-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
The bert sugar list is next just as soon as I find it. ;)
Nice article. Thanks. But let's be really clear. Max Never called him the best. He said he Could become that. Obviously he didn't :)
In that article, you're right, but he did say definitively that Jones would have smoked SRL. Outboxed Hagler, Kayoed Hearns, and Marciano wouldn't have gotten a whiff. Now speaking on the mythical pound for pound rankings list, many have SRL in the top 10. Now if he says Jones would have smoked him. How many others on that list would have smoked Ray Leonard? And can't one draw an intelligent conclusion that if say jones would easily beat those four guys that at least puts him around top five all time?
Not too mention the point made about Conn and Louis, Conn was way ahead going into the 13th round. If Conn who clearly was no where near Jones level was able to do that to one of best heavies of all time how would jones fair, in modern era Jones would have won or even in 15rounds jones would stayed away from him to win the fight.
When asked by a reporter why he went for the knockout, Conn replied famously, "What's the use of being Irish if you can't be thick (i.e. stupid)?" Later he would joke with Louis, "Why couldn't you let me hold the title for a year or so?", to which the Brown Bomber responded, "You had the title for twelve rounds and you couldn't hold on to it." - wiki
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
I gotta ask as far as article...isn't that all a bit nul and void seeing as how it was written right before Tarver match...and well, Superman went on to have his cape pulled by and then lose to 'Robin' aka Tarver ? Its really all one big 'If' by Max, and I like the guy but, meh.
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
The bert sugar list is next just as soon as I find it. ;)
Nice article. Thanks. But let's be really clear. Max Never called him the best. He said he Could become that. Obviously he didn't :)
In that article, you're right, but he did say definitively that Jones would have smoked SRL. Outboxed Hagler, Kayoed Hearns, and Marciano wouldn't have gotten a whiff. Now speaking on the mythical pound for pound rankings list, many have SRL in the top 10. Now if he says Jones would have smoked him. How many others on that list would have smoked Ray Leonard? And can't one draw an intelligent conclusion that if say jones would easily beat those four guys that at least puts him around top five all time?
Not too mention the point made about Conn and Louis, Conn was way ahead going into the 13th round. If Conn who clearly was no where near Jones level was able to do that to one of best heavies of all time how would jones fair, in modern era Jones would have won or even in 15rounds jones would stayed away from him to win the fight.
When asked by a reporter why he went for the knockout, Conn replied famously, "What's the use of being Irish if you can't be thick (i.e. stupid)?" Later he would joke with Louis, "Why couldn't you let me hold the title for a year or so?", to which the Brown Bomber responded, "You had the title for twelve rounds and you couldn't hold on to it." - wiki
Hell I think Roy would have beaten Ray Leoanrd too! Why? He was 20+ pounds heavier. As for Joe Louis? i think there are a whole bunch of guys where Roy would have won most/every round right up until he was KO'd. Why? His speed would have protected him while the superior technicians figured things out. But figuring things out are what they did. Having said that, what Conn had that Roy didn't was athleticism combined with technical excellence. (Love the Irish line btw). The Hagler of 1980 would have destroyed the Roy who actually fought at middle. Just too much of an experience difference. The 168 Roy several years later? He would have had 12-15 pounds on Marvin at fight time. Tough call.
Max doesn't ask the right questions. How about Ezzard and Archie and Spinks and Foster (well, at least he mentions the last two) and Tunney and Harold Johnson? All guys who were the same size as Roy.
And NO speculation CANNOT be the primary source of historical rankings like that. Your guess of mythical matchups mean zippo. Neither do mine. Why? Because they are simply guesses. What a guy did and against whom is what has to govern, doesn't it? (That's my story and I'm sticking too it!)
One last thing. I wonder about the current view that Roy's chin was his weakness. I'm not so sure. I suspect anyone who is never taught and never practices how to take/roll with a punch could be one punched by a good fighter. Might it not be true that Roy's chin was adequate and his KO's were another example of a technical failing? If that's true and we want to play imaginary games? Think about Roy having been taught that!
Again, a fun read. I love when Max gets all manic :)
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
I gotta ask as far as article...isn't that all a bit nul and void seeing as how it was written right before Tarver match...and well, Superman went on to have his cape pulled by and then lose to 'Robin' aka Tarver ? Its really all one big 'If' by Max, and I like the guy but, meh.
[jumping over the fence to the Roy side].
Is a KO loss at 35 really that meaningful for a guy who had been a pro for 15 years?
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
I gotta ask as far as article...isn't that all a bit nul and void seeing as how it was written right before Tarver match...and well, Superman went on to have his cape pulled by and then lose to 'Robin' aka Tarver ? Its really all one big 'If' by Max, and I like the guy but, meh.
[jumping over the fence to the Roy side].
Is a KO loss at 35 really that meaningful for a guy who had been a pro for 15 years?
When your knocking out Superman it is.
Max had said 'If' he had retired after Ruiz fight then he's be all time best, right? He was 35 when he whipped Ruiz as well.....>enter weight argument here<
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Mike Macallum who is in the hall of fame was quoted saying after their fight "He's the greatest ever".... And Glen Johnson is just another tarver yapping away after oh wow he beat 35 year old jones who had just been knocked out. What else is going to say? And those that think the weight thing didn't have a impact watch jones take flush punches from Toney before the weight, a solid heavyweight punch in the first round from John Ruiz who dropped Evander. Then all of sudden Johnson who isn't a kayo puncher drops jones?
Even on the air merchant said "there was a time when Roy Jones never got hit by long looping punches like the one he was hit with with" in reference to Johnson kayoing him. Then sat next to Tarver and said "what happened to Roy, was what happened to all the greats, they stay around and eventually lose to fighters who are well below their level"
I think the point is that with the exception of Hopkins is that Johnson is about as much a 'throwback' as there is in modern boxing. Also this is not Johnson talking shit in the media etc, this is him having a serious conversation with a fellow boxer. His opinion is to be at least considered.
The fact is that if Jones was THAT great, he wouldn't have got flat KO'd by a guy who is apparently so below his level. Robinson, Pep, Armstrong, Ali & both Benny & Ray Leonard were getting beat up at the end of their careers, but they had more than enough ring savvy to ensure they didn't get rendered unconscious. Roy didn't & hasn't even against guys considerably less skilled than Tarver or Johnson.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui
One last thing. I wonder about the current view that Roy's chin was his weakness. I'm not so sure. I suspect anyone who is never taught and never practices how to take/roll with a punch could be one punched by a good fighter. Might it not be true that Roy's chin was adequate and his KO's were another example of a technical failing? If that's true and we want to play imaginary games? Think about Roy having been taught that!
I agree with this completely. I suspect he never really had to learn how to take punches because he was always able to dodge them. He never really had to learn how to handle himself when hurt so when he does get hurt bad, he either gets flattened or goes into a desperate shell on the ropes. Compare this with Hopkins when hurt against Pascal or Mayweather against Mosley. Both very defensively sound guys who are rarely hit clean, but when hurt immediately they tie up & then find spots to come back with something for the opponent.
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Mike Macallum who is in the hall of fame was quoted saying after their fight "He's the greatest ever".... And Glen Johnson is just another tarver yapping away after oh wow he beat 35 year old jones who had just been knocked out. What else is going to say? And those that think the weight thing didn't have a impact watch jones take flush punches from Toney before the weight, a solid heavyweight punch in the first round from John Ruiz who dropped Evander. Then all of sudden Johnson who isn't a kayo puncher drops jones?
Even on the air merchant said "there was a time when Roy Jones never got hit by long looping punches like the one he was hit with with" in reference to Johnson kayoing him. Then sat next to Tarver and said "what happened to Roy, was what happened to all the greats, they stay around and eventually lose to fighters who are well below their level"
I think the point is that with the exception of Hopkins is that Johnson is about as much a 'throwback' as there is in modern boxing. Also this is not Johnson talking shit in the media etc, this is him having a serious conversation with a fellow boxer. His opinion is to be at least considered.
The fact is that if Jones was THAT great, he wouldn't have got flat KO'd by a guy who is apparently so below his level. Robinson, Pep, Armstrong, Ali & both Benny & Ray Leonard were getting beat up at the end of their careers, but they had more than enough ring savvy to ensure they didn't get rendered unconscious. Roy didn't & hasn't even against guys considerably less skilled than Tarver or Johnson.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui
One last thing. I wonder about the current view that Roy's chin was his weakness. I'm not so sure. I suspect anyone who is never taught and never practices how to take/roll with a punch could be one punched by a good fighter. Might it not be true that Roy's chin was adequate and his KO's were another example of a technical failing? If that's true and we want to play imaginary games? Think about Roy having been taught that!
I agree with this completely. I suspect he never really had to learn how to take punches because he was always able to dodge them. He never really had to learn how to handle himself when hurt so when he does get hurt bad, he either gets flattened or goes into a desperate shell on the ropes. Compare this with Hopkins when hurt against Pascal or Mayweather against Mosley. Both very defensively sound guys who are rarely hit clean, but when hurt immediately they tie up & then find spots to come back with something for the opponent.
Yup. We are going to miss JMM, Toney, BHOP and Floyd's technical prowess when they are gone. I'm just not sure among the younger guys have that same level of skill and craft. Ward maybe? Maybe. I fear we are losing some art permenently. Please tell me I'm just not thinking about some obvious guys in their 20's.
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Yup. We are going to miss JMM, Toney, BHOP and Floyd's technical prowess when they are gone. I'm just not sure among the younger guys have that same level of skill and craft. Ward maybe? Maybe. I fear we are losing some art permenently. Please tell me I'm just not thinking about some obvious guys in their 20's.
Ward, maybe Chad Dawson, but I'd be sceptical even there. The only hope would be that the future great might be under the radar in the way Hopkins & Toney were. I was having a similar discussion with my trainer just yesterday as he was lamenting the quality of fighters these days with a few notable exceptions.
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Mike Macallum who is in the hall of fame was quoted saying after their fight "He's the greatest ever".... And Glen Johnson is just another tarver yapping away after oh wow he beat 35 year old jones who had just been knocked out. What else is going to say? And those that think the weight thing didn't have a impact watch jones take flush punches from Toney before the weight, a solid heavyweight punch in the first round from John Ruiz who dropped Evander. Then all of sudden Johnson who isn't a kayo puncher drops jones?
Even on the air merchant said "there was a time when Roy Jones never got hit by long looping punches like the one he was hit with with" in reference to Johnson kayoing him. Then sat next to Tarver and said "what happened to Roy, was what happened to all the greats, they stay around and eventually lose to fighters who are well below their level"
I think the point is that with the exception of Hopkins is that Johnson is about as much a 'throwback' as there is in modern boxing. Also this is not Johnson talking shit in the media etc, this is him having a serious conversation with a fellow boxer. His opinion is to be at least considered.
The fact is that if Jones was THAT great, he wouldn't have got flat KO'd by a guy who is apparently so below his level. Robinson, Pep, Armstrong, Ali & both Benny & Ray Leonard were getting beat up at the end of their careers, but they had more than enough ring savvy to ensure they didn't get rendered unconscious. Roy didn't & hasn't even against guys considerably less skilled than Tarver or Johnson.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui
One last thing. I wonder about the current view that Roy's chin was his weakness. I'm not so sure. I suspect anyone who is never taught and never practices how to take/roll with a punch could be one punched by a good fighter. Might it not be true that Roy's chin was adequate and his KO's were another example of a technical failing? If that's true and we want to play imaginary games? Think about Roy having been taught that!
I agree with this completely. I suspect he never really had to learn how to take punches because he was always able to dodge them. He never really had to learn how to handle himself when hurt so when he does get hurt bad, he either gets flattened or goes into a desperate shell on the ropes. Compare this with Hopkins when hurt against Pascal or Mayweather against Mosley. Both very defensively sound guys who are rarely hit clean, but when hurt immediately they tie up & then find spots to come back with something for the opponent.
That's a fair point about the punches. But everyone views things with the hindsight of 20/20. Listening to Roy do commentary on fights both during is prime and afterwards clearly points to him being highly knowledgeable about the technical side of boxing. Yes, if Roy had practiced more using a traditional guard he may have well been able to change his style once he slowed.
The impression that a man can fight for 15 years, not be hit flush via bad technical skills or a glass jaw enough to actually beat him says more to me about him being exceptionally great. Those arguments all lead back to same points over and over. Roy came a weak era and he didn't lose because of weight. Yet those same arguments also are used to take away from what he did accomplish when he completely outclassed james toney who was p4p #1 at the time and undefeated. Points are made about Toney being weight drained. It's actually convenient that people just wait until someone loses to rip them apart. Meanwhile before they loses everything said is washed away? Someone said they should wait until one is completely done fighting before making a judgement on them. Roy was 35 when he lost had been fighting for 16 years. Arguably 4-6 years past his prime. Had he retired at 32-33 he'd easily be top 5 all time. I mean is anyone really counting the fights that holyfield is competing in now? Or Roy for that matter?
I can imagine Floyd losing to Pacman, then all of sudden Floyd is torn apart. But if he happens to destroy pac. They will say, he's just too good and who didn't see it coming, pac's never been in the ring with something like floyd blah blah, then demand that floyd move up to 160 or something. Or at least keep fighting until he loses.
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
It's also funny that some talk about BHOP's technical skills, yet roy clearly out pointed him. But I guess BHOP was too green, even though he had more fights than roy, and he was ranked #1 MW and Roy #2. Roy is discredited as if he was prime and BHOP wasn't. The best version of Roy would have beaten the best version bhop 9 out 10 times.
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Wait are you saying Jones was a better fighter then Leonard was Jonesjrmayweather.
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
That's a fair point about the punches. But everyone views things with the hindsight of 20/20. Listening to Roy do commentary on fights both during is prime and afterwards clearly points to him being highly knowledgeable about the technical side of boxing. Yes, if Roy had practiced more using a traditional guard he may have well been able to change his style once he slowed.
The impression that a man can fight for 15 years, not be hit flush via bad technical skills or a glass jaw enough to actually beat him says more to me about him being exceptionally great. Those arguments all lead back to same points over and over. Roy came a weak era and he didn't lose because of weight. Yet those same arguments also are used to take away from what he did accomplish when he completely outclassed james toney who was p4p #1 at the time and undefeated. Points are made about Toney being weight drained. It's actually convenient that people just wait until someone loses to rip them apart. Meanwhile before they loses everything said is washed away? Someone said they should wait until one is completely done fighting before making a judgement on them. Roy was 35 when he lost had been fighting for 16 years. Arguably 4-6 years past his prime. Had he retired at 32-33 he'd easily be top 5 all time. I mean is anyone really counting the fights that holyfield is competing in now? Or Roy for that matter?
I can imagine Floyd losing to Pacman, then all of sudden Floyd is torn apart. But if he happens to destroy pac. They will say, he's just too good and who didn't see it coming, pac's never been in the ring with something like floyd blah blah, then demand that floyd move up to 160 or something. Or at least keep fighting until he loses.
Let's be really clear. It is really hard to argue Roy fought in anything but a crummy era. But it is impossible to not stand in awe of what he did to James Toney, a boxing textbook, Virgil Hill, a fine fighter and Montell Griffin, the only time Roy was terrifying. Those are startling performances.
There is pretty close to indisputable evidence Roy was technically unsound. I don't care how he talked, I care what he did! Here is the evidence. Roy went from seeimingly unbeatable to being unable to compete with good fighters almost overnight (in boxing terms). He simply lost it. Now skill doesn't fade that fast, and craft, knowing what you're doing, never really fades. It is native talent that dissappears like that. Once it goes? One must fall back on skill and craft. But if those aren't sound? Look out below. That is what happened to Roy.
Compare him to his peers in time. At 37 Evander Holyfield could still compete with a guy many here think was great in Lennox Lewis. At 40 he could still compete with ranked heavies. Why? He was slower and his reflexes were faded but his skills and craft remained what they had always been, sound. James Toney, who given the way he abused himself should have had a short career? At 35 he defeated a top ranked cruiser in Jirov and at 38 he was competitive with top heavy. Same reasons. Juan Manuel Marquez at 35 became the lightweight champ and has beaten ranked guys three times since, yet he is clearly slowing. BHOP? Well, do we need to spend the time?
What was different between Roy's decline and these other guys? Roy was technically unsound. He frequently crossed his feet, he frequently stepped with the wrong foot and his defense was all reflexes, not developed skill.
Now in my view what happened in and after the Tarver fight doesn't mean much in placing him historically, he clearly was no longer the same guy. But when I imagine him competing with the very best over time? I'm comfortable his technical flaws would be recognized and exploited. Now does that mean he'd always lose to those guys? Not in my mind. What it means is one just can't wish it away.
As regards Floyd? he HAS to be slowing, right? I mean he's what 34 now? But wouldn't you be shocked, and I mean shocked, if Manny just walked through him? I'd be stunned. Why? Because Floyd is technically excellent and Manny is technically inconsistent. Floyd has, and I suspect will, age gracefully because his skill and craft are excellent away from his native talent.
Had Roy retired at 32-33? By what possible criteria, other than a vivid imagination, put him anywhere close to the top five ;)? I mean look at my Ezzard summary. 21 wins over HOFers and he beat 40 ranked guys while going from 160-heavy. And at heavy he didn't beat one guy, he beat a passell of them. And NOBODY puts Ezzard in the top five.
When we look back at the guys we are comparing Roy to? Remember we also know how they finished and faded. There are no rose colored glasses freezing, for example, Billy Conn in place. By the time he was 28 he was DONE, and I mean done the way Roy is done. Why? Well four years in the Navy without touching a glove will do that to you.
Lastly, please understand that my views on Roy are limited to comparing him to other great fighters. The starting point with Roy is he accomplished more than 99.99999% of all fighters who ever walked.
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
It's also funny that some talk about BHOP's technical skills, yet roy clearly out pointed him. But I guess BHOP was too green, even though he had more fights than roy, and he was ranked #1 MW and Roy #2. Roy is discredited as if he was prime and BHOP wasn't. The best version of Roy would have beaten the best version bhop 9 out 10 times.
BHOP was ranked #9 at the time.
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
I don't think Jones was a top 10 but he is in my top 25 he was a hell of a fighter but just to many fights he didn't get to have at the time.
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
It's also funny that some talk about BHOP's technical skills, yet roy clearly out pointed him. But I guess BHOP was too green, even though he had more fights than roy, and he was ranked #1 MW and Roy #2. Roy is discredited as if he was prime and BHOP wasn't. The best version of Roy would have beaten the best version bhop 9 out 10 times.
BHOP was ranked #9 at the time.
You can skip to 29 seconds....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R07GJVbDRuM
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr140
I don't think Jones was a top 10 but he is in my top 25 he was a hell of a fighter but just to many fights he didn't get to have at the time.
Like what fights?
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Not saying its his fault but they missed out on some fights i cant see him making top 10.
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr140
I don't think Jones was a top 10 but he is in my top 25 he was a hell of a fighter but just to many fights he didn't get to have at the time.
Like what fights?
Exactly. He fought pretty much the best out there. It wasn't his fault he didn't really have many challengers. Yes he could have waited around MW and fought Jackson and McClellan etc, but he was growing out of the division fast and he moved up and fought a better fighter in Toney IMO.
He should get more credit for beating Hopkins when he was 28 (prime age) and with only one hand too. The problem was that Hopkins was fairly unknown at the time but he was still a very very good fighter and definitely better than he is now. I had that fight 8-4 in Jones' favour and I think it would have been even more comprehensive had he been fully fit.
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
It's also funny that some talk about BHOP's technical skills, yet roy clearly out pointed him. But I guess BHOP was too green, even though he had more fights than roy, and he was ranked #1 MW and Roy #2. Roy is discredited as if he was prime and BHOP wasn't. The best version of Roy would have beaten the best version bhop 9 out 10 times.
BHOP was ranked #9 at the time.
You can skip to 29 seconds....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R07GJVbDRuM
Um those are th IBF rankings and therefore meaningless. Ring had BHOP ninth.
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rjj tszyu
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr140
I don't think Jones was a top 10 but he is in my top 25 he was a hell of a fighter but just to many fights he didn't get to have at the time.
Like what fights?
Exactly. He fought pretty much the best out there. It wasn't his fault he didn't really have many challengers. Yes he could have waited around MW and fought Jackson and McClellan etc, but he was growing out of the division fast and he moved up and fought a better fighter in Toney IMO.
He should get more credit for beating Hopkins when he was 28 (prime age) and with only one hand too. The problem was that Hopkins was fairly unknown at the time but he was still a very very good fighter and definitely better than he is now. I had that fight 8-4 in Jones' favour and I think it would have been even more comprehensive had he been fully fit.
Well Roy didn't fight Darius or Calzaghe or Liles among others.
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
It's also funny that some talk about BHOP's technical skills, yet roy clearly out pointed him. But I guess BHOP was too green, even though he had more fights than roy, and he was ranked #1 MW and Roy #2. Roy is discredited as if he was prime and BHOP wasn't. The best version of Roy would have beaten the best version bhop 9 out 10 times.
BHOP was ranked #9 at the time.
You can skip to 29 seconds....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R07GJVbDRuM
Um those are th IBF rankings and therefore meaningless. Ring had BHOP ninth.
Okay, fine let's do it your way, since only the RING rankings matter. Ring had Roy at the top, bhop at 8. Roy get's discredited on his resume even though he beat 5 out of 9 of them. ranked by ring. Then as a super middleweight he beat most of the RING RANKED opponents, and LHW, he beat most them too. But his resume sucks? BHOP is ATG and a technical genius, although by comparison his resume is weaker than RJJ's.... go figure.
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
It's also funny that some talk about BHOP's technical skills, yet roy clearly out pointed him. But I guess BHOP was too green, even though he had more fights than roy, and he was ranked #1 MW and Roy #2. Roy is discredited as if he was prime and BHOP wasn't. The best version of Roy would have beaten the best version bhop 9 out 10 times.
BHOP was ranked #9 at the time.
You can skip to 29 seconds....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R07GJVbDRuM
Um those are th IBF rankings and therefore meaningless. Ring had BHOP ninth.
Okay, fine let's do it your way, since only the RING rankings matter. Ring had Roy at the top, bhop at 8. Roy get's discredited on his resume even though he beat 5 out of 9 of them. ranked by ring. Then as a super middleweight he beat most of the RING RANKED opponents, and LHW, he beat most them too. But his resume sucks? BHOP is ATG and a technical genius, although by comparison his resume is weaker than RJJ's.... go figure.
Why is BHOP the resume standard again? I think BHOP belongs very close to Dick Tiger, both 160 and 175 champs, both beat 20 or so ranked guys and both beat several HOFers. According to where Ring ranks Tiger that puts BHOP somewhere in the 30's since 1922 and by implication probably around 40-50 or so all-time. According to Bert Sugar that puts BHOP around 60ish all-time.
Now I've got Tiger a little better than that. Probably in the 40's somewhere.
Now checking a few things I've got Roy beating 2 HOFers, a one division champ (apples to apples with how I count BHOP's and Tigers) and by my quick count, beat 16 ranked guys. Enormously impressive. But is that really measurably better than BHOP's? Looks pretty close to me.
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
It's also funny that some talk about BHOP's technical skills, yet roy clearly out pointed him. But I guess BHOP was too green, even though he had more fights than roy, and he was ranked #1 MW and Roy #2. Roy is discredited as if he was prime and BHOP wasn't. The best version of Roy would have beaten the best version bhop 9 out 10 times.
BHOP was ranked #9 at the time.
You can skip to 29 seconds....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R07GJVbDRuM
Um those are th IBF rankings and therefore meaningless. Ring had BHOP ninth.
Okay, fine let's do it your way, since only the RING rankings matter. Ring had Roy at the top, bhop at 8. Roy get's discredited on his resume even though he beat 5 out of 9 of them. ranked by ring. Then as a super middleweight he beat most of the RING RANKED opponents, and LHW, he beat most them too. But his resume sucks? BHOP is ATG and a technical genius, although by comparison his resume is weaker than RJJ's.... go figure.
Why is BHOP the resume standard again? I think BHOP belongs very close to Dick Tiger, both 160 and 175 champs, both beat 20 or so ranked guys and both beat several HOFers. According to where Ring ranks Tiger that puts BHOP somewhere in the 30's since 1922 and by implication probably around 40-50 or so all-time. According to Bert Sugar that puts BHOP around 60ish all-time.
Now I've got Tiger a little better than that. Probably in the 40's somewhere.
Now checking a few things I've got Roy beating 2 HOFers, a one division champ (apples to apples with how I count BHOP's and Tigers) and by my quick count, beat 16 ranked guys. Enormously impressive. But is that really measurably better than BHOP's? Looks pretty close to me.
Bhop beat blown up WW HOFers, if you count them, then RJJ beat at least 4 HOFers. BHOP, TONEY, MCCallum,PAZ, Tito,
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
It's also funny that some talk about BHOP's technical skills, yet roy clearly out pointed him. But I guess BHOP was too green, even though he had more fights than roy, and he was ranked #1 MW and Roy #2. Roy is discredited as if he was prime and BHOP wasn't. The best version of Roy would have beaten the best version bhop 9 out 10 times.
BHOP was ranked #9 at the time.
You can skip to 29 seconds....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R07GJVbDRuM
Um those are th IBF rankings and therefore meaningless. Ring had BHOP ninth.
Okay, fine let's do it your way, since only the RING rankings matter. Ring had Roy at the top, bhop at 8. Roy get's discredited on his resume even though he beat 5 out of 9 of them. ranked by ring. Then as a super middleweight he beat most of the RING RANKED opponents, and LHW, he beat most them too. But his resume sucks? BHOP is ATG and a technical genius, although by comparison his resume is weaker than RJJ's.... go figure.
Why is BHOP the resume standard again? I think BHOP belongs very close to Dick Tiger, both 160 and 175 champs, both beat 20 or so ranked guys and both beat several HOFers. According to where Ring ranks Tiger that puts BHOP somewhere in the 30's since 1922 and by implication probably around 40-50 or so all-time. According to Bert Sugar that puts BHOP around 60ish all-time.
Now I've got Tiger a little better than that. Probably in the 40's somewhere.
Now checking a few things I've got Roy beating 2 HOFers, a one division champ (apples to apples with how I count BHOP's and Tigers) and by my quick count, beat 16 ranked guys. Enormously impressive. But is that really measurably better than BHOP's? Looks pretty close to me.
Bhop beat blown up WW HOFers, if you count them, then RJJ beat at least 4 HOFers. BHOP, TONEY, MCCallum,PAZ, Tito,
I try to count everyone. That's six for Tiger, four for Roy (thanks!) and three for BHOP.
I find it REALLY amusing that in one post you hammer Bernard for fighting blown up welters and then give Roy credit for beating Tito ten pounds heavier yet and in his first fight in three years ;)
Again, don't these resumes (all three) look pretty close to you?
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
It's also funny that some talk about BHOP's technical skills, yet roy clearly out pointed him. But I guess BHOP was too green, even though he had more fights than roy, and he was ranked #1 MW and Roy #2. Roy is discredited as if he was prime and BHOP wasn't. The best version of Roy would have beaten the best version bhop 9 out 10 times.
BHOP was ranked #9 at the time.
You can skip to 29 seconds....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R07GJVbDRuM
Um those are th IBF rankings and therefore meaningless. Ring had BHOP ninth.
Okay, fine let's do it your way, since only the RING rankings matter. Ring had Roy at the top, bhop at 8. Roy get's discredited on his resume even though he beat 5 out of 9 of them. ranked by ring. Then as a super middleweight he beat most of the RING RANKED opponents, and LHW, he beat most them too. But his resume sucks? BHOP is ATG and a technical genius, although by comparison his resume is weaker than RJJ's.... go figure.
Why is BHOP the resume standard again? I think BHOP belongs very close to Dick Tiger, both 160 and 175 champs, both beat 20 or so ranked guys and both beat several HOFers. According to where Ring ranks Tiger that puts BHOP somewhere in the 30's since 1922 and by implication probably around 40-50 or so all-time. According to Bert Sugar that puts BHOP around 60ish all-time.
Now I've got Tiger a little better than that. Probably in the 40's somewhere.
Now checking a few things I've got Roy beating 2 HOFers, a one division champ (apples to apples with how I count BHOP's and Tigers) and by my quick count, beat 16 ranked guys. Enormously impressive. But is that really measurably better than BHOP's? Looks pretty close to me.
Bhop beat blown up WW HOFers, if you count them, then RJJ beat at least 4 HOFers. BHOP, TONEY, MCCallum,PAZ, Tito,
I try to count everyone. That's six for Tiger, four for Roy (thanks!) and three for BHOP.
I find it REALLY amusing that in one post you hammer Bernard for fighting blown up welters and then give Roy credit for beating Tito ten pounds heavier yet and in his first fight in three years ;)
Again, don't these resumes (all three) look pretty close to you?
Notice i said "IF YOU COUNT THEM", I normally just count BHOP and TONEY for Jones. But since bhop gets credit for beating obviously faded out shape Oscar and blown up tito, then roy gets credit too. Also especially considering that Jones' past it losses are being held against him.
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
It's also funny that some talk about BHOP's technical skills, yet roy clearly out pointed him. But I guess BHOP was too green, even though he had more fights than roy, and he was ranked #1 MW and Roy #2. Roy is discredited as if he was prime and BHOP wasn't. The best version of Roy would have beaten the best version bhop 9 out 10 times.
BHOP was ranked #9 at the time.
You can skip to 29 seconds....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R07GJVbDRuM
Um those are th IBF rankings and therefore meaningless. Ring had BHOP ninth.
Okay, fine let's do it your way, since only the RING rankings matter. Ring had Roy at the top, bhop at 8. Roy get's discredited on his resume even though he beat 5 out of 9 of them. ranked by ring. Then as a super middleweight he beat most of the RING RANKED opponents, and LHW, he beat most them too. But his resume sucks? BHOP is ATG and a technical genius, although by comparison his resume is weaker than RJJ's.... go figure.
Why is BHOP the resume standard again? I think BHOP belongs very close to Dick Tiger, both 160 and 175 champs, both beat 20 or so ranked guys and both beat several HOFers. According to where Ring ranks Tiger that puts BHOP somewhere in the 30's since 1922 and by implication probably around 40-50 or so all-time. According to Bert Sugar that puts BHOP around 60ish all-time.
Now I've got Tiger a little better than that. Probably in the 40's somewhere.
Now checking a few things I've got Roy beating 2 HOFers, a one division champ (apples to apples with how I count BHOP's and Tigers) and by my quick count, beat 16 ranked guys. Enormously impressive. But is that really measurably better than BHOP's? Looks pretty close to me.
Bhop beat blown up WW HOFers, if you count them, then RJJ beat at least 4 HOFers. BHOP, TONEY, MCCallum,PAZ, Tito,
I try to count everyone. That's six for Tiger, four for Roy (thanks!) and three for BHOP.
I find it REALLY amusing that in one post you hammer Bernard for fighting blown up welters and then give Roy credit for beating Tito ten pounds heavier yet and in his first fight in three years ;)
Again, don't these resumes (all three) look pretty close to you?
Notice i said "IF YOU COUNT THEM", I normally just count BHOP and TONEY for Jones. But since bhop gets credit for beating obviously faded out shape Oscar and blown up tito, then roy get's credit too.
LOL, thought I'd sneak that past you :)
But back to the question I asked. Don't those resumes seem really similar to you?
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Yes clearly Tito and Paz (hof?) were not blown up. Clearly :-\
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Yes clearly Tito and Paz (hof?) were not blown up. Clearly :-\
Poor Paz. His nose was bleeding in the locker room when he was warming up for that fight!
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Yes clearly Tito and Paz (hof?) were not blown up. Clearly :-\
I said "IF".... I normally don't count them.
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
It's also funny that some talk about BHOP's technical skills, yet roy clearly out pointed him. But I guess BHOP was too green, even though he had more fights than roy, and he was ranked #1 MW and Roy #2. Roy is discredited as if he was prime and BHOP wasn't. The best version of Roy would have beaten the best version bhop 9 out 10 times.
BHOP was ranked #9 at the time.
You can skip to 29 seconds....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R07GJVbDRuM
Um those are th IBF rankings and therefore meaningless. Ring had BHOP ninth.
Okay, fine let's do it your way, since only the RING rankings matter. Ring had Roy at the top, bhop at 8. Roy get's discredited on his resume even though he beat 5 out of 9 of them. ranked by ring. Then as a super middleweight he beat most of the RING RANKED opponents, and LHW, he beat most them too. But his resume sucks? BHOP is ATG and a technical genius, although by comparison his resume is weaker than RJJ's.... go figure.
Why is BHOP the resume standard again? I think BHOP belongs very close to Dick Tiger, both 160 and 175 champs, both beat 20 or so ranked guys and both beat several HOFers. According to where Ring ranks Tiger that puts BHOP somewhere in the 30's since 1922 and by implication probably around 40-50 or so all-time. According to Bert Sugar that puts BHOP around 60ish all-time.
Now I've got Tiger a little better than that. Probably in the 40's somewhere.
Now checking a few things I've got Roy beating 2 HOFers, a one division champ (apples to apples with how I count BHOP's and Tigers) and by my quick count, beat 16 ranked guys. Enormously impressive. But is that really measurably better than BHOP's? Looks pretty close to me.
Bhop beat blown up WW HOFers, if you count them, then RJJ beat at least 4 HOFers. BHOP, TONEY, MCCallum,PAZ, Tito,
I try to count everyone. That's six for Tiger, four for Roy (thanks!) and three for BHOP.
I find it REALLY amusing that in one post you hammer Bernard for fighting blown up welters and then give Roy credit for beating Tito ten pounds heavier yet and in his first fight in three years ;)
Again, don't these resumes (all three) look pretty close to you?
Notice i said "IF YOU COUNT THEM", I normally just count BHOP and TONEY for Jones. But since bhop gets credit for beating obviously faded out shape Oscar and blown up tito, then roy get's credit too.
LOL, thought I'd sneak that past you :)
But back to the question I asked. Don't those resumes seem really similar to you?
They could be similar, but I find it inconsistent that it would have bHOP ranked some 20 spots ahead of RJJ when his resume is clearly weaker.
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
It's also funny that some talk about BHOP's technical skills, yet roy clearly out pointed him. But I guess BHOP was too green, even though he had more fights than roy, and he was ranked #1 MW and Roy #2. Roy is discredited as if he was prime and BHOP wasn't. The best version of Roy would have beaten the best version bhop 9 out 10 times.
BHOP was ranked #9 at the time.
You can skip to 29 seconds....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R07GJVbDRuM
Um those are th IBF rankings and therefore meaningless. Ring had BHOP ninth.
Okay, fine let's do it your way, since only the RING rankings matter. Ring had Roy at the top, bhop at 8. Roy get's discredited on his resume even though he beat 5 out of 9 of them. ranked by ring. Then as a super middleweight he beat most of the RING RANKED opponents, and LHW, he beat most them too. But his resume sucks? BHOP is ATG and a technical genius, although by comparison his resume is weaker than RJJ's.... go figure.
Why is BHOP the resume standard again? I think BHOP belongs very close to Dick Tiger, both 160 and 175 champs, both beat 20 or so ranked guys and both beat several HOFers. According to where Ring ranks Tiger that puts BHOP somewhere in the 30's since 1922 and by implication probably around 40-50 or so all-time. According to Bert Sugar that puts BHOP around 60ish all-time.
Now I've got Tiger a little better than that. Probably in the 40's somewhere.
Now checking a few things I've got Roy beating 2 HOFers, a one division champ (apples to apples with how I count BHOP's and Tigers) and by my quick count, beat 16 ranked guys. Enormously impressive. But is that really measurably better than BHOP's? Looks pretty close to me.
Bhop beat blown up WW HOFers, if you count them, then RJJ beat at least 4 HOFers. BHOP, TONEY, MCCallum,PAZ, Tito,
I try to count everyone. That's six for Tiger, four for Roy (thanks!) and three for BHOP.
I find it REALLY amusing that in one post you hammer Bernard for fighting blown up welters and then give Roy credit for beating Tito ten pounds heavier yet and in his first fight in three years ;)
Again, don't these resumes (all three) look pretty close to you?
Notice i said "IF YOU COUNT THEM", I normally just count BHOP and TONEY for Jones. But since bhop gets credit for beating obviously faded out shape Oscar and blown up tito, then roy get's credit too.
LOL, thought I'd sneak that past you :)
But back to the question I asked. Don't those resumes seem really similar to you?
They could be similar, but I find it inconsistent that it would have bHOP ranked some 20 spots ahead of RJJ when his resume is clearly weaker.
I don't know who "it" is that has BHOP 20 positions ahead. I also don't see how you can agree they are similar and then assert BHOP's is clearly weaker. I missed something somewhere.
Maybe I was unclear. I am arguing Tiger-BHOP-Roy all belong in the same area and then saying where Ring and Sugar and I have Dick Tiger. Ring would say Tiger is 40-50, Sugar says he's 63 IIRC and I say 40-50.
I hope that's more clear.
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Yes clearly Tito and Paz (hof?) were not blown up. Clearly :-\
I said "IF".... I normally don't count them.
Hof imo gets all blurry just as p4p can. I just keep it at threat going in and rank earned rather then rank granted. You know that the IBF actually had a & b # 2 rankings when Roy and Bernard fought. Thats bizarre.
Edit- A couple of months after they fought
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Going back to light heavy to fight Tarver from heavy beating Ruiz but that is easy with hindsight.
This was my initial thought on it. After beating Ruiz, he was widely recognized as the No1 P4P back then. After the 1st Tarver fight ya could see some decline, weight loss may have something to do with this, needless to say that was the beginning of the end for Superman RJJ.
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
technically flawed? the 70s or 40s? GTFOH
It's getting a bit absurd that everyone rides off giving passed to the old era guys simply because they were first. In fact it's basically almost unspoken that no new fighter will ever surpass the old guys. There's always some excuse to discredit the evolution of the sport.
RJJ, FLOYD, PAC, BHOP, SWEET PEA, to name a few would compete and be great in any era.
RJJ vs those old slower plodders around his division would be smacked around. Everyone makes it seem as if because he was unorthodox that he didn't know how to box. He rarely lost rounds because he maximized his abilities. Technical skills or not if they could hit him it was rendered useless, ask reggie johnson about his technical skills, or virgil hill. Plus RJJ had tremendous power between 160-168 so its not like he was some flashy guy that could hurt someone. Once Roy tagged anyone from any era and they witnessed first hand his speed it would instantly change their game plan.
You're missing an essential point. Several actually. First calling Ezzard, Archie, Billy Fox, Jack Chase, Marvin Johnson, Mike Spinks, Victor Galindez etc slow plodders is really, really wrong. Second, speed, power etc can be nullified by superior craft. Let me make an analogy. Every year coming out of college there are a series of 6'2, 200 pound wide outs who can run 4.4 forties and jump out of the stadium. And every year a bunch crash and burn in camp. Why? Because they don't have the technique to a) even get off the line of scrimmage against a good corner b) recognize what defense is being played and/or c) how to disuise what pattern they are running. Athleticism without craft doesn't work all that well. Jerry Rice wasn't the biggest, or fastest or strongest but he knew how to play.
I find it fascinating that guys as diverse as Teddy Atlas, Freddie Roach, Dan Cuoco, Rollie Hackmer and Skeeter McClure think guys like Moore, Charles, Billy Conn, Harold Johnson would handle Roy without too much trouble.
These guys often - consistently in some cases - get modern-day fights wrong. They have access to full fight footage of not only entire careers but also have collateral formlines to work with.
For sure their opinion is greatly respected, however, trying to match fighters seperated by 50 years comes down to nothing more than a guess. It doesn't matter how much of a history buff you are ;)
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
He was used to dominating his opponents until he made a crucial mistake of shedding down from HW to LHW in a short amount of time to face Tarver and when he got knocked out in the rematch, his confidence and his aura of invincibility was totally shattered into million pieces.. That KO didnt take much from him, physically, but it really messed him up mentally and he went downhill from that point..
He's still greater than Hopkins imo..
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
That's a fair point about the punches. But everyone views things with the hindsight of 20/20. Listening to Roy do commentary on fights both during is prime and afterwards clearly points to him being highly knowledgeable about the technical side of boxing. Yes, if Roy had practiced more using a traditional guard he may have well been able to change his style once he slowed.
The impression that a man can fight for 15 years, not be hit flush via bad technical skills or a glass jaw enough to actually beat him says more to me about him being exceptionally great. Those arguments all lead back to same points over and over. Roy came a weak era and he didn't lose because of weight. Yet those same arguments also are used to take away from what he did accomplish when he completely outclassed james toney who was p4p #1 at the time and undefeated. Points are made about Toney being weight drained. It's actually convenient that people just wait until someone loses to rip them apart. Meanwhile before they loses everything said is washed away? Someone said they should wait until one is completely done fighting before making a judgement on them. Roy was 35 when he lost had been fighting for 16 years. Arguably 4-6 years past his prime. Had he retired at 32-33 he'd easily be top 5 all time. I mean is anyone really counting the fights that holyfield is competing in now? Or Roy for that matter?
I can imagine Floyd losing to Pacman, then all of sudden Floyd is torn apart. But if he happens to destroy pac. They will say, he's just too good and who didn't see it coming, pac's never been in the ring with something like floyd blah blah, then demand that floyd move up to 160 or something. Or at least keep fighting until he loses.
Let's be really clear. It is really hard to argue Roy fought in anything but a crummy era. But it is impossible to not stand in awe of what he did to James Toney, a boxing textbook, Virgil Hill, a fine fighter and Montell Griffin, the only time Roy was terrifying. Those are startling performances.
There is pretty close to indisputable evidence Roy was technically unsound. I don't care how he talked, I care what he did! Here is the evidence. Roy went from seeimingly unbeatable to being unable to compete with good fighters almost overnight (in boxing terms). He simply lost it. Now skill doesn't fade that fast, and craft, knowing what you're doing, never really fades. It is native talent that dissappears like that. Once it goes? One must fall back on skill and craft. But if those aren't sound? Look out below. That is what happened to Roy.
Compare him to his peers in time. At 37 Evander Holyfield could still compete with a guy many here think was great in Lennox Lewis. At 40 he could still compete with ranked heavies. Why? He was slower and his reflexes were faded but his skills and craft remained what they had always been, sound. James Toney, who given the way he abused himself should have had a short career? At 35 he defeated a top ranked cruiser in Jirov and at 38 he was competitive with top heavy. Same reasons. Juan Manuel Marquez at 35 became the lightweight champ and has beaten ranked guys three times since, yet he is clearly slowing. BHOP? Well, do we need to spend the time?
What was different between Roy's decline and these other guys? Roy was technically unsound. He frequently crossed his feet, he frequently stepped with the wrong foot and his defense was all reflexes, not developed skill.
Now in my view what happened in and after the Tarver fight doesn't mean much in placing him historically, he clearly was no longer the same guy. But when I imagine him competing with the very best over time? I'm comfortable his technical flaws would be recognized and exploited. Now does that mean he'd always lose to those guys? Not in my mind. What it means is one just can't wish it away.
As regards Floyd? he HAS to be slowing, right? I mean he's what 34 now? But wouldn't you be shocked, and I mean shocked, if Manny just walked through him? I'd be stunned. Why? Because Floyd is technically excellent and Manny is technically inconsistent. Floyd has, and I suspect will, age gracefully because his skill and craft are excellent away from his native talent.
Had Roy retired at 32-33? By what possible criteria, other than a vivid imagination, put him anywhere close to the top five ;)? I mean look at my Ezzard summary. 21 wins over HOFers and he beat 40 ranked guys while going from 160-heavy. And at heavy he didn't beat one guy, he beat a passell of them. And NOBODY puts Ezzard in the top five.
When we look back at the guys we are comparing Roy to? Remember we also know how they finished and faded. There are no rose colored glasses freezing, for example, Billy Conn in place. By the time he was 28 he was DONE, and I mean done the way Roy is done. Why? Well four years in the Navy without touching a glove will do that to you.
Lastly, please understand that my views on Roy are limited to comparing him to other great fighters. The starting point with Roy is he accomplished more than 99.99999% of all fighters who ever walked.
Excellent post. A much more interesting explanation of Roy's decline than simply he got old or the weight fluctuation finished him.
Roy's natural brillance ended up being his downfall? Interesting.
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
To name the top 30 atg off top of my head i put it in this order
Muhammad Ali, Ray Robinson, Willey Pep, Roberto Duran, Henry Armstrong, Jimmy Wilde, Sam Langford, Benny Leonard, Jack Johnson, Ray Leonard, Gene Tunney, Joe Louis, Harry Greb, Floyde Mayweather, Lennox Lewis, Manny Pacquiao, Pernell Whitaker, Evander Holyfield, Larry Holmes, George Forman, Roy Jones Junior, Tommy Hearns, Marvin Hagler, Julio Cesar Chavez, Michael Spinks, Bernard Hopkins, Eddie Charles, Carlos Monzon, Sandy Saddler, Archie Moore
Now most proably have it different but i think everyone have Jones over Hopkins in the atg list.
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr140
To name the top 30 atg off top of my head i put it in this order
Muhammad Ali, Ray Robinson, Willey Pep, Roberto Duran, Henry Armstrong, Jimmy Wilde, Sam Langford, Benny Leonard, Jack Johnson, Ray Leonard, Gene Tunney, Joe Louis, Harry Greb, Floyde Mayweather, Lennox Lewis, Manny Pacquiao, Pernell Whitaker, Evander Holyfield, Larry Holmes, George Forman, Roy Jones Junior, Tommy Hearns, Marvin Hagler, Julio Cesar Chavez, Michael Spinks, Bernard Hopkins, Eddie Charles, Carlos Monzon, Sandy Saddler, Archie Moore
Now most proably have it different but i think everyone have Jones over Hopkins in the atg list.
I rate Hopkins above Jones on an all-time list personally, and it's EZZARD Charles ;)
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Thats fine Jaz could make a case for Hopkins and you probably think i rate Foreman and Holyfield to high as well but kinda favor heavies a lot wont lie. Also on Ezzard Charles i am just a retard on that one my bad. It hard as shit to really rate all of the boxers because the sport so fucking old lol.
-
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr140
Thats fine Jaz could make a case for Hopkins and you probably think i rate Foreman and Holyfield to high as well but kinda favor heavies a lot wont lie. Also on Ezzard Charles i am just a retard on that one my bad. It hard as shit to really rate all of the boxers because the sport so fucking old lol.
Yeah I probably wouldn't have either of those in my top 30, in fact I didn't find a spot for either in my attempt at the ATG list the other day, although both would be in my Top 10 HW list. I agree with you on rating it. If I was actually rating it, no way could I place guys like Greb who I haven't seen even if I can consider them ATGs because of their accomplishments.
