8 losses now, 5 by bad KO so the question is, when is he going to realise its time to quit? He's an all time great but is in serious danger of getting hurt.
Printable View
8 losses now, 5 by bad KO so the question is, when is he going to realise its time to quit? He's an all time great but is in serious danger of getting hurt.
He's only been kayoed 4 times. And it all went wrong when he went back LHW aafter winning the WBA HW strap.
point taken. Great fighter, loved watching him in his prime.
He was a joy to watch. One of my all time faves. The first gent who responded is spot on but he may have preserved himself if he new how to box. He never developed a jab although he sure used it in the Paz fight and relied on his mutant like speed,timing and reflexes. He never really needed any fundamentals. Once his reflexes and speed started to erode it was over. I hope those who are around him have some kind of intervention. What are witnessing now is a tutorial on cruel and unusual punishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by andykopgod
Going back to light heavy to fight Tarver from heavy beating Ruiz but that is easy with hindsight.
Yeah its too bad he had to be the example for the future generations. No one had ever gone up that far only to go back down. Especially not in the same year. Ironically Tarver had his belt taken from him by Bhop, because he tried the same thing except he did it for a film and Roy did it to win a belt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Tarver called Roy's weight loss an excuse, funny how it worked out for him.
I do not think tarver used it as an excuse, I do know B Hop called him a dead man walking.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweatherYeah its too bad he had to be the example for the future generations. No one had ever gone up that far only to go back down. Especially not in the same year. Ironically Tarver had his belt taken from him by Bhop, because he tried the same thing except he did it for a film and Roy did it to win a belt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Tarver called Roy's weight loss an excuse, funny how it worked out for him.
Roy is or was my fav fighter.. Was it the weight loss or the weak chin. we will never know, he took the risk and he did beat tarver the first time.
Sometimes guys get placed on astronomical heights by fans, networks and mostly self they never learn second gear, how to adapt on lesser scale. Jones was a perfectionist and really had a short 'slip' in Tarver fight....after that it quickly became avalanche. It's always a red flag I believe when they-we start grading guys on total number of rounds lost in overall fights. Also all of that carnival barking Tyson talk. Just goofy frankly.
I mean Tarver tried to say Roy was using it as an excuse. Also saying things like "we all have to lose weight, big deal", that was after the first fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterI do not think tarver used it as an excuse, I do know B Hop called him a dead man walking.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweatherYeah its too bad he had to be the example for the future generations. No one had ever gone up that far only to go back down. Especially not in the same year. Ironically Tarver had his belt taken from him by Bhop, because he tried the same thing except he did it for a film and Roy did it to win a belt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Tarver called Roy's weight loss an excuse, funny how it worked out for him.
But Tarver hasn't looked the same either since he lost to BHop. So the drastic weight loss they both went through is more than evident.
[shrugs]
Roy got old and his game was based on talent not skill, so when the talent faded? It had no support.
BTW, in my view Roy's decline began two years before he faced Ruiz.
In terms of thinking about Roy though the last 6-7 years judt don't mean much. Everyone gets old.
Exactly, everyone gets old and it just happens to everyone at different times. Someone who is as unorthodox as Jones who relies on speed and reflexes so much is always going to age quicker than others.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui
I do think Roy had skill though, his ability to deliver a punch was awesome as well as his ability to put them together in combos. His problem was he was so unorthodox and non textbook in the way he fought in the ring that when his reflexes and speed did fall, so did he.
I think the weight loss aged him too but I do agree he was already showing signs before that fight. Eric Harding was the first fight I thought he was starting to decline.
RJJ was not by any means an "ATG" He couldn't fight much and he benefited from an incredibly weak era. In the 1930s/40s and so on he is, at best, an 8 round fighter,.
Ha ha wow roy jones would never be an eight round fighter. He would be atg no matter what time period he is fighting.
BINGO! The Harding fight is the one where I looked at my brother and said "We're never going to see THAT Roy Jones again. His legs have started going."Quote:
Originally Posted by rjj tszyuExactly, everyone gets old and it just happens to everyone at different times. Someone who is as unorthodox as Jones who relies on speed and reflexes so much is always going to age quicker than others.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui
I do think Roy had skill though, his ability to deliver a punch was awesome as well as his ability to put them together in combos. His problem was he was so unorthodox and non textbook in the way he fought in the ring that when his reflexes and speed did fall, so did he.
I think the weight loss aged him too but I do agree he was already showing signs before that fight. Eric Harding was the first fight I thought he was starting to decline.
One quibble. It wasn't that Roy's style was unorthodox that was the problem. It was that it was unsound. It required superman reflexes and speed.
Look I hammer Roy all the time it seems, but what he did to James Toney and that right to the body with which he destroyed Virgil shouild never be forgotten.
Really ?Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
:-\
That's the thing that fucking pisses me off. (sorry, language, I know...)Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterI do not think tarver used it as an excuse, I do know B Hop called him a dead man walking.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweatherYeah its too bad he had to be the example for the future generations. No one had ever gone up that far only to go back down. Especially not in the same year. Ironically Tarver had his belt taken from him by Bhop, because he tried the same thing except he did it for a film and Roy did it to win a belt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Tarver called Roy's weight loss an excuse, funny how it worked out for him.
Anyone who tries to criticize Hopkins win over Tarver will always use this mythical weight drain angle but surely that angle is null and void if the man himself hadn't used his weight as an excuse?
I mean Tarver couldn't get off simply because Hopkins made a play every time Tarver was set to do something.
Did Tarver look weight drained. Did he really have a shit load of muscle to loose? No. It's a load of bs.
No offense to his fans or anyone else on this forum, but I don't get all the interest in, and multiple daily threads about Roy Jones Jr.. He hasn't been worth a shit for the last 7 or 8 years, and during that time, his record in his last 12 fights, has been a dismal 5 wins and 7 losses, 4 by KO. So what gives? Pardon me if this shit bores the fuck outta me.
did you see tarver in that fight? he had bitch tits. Did you see him in the balboa movie, he looked like a heavyweight. Also Tarver after that fight when being asked by merchant regarding the weight said "No, I don't want to say that. I just don't know why I couldn't get anything going"Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimanuel BoogustusThat's the thing that fucking pisses me off. (sorry, language, I know...)Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterI do not think tarver used it as an excuse, I do know B Hop called him a dead man walking.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweatherYeah its too bad he had to be the example for the future generations. No one had ever gone up that far only to go back down. Especially not in the same year. Ironically Tarver had his belt taken from him by Bhop, because he tried the same thing except he did it for a film and Roy did it to win a belt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Tarver called Roy's weight loss an excuse, funny how it worked out for him.
Anyone who tries to criticize Hopkins win over Tarver will always use this mythical weight drain angle but surely that angle is null and void if the man himself hadn't used his weight as an excuse?
I mean Tarver couldn't get off simply because Hopkins made a play every time Tarver was set to do something.
Did Tarver look weight drained. Did he really have a shit load of muscle to loose? No. It's a load of bs.
even NAZ said "he fooled the public but he didn't fool us" when speaking about his weight.
If you took the say 1997 Roy and just dumped him into the late 1970's or the 1940's he'd have gotten whacked around. His technical flaws would have been red meat for those guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
But think about this. Roy Jones being born in 1915 and taking up the sport as a ten year old. He gets trained at Stillman's by a guy like Arcel or Goldman or Jack Blackburn so he is technically sound, gets tempered the way fighters did then and still retains his otherworldly athleticism?
WOW!
Disagree about Roy getting beaten in the 70's and 40's he could live in any era and be a good if not great fighter. You could say Ali was technically poor but he still beat the best, Roy was the same at his peak.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiIf you took the say 1997 Roy and just dumped him into the late 1970's or the 1940's he'd have gotten whacked around. His technical flaws would have been red meat for those guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
But think about this. Roy Jones being born in 1915 and taking up the sport as a ten year old. He gets trained at Stillman's by a guy like Arcel or Goldman or Jack Blackburn so he is technically sound, gets tempered the way fighters did then and still retains his otherworldly athleticism?
WOW!
The difference was Ali's technical mistakes rarely cost him a fight in the greatest era the heavies have ever known. The Jones mistakes rarely cost him a fight in a mediocre era for 175's. Now we're dropping him into a great era/s. Who knows? But what he proved clearly wasn't the same as Ali.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterDisagree about Roy getting beaten in the 70's and 40's he could live in any era and be a good if not great fighter. You could say Ali was technically poor but he still beat the best, Roy was the same at his peak.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiIf you took the say 1997 Roy and just dumped him into the late 1970's or the 1940's he'd have gotten whacked around. His technical flaws would have been red meat for those guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
But think about this. Roy Jones being born in 1915 and taking up the sport as a ten year old. He gets trained at Stillman's by a guy like Arcel or Goldman or Jack Blackburn so he is technically sound, gets tempered the way fighters did then and still retains his otherworldly athleticism?
WOW!
We watched a decent example of how craft and tenacity can overcome superior speed, power, reflexes etc this past weekend in Montreal didn't we?
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 couldn't 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 couldn't hurt someone. Once Roy tagged anyone from any era and they witnessed first hand his speed it would instantly change their game plan.
Peak Roy could live with Ezzard Charles, Foster and Spinks and that was not his best weight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather
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.
Well since 168 didn't exist? We're stuck with things. Foster and Mike Spinks would have annihilated Roy at some point in 12 or 15 rounds. Roy would have won a lot of rounds right up until he was looking up at the lights wondering what the hell happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
A pre-Sam Baroudi Ezzard would just have kicked his ass ;)
That's if we just dropped a 1997 Roy in. Like I said, had he been taught and tempered the way those guys were? WOW!
Well pretty much he stayed in the game to long just like Evander Holyfeild did.
;)So you agree he could live with them. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiWell since 168 didn't exist? We're stuck with things. Foster and Mike Spinks would have annihilated Roy at some point in 12 or 15 rounds. Roy would have won a lot of rounds right up until he was looking up at the lights wondering what the hell happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
A pre-Sam Baroudi Ezzard would just have kicked his ass ;)
That's if we just dropped a 1997 Roy in. Like I said, had he been taught and tempered the way those guys were? WOW!
As long as he took out the trash, did the laundry and once a week paid for dinner!Quote:
Originally Posted by Master;)So you agree he could live with them. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiWell since 168 didn't exist? We're stuck with things. Foster and Mike Spinks would have annihilated Roy at some point in 12 or 15 rounds. Roy would have won a lot of rounds right up until he was looking up at the lights wondering what the hell happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
A pre-Sam Baroudi Ezzard would just have kicked his ass ;)
That's if we just dropped a 1997 Roy in. Like I said, had he been taught and tempered the way those guys were? WOW!
I think Jones was, after Ray Robinson, the most impressive combination of natural speed and power I've ever seen live or on film. I can only imagine how that would have translated had he been forced to be technically correct as those eras would have required. He may well have been the most incredible fighter anyone has ever seen.
Let me clarify one thing in response to the initial post.
Nothing went wrong with Jones career. Two wins over ATG's, a single loss before age 35, over fifty wins, beating ranked guys across five divisions and three of the original divisions, in his heyday the most prominent fighter in the world?
THAT is special! Then at 35 Father Time checked the calendar and said It's time Roy!
I think the right way to think about Jones is that his career effectively ended the night Tarver drilled him. The guys since then just happens to share a name.
And you're missing the point that ROY KNEW HOW TO BOX as well as being gifted. And secondly comparing football to boxing is terribly flawed as the success is dependent upon ten other men performing well. Especially using Jerry Rice, he played with the best two quarterbacks of all time (definitely the highest rated) then with rich gannon, Gannon won mvp. If Rice gets open and his QB sucks, what's the point?Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiQuote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather
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.
Before Roy Lost to Tarver, both Bert Sugar and Max Kellerman, (old and new) said RJJ was p4p best ever. Sugar even put out a list that ranked him above SRR, but it will be discredited simply because RJJ was kayoed 15 years after turning pro or it will be dismissed to hyperbole.
Damn. Roy Jones could have competed and and could have been great in any era with those natural gifts.
At his peak, it was as if he had a third eye. Like Sanders, Gretzky and Jordan he could see the play developing before it happened. You cant teach that.
Neither guy EVER said that. Max once said Roy was the best fighter he had seen in his life and Bert in his 2006 book ranked Jones 88th (I'm looking at it as I write this). In his recent reprint he has Jones 87th. Guys since 1990 or so Sugar has ahead of him? Finito Lopez, Sweet Pea and Evander.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweatherAnd you're missing the point that ROY KNEW HOW TO BOX as well as being gifted. And secondly comparing football to boxing is terribly flawed as the success is dependent upon ten other men performing well. Especially using Jerry Rice, he played with the best two quarterbacks of all time (definitely the highest rated) then with rich gannon, Gannon won mvp. If Rice gets open and his QB sucks, what's the point?Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiQuote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather
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.
Before Roy Lost to Tarver, both Bert Sugar and Max Kellerman, (old and new) said RJJ was p4p best ever. Sugar even put out a list that ranked him above SRR, but it will be discredited simply because RJJ was kayoed 15 years after turning pro or it will be dismissed to hyperbole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiNeither guy EVER said that. Max once said Roy was the best fighter he had seen in his life and Bert in his 2006 book ranked Jones 88th (I'm looking at it as I write this). In his recent reprint he has Jones 87th. Guys since 1990 or so Sugar has ahead of him? Finito Lopez, Sweet Pea and Evander.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweatherAnd you're missing the point that ROY KNEW HOW TO BOX as well as being gifted. And secondly comparing football to boxing is terribly flawed as the success is dependent upon ten other men performing well. Especially using Jerry Rice, he played with the best two quarterbacks of all time (definitely the highest rated) then with rich gannon, Gannon won mvp. If Rice gets open and his QB sucks, what's the point?Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiQuote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather
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.
Before Roy Lost to Tarver, both Bert Sugar and Max Kellerman, (old and new) said RJJ was p4p best ever. Sugar even put out a list that ranked him above SRR, but it will be discredited simply because RJJ was kayoed 15 years after turning pro or it will be dismissed to hyperbole.
I said before he lost to Tarver, that was 2004. Kellerman has said on air numerous times that had roy retired after beating Ruiz he would have easily been considered the best ever. And soon as I find Sugar's all time list from 1997 I'll post it.
Looking forward to both! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweatherQuote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiNeither guy EVER said that. Max once said Roy was the best fighter he had seen in his life and Bert in his 2006 book ranked Jones 88th (I'm looking at it as I write this). In his recent reprint he has Jones 87th. Guys since 1990 or so Sugar has ahead of him? Finito Lopez, Sweet Pea and Evander.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweatherAnd you're missing the point that ROY KNEW HOW TO BOX as well as being gifted. And secondly comparing football to boxing is terribly flawed as the success is dependent upon ten other men performing well. Especially using Jerry Rice, he played with the best two quarterbacks of all time (definitely the highest rated) then with rich gannon, Gannon won mvp. If Rice gets open and his QB sucks, what's the point?Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiQuote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather
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.
Before Roy Lost to Tarver, both Bert Sugar and Max Kellerman, (old and new) said RJJ was p4p best ever. Sugar even put out a list that ranked him above SRR, but it will be discredited simply because RJJ was kayoed 15 years after turning pro or it will be dismissed to hyperbole.
I said before he lost to Tarver, that was 2004. Kellerman has said on air numerous times that had roy retired after beating Ruiz he would have easily been considered the best ever. And soon as I find Sugar's all time list from 1997 I'll post it.
ESPN.com: BOXING - Time to rename Jones: He's Superman <--- full article
Sugar Ray Leonard was a great fighter, the greatest of the post-prime Duran era of the 1980's. Superman is bigger than Leonard. He is faster than Leonard. Not faster in a pound-for-pound sense, but faster period. He hits harder than Leonard. He is just as smart as Leonard, just as good a boxer, and better defensively. He would have smoked Ray.
Marvin Hagler was always given trouble by mobile fighters. So how would he do against the fastest fighter of all time, a guy who can also punch? Superman would have outboxed Marvelous Marvin. Thomas Hearns had problems taking a punch -- Superman would have knocked "The Hitman" out. Any honest observer would say the same thing I am writing here. At least they'd say the same on a lie-detector test. Or they'd fail it.
Ray Robinson was too small. Rocky Marciano too slow. Robinson was in his prime as a 147-pound welterweight; Superman as a 168-pound super middleweight. Marciano would never have gotten a whiff.
And Joe Louis? Well, Billy Conn, who scored 14 knockouts in 75 fights, outboxed Joe Louis for most of 13 rounds, even badly hurting "The Brown Bomber" at the end of the 12th. Had Conn not gone for the knockout, conventional wisdom says he would have won the fight and the heavyweight title. One thing we know about Superman is that he never presses for a knockout. He exposes himself to the minimum risk possible. Or rather, he exposes himself to just as much danger as he must to win the round. He has won almost every round he has ever fought. And he might have won those rounds against Joe Louis, too.
The bert sugar list is next just as soon as I find it. ;)
One of the friends from my gym who boxes internationally for Jamaica was recently over sparring in Miami after the Pan-Am qualifiers and as a result of the JA connection got to spend a lot of time in the Thump gym with Glen Johnson, who he didn't get to spar with due to preparation for the Froch fight (my boy is a lefty). Anyway he says that when there he got talking to Johnson & Orlando about Roy & their take was that they believed that Roy Jones was the greatest athlete to ever play the sport, but that he never really learned the fundamentals to fall back on and that they believed they could have beaten him at any point because he just didn't know what to do when things weren't going his way. Now I don't know if they're right, but they probably have a better understanding of it than anyone on here does. I don't know how Roy would have done, but he was blessed athletically in a way few fighters are, so I think he could have worked in many an era, but there would always be a question mark over that chin.
*Regarding that Kellerman article, that's why I'm not a fan of placing people in the context of history until they've retired & you have a chance to have a sober look at their resume, whether positively or negatively.
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 :)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?Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkin
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"