Re: Quality of Opposition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mikeeod
Really? Roy was at 168 with all of those guys and they were actively calling him out.
I don't know if all of those guys were calling him out, but I do know that there are legit reasons why those fights never happened that doesn't necessarily fall into Roy's lap.
Just one example: Nigel Benn. It's a fact that Nigel wanted the fight and did call out Jones... but it's also a fact that Don King, who promoted Nigel at the time, refused to make the fight with Roy unless Roy agreed to give Don a three-fight option on him. Roy didn't want to get mixed up with Don King and refused that stipulation.
In a situation like that, I think its unfair to dog Roy for that fight not happening.
Re: Quality of Opposition
I think the main problem with any discussion on quality of opposition is that very few people have original opinions based on watching boxing and doing research themselves. It's like with pretty much every topic in life: everyone is scared to death of looking ignorant so they just familiarize themselves with the "consensus" and "expert" opinions and perpetuate that until it becomes fact etched in stone.
Just like with public consensus on just about any topic, you're bound to find a ton of bullshit masquerading as fact.
People know how to quantify a Roberto Duran, a Ray Leonard, a Pacquiao, ect, but they have no idea how to quantify a guy like Reggie Johnson, who was an incredible fighter who would have chased some bonafide HOFers out of the ring, but because there is no consensus on him and people are generally too lazy to watch his fights, very few here would know how impressive it is to pitch a complete shutout against him.
Reggie who? Who'd he beat? Is he in the HOF?
Re: Quality of Opposition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Swanson
Seriously depends on how you look at it. You can easily come up with more names for Hop in missed if you use the bias against him you used against Floyd. I mean you list Winky as missed even though he and Floyd were never in the same division. By that logic you could consider Hop started at LHW and list every decent LHW that came along, he'll it would be fair for you to list cruisers as well by same logic. So of course you could put the decent SMWs as well. I liked your post but it exemplifies that there is no escaping how we feel about fighters.
In regards to the Wright fight, everything had been agreed to, Wright had just beaten Trinidad and the fight was going to be at 154 if I remember correctly, then Floyd's team wanted more money at the last minute essentially pricing themselves out of the fight. That would count as a miss :)
Re: Quality of Opposition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
I think the main problem with any discussion on quality of opposition is that very few people have original opinions based on watching boxing and doing research themselves. It's like with pretty much every topic in life: everyone is scared to death of looking ignorant so they just familiarize themselves with the "consensus" and "expert" opinions and perpetuate that until it becomes fact etched in stone.
Just like with public consensus on just about any topic, you're bound to find a ton of bullshit masquerading as fact.
People know how to quantify a Roberto Duran, a Ray Leonard, a Pacquiao, ect, but they have no idea how to quantify a guy like Reggie Johnson, who was an incredible fighter who would have chased some bonafide HOFers out of the ring, but because there is no consensus on him and people are generally too lazy to watch his fights, very few here would know how impressive it is to pitch a complete shutout against him.
Reggie who? Who'd he beat? Is he in the HOF?
Johnson was excellent :D take out his first loss early in his career and the Jones loss and you could argue he went undefeated :cool:
Re: Quality of Opposition
Good stuff bud. I def think Oscar faced the more relevant or "better" opponents. Though personally as big a Hopkins fan as I am the Oscar fight always struck me as more of a "business arrangement" before hand more than a meaningful fight. That said people can save all of that he threw the fight bs...he was overmatched and had his ears boxed by Sturm prior and shouldn't have been wearing a trinket in the first place, that was the writing on the wall. Also absolutely hated Hopkins demolishing Simon Brown and no clue how-why that was made. Hated that fight and Brown other than name had zero business being in there. I'd def have Malinga and Thorton as respectable wins for Jones. Thought Thorton had beat Eubanks prior but yeh, he was at the end. Might bump Gonzalez and put Harding instead. Really think he was one of the first guys to show just ever so minor holes in Jones and the first time I thought Jones looked a little perplexed.
Re: Quality of Opposition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Good stuff bud. I def think Oscar faced the more relevant or "better" opponents. Though personally as big a Hopkins fan as I am the Oscar fight always struck me as more of a "business arrangement" before hand more than a meaningful fight. That said people can save all of that he threw the fight bs...he was overmatched and had his ears boxed by Sturm prior and shouldn't have been wearing a trinket in the first place, that was the writing on the wall. Also absolutely hated Hopkins demolishing Simon Brown and no clue how-why that was made. Hated that fight and Brown other than name had zero business being in there. I'd def have Malinga and Thorton as respectable wins for Jones. Thought Thorton had beat Eubanks prior but yeh, he was at the end. Might bump Gonzalez and put Harding instead. Really think he was one of the first guys to show just ever so minor holes in Jones and the first time I thought Jones looked a little perplexed.
Good points, and I agree on the Simon Brown fight. Great point on Harding showcasing a style that would give Roy problems. Harding fought "in his envelope", and made Roy work for that win. It's why I don't buy into everyone saying Roy was past his prime and that is why Tarver gave him a hard fight. A tall, strong southpaw with a good jab and solid boxing skills would always bother Roy. Clever boxers in General gave him problems, as evidenced in the first Griffin fight. It's why I always thought Nunn and Frankie Liles would've given Roy problems. Roy's best performances were against guys who had slow feet, like Toney, or guys who were limited and came straight at him like Thomas Tate and Ruiz. That is why Roy frustrated me so much, I think Darius would've been an easy style match up for him, yet he never made the fight.
Re: Quality of Opposition
I agree with what you say about Oscar, he had the courage to take on the cartel at welterweight Ike, tito and Sweat Pea when none of them were serious about fighting one another until Oscar broke that monopoly. Oscar may have lost some fight but he was willing to take the risk and I admire him for that and it is the reason why he earned so much money - Oscar took risks.
Roy dominated light heavy, and he beat Toney and B Hop at super middle and middle. The top fighters at the weight. You can not ask for more. Roy also won a trinket at heavyweight. What more do fans want?
