Roy Jones: the boxing genius

[donnydarkoIRL]

Gotta disagree with you here Donny. He didn't use textbook boxing skills like Mayweather, Leonard and Whittaker because he invented his own style. To use this style you had to be blessed with athleticism beyond anything I've seen in boxing before Roy and I doubt We'll ever see anything like him again.

But just because he didn't box out of a textbook doesn't mean he wasn't a great boxer. In my eyes he is the greatest LHW of all time and I truly believe he would have beaten any middleweight in history but he certainly doesn't deserve the mantle as greatest because he wasn't there long enough. As for SMW I think you have to go for Calzaghe as greatest because even though a SMW Roy would have beaten Joe again he wasn't there long enough to cement a legacy there as being the greatest SMW of all time.

Just my opinion though

Well, Jones actually attempted to box quite well in the amateurs.
Although he was a standout amateur, he was not invincible, so famously beaten by McClellan.

Jones then turned pro. His speed, athleticism and power allowed him to destroy opposition.
Until he was opposed by fighters of good ability that could cope with his power.
In these situations Jones could not adjust, he didn't have skills per se.
He was easily cornered and not slick on defense in close as we can see against Tarver and Johnson.

I just imagine them the same size.

And skill beats natural ability.

[Plopeater]

As good as he was, genius no otherwise he would have retired by now

[Taeth]

Gotta disagree with you here Donny. He didn't use textbook boxing skills like Mayweather, Leonard and Whittaker because he invented his own style. To use this style you had to be blessed with athleticism beyond anything I've seen in boxing before Roy and I doubt We'll ever see anything like him again.

But just because he didn't box out of a textbook doesn't mean he wasn't a great boxer. In my eyes he is the greatest LHW of all time and I truly believe he would have beaten any middleweight in history but he certainly doesn't deserve the mantle as greatest because he wasn't there long enough. As for SMW I think you have to go for Calzaghe as greatest because even though a SMW Roy would have beaten Joe again he wasn't there long enough to cement a legacy there as being the greatest SMW of all time.

Just my opinion though

Well, Jones actually attempted to box quite well in the amateurs.
Although he was a standout amateur, he was not invincible, so famously beaten by McClellan.

Jones then turned pro. His speed, athleticism and power allowed him to destroy opposition.
Until he was opposed by fighters of good ability that could cope with his power.
In these situations Jones could not adjust, he didn't have skills per se.
He was easily cornered and not slick on defense in close as we can see against Tarver and Johnson.

I just imagine them the same size.

And skill beats natural ability.

YOu can't use one amateur fight to show that Roy couldn't box well, he fought plenty of great opposition as an amateur and lost like 8 or 9 of his fights. He had all the skills, you complain about his jab, but he only used it to set other punches up. It doesn't mean he wasn't effective with it, it just means he didn't use it to dominate the fight, but when he did like against Ruiz or Pazienza it sure worked fine, as an amateur he had a great jab.

[Mr140]

Well if we are talking pound for pound i think Leonard and Hearns were better then jones if they some how made it the same weight. what i hate about those kind of fights both far away from there prime weights. Also when people talk about Roy winning Heavyweight title he beat Ruiz big deal he was not the champ now if he beat Lennox then yea impressed although i am pretty sure that Lennox would kill him end his career and life if they ever fought but i have more respect for him beating the champ.

[donnydarkoIRL]

If you've foughten anyone half decent and tried to emulate his style you would be owned, also if you watched more then one of his fights you would know Roy LET people put him on the ropes, he wasn't forced to them, when he didn't want to be on the ropes, you weren't getting him on the ropes. Also wtf were you talking about Roy was ko'ed off the ropes both times? He wasn't on the ropes against Tarver, he caught hit by a great counter shot.

Roy Jones beats Hagler and Monzon... he is too quick and too skilled.

I think Ezzard Charles gives Roy a decent fight, but Roy's speed wins the day, and Archie Moore fought similar to Jamest Toney, and we all know how he did against Roy. Its a horrible match up for Archie.

Also how is Whitaker textbook in any sense?

I box amateur and I've got a national title, I'm at the beginning of my road and I'm pretty athletic, so please lets leave my career out of it, I was only implying I'm a huge Jones fan.

Roy was and is always forced to the ropes. Johnson, Tarver even Hanshaw recently all forced himmto the ropes.

Look at the Tarver fight. You can't imagine that Roy has control of the ring there. He attacked of the ropes and paid for it.

Whittaker has one of the best textbook jabs ever.
It's apparent you think the textbook was written recently.

Oh so when Roy isn't properly prepared, its becuase he isn't as good as he was, but when LEonard or Benitez or Duran aren't prepared, its excusable?

Thats basically what your saying... Roy's body hasn't been prepared since he came back down from heavyweight, he permanently damaged his body, maybe not really evidently but enough in a sport like boxing that he moves just that little bit slower, which costs him.

Against Tarver that was an honest loss that he may have suffered earlier in his career because that was a perfect counter punch in the second fight, I felt Roy pretty much dominated the first fight, but people were so enamored by somebody standing any sort of a chance that they gave Tarver bs rounds.

Taeth I wasn't referring to Roy Jones here.
If you took the time to look at the highlighted text it was clear I was referrring to Roberto Duran.

Taeth instead of going on the warpath take time to read posts and understand their context.

YOu can't use one amateur fight to show that Roy couldn't box well, he fought plenty of great opposition as an amateur and lost like 8 or 9 of his fights. He had all the skills, you complain about his jab, but he only used it to set other punches up. It doesn't mean he wasn't effective with it, it just means he didn't use it to dominate the fight, but when he did like against Ruiz or Pazienza it sure worked fine, as an amateur he had a great jab.

Jesus Christ Taeth!


I'm a Jones Jr. fan!
I've got his career set, I've met him and I train to box like him, you imply I'm hating on Roy

Read my posts before you reply!!!!


Roy Jones Jr. never employed a jab and he was never skilled.
He compensated with his unbelievable physical prowess, but was never skilled in a textbook sense.

[Master]

Hitmandonny is a fan of Roy Jones Taeth no doubt about that.

Roy did not always use the jab, although he did in the Paz fight to make a point. Also using the jab can make you predictable and he was always an unconventional boxer. That was one of his strengths, BHop said he could not work out what he was going to do next.

[rjj tszyu]

If you've foughten anyone half decent and tried to emulate his style you would be owned, also if you watched more then one of his fights you would know Roy LET people put him on the ropes, he wasn't forced to them, when he didn't want to be on the ropes, you weren't getting him on the ropes. Also wtf were you talking about Roy was ko'ed off the ropes both times? He wasn't on the ropes against Tarver, he caught hit by a great counter shot.

Roy Jones beats Hagler and Monzon... he is too quick and too skilled.

I think Ezzard Charles gives Roy a decent fight, but Roy's speed wins the day, and Archie Moore fought similar to Jamest Toney, and we all know how he did against Roy. Its a horrible match up for Archie.

Also how is Whitaker textbook in any sense?

I box amateur and I've got a national title, I'm at the beginning of my road and I'm pretty athletic, so please lets leave my career out of it, I was only implying I'm a huge Jones fan.

Roy was and is always forced to the ropes. Johnson, Tarver even Hanshaw recently all forced himmto the ropes.

Look at the Tarver fight. You can't imagine that Roy has control of the ring there. He attacked of the ropes and paid for it.

Whittaker has one of the best textbook jabs ever.
It's apparent you think the textbook was written recently.

Oh so when Roy isn't properly prepared, its becuase he isn't as good as he was, but when LEonard or Benitez or Duran aren't prepared, its excusable?

Thats basically what your saying... Roy's body hasn't been prepared since he came back down from heavyweight, he permanently damaged his body, maybe not really evidently but enough in a sport like boxing that he moves just that little bit slower, which costs him.

Against Tarver that was an honest loss that he may have suffered earlier in his career because that was a perfect counter punch in the second fight, I felt Roy pretty much dominated the first fight, but people were so enamored by somebody standing any sort of a chance that they gave Tarver bs rounds.

Taeth I wasn't referring to Roy Jones here.
If you took the time to look at the highlighted text it was clear I was referrring to Roberto Duran.

Taeth instead of going on the warpath take time to read posts and understand their context.

YOu can't use one amateur fight to show that Roy couldn't box well, he fought plenty of great opposition as an amateur and lost like 8 or 9 of his fights. He had all the skills, you complain about his jab, but he only used it to set other punches up. It doesn't mean he wasn't effective with it, it just means he didn't use it to dominate the fight, but when he did like against Ruiz or Pazienza it sure worked fine, as an amateur he had a great jab.

Jesus Christ Taeth!


I'm a Jones Jr. fan!
I've got his career set, I've met him and I train to box like him, you imply I'm hating on Roy

Read my posts before you reply!!!!


Roy Jones Jr. never employed a jab and he was never skilled.
He compensated with his unbelievable physical prowess, but was never skilled in a textbook sense.

I think Donny is an RJJ fan lol.

Though I do think that Taeth is right about Roy letting people come in against him against the ropes. Watch the Telesco fight. He keeps calling him in to attack him against the ropes but Telesco won't take the bait.

[donnydarkoIRL]

Gotta disagree with you here Donny. He didn't use textbook boxing skills like Mayweather, Leonard and Whittaker because he invented his own style. To use this style you had to be blessed with athleticism beyond anything I've seen in boxing before Roy and I doubt We'll ever see anything like him again.

But just because he didn't box out of a textbook doesn't mean he wasn't a great boxer. In my eyes he is the greatest LHW of all time and I truly believe he would have beaten any middleweight in history but he certainly doesn't deserve the mantle as greatest because he wasn't there long enough. As for SMW I think you have to go for Calzaghe as greatest because even though a SMW Roy would have beaten Joe again he wasn't there long enough to cement a legacy there as being the greatest SMW of all time.

Just my opinion though

Well, Jones actually attempted to box quite well in the amateurs.
Although he was a standout amateur, he was not invincible, so famously beaten by McClellan.

Jones then turned pro. His speed, athleticism and power allowed him to destroy opposition.
Until he was opposed by fighters of good ability that could cope with his power.
In these situations Jones could not adjust, he didn't have skills per se.
He was easily cornered and not slick on defense in close as we can see against Tarver and Johnson.

I just imagine them the same size.

And skill beats natural ability.

You should only really judge fighters when in their prime. Do you think a younger Jones would have lost against those two?

Objectively, pound for pound, probably not, but we were never given any reason to believe he had left his prime, he had just won the heavyweight title we thought he was invincible, I'm sure none of us imagined he had left his prime when he boxed Johnson and Tarver the first times.

[rjj tszyu]

Well, Jones actually attempted to box quite well in the amateurs.
Although he was a standout amateur, he was not invincible, so famously beaten by McClellan.

Jones then turned pro. His speed, athleticism and power allowed him to destroy opposition.
Until he was opposed by fighters of good ability that could cope with his power.
In these situations Jones could not adjust, he didn't have skills per se.
He was easily cornered and not slick on defense in close as we can see against Tarver and Johnson.

I just imagine them the same size.

And skill beats natural ability.

You should only really judge fighters when in their prime. Do you think a younger Jones would have lost against those two?

Objectively, pound for pound, probably not, but we were never given any reason to believe he had left his prime, he had just won the heavyweight title we thought he was invincible, I'm sure none of us imagined he had left his prime when he boxed Johnson and Tarver the first times.

I always wondered how he would handle the massive weight loss to be honest. I think that he fought better LHWs than Johnson and Tarver in Virgil Hill, Eric Harding (pre RJJ), Derrick Harmon (again pre RJJ), Reggie Johnson and Montell Griffin before Jones ruined him in the rematch.

[Fenster]

Well, Jones actually attempted to box quite well in the amateurs.
Although he was a standout amateur, he was not invincible, so famously beaten by McClellan.

Jones then turned pro. His speed, athleticism and power allowed him to destroy opposition.
Until he was opposed by fighters of good ability that could cope with his power.
In these situations Jones could not adjust, he didn't have skills per se.
He was easily cornered and not slick on defense in close as we can see against Tarver and Johnson.

I just imagine them the same size.

And skill beats natural ability.

You should only really judge fighters when in their prime. Do you think a younger Jones would have lost against those two?

Objectively, pound for pound, probably not, but we were never given any reason to believe he had left his prime, he had just won the heavyweight title we thought he was invincible, I'm sure none of us imagined he had left his prime when he boxed Johnson and Tarver the first times.

At the time of the first Tarver fight Roy was 34. Even with the weightloss excuse it wasn't a surprise that the guy was slipping. Tarver two proved it. The Johnson fight should never have even happened.

[Fenster]

Gotta disagree with you here Donny. He didn't use textbook boxing skills like Mayweather, Leonard and Whittaker because he invented his own style. To use this style you had to be blessed with athleticism beyond anything I've seen in boxing before Roy and I doubt We'll ever see anything like him again.

But just because he didn't box out of a textbook doesn't mean he wasn't a great boxer. In my eyes he is the greatest LHW of all time and I truly believe he would have beaten any middleweight in history but he certainly doesn't deserve the mantle as greatest because he wasn't there long enough. As for SMW I think you have to go for Calzaghe as greatest because even though a SMW Roy would have beaten Joe again he wasn't there long enough to cement a legacy there as being the greatest SMW of all time.

Just my opinion though

Well, Jones actually attempted to box quite well in the amateurs.
Although he was a standout amateur, he was not invincible, so famously beaten by McClellan.

Jones then turned pro. His speed, athleticism and power allowed him to destroy opposition.
Until he was opposed by fighters of good ability that could cope with his power.
In these situations Jones could not adjust, he didn't have skills per se.
He was easily cornered and not slick on defense in close as we can see against Tarver and Johnson.

I just imagine them the same size.

And skill beats natural ability.

You should only really judge fighters when in their prime. Do you think a younger Jones would have lost against those two?