Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-18-2012, 10:31 AM   #91
Loudon
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 5,453
vCash: 500
Default Re: Roy Jones Jr. vs Thomas Hearns

Knockout,

Hi mate, thanks for your reply.

I agree with your assessment on what you think would have happened, had Benn fought Toney. As the old saying goes, styles make fights. I'd have loved to have seen that. I think Toney vs Eubank would have been great too. Would Eubank have gone to the U.S. though? I don't think Frank could have got Toney over here in the early 90's. I wasn't aware that Eubank had signed to fight Toney and Nunn? That's very interesting. The only thing I heard, was that the winner of Eubank vs Benn II, was due to fight Toney.

Yes I think it would have been impressive if Roy had've beaten Benn, but I don't think he'd have got a huge amount of credit though from other circles. I think Roy has had more critics than other fighter I've known. It would have been a great fight. A great boxer vs a ferocious puncher. Maybe if Nigel had been undefeated and they'd fought common opponents, maybe it would have been huge? But I think if Roy had've won, people would have just pointed out to the Eubank and Watson defeats. Also he'd had a tough fight with Malinga, who Roy easily beat. So in my opinion, Roy wouldn't have got much credit.

Of course Nigel would be a very serious threat. I think Nigel would have gone straight at him from the opening bell, and tried to bomb him out. He couldn't really have adopted any other tactics. I think if Roy was still there after 4 or 5 rounds, he'd just start picking him off. Roy at 26 was just incredible! I think Roy would have scored a TKO in the late rounds. Nigel was probably my favourite fighter growing up.

Eubank would have been a very tough fight for Roy, and Roy's admitted that on a few ocassions. I've read a few Eubank interviews, and he basicly says, Roy was never his mandatory, and he never really chased the big paydays in the U.S. and he was happy doing what he was doing.

I can see your point of view saying that Roy didn't dominate 175. But Roy ended up with the three of the four belts, and DM was going to the States twice, and then backed out. You can't make a guy fight you. Roy's ridiculous demands were due to frustration. He knew they'd never be accepted, and I don't think he was being serious. He didn't do huge ppv numbers, but he certainly wouldn't have got more money fighting abroad in 2001-2002. Who was going to pay him? Germany didn't stage big events back then. The money would have come from the U.S. PPV.

When the fight didn't materialiaze there was nothing left for him to do, and that's when he turned his attentions to going up to Heavyweight. The only other big fight out there was a Hopkins rematch. You're right DM was a threat. He was a good fighter, but I don't think he was good enough to beat Roy, and I don't think he thought he was either.

I've no problem if you want to use the same excuse for Tommy. It's clear reading your posts, that you know a hell of a lot more about Tommy's career than what I do. I know you're a huge fan. Roy did say he felt physically fine for the rematch. But the damage had already been done at that point. His reflexes had slowed considerably in my opinion. Without being biased, I've no idea how people thought Tarver had won that first fight. Buddy McGirt knew that he'd lost.

I don't think Roy's opposition before Tarver had anything to do with it. Roy hated Tarver, but he respected him, and he knew he was going to be in a hard fight. Now a fighter can underestimate someone, and they can pay a heavy price. But the key thing for me, was the last three rounds. Roy was absolutely exhausted. He'd never been that tired in any other fight, either before or since. The reason he was exhausted, is because of the hard camp he'd been in. You heard what he said after the fight, and you could see he was running on fumes. He normally had a 7 week camp, like most other fighters. But before he went into his normal 7 week camp, he was running everyday to burn away the excess muscle. So he was already tired, before he went into his 7 week camp late September.

In my opinion Glen was in the right place at the right time. I think Coach Merk or Roy Snr should have stepped in and prevented in from fighting just three months after the Tarver K.O. I think Roy just wanted to get back into the ring as soon as possible to try and erase what had happened from his memory. But I think he should have taken 6 months out, then had an easy fight late 2004 or early 2005. I agree with your opinion that Glen would have got clowned, if Roy had have been mentally and physically at a hundred per cent. So that's the reason why I don't think he should have gotten a lot of credit. He was struggling with Woods around the same time. I honestly believe that any fighter ranked in the top ten at 175 would have beaten Roy on that night.

Great debate!

Regards, Loudon.

Last edited by Loudon; 06-18-2012 at 11:47 AM.
Loudon is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 06-18-2012, 01:16 PM   #92
DKD
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,234
vCash: 670
Default Re: Roy Jones Jr. vs Thomas Hearns

No poll?

I favour Hearns; probably on points in a close competitive fight. But who knows, they're both a bit chinny but Hearns hits a lot harder.

Anything could happen and Jones' chances probably improve at the higher weight, but Hearns has the edge, at least for me anyway.

I'm not sure Jones ever faced anyone who could box or bang as great as Tommy.
DKD is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2012, 01:33 PM   #93
HerolGee
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,632
vCash: 500
Default Re: Roy Jones Jr. vs Thomas Hearns

jones wins, to big a prime weight advantage.

wont stop Hearns trying though lol, its going to get doozy in there.
HerolGee is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2012, 06:18 PM   #94
knockout artist
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,422
vCash: 2666
Default Re: Roy Jones Jr. vs Thomas Hearns

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loudon View Post
Knockout,

Hi mate, thanks for your reply.

I agree with your assessment on what you think would have happened, had Benn fought Toney. As the old saying goes, styles make fights. I'd have loved to have seen that. I think Toney vs Eubank would have been great too. Would Eubank have gone to the U.S. though? I don't think Frank could have got Toney over here in the early 90's. I wasn't aware that Eubank had signed to fight Toney and Nunn? That's very interesting. The only thing I heard, was that the winner of Eubank vs Benn II, was due to fight Toney.
I'm not sure about Eubank, as you said, he seemed happy defending his title for easy money. Chris was an extremely tough guy, with good skills, he would have been awkward for both Toney and Jones (not saying he beats either).


Quote:
Yes I think it would have been impressive if Roy had've beaten Benn, but I don't think he'd have got a huge amount of credit though from other circles. I think Roy has had more critics than other fighter I've known. It would have been a great fight. A great boxer vs a ferocious puncher. Maybe if Nigel had been undefeated and they'd fought common opponents, maybe it would have been huge? But I think if Roy had've won, people would have just pointed out to the Eubank and Watson defeats. Also he'd had a tough fight with Malinga, who Roy easily beat. So in my opinion, Roy wouldn't have got much credit.
My opinion on this is always the same, Benn may not have been the greatest, but he was a lot better than guys Roy did fight. Roy at 168 (after Toney) and 175 had a similar run to Eubank, he was happy defending his belts against overmatched opposition for easy money (Pazienza and Frazier spring to mind).


Quote:
Of course Nigel would be a very serious threat. I think Nigel would have gone straight at him from the opening bell, and tried to bomb him out. He couldn't really have adopted any other tactics. I think if Roy was still there after 4 or 5 rounds, he'd just start picking him off. Roy at 26 was just incredible! I think Roy would have scored a TKO in the late rounds. Nigel was probably my favourite fighter growing up.
That's why I wish the fight had come off. Nigel was relentless, and he would have made Roy work hard. Nigel made himself clear when calling out Jones, he wanted a war, he didn't want to box him. I think this may have intimidated Roy, who didn't like to engage in that kind of fight. Though I agree with your assessment on Roy scoring a late TKO.

Quote:
Eubank would have been a very tough fight for Roy, and Roy's admitted that on a few ocassions. I've read a few Eubank interviews, and he basicly says, Roy was never his mandatory, and he never really chased the big paydays in the U.S. and he was happy doing what he was doing.
Maybe both guys were happy not to face each other.


Quote:
I can see your point of view saying that Roy didn't dominate 175. But Roy ended up with the three of the four belts, and DM was going to the States twice, and then backed out. You can't make a guy fight you. Roy's ridiculous demands were due to frustration. He knew they'd never be accepted, and I don't think he was being serious. He didn't do huge ppv numbers, but he certainly wouldn't have got more money fighting abroad in 2001-2002. Who was going to pay him? Germany didn't stage big events back then. The money would have come from the U.S. PPV.
Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree here. Personally, I don't feel you can 'dominate' a division without beating the true champion and next best guy.

Roy's PPV numbers were terrible. When Roy fought Toney in 1994, I read they sold 500k PPV's. Compare that to Tyson, who sold 1.5million PPV's fight Peter Mcneeley! Roy was no PPV cash-cow like Floyd or Manny. I don't see why Roy couldn't have travelled. On the other hand, maybe Darius was willing to come to the US? We can't say either way, I guess both guys were content not to face each other (like Floyd and Manny), and their legacies will suffer for it. That's why I can't rank Roy alongside these ATG's, because Roy was happy not to fight the best names. Roy was happy doing what he was doing, which were safe fights, making good money against opposition who didn't pose a threat. For the guys that did pose a threat, Roy wanted the 'crown jewels' to face them.

Quote:
When the fight didn't materialiaze there was nothing left for him to do, and that's when he turned his attentions to going up to Heavyweight. The only other big fight out there was a Hopkins rematch. You're right DM was a threat. He was a good fighter, but I don't think he was good enough to beat Roy, and I don't think he thought he was either.
DM was a threat, which is why that fight should have happened.

Roy went up to HW for money.


Quote:
I've no problem if you want to use the same excuse for Tommy. It's clear reading your posts, that you know a hell of a lot more about Tommy's career than what I do. I know you're a huge fan. Roy did say he felt physically fine for the rematch. But the damage had already been done at that point. His reflexes had slowed considerably in my opinion. Without being biased, I've no idea how people thought Tarver had won that first fight. Buddy McGirt knew that he'd lost.
I never even used it an excuse for Tommy, I'm just pointing out that he went through the same challenge as Roy to make 160. It's hard to say how much his reflexes slowed between Ruiz and Tarver, because Tarver is much quicker and better than Ruiz.


Quote:
I don't think Roy's opposition before Tarver had anything to do with it. Roy hated Tarver, but he respected him, and he knew he was going to be in a hard fight. Now a fighter can underestimate someone, and they can pay a heavy price. But the key thing for me, was the last three rounds. Roy was absolutely exhausted. He'd never been that tired in any other fight, either before or since. The reason he was exhausted, is because of the hard camp he'd been in
This is my point about Roy's opposition. It's hard to say how much Roy slowed down between Ruiz and Tarver, because Tarver is quicker and a better fighter than Ruiz. Tarver made him fight hard for 12 rounds. Now remember, against Ruiz, Jones' punch figures didn't even reach double digits in some rounds. He clearly expended less energy against Ruiz, could this have made a difference?


Quote:
You heard what he said after the fight, and you could see he was running on fumes. He normally had a 7 week camp, like most other fighters. But before he went into his normal 7 week camp, he was running everyday to burn away the excess muscle. So he was already tired, before he went into his 7 week camp late September.

Good point, no doubt it was the hardest camp of Roy's career. For me, it was Roy's best win since beating Toney 9 years earlier


Quote:
In my opinion Glen was in the right place at the right time. I think Coach Merk or Roy Snr should have stepped in and prevented in from fighting just three months after the Tarver K.O. I think Roy just wanted to get back into the ring as soon as possible to try and erase what had happened from his memory. But I think he should have taken 6 months out, then had an easy fight late 2004 or early 2005. I agree with your opinion that Glen would have got clowned, if Roy had have been mentally and physically at a hundred per cent. So that's the reason why I don't think he should have gotten a lot of credit. He was struggling with Woods around the same time. I honestly believe that any fighter ranked in the top ten at 175 would have beaten Roy on that night.
Similar to how Buster Douglas was in the right place at the right time to fight Mike Tyson. Do you think Buster Douglas would beat a 1988 Kevin Rooney managed Tyson? I don't think so. Still, it shouldn't mean we should discard Buster's win. Could you imagine a prime Lennox Lewis or Evander Holyfield against Tokyo Tyson?

I agree that Roy should have taken a long break after the Tarver KO. That was poor management, then to have such a poor training camp going into a world title fight? I read that Roy barely had 4-5 days of proper training for the Johnson fight. If Glen fought a 1997 Roy Jones, Glen would probably have ended up as a highlight clip on the numerous video tributes of Roy's career.


Regards

ko artist
knockout artist is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2012, 07:44 PM   #95
MMJoe
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,787
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Roy Jones Jr. vs Thomas Hearns

Jones, too slick for the cobra
MMJoe is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2012, 05:20 AM   #96
Loudon
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 5,453
vCash: 500
Default Re: Roy Jones Jr. vs Thomas Hearns

Knockout,

Hi mate, sorry for the late reply.

I agree about Eubank, he would definitely have been a hard nights work for Roy and Toney.

I agree that Benn was certainly better than some of the bums that Roy fought, but Roy still had good wins. Toney, Hopkins, Reggie, Malinga and Tarver were all as good or better than Benn.

Roy travelling in the late 90's or early 00's wouldn't have got him more money. All the money came from American PPV, and the big Networks. You're right, his PPV numbers weren't that great in the U.S. (apart from Ruiz) But if he'd come to Europe, who was going to finance a big fight? In the U.K. it's normal for us to stay up til 4am to watch a big fight in the U.S. But a fight against DM in Germany would have been staged at 11pm. They would have had a nightmare selling the fight to the fans in the U.S. DM wasn't even known Worldwide. People only knew him, because he had the only belt that Roy didn't have. But I don't think many people had actually seen any footage of him. I don't think it was viable to stage the fight in Germany. As I said yesterday, Germany didn't host big Boxing events back then. It's the K Brothers who have put Germany on the map in recent years.

Roy was asked in an interview last week, why he didn't travel when he was at his peak, and why he seems happy to be doing it now. He said " Because I was the Champ back then, and you have to go to the Champ if you want his titles. Now I'm no longer the Champ, so I have to travel to try and get my shot." I don't think Roy not fighting DM, is the same as Floyd and Manny not fighting. You talk about Roy's resume, but it's great compared to DM's. I think Roy staying at 168 and not fighting Toney in the mid 90's would be the equivalant of Floyd and Manny not fighting each other.

Again, I think your being harsh saying Roy was happy not to fight the best names. If DM had've gone to the U.S. he would have fought him. If Calzaghe had have been relevant and had fought at 175 in the U.S. I think Roy would have fought him too. If Hopkins hadn't have demanded more than Roy for the rematch, that fight probably would have happened. If you look at all the bums Roy fought, they were all sandwiched in between good fighters who he faced. The Garcia's and Chino's were in between Malinga and Toney for example. Frazier was the fight before Reggie. Hall and Telesco were in between Harding, who had beaten Tarver. Woods and Kelly were just before Ruiz and Tarver. If Roy was content just to fight nobodies for easy money, he would never have been a four weight World Champion.

People called him reluctant Roy, which was unfair in my opinion. Go and put Roy's resume next to Benn's, Eubank's, Calzaghe's, DM's etc. Do a comparison. If he really had've been reluctant, do you think he'd have fought someone like Harding? He didn't have to fight Tarver again in the rematch. He wasn't obligated too, but he did. Then after he'd been knocked out, he fought Glen just three months later. A reluctant fighter doesn't do any of those things. He didn't even have a tune up after his back to back knockout defeats, before fighting Tarver again. A reluctant fighter doesn't chase a fight with Joe at nearly 40 does he? People say that Ruiz was garbage and Feather fisted etc. But can you honestly tell me, that he wasn't a threat to Roy? Despite Ruiz not being an ATG, that was a dangerous fight for Roy to take. DM was taking easy fights in Germany like Joe was in in the U.K. One of Joe's biggest fights came in 2006 against Lacy, 9 years after he'd beat Eubank. If that's not being reluctant, then I don't know what is. The biggest fight of his life was against Kessler. Roy's resume is much stronger than Joe's.

Tarver was very quick, but the punch he knocked Roy out with in the rematch, would have been avoided pre Ruiz in my opinion.

Good point regarding Buster Douglas. But I give Buster a lot more credit than Glen. Buster had just lost his Mum, and Mike was only 24. Roy was 35 and had just lost the muscle and had been knocked out by Tarver just three months previously. You can give him credit for his gameplan and his focus, but as I said the other day, I honestly believe someone like Tony Bellew (I'm not exaggerating) could have beaten Roy on that night.

Great debate, you've made some excellent points there.

Regards, Loudon.
Loudon is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2012, 07:06 AM   #97
fists of fury
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: March for Revenge
Posts: 6,043
vCash: 1887
Default Re: Roy Jones Jr. vs Thomas Hearns

They way I see it, the guys that beat Hearns turned tiger in order to do it. Leonard was losing as the boxer, but got Hearns when he turned tiger. Hagler too, managed to get Tommy out of there, but in a war. Barkley basically landed a dream shot and surprised Tommy. Can't remember the rematch too well, but Hearns certainly had seen better days at that point.

Regardless, the 'trend' to beating Hearns is to turn tiger and walk through his shots to finish him. Maybe I'm underestimating Jones here, but I certainly don't see him doing that. That was not his way. Not generally.
He used traps to set you up and beat you down with superior reflexes and speed. That, or he'd utilise that speed to land lead left hooks on bewildered opponents.
I wonder if he could do so against that laser-like jab of Hearns, the more rangy fighter? Does even Jones have the explosiveness and speed to simply land a lead left hook on Tommy? In my mind, only if Hearns gets careless, which admittedly, he did sometimes.

But if Hearns boxes cautiously and makes Jones lead, I think he could win a decision at 160. His legs weren't the best at 160, and that is a concern, but I still think he had enough at the weight to make life very difficult for Jones.

But Jones would be very real danger at all times. If he does take Tommy's jab away, Hearns won't last long. One great lead hook might be all it takes to get the ball rolling, and Hearns mostly wasn't one to come back once in serious trouble.

Hearns would be walking a tightrope at all times in this fight, imo. One mistake and it could cost him the fight. Still, at 160, I have faith in Hearns, if not total conviction.
fists of fury is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2012, 11:08 AM   #98
knockout artist
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,422
vCash: 2666
Default Re: Roy Jones Jr. vs Thomas Hearns

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loudon View Post
Knockout,

Hi mate, sorry for the late reply.

I agree about Eubank, he would definitely have been a hard nights work for Roy and Toney.

I agree that Benn was certainly better than some of the bums that Roy fought, but Roy still had good wins. Toney, Hopkins, Reggie, Malinga and Tarver were all as good or better than Benn.
I agree, but a fighter like Roy was a special talent, and should have had more good and great wins on his resume.


Quote:
Roy travelling in the late 90's or early 00's wouldn't have got him more money. All the money came from American PPV, and the big Networks. You're right, his PPV numbers weren't that great in the U.S. (apart from Ruiz) But if he'd come to Europe, who was going to finance a big fight? In the U.K. it's normal for us to stay up til 4am to watch a big fight in the U.S. But a fight against DM in Germany would have been staged at 11pm. They would have had a nightmare selling the fight to the fans in the U.S. DM wasn't even known Worldwide. People only knew him, because he had the only belt that Roy didn't have. But I don't think many people had actually seen any footage of him. I don't think it was viable to stage the fight in Germany. As I said yesterday, Germany didn't host big Boxing events back then. It's the K Brothers who have put Germany on the map in recent years.

A fight as big as Michalczewski-Jones would have been managed and financed by the big American companies, and it could have been staged in Germany. Like Vitali Klitschko-Byrd in 1999. They could have staged it later like Calzahge-Lacy to cater to both audiences.

Michalczewski was fighting many of the same opponents as Roy, anyone following Roy's career knew who Darius was.


Quote:
Roy was asked in an interview last week, why he didn't travel when he was at his peak, and why he seems happy to be doing it now. He said " Because I was the Champ back then, and you have to go to the Champ if you want his titles. Now I'm no longer the Champ, so I have to travel to try and get my shot." I don't think Roy not fighting DM, is the same as Floyd and Manny not fighting. You talk about Roy's resume, but it's great compared to DM's. I think Roy staying at 168 and not fighting Toney in the mid 90's would be the equivalant of Floyd and Manny not fighting each other.
If we're going to compare Roy's and Darius' resumes, then it's only fair we compare their achievements (wins and losses) at LHW. I'd say that they're fairly similar, Darius may have the edge because he won the titles first, and won the lineal title of Virgil Hill (before Roy fought him), though Roy has wins over R. Johnson and Tarver, and Hill as well


Quote:
Again, I think your being harsh saying Roy was happy not to fight the best names. If DM had've gone to the U.S. he would have fought him. If Calzaghe had have been relevant and had fought at 175 in the U.S. I think Roy would have fought him too. If Hopkins hadn't have demanded more than Roy for the rematch, that fight probably would have happened. If you look at all the bums Roy fought, they were all sandwiched in between good fighters who he faced. The Garcia's and Chino's were in between Malinga and Toney for example. Frazier was the fight before Reggie. Hall and Telesco were in between Harding, who had beaten Tarver. Woods and Kelly were just before Ruiz and Tarver. If Roy was content just to fight nobodies for easy money, he would never have been a four weight World Champion.

It's just my opinion, but I think Roy was happy doing what he was doing. He was making good money fighting opponents who offered little to no threat, fair enough, however his legacy does suffer for it. I'm not sure, Calzaghe is an opponent who will always cause Roy a lot of trouble, Roy wanted figures of up to 12 million to face Joe. If anyone could have beaten Roy around that time, it would have been Joe (Manny Steward's words not mine). Joe is awkward to fight for anyone (not saying Roy ducked Joe or anything like that). Based on styles, Joe would have been tougher than DM for Roy

I didn't know Hopkins demanded the Lion's share, I remember it being that Hopkins wanted 50/50, Roy wanted 60/40 and they couldn't compromise. Unbelievable that Hopkins could demand the bigger share!? Hopkins gets away with murder on here, he priced himself out of the big fights with Jones, Calzaghe and Toney.

Indeed he was a four weight world champion, but if you really look at it, he only arguably beat the strongest champion in one of those weight classes (SMW - Toney). He managed himself very well, going through the weights and fighting certain belt holders.

Compare that to Tommy, who fought Leonard at 147, Benitez at 154, Hagler at 160, Leonard at 168 and Hill at 175. These guys were all arguably the strongest fighters in all of those divisions when Tommy fought them, all of them were prime when Tommy faced them (with the exception of Leonard at 168 ). That deserves credit, even though he lost the two big ones.

Quote:
People called him reluctant Roy, which was unfair in my opinion. Go and put Roy's resume next to Benn's, Eubank's, Calzaghe's, DM's etc. Do a comparison. If he really had've been reluctant, do you think he'd have fought someone like Harding? He didn't have to fight Tarver again in the rematch. He wasn't obligated too, but he did.
He had to fight Harding, who was his mandatory.

The difference between Roy and Joe's resume's is Toney, that is a win Joe can't match, but otherwise it's a similar level of competition and similar wins (I rank Joe's win over Kessler, better than Roy's win over Ruiz). Roy did jump through more weights, but Joe unified a division and became undisputed champion.

In my opinion, the reason Roy fought Tarver was because it was either go back down to LHW, or face his mandatory who was Vitali Klitschko.

Given the closeness of the first fight, Roy had to take the Tarver rematch, it was worth the most $$$. Who else was out there for him?


Quote:
Then after he'd been knocked out, he fought Glen just three months later. A reluctant fighter doesn't do any of those things. He didn't even have a tune up after his back to back knockout defeats, before fighting Tarver again. A reluctant fighter doesn't chase a fight with Joe at nearly 40 does he?
That's what's also frustrating about Roy, he chased these big fights when he wasn't the big draw in the sport anymore. Once he'd been humbled, he was willing to travel and fight anyone.

When he was a big draw, he refused to travel, and refused to negotiate with certain promoters, and made plenty of terrible fights, hence - [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Quote:
People say that Ruiz was garbage and Feather fisted etc. But can you honestly tell me, that he wasn't a threat to Roy? Despite Ruiz not being an ATG, that was a dangerous fight for Roy to take.
The only thing I can see that was a risk about that fight, was the weight difference? Ruiz was C level at best, and his style was tailor made for Roy. Good win no doubt, but remember David Haye beat Valuev who outweighed him by 100 pounds.

Quote:
DM was taking easy fights in Germany like Joe was in in the U.K. One of Joe's biggest fights came in 2006 against Lacy, 9 years after he'd beat Eubank. If that's not being reluctant, then I don't know what is. The biggest fight of his life was against Kessler. Roy's resume is much stronger than Joe's.
Fair enough, I can see where you're coming from. However, if you're going to call Joe reluctant, then you have to attach the same tag to Roy. Remember, Joe agreed to fight Hopkins in Vegas, was willing to travel to Germany to fight Ottke (despite the robberies), had Tate and Steve Collins pull out of fights with him, and Roy moved up to HW by the time Joe became a viable opponent for him. If things went Joe's way, he could have fought Collins, Tate, Hopkins (in 2002) and Ottke, then who would criticise his resume?

Funnily enough, when you break it down, Roy's resume really isn't all that much stronger than Joe's.


Quote:
Tarver was very quick, but the punch he knocked Roy out with in the rematch, would have been avoided pre Ruiz in my opinion.
Maybe you're right, though I think Roy would always struggle with Tarver at any point.

Quote:
Good point regarding Buster Douglas. But I give Buster a lot more credit than Glen. Buster had just lost his Mum, and Mike was only 24. Roy was 35 and had just lost the muscle and had been knocked out by Tarver just three months previously. You can give him credit for his gameplan and his focus, but as I said the other day, I honestly believe someone like Tony Bellew (I'm not exaggerating) could have beaten Roy on that night.
I also Buster more credit than Glen. Yeah that's what I give Glen credit for, executing the right gameplan throughout, but he wouldn't have a chance against a 1997 Roy Jones. Similar to Hearns-Barkley, Tommy clearly wasn't the fighter he was. But I give Barkley credit for taking the punishment, waiting for his opportunity and landing that shot. Tommy himself said he thought he'd already slipped it and was out of range, he didn't see it coming. I don't think a younger, fresher and quicker Hearns would have been there to be hit by that punch, still, I give credit to Barkley.


Quote:
Great debate, you've made some excellent points there.

Regards, Loudon.

Thanks, you too. Cheers for taking the time to respond, I enjoy reading your posts.

Do you think Roy will finally call it a day after Kostecki? I don't understand why he's still fighting?

Last edited by knockout artist; 06-20-2012 at 12:30 PM.
knockout artist is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2012, 12:16 PM   #99
LittleRed
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yoknapatawpha
Posts: 3,215
vCash: 475
Default Re: Roy Jones Jr. vs Thomas Hearns

Quote:
Originally Posted by fists of fury View Post
They way I see it, the guys that beat Hearns turned tiger in order to do it. Leonard was losing as the boxer, but got Hearns when he turned tiger. Hagler too, managed to get Tommy out of there, but in a war. Barkley basically landed a dream shot and surprised Tommy. Can't remember the rematch too well, but Hearns certainly had seen better days at that point.

Regardless, the 'trend' to beating Hearns is to turn tiger and walk through his shots to finish him. Maybe I'm underestimating Jones here, but I certainly don't see him doing that. That was not his way. Not generally.
He used traps to set you up and beat you down with superior reflexes and speed. That, or he'd utilise that speed to land lead left hooks on bewildered opponents.
I wonder if he could do so against that laser-like jab of Hearns, the more rangy fighter? Does even Jones have the explosiveness and speed to simply land a lead left hook on Tommy? In my mind, only if Hearns gets careless, which admittedly, he did sometimes.

But if Hearns boxes cautiously and makes Jones lead, I think he could win a decision at 160. His legs weren't the best at 160, and that is a concern, but I still think he had enough at the weight to make life very difficult for Jones.

But Jones would be very real danger at all times. If he does take Tommy's jab away, Hearns won't last long. One great lead hook might be all it takes to get the ball rolling, and Hearns mostly wasn't one to come back once in serious trouble.

Hearns would be walking a tightrope at all times in this fight, imo. One mistake and it could cost him the fight. Still, at 160, I have faith in Hearns, if not total conviction.


Oh Jones could turn tiger. Remember the Griffin rematch?
LittleRed is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2012, 12:18 PM   #100
Loudon
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 5,453
vCash: 500
Default Re: Roy Jones Jr. vs Thomas Hearns

Knockout,

Hi mate, great reply, I really enjoyed reading that. I'll have to reply to you tomorrow though.

Regards, Loudon.
Loudon is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2012, 07:41 AM   #101
Loudon
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 5,453
vCash: 500
Default Re: Roy Jones Jr. vs Thomas Hearns

Knockout,

Hi mate, thanks for your great reply.

If a big American Company had've financed a fight between DM and Roy, it would certainly have been staged in the U.S. It wouldn't have made sense for them to stage it in Germany. You're right, close fans of Roy knew who DM was, but hardly any of them had seen him fight. I don't think The U.S. public had seen his Hill and Griffin wins from Germany. I think the big U.S. Networks, would have had lots of trouble trying to sell the PPV, if the fight had've been staged in Germany. Most of the money would of had to come from the U.S. PPV's, so I don't think it was financially viable at all. The fight had to be staged in the U.S.

Just like It wouldn't have been financially viable for HBO, to host a fight between Roy and Joe in the U.K. around the same time, 2001/2002. There wouldn't have been enough interest from the U.S. to finance the fight.

I wasn't comparing Roy's LHW resume to DM's. I was comparing his overall resume, which in my opinion, is much stronger. But I think Roy's LHW resume is also slightly better.

I agree that based on styles, Joe would definitely have been a harder fight for Roy.

I've got as huge amount of respect for Hopkins as a fighter, but as a person, I really don't like him. I hold him solely responsible for the rematch not coming off ten years ago. At the start of their famous argument live on HBO, Hopkins starts off by saying, "Roy can't expect the bigger share after the tournament" which was completely ridiculous in my opinion. That immediately got Roy's back up, and the fight was a no go from that point.

Roy had one eye on going up tp Heavy, so he wasn't going to come down in weight for a catchweight, to fight a guy who he hated, and who he'd already beaten, for less, or for even half of the pot. Hopkins told everyone who'd listen, that he was desperate to fight Roy, but it was Roy who was preventing the fight from happening. In 2010, Roy said, "The only reason that Bernard is fighting me now, is because he thinks I'm done." I agree completely with what Roy said. Hopkins knew that he was done. He tried to promote the fight, by saying that it was a premature stoppage by the referee in the Danny Green fight. I don't know how he could have gotten any satisfaction from that win? Also it made me cringe to see him walking around the ring after the fight, holding the back of his head. The guy's a joke! Raised in the tough ghetto's of Philly, and then he's rolling around on the floor after a rabbit punch, that Roy had returned, after he himself had thrown one. It was embarrassing, just like his antics with Joe and Dawson.

I've got a lot of respect for Tommy's record. He was a great fighter! He'd fight anyone, and I just wish he was fighting now, so I could see him knock Floyd out. Although as we've discussed, Floyd wouldn't have gone anywhere near him.

I repect your opinion, but I think Roy's resume is much stronger. I respect that Joe unified a division, but the only reason Roy never did, is because he moved out of the 168 division, and at 175, he couldn't get the fight with DM. Roy could have Unified the 168 division, and it was a lot stronger in the mid 90's, than what it was when Joe won a Title in the late 90's. Also, it took him 9 years to do it.

Joe fought in a weak division and was reluctant to even fight at 175. Roy went up to Heavy. I agree that the Kessler win is better than Roy's Ruiz win. But Ruiz wasn't Roy's best win. Roy's best wins were Toney, Hopkins and Tarver. Joe's were Lacy and Kessler. I honestly don't believe he beat Hopkins, and Roy's name on his resume means nothing. When Roy was trying to unify the 175 divison, Joe was fighting the Veits of the World.

Roy didn't have to take the Tarver rematch. He didn't have to legally. My point was, It was the hardest fight that Roy had ever had, and if he'd been reluctant, he wouldn't have fought him again in his very next fight, if at all.

When Roy was a big draw, he didn't have to travel. Do you think Floyd would ever fight in Europe if one of the main belt holders fought there? If Benn, Eubank and Collins had all of the SMW belts in the mid 90's, then Roy would have had to have fought in the U.K. For the last 50 years and more, America has been home to the world's best fighters. They've got the money and power, through the casinos and the big tv networks. The only reason Roy's travelling now, is because he's determined to win a Cruiser Title, and most of the ranked fighters are eastern european.

Good point regarding Haye and Valuev. But Haye was a heavy and was used to fighting big guys who outweighed him. (obviously not as much as Valuev) Roy had to put on a fair bit of weight, and jump two divisions, and he was in his mid 30's.

I think if you broke it down, you'd find that Roy's resume was a lot stronger than Joe's. If you name Roy's best wins, and then compare them to Joe's, then I think you'll see the difference. Obviously you can add Hopkins's name to Joe's resume, but In my opinion he didn't win that fight. I think it was quality over quantity and it was a draw. But that would be classed as one of Joe's best wins. I don't think you could class his victory over Roy has one of his best wins though.

I think Roy's win over Toney, Hopkins, the Griffin rematch and Tarver (because of the circumstances) eclipse any of Joe's wins apart from Hopkins. What had Kessler ever done when he fought Joe in the biggest night of Joe's life? He'd beaten nobody of note. He'd waited 9 years! Add to Roy's resume, Tate, Hill, Malinga etc, Joe struggled with Robin Reid. I think Joe was a great fighter, but I think his resume is pretty awful. I give him credit for the Eubank win at 25, but I think generally, his resume is awful, to say how talented he was.

Barkley had the power to stop almost anybody. Tommy was obviously way past his best at that point. Every fighter of the fab Four aged really quickly in my opinion. They were all incredible fighters, but when they got to their early 30's, you could see the massive difference in them. Tommy's rematch with Leonard in 89 was 8 years after their first fight. But they didn't even look the same fighters to me.

That's why I wouldn't give Tommy a chance to beat Roy at 168. It's an unfair match up. It's not because I think Tommy wasn't as good as Roy, it's because Tommy at 168 was a shadow of his former self. I think if you were able to put a 25/26 year old version of Roy in the ring, with the 89 version of Tommy, from the Leonard rematch, I think Roy would win pretty easily.

Roy isn't calling it a day anytime soon. I think Kostecki has been arrested, and he can't fight next week. I think Roy is fighting a replacement. But he was originally told that if he beat Kostecki, then he had a Title shot against wlodarczyk later in the year. But rgardless of what happens, he'll be around for at least two more years. His next Title shot, if he gets it, will definitely be his last one. If he does win a Title, and it's a very big if, he says he'll defend it a few times. But if he gets beat, you know that he's never going to retire on a loss. So whatever the outcome, he's going to fight at least another three or four times, unless he gets beaten convincingly by Kostecki's replacement, if indeed he is fighting a replacement. I honestly don't think he's fighting for the money either. If he'd got billions, and had already won the Cruiser Title, I think he'd still be fighting. I just hope he doesn't get hurt.

Great debating with you mate.

Regards, Loudon.

Last edited by Loudon; 06-21-2012 at 10:29 AM.
Loudon is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2012, 07:58 AM   #102
fists of fury
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: March for Revenge
Posts: 6,043
vCash: 1887
Default Re: Roy Jones Jr. vs Thomas Hearns

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleRed View Post
Oh Jones could turn tiger. Remember the Griffin rematch?
Yeah, I did forget about that one. Still, I don't think he'd fight that way vs. Hearns.
fists of fury is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2012, 10:12 AM   #103
knockout artist
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,422
vCash: 2666
Default Re: Roy Jones Jr. vs Thomas Hearns

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loudon View Post
Knockout,

Hi mate, thanks for your great reply.

Thanks for taking the time to respond again.

Good points, I guess it comes down to how willing Darius was to travel. I can't say for sure either way. Personally, I think both were happy not to fight each other.


Quote:
Just like It wouldn't have been financially viable for HBO, to host a fight between Roy and Joe in the U.K. around the same time, 2001/2002. There wouldn't have been enough interest from the U.S. to finance the fight.
I agree with this. Joe would have had to travel to America to face Jones. As he was willing to travel to face Hopkins, I think he would have if there was a good offer from Roy's team to Joe. Joe always insisted he was willing to travel to America, to face the big names (Hopkins and Jones), I don't think he was happy to go to America and fight for less money against similar opposition, without a world title.

Quote:
I wasn't comparing Roy's LHW resume to DM's. I was comparing his overall resume, which in my opinion, is much stronger. But I think Roy's LHW resume is also slightly better.
Roy's overall resume is indeed better. I think the win over Tarver gives Roy the edge over Darius at LHW as well.


Quote:
I agree that based on styles, Joe would definitely have been a harder fight for Roy.
Darius could be somewhat predictable. I don't think fighters like that can beat Roy. You need to have a varied offence, speed, a great chin and look to apply relentless pressure (If Griffin had an iron chin, he could have beaten Roy in their first fight on a decision). All things that Joe would have done. Of course, I'm not saying Joe would have beaten Roy had they fought.

Quote:
I've got as huge amount of respect for Hopkins as a fighter, but as a person, I really don't like him. I hold him solely responsible for the rematch not coming off ten years ago. At the start of their famous argument live on HBO, Hopkins starts off by saying, "Roy can't expect the bigger share after the tournament" which was completely ridiculous in my opinion. That immediately got Roy's back up, and the fight was a no go from that point.
I completely agree with you on this. Hopkins fought a tournament against who exactly? What household names did he beat? Hopkins priced himself out again. A somewhat similar situation to Floyd-Manny, whereby they just can't negotiate and refuse to compromise. Hopkins like Manny should be willing to accept the smaller share, as Roy and Floyd were the bigger draw.


The Hopkins-Jones rematch doesn't mean much to anyone. It is hands down one of the worst fights I've ever seen. Hopkins was up to his old tricks again.


Quote:
I've got a lot of respect for Tommy's record. He was a great fighter! He'd fight anyone, and I just wish he was fighting now, so I could see him knock Floyd out. Although as we've discussed, Floyd wouldn't have gone anywhere near him.
I'm a fan of Floyd, but he would never go near a ring with a prime Tommy Hearns! Even Floyd knows he'd have no chance!


Quote:
I repect your opinion, but I think Roy's resume is much stronger. I respect that Joe unified a division, but the only reason Roy never did, is because he moved out of the 168 division, and at 175, he couldn't get the fight with DM. Roy could have Unified the 168 division, and it was a lot stronger in the mid 90's, than what it was when Joe won a Title in the late 90's. Also, it took him 9 years to do it.

Joe fought in a weak division and was reluctant to even fight at 175. Roy went up to Heavy. I agree that the Kessler win is better than Roy's Ruiz win. But Ruiz wasn't Roy's best win. Roy's best wins were Toney, Hopkins and Tarver. Joe's were Lacy and Kessler. I honestly don't believe he beat Hopkins, and Roy's name on his resume means nothing. When Roy was trying to unify the 175 divison, Joe was fighting the Veits of the World.

I would say Roy's is stronger, but I wouldn't say 'much' stronger at all. If you're going to deny Joe credit for beating Hopkins, then this comparison is completely unfair. As I said, the main difference between the two is Roy's win over Toney. Don't forget Joe's win over Eubank. At that point, Chris had never been clearly beaten, and showed against Carl Thompson that he was still a top fighter. Joe's best wins are Hopkins, Kessler, Eubank, Lacy. Another thing to point out, is that Joe was able to be effective at age 35 and 36 when he'd slowed down somewhat, Roy wasn't nearly the same once he'd lost some of his athletic gifts.

So whilst Roy has the better win over Toney, Joe has never suffered any losses, whilst Roy has losses to Tarver and Johnson when he was still P4P number 1. I know you're going to point out the weight loss, but remember that Roy recorded one of his best wins over Tarver, after the weight loss.


Quote:
Roy didn't have to take the Tarver rematch. He didn't have to legally. My point was, It was the hardest fight that Roy had ever had, and if he'd been reluctant, he wouldn't have fought him again in his very next fight, if at all.
If he didn't take the Tarver rematch, what other fights were out there? Roy's reputation would have taken a hammering if he didn't rematch Tarver.

Quote:
When Roy was a big draw, he didn't have to travel. Do you think Floyd would ever fight in Europe if one of the main belt holders fought there? If Benn, Eubank and Collins had all of the SMW belts in the mid 90's, then Roy would have had to have fought in the U.K. But if you follow the History of Boxing, America has had the majority of the Champions. American's or fighters based in America, have never needed to travel. They have the money and the power. The only reason he's travelling now, is because he's determined to win a Cruiser Title, and most of the ranked fighters are Eastern European.
Benn and Collins both travelled to the US for big fights, and I'm sure would have been willing to travel to face Roy. Thankfully these days more and more fighters from America are having to travel, boxing is becoming more global.

Quote:
Good point regarding Haye and Valuev. But Haye was a heavy and was used to fighting big guys who outweighed him. (obviously not as much as Valuev) Roy had to put on a fair bit of weight, and jump two divisions, and he was in his mid 30's.
If we take the weight Roy started his career at (154), Ruiz weighed 226 to fight Roy. So Roy still wasn't giving up the same weight difference that Haye was. A good win for Haye, considering he was coming up from CW.


Quote:
I think Roy's win over Toney, Hopkins, the Griffin rematch and Tarver (because of the circumstances) eclipse any of Joe's wins apart from Hopkins. What had Kessler ever done when he fought Joe in the biggest night of Joe's life? He'd beaten nobody of note. He'd waited 9 years! Add to Roy's resume, Tate, Hill, Malinga etc, Joe struggled with Robin Reid. I think Joe was a great fighter, but I think his resume is pretty awful. I give him credit for the Eubank win at 25, but I think generally, his resume is awful, to say how talented he was.

Griffin and Tarver eclipse Kessler!? I disagree. Don't forget Joe's win over Eubank as well, that's on a similar level. (Don't understand why Griffin's here, he's a good fighter, but he's not as good as Tarver, Kessler or Eubank).
Joe struggled with Robin Reid because he was carrying an injury, and Joe still won that fight clearly. Robin Reid was a former world champion, who looked unlucky not to get the decision over Ottke years later.

It's somewhat unfair to say the only reason Roy never unified the LHW division is because Darius wouldn't fight him. Then fail to mention that Ottke refused to fight Joe to unify the 168 division.

Joe was pretty washed up when he fought Roy as well. Let's not forget that many picked Roy to win that fight (I can post up the quotes if you'd like). Both guys were somewhat past their best.

Don't forget, Joe retired undefeated, Roy's losses to at least Tarver and Johnson can be held against his resume.


The fab four fought the kind of wars between them, that take years off your career. Leonard was never the same after Hearns. Tommy and Marvin were never the same after their fight. Duran was the only one who actually aged well, considering he had a whole career before he fought Ray Leonard in Montreal.

Quote:
That's why I wouldn't give Tommy a chance to beat Roy at 168. It's an unfair match up. It's not because I think Tommy wasn't as good as Roy, it's because Tommy at 168 was a shadow of his former self. I think if you were able to put a 25/26 year old version of Roy in the ring, with the 89 version of Tommy, from the Leonard rematch, I think Roy would win pretty easily.
I agree, it is an unfair matchup. I'm thinking of a '83-'85 prime Thomas Hearns against a MW Roy Jones.


Quote:
Roy isn't calling it a day anytime soon.

What title is he hoping to fight for? Of course, he's putting his health at risk everytime he steps in, more so as he gets older. It doesn't help that Roy's trainer is making comments like 'he still has so much left', he clearly doesn't, I saw a part of his fight last december, and while he won, he looked terrible. He's slowed down so much more in the last few years, to the point that even his hands aren't fast anymore. It's worrying that he's still allowed to fight. It's for the best that Roy isn't fighting Kostecki, as Roy really could have gotten hurt. His legacy is secure, and he isn't really adding to it anymore, I guess he just loves fighting. Tommy was similar in that he fought on way too long, even today Tommy says he'd love just one more bout.

Regards

ko artist
knockout artist is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2012, 12:25 PM   #104
Loudon
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 5,453
vCash: 500
Default Re: Roy Jones Jr. vs Thomas Hearns

Knockout,

Hi mate, great reply, I really enjoyed that. yet again you've made some great points.

I think Roy's rematch with Hopkins is the worst fight I've ever seen live. It was horrible!

Joe was awarded the win over Hopkins, so we can say that is one of his best wins. But I think he was lucky to get the win. But it's all about opinions isn't it? We know what Bernard has gone on to do after his fight with Joe, so we can definitely give Joe credit for that.

That was a good win over Eubank, I give him a lot of credit for that, although Eubank was another fighter who aged fast. It's hard to believe that when he fought Carl Thompson, he was only about 32. Joe was 25, so it was a good win, but I wouldn't call it great, as Eubank was coming towards the end of his career.

Joe was a great fighter, and he aged a lot better than Roy. He said himself that he thought he was more of a complete fighter at 35, than when he was 25. Roy was always going to struggle when he got older. But Joe didn't have has many fights as Roy, and he hadn't moved up and down in weight.

Roy did record one of his best wins over Tarver. But I think that's because of the circumstances involved. It was one of his best wins because of how tired he was in the last third of the fight. If he hadn't have just lost all the weight going into the fight, and he'd have won on points, it would probably be just classed as a good win, instead of a great win.

Joe obviously has the zero in his favour. But you have to put it into context. Yes he was a great fighter, but you've said yourself he'd probably have lost to Roy had they fought earlier. Then you look at Roy's career. He should have retired after Ruiz, there was nothing else to achieve. But he's carried on. I don't put a lot of emphasis on Joe's undefeated record. I know he was a class act, but I also know that he didn't test himself against the best fighters out there. He didn't stay undefeated because he was just unbeatable. Rocky Marciano will never be in anyone's top three positions, in a Heavyweight top ten of all time.

Joe was also sensible, and got out at the right time like Lennox did. Roy on the other hand won't quit. If Joe had've carried on for another two years, he'd more than likely have been beaten. If that had've happened, would that have been held against him? It's all about opinions and putting things into context, aswell as taking things into consideration. My opinion is, Had Joe have fought Roy ten years ago, he wouldn't have retired undefeated. I also believe that had Roy fought Tarver, Johnson, Green etc in his prime, he would have beaten all of them.

You're right Boxing is becoming more global these days. But in the 80's and 90's fighters that weren't based in the U.S. had to travel there for big fights.

I agree about the weight difference between Haye and Valuev. But as I said, Roy was used to fighting guys 13 stone and under. Haye was used to fighting bigger guys, and he was a lot younger than Roy.

Yes I think the knockout of Griffin and the Tarver win eclipse Joe's Kessler win. But obviously not in terms of importance though. The Kessler fight was a Unification fight. But under the circumstances, I think Roy's victory over Tarver was definitely better than the Kessler win.

You're right, Ottke didn't want any part of Joe. So he had to wait. But I think instead of waiting for as long as he did, he'd have been better moving up to 175. DM wouldn't go to America. I think if he had have done, Roy would have been the Unified champ. Also I think Kessler is a very good fighter, but I wouldn't call him great, and he gave Joe lots of trouble. Kessler will always be classed as Joe's best win, and for a fighter as good as Joe, I don't think that's good enough.

I don't think that Joe was that washed up when he fought Roy. Like I say, he'd aged better. Obviously he'd had problems with his hands throughout his career, and he could hit harder when he was younger, but Joe himself said that in 2007 he was better than what he was in 1997. Roy was nearly 40, he'd had more fights, he'd moved up and down in weight, and he'd been knocked out twice more than 4 years previously.

Again you mention Joe being undefeated. But like I say, you have to put things into context. Would Joe have retired undefeated if he'd fought the guys that Roy did? Or if he'd gone up and down in weight etc?

I don't think many people will hold the Tarver and Johnson defeat against Roy's resume. I don't think there'll be many people out there that think Johnson would have beaten Roy, if they'd have fought earlier.

Roy's hoping to gain a version of the Cruiser Title before he retires. He says it's the only Title that he's missed. But it's all nonense! He never had any intention of fighting for the Cruiser title when he was at heavy, because it was a weak division like it is now. He could have won any version of the Title when he went up for Ruiz, but at the time, he never gave it a seconds thought. It's just an excuse to prolong his career.

I've heard Tommy mention a comeback, a few times, within the last 3 years. I think Manny talked him out of the last one.

Great debate as always.

Regards, Loudon.
Loudon is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2012, 01:36 PM   #105
Loudon
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 5,453
vCash: 500
Default Re: Roy Jones Jr. vs Thomas Hearns

Knockout,

Just to add, I've just said in my previous post, that Roy's win against Tarver wasn't as good as the Kessler win, in terms of importance. But when Roy beat Tarver to recapture the 175 Titles coming back down from heavyweight, it made him only the second fighter in the history of the sport to do so.

Only Roy and Bob Fitzimmons have won Titles at Middle, Light Heavy, Heavy, and then come back from Heavy, to win back the light heavy titles. So although you don't rate Ruiz, you have to take that into consideration, and if it was that easy to do, more SMW's and LHW's would have accomplished it. Ruiz wasn't a great fighter, but Roy made history fighting him, and then coming back for Tarver. Also, if you take into consideration, that Roy had to go from 200 to 175, in a short space of time after 49 fights, then that win has to eclipse Joe's win over Kessler. What do you think? As fighters, I also think Tarver and Kessler, could be classed as being on the same level as each other. Do you agree?

Finally, if you don't mind me asking you mate, how old are you? I'm 32, and I was just curious. You know a lot about boxing.

Regards, Loudon.

Last edited by Loudon; 06-21-2012 at 04:11 PM.
Loudon is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013