to watch more fights and actually learn a bit more because when you only mention those 2 fights your disrespecting Roy Jones Jr.
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ssss
How many Roberto Duran fights have you actually seen ? because its well known fact Roberto Duran struggled with fast fighters or good movers.........
Why do you think he lost to mediocre fighters like Kirkland Laing and Davey Moore ? plus lets not forget he also got outboxed by Wilfredo Benitez.........
I agree with Thomas Hearns P4P he would be terrible style match up for Roy Jones Jr with his excellent jab and right hand over the top..........
And i honestly don't think you have studied up on Sugar Ray Leonard either he had some troubles with lesser fighters like Randy Shields and Floyd Mayweather Sr just to name a few........
And lets not forget he was also knocked down by journeyman Kevin Howard in 1984 and also received a tough fight............
You talk about Roy Jones Jr's close fight with Antonio Tarver which is exactly like Sugar Ray Leonard's robbery draw against Thomas Hearns in there rematch........
Meaning both fighters were past there prime at that point except Sugar Ray Leonard wasn't badly weight drained like Roy Jones Jr was.........
And i honestly don't think Antonio Tarver vs Roy Jones Jr 1 was that close i had Roy Jones Jr comfortably ahead by 3 rounds i thought the fight was pretty close after 10 rounds but Roy Jones Jr went into a 2nd gear and clearly won the last 2 rounds giving him a clear cut decision...........
I think many people consider this fight a gift for Roy Jones Jr because people had never seen Roy Jones Jr in a tough close fight at that time but i honestly didn't think it was that close........
Roy Jones Jr's career is much more than those 2 fights you mentioned how about winning Heavyweight title which hadn't been done in like 100 plus years or how about KO'ing Virgil Hill for the first time in his career with one body shot..........
Or beating Bernard Hopkins with one hand or KOing the very durable Thulani Malinga who should have 2 wins over Nigel Benn and also gave Chris Eubank a razor thin close fight and also beat Robin Reid when he was 40 plus the same Robin Reid who went on to give Joe Calzaghe his toughest fight...........
I think you actually need to watch more fights and actually learn a bit more because when you only mention those 2 fights your disrespecting Roy Jones Jr.
I'd actually attribute those loses down to complacency and poor preparation.
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hitmandonny
Huge Jones fan here.
I persoanlly try to emulate his speed and velocity but he wasn't a fantastic boxer. He was easy to trap on the ropes (where he was Kayo'ed twice.) Jones also could never establish a jab.
What made Roy great was his physical ability, not his boxing.
His blend of spped and power was particularly potent when blended with his defensive reflexes.
Mayweather, Leonard and Whittaker were all much more textbook, with comparable physical abilities, that actually results in them being better than Roy in my eyes.
Roy was great. But not the best ever.
He's beaten by Monzon and Hagler at middle.
Beaten by a feew Light heavies (Charles, Moore.)
Gretest Super Middle of all time?
Yes, Roy deserves that mantle.
If you've foughten anyone half decent and tried to emulate his style you would be owned, also if you watched more then one of his fights you would know Roy LET people put him on the ropes, he wasn't forced to them, when he didn't want to be on the ropes, you weren't getting him on the ropes. Also wtf were you talking about Roy was ko'ed off the ropes both times? He wasn't on the ropes against Tarver, he caught hit by a great counter shot.
Roy Jones beats Hagler and Monzon... he is too quick and too skilled.
I think Ezzard Charles gives Roy a decent fight, but Roy's speed wins the day, and Archie Moore fought similar to Jamest Toney, and we all know how he did against Roy. Its a horrible match up for Archie.
Also how is Whitaker textbook in any sense?
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ssss
How many Roberto Duran fights have you actually seen ? because its well known fact Roberto Duran struggled with fast fighters or good movers.........
Why do you think he lost to mediocre fighters like Kirkland Laing and Davey Moore ? plus lets not forget he also got outboxed by Wilfredo Benitez.........
I agree with Thomas Hearns P4P he would be terrible style match up for Roy Jones Jr with his excellent jab and right hand over the top..........
And i honestly don't think you have studied up on Sugar Ray Leonard either he had some troubles with lesser fighters like Randy Shields and Floyd Mayweather Sr just to name a few........
And lets not forget he was also knocked down by journeyman Kevin Howard in 1984 and also received a tough fight............
You talk about Roy Jones Jr's close fight with Antonio Tarver which is exactly like Sugar Ray Leonard's robbery draw against Thomas Hearns in there rematch........
Meaning both fighters were past there prime at that point except Sugar Ray Leonard wasn't badly weight drained like Roy Jones Jr was.........
And i honestly don't think Antonio Tarver vs Roy Jones Jr 1 was that close i had Roy Jones Jr comfortably ahead by 3 rounds i thought the fight was pretty close after 10 rounds but Roy Jones Jr went into a 2nd gear and clearly won the last 2 rounds giving him a clear cut decision...........
I think many people consider this fight a gift for Roy Jones Jr because people had never seen Roy Jones Jr in a tough close fight at that time but i honestly didn't think it was that close........
Roy Jones Jr's career is much more than those 2 fights you mentioned how about winning Heavyweight title which hadn't been done in like 100 plus years or how about KO'ing Virgil Hill for the first time in his career with one body shot..........
Or beating Bernard Hopkins with one hand or KOing the very durable Thulani Malinga who should have 2 wins over Nigel Benn and also gave Chris Eubank a razor thin close fight and also beat Robin Reid when he was 40 plus the same Robin Reid who went on to give Joe Calzaghe his toughest fight...........
I think you actually need to watch more fights and actually learn a bit more because when you only mention those 2 fights your disrespecting Roy Jones Jr.
I'd actually attribute those loses down to complacency and poor preparation.
Oh so when Roy isn't properly prepared, its becuase he isn't as good as he was, but when LEonard or Benitez or Duran aren't prepared, its excusable?
Thats basically what your saying... Roy's body hasn't been prepared since he came back down from heavyweight, he permanently damaged his body, maybe not really evidently but enough in a sport like boxing that he moves just that little bit slower, which costs him.
Against Tarver that was an honest loss that he may have suffered earlier in his career because that was a perfect counter punch in the second fight, I felt Roy pretty much dominated the first fight, but people were so enamored by somebody standing any sort of a chance that they gave Tarver bs rounds.
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rjj tszyu
Gotta disagree with you here Donny. He didn't use textbook boxing skills like Mayweather, Leonard and Whittaker because he invented his own style. To use this style you had to be blessed with athleticism beyond anything I've seen in boxing before Roy and I doubt We'll ever see anything like him again.
But just because he didn't box out of a textbook doesn't mean he wasn't a great boxer. In my eyes he is the greatest LHW of all time and I truly believe he would have beaten any middleweight in history but he certainly doesn't deserve the mantle as greatest because he wasn't there long enough. As for SMW I think you have to go for Calzaghe as greatest because even though a SMW Roy would have beaten Joe again he wasn't there long enough to cement a legacy there as being the greatest SMW of all time.
Just my opinion though
Well, Jones actually attempted to box quite well in the amateurs.
Although he was a standout amateur, he was not invincible, so famously beaten by McClellan.
Jones then turned pro. His speed, athleticism and power allowed him to destroy opposition.
Until he was opposed by fighters of good ability that could cope with his power.
In these situations Jones could not adjust, he didn't have skills per se.
He was easily cornered and not slick on defense in close as we can see against Tarver and Johnson.
I just imagine them the same size.
And skill beats natural ability.
YOu can't use one amateur fight to show that Roy couldn't box well, he fought plenty of great opposition as an amateur and lost like 8 or 9 of his fights. He had all the skills, you complain about his jab, but he only used it to set other punches up. It doesn't mean he wasn't effective with it, it just means he didn't use it to dominate the fight, but when he did like against Ruiz or Pazienza it sure worked fine, as an amateur he had a great jab.
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
Well if we are talking pound for pound i think Leonard and Hearns were better then jones if they some how made it the same weight. what i hate about those kind of fights both far away from there prime weights. Also when people talk about Roy winning Heavyweight title he beat Ruiz big deal he was not the champ now if he beat Lennox then yea impressed although i am pretty sure that Lennox would kill him end his career and life if they ever fought but i have more respect for him beating the champ.
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taeth
If you've foughten anyone half decent and tried to emulate his style you would be owned, also if you watched more then one of his fights you would know Roy LET people put him on the ropes, he wasn't forced to them, when he didn't want to be on the ropes, you weren't getting him on the ropes. Also wtf were you talking about Roy was ko'ed off the ropes both times? He wasn't on the ropes against Tarver, he caught hit by a great counter shot.
Roy Jones beats Hagler and Monzon... he is too quick and too skilled.
I think Ezzard Charles gives Roy a decent fight, but Roy's speed wins the day, and Archie Moore fought similar to Jamest Toney, and we all know how he did against Roy. Its a horrible match up for Archie.
Also how is Whitaker textbook in any sense?
I box amateur and I've got a national title, I'm at the beginning of my road and I'm pretty athletic, so please lets leave my career out of it, I was only implying I'm a huge Jones fan.
Roy was and is always forced to the ropes. Johnson, Tarver even Hanshaw recently all forced himmto the ropes.
Look at the Tarver fight. You can't imagine that Roy has control of the ring there. He attacked of the ropes and paid for it.
Whittaker has one of the best textbook jabs ever.
It's apparent you think the textbook was written recently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taeth
Oh so when Roy isn't properly prepared, its becuase he isn't as good as he was, but when LEonard or Benitez or Duran aren't prepared, its excusable?
Thats basically what your saying... Roy's body hasn't been prepared since he came back down from heavyweight, he permanently damaged his body, maybe not really evidently but enough in a sport like boxing that he moves just that little bit slower, which costs him.
Against Tarver that was an honest loss that he may have suffered earlier in his career because that was a perfect counter punch in the second fight, I felt Roy pretty much dominated the first fight, but people were so enamored by somebody standing any sort of a chance that they gave Tarver bs rounds.
Taeth I wasn't referring to Roy Jones here.
If you took the time to look at the highlighted text it was clear I was referrring to Roberto Duran.
Taeth instead of going on the warpath take time to read posts and understand their context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taeth
YOu can't use one amateur fight to show that Roy couldn't box well, he fought plenty of great opposition as an amateur and lost like 8 or 9 of his fights. He had all the skills, you complain about his jab, but he only used it to set other punches up. It doesn't mean he wasn't effective with it, it just means he didn't use it to dominate the fight, but when he did like against Ruiz or Pazienza it sure worked fine, as an amateur he had a great jab.
Jesus Christ Taeth!
I'm a Jones Jr. fan!
I've got his career set, I've met him and I train to box like him, you imply I'm hating on Roy???
Read my posts before you reply!!!!
Roy Jones Jr. never employed a jab and he was never skilled.
He compensated with his unbelievable physical prowess, but was never skilled in a textbook sense.
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
Hitmandonny is a fan of Roy Jones Taeth no doubt about that.
Roy did not always use the jab, although he did in the Paz fight to make a point. Also using the jab can make you predictable and he was always an unconventional boxer. That was one of his strengths, BHop said he could not work out what he was going to do next.
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rjj tszyu
Gotta disagree with you here Donny. He didn't use textbook boxing skills like Mayweather, Leonard and Whittaker because he invented his own style. To use this style you had to be blessed with athleticism beyond anything I've seen in boxing before Roy and I doubt We'll ever see anything like him again.
But just because he didn't box out of a textbook doesn't mean he wasn't a great boxer. In my eyes he is the greatest LHW of all time and I truly believe he would have beaten any middleweight in history but he certainly doesn't deserve the mantle as greatest because he wasn't there long enough. As for SMW I think you have to go for Calzaghe as greatest because even though a SMW Roy would have beaten Joe again he wasn't there long enough to cement a legacy there as being the greatest SMW of all time.
Just my opinion though
Well, Jones actually attempted to box quite well in the amateurs.
Although he was a standout amateur, he was not invincible, so famously beaten by McClellan.
Jones then turned pro. His speed, athleticism and power allowed him to destroy opposition.
Until he was opposed by fighters of good ability that could cope with his power.
In these situations Jones could not adjust, he didn't have skills per se.
He was easily cornered and not slick on defense in close as we can see against Tarver and Johnson.
I just imagine them the same size.
And skill beats natural ability.
You should only really judge fighters when in their prime. Do you think a younger Jones would have lost against those two?
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taeth
If you've foughten anyone half decent and tried to emulate his style you would be owned, also if you watched more then one of his fights you would know Roy LET people put him on the ropes, he wasn't forced to them, when he didn't want to be on the ropes, you weren't getting him on the ropes. Also wtf were you talking about Roy was ko'ed off the ropes both times? He wasn't on the ropes against Tarver, he caught hit by a great counter shot.
Roy Jones beats Hagler and Monzon... he is too quick and too skilled.
I think Ezzard Charles gives Roy a decent fight, but Roy's speed wins the day, and Archie Moore fought similar to Jamest Toney, and we all know how he did against Roy. Its a horrible match up for Archie.
Also how is Whitaker textbook in any sense?
I box amateur and I've got a national title, I'm at the beginning of my road and I'm pretty athletic, so please lets leave my career out of it, I was only implying I'm a huge Jones fan.
Roy was and is always forced to the ropes. Johnson, Tarver even Hanshaw recently all forced himmto the ropes.
Look at the Tarver fight. You can't imagine that Roy has control of the ring there. He attacked of the ropes and paid for it.
Whittaker has one of the best textbook jabs ever.
It's apparent you think the textbook was written recently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taeth
Oh so when Roy isn't properly prepared, its becuase he isn't as good as he was, but when LEonard or Benitez or Duran aren't prepared, its excusable?
Thats basically what your saying... Roy's body hasn't been prepared since he came back down from heavyweight, he permanently damaged his body, maybe not really evidently but enough in a sport like boxing that he moves just that little bit slower, which costs him.
Against Tarver that was an honest loss that he may have suffered earlier in his career because that was a perfect counter punch in the second fight, I felt Roy pretty much dominated the first fight, but people were so enamored by somebody standing any sort of a chance that they gave Tarver bs rounds.
Taeth I wasn't referring to Roy Jones here.
If you took the time to look at the highlighted text it was clear I was referrring to Roberto Duran.
Taeth instead of going on the warpath take time to read posts and understand their context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taeth
YOu can't use one amateur fight to show that Roy couldn't box well, he fought plenty of great opposition as an amateur and lost like 8 or 9 of his fights. He had all the skills, you complain about his jab, but he only used it to set other punches up. It doesn't mean he wasn't effective with it, it just means he didn't use it to dominate the fight, but when he did like against Ruiz or Pazienza it sure worked fine, as an amateur he had a great jab.
Jesus Christ Taeth!
I'm a Jones Jr. fan!
I've got his career set, I've met him and I train to box like him, you imply I'm hating on Roy???
Read my posts before you reply!!!!
Roy Jones Jr. never employed a jab and he was never skilled.
He compensated with his unbelievable physical prowess, but was never skilled in a textbook sense.
I think Donny is an RJJ fan lol.
Though I do think that Taeth is right about Roy letting people come in against him against the ropes. Watch the Telesco fight. He keeps calling him in to attack him against the ropes but Telesco won't take the bait.
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rjj tszyu
Gotta disagree with you here Donny. He didn't use textbook boxing skills like Mayweather, Leonard and Whittaker because he invented his own style. To use this style you had to be blessed with athleticism beyond anything I've seen in boxing before Roy and I doubt We'll ever see anything like him again.
But just because he didn't box out of a textbook doesn't mean he wasn't a great boxer. In my eyes he is the greatest LHW of all time and I truly believe he would have beaten any middleweight in history but he certainly doesn't deserve the mantle as greatest because he wasn't there long enough. As for SMW I think you have to go for Calzaghe as greatest because even though a SMW Roy would have beaten Joe again he wasn't there long enough to cement a legacy there as being the greatest SMW of all time.
Just my opinion though
Well, Jones actually attempted to box quite well in the amateurs.
Although he was a standout amateur, he was not invincible, so famously beaten by McClellan.
Jones then turned pro. His speed, athleticism and power allowed him to destroy opposition.
Until he was opposed by fighters of good ability that could cope with his power.
In these situations Jones could not adjust, he didn't have skills per se.
He was easily cornered and not slick on defense in close as we can see against Tarver and Johnson.
I just imagine them the same size.
And skill beats natural ability.
You should only really judge fighters when in their prime. Do you think a younger Jones would have lost against those two?
Objectively, pound for pound, probably not, but we were never given any reason to believe he had left his prime, he had just won the heavyweight title we thought he was invincible, I'm sure none of us imagined he had left his prime when he boxed Johnson and Tarver the first times.
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hitmandonny
Well, Jones actually attempted to box quite well in the amateurs.
Although he was a standout amateur, he was not invincible, so famously beaten by McClellan.
Jones then turned pro. His speed, athleticism and power allowed him to destroy opposition.
Until he was opposed by fighters of good ability that could cope with his power.
In these situations Jones could not adjust, he didn't have skills per se.
He was easily cornered and not slick on defense in close as we can see against Tarver and Johnson.
I just imagine them the same size.
And skill beats natural ability.
You should only really judge fighters when in their prime. Do you think a younger Jones would have lost against those two?
Objectively, pound for pound, probably not, but we were never given any reason to believe he had left his prime, he had just won the heavyweight title we thought he was invincible, I'm sure none of us imagined he had left his prime when he boxed Johnson and Tarver the first times.
I always wondered how he would handle the massive weight loss to be honest. I think that he fought better LHWs than Johnson and Tarver in Virgil Hill, Eric Harding (pre RJJ), Derrick Harmon (again pre RJJ), Reggie Johnson and Montell Griffin before Jones ruined him in the rematch.
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rjj tszyu
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
You should only really judge fighters when in their prime. Do you think a younger Jones would have lost against those two?
Objectively, pound for pound, probably not, but we were never given any reason to believe he had left his prime, he had just won the heavyweight title we thought he was invincible, I'm sure none of us imagined he had left his prime when he boxed Johnson and Tarver the first times.
I always wondered how he would handle the massive weight loss to be honest. I think that he fought better LHWs than Johnson and Tarver in Virgil Hill, Eric Harding (pre RJJ), Derrick Harmon (again pre RJJ), Reggie Johnson and Montell Griffin before Jones ruined him in the rematch.
I was certain he'd be fine, but that weight gain and subsequent loss destroyed his system.
The entire weights program going up to heavy didn't usit Roy and unfortuantely he paid the price for it.
If only Ruiz had been his last fight we'd never have to mourne these losses.
On the plus side, since his speed and power have faded he's working on his skill and he might yet become a very proficient textbook boxer.
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rjj tszyu
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hitmandonny
Objectively, pound for pound, probably not, but we were never given any reason to believe he had left his prime, he had just won the heavyweight title we thought he was invincible, I'm sure none of us imagined he had left his prime when he boxed Johnson and Tarver the first times.
I always wondered how he would handle the massive weight loss to be honest. I think that he fought better LHWs than Johnson and Tarver in Virgil Hill, Eric Harding (pre RJJ), Derrick Harmon (again pre RJJ), Reggie Johnson and Montell Griffin before Jones ruined him in the rematch.
I was certain he'd be fine, but that weight gain and subsequent loss destroyed his system.
The entire weights program going up to heavy didn't usit Roy and unfortuantely he paid the price for it.
If only Ruiz had been his last fight we'd never have to mourne these losses.
On the plus side, since his speed and power have faded he's working on his skill and he might yet become a very proficient textbook boxer.
Yeah. he played with his weight too much throughout his career. its hard to believe he started at 154 when you see how heavy he looked before the Ruiz fight.
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hitmandonny
Well, Jones actually attempted to box quite well in the amateurs.
Although he was a standout amateur, he was not invincible, so famously beaten by McClellan.
Jones then turned pro. His speed, athleticism and power allowed him to destroy opposition.
Until he was opposed by fighters of good ability that could cope with his power.
In these situations Jones could not adjust, he didn't have skills per se.
He was easily cornered and not slick on defense in close as we can see against Tarver and Johnson.
I just imagine them the same size.
And skill beats natural ability.
You should only really judge fighters when in their prime. Do you think a younger Jones would have lost against those two?
Objectively, pound for pound, probably not, but we were never given any reason to believe he had left his prime, he had just won the heavyweight title we thought he was invincible, I'm sure none of us imagined he had left his prime when he boxed Johnson and Tarver the first times.
At the time of the first Tarver fight Roy was 34. Even with the weightloss excuse it wasn't a surprise that the guy was slipping. Tarver two proved it. The Johnson fight should never have even happened. ;)
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
You should only really judge fighters when in their prime. Do you think a younger Jones would have lost against those two?
Objectively, pound for pound, probably not, but we were never given any reason to believe he had left his prime, he had just won the heavyweight title we thought he was invincible, I'm sure none of us imagined he had left his prime when he boxed Johnson and Tarver the first times.
At the time of the first Tarver fight Roy was 34. Even with the weightloss excuse it wasn't a surprise that the guy was slipping. Tarver two proved it. The Johnson fight should never have even happened. ;)
True, the Johnson fight was a mistake from the get go.
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
I still think the Johnson fight was a massive shock . I cant belive it happend. Johnsons best win no doubt but I dont reckon he could repeat it. If they fought now , Jones seems to have gotten his bounce back abit which was totally lacking that night .
He was awful TBH. Johnson was great, just kept marching forward, fought his fight and bossed Jones about . I dont know what Jones' tactics were but it appeared he just wanted to lay on the ropes rather than box his way out of corners. It looked like a career eneding loss and Jones has done great to comeback from that
If he could comeback to beat Joe he defo underlines his greatness as the best of this era but nothing suggests he can turn back the clock that much . Tito was a blown up welter coming off inactivity and a loss . Prince Adjamu showed Jones doesnt have then much left in the tank when pushed so I think weve seen Jones last win . Tito was his farewell fight, Joe will just work too hard for him .
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
roy in his prime was the best i just think he wouldve done better if he was born a little earlier so a hagler leonard or hearns match could happen
-
Re: Roy Jones: the boxing genius
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
You should only really judge fighters when in their prime. Do you think a younger Jones would have lost against those two?
Objectively, pound for pound, probably not, but we were never given any reason to believe he had left his prime, he had just won the heavyweight title we thought he was invincible, I'm sure none of us imagined he had left his prime when he boxed Johnson and Tarver the first times.
At the time of the first Tarver fight Roy was 34. Even with the weightloss excuse it wasn't a surprise that the guy was slipping. Tarver two proved it. The Johnson fight should never have even happened. ;)
How did Tarver 2 prove it? One good punch? Roy was controlling the action, he looked faster that fight then in the first, Tarver looked out of his element, then he got in a good counter punch, IT HAPPENS. The Johnson fight was Roy not keeping his hands up against the ropes.
