Roy Jones - Who Would You Choose...

[ripcity]

I'm not sure I can see anyone beating Jones at 168.

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by brownpimp88

I give michael nunn a very good chance at beating him.

Your analysis is some of the worst on this board, and you're very biased toward your little group of favorites, so I could really care less. I see Jones taking Nunn out.

Nunn was a more orthodox boxer, when the hell does that make him a better one? Jones was faster, more powerful, and overall, a more skilled fighter. What advantages does Nunn have? Height? Reach? Jab? How often were any of those tools useful on a prime Roy? His speed and unorthodoxy negated them all. Nunn is much more predictable than Jones was. Toney was doing well against Nunn, just being outworked. Jones shut Toney out.

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by Sizzle[QUOTE

]I can almost hear you go "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!" everytime I type something about Roy Jones that isn't full of praise and godworship for a highly flawed and perpetually overhyped fighter.

We're talking about a prime Jones. You pointing out all his flaws showing up when past his prime has nothing to do with a prime Jones.

Floyd IS better than Roy - Jones deficiencies were highlighted when he began to lose his athletic attributes, truly great fighters can neutralize superb speed and fast feet with effective pressure and great timing, two things Archie Moore was renowned for.

Floyd has trouble with, or is unimpressive against, fighters that Jones toyed with and destroyed. Jones was better in every aspect, he just wasn't as orthodox. Floyd is a full step below Roy.

As Jake LaMotta said,
"Anyone who thinks Roy Jones would have a chance against Archie Moore doesn't have the faintest what they're on about."

I give a fuck what Jake LaMotta says about analyzing others styles why? Jones is THE worst stylistic matchup for Moore. I would bet the house on Jones by wide UD if not late TKO. Terrible matchup for Moore. In a head to head sense, Moore is overrated.

It is pointless arguing the point with you, because you've been brainwashed by the heroic images of Jones in your young mind, and will refuse to accept anything other than godworship for him. I judge all fighters objectively.

No, I just understand style matchups, you romanticize the old timers to a digusting degree when you think someone like Corbett was modern and choose pretty much every old timer in fantasy matchups. I am a fan of both eras, and do judge all fighters objectively. I choose many old timers in fantasy matchups as well as modern fighters. I've been labeled a hugger of both sides in different arguments. I have a high opinion of Roy Jones, because, quite simply, he impresses me more than just about any other fighter. That is why you rate fighters highly, is it not?

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by Sizzle

I couldn't disagree anymore.

Joe Calzaghe is not as fast but much, much, more skilled than Jones Jnr, the subtelties of his style are lost on fans who don't know an awful lot about boxing or haven't done any themselves, incidentally the same people who thought Kessler would beat him.

Joe has the better chin, and the much better fighters mentality, he certainly wouldn't let Jones "neutralize" the fight the way he did against Hopkins, his offense is comparable to a hornets nest and he will be more than happy shaking off shots trying to come inside.

Please explain the highlighted. I find it to be a(for lack of a better word) retarded statement.

[Amsterdam]

At 168 OR 160, nobody, deal with it.

Too fast, too intelligent, incredible timing, delivery and good power, way too hard to even hit for any fighter who ever fought at 160-168, even guys like Monzon and Hagler.

Not a Jones fan here, just realistic.

And Calzaghe fans - shut the fuck up, he would NOT beat Jones, take a couple rounds maybe? Sure, maybe not even, but he would not beat Jones.

Greb fans -

[Amsterdam]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

Your analysis is some of the worst on this board, and you're very biased toward your little group of favorites, so I could really care less. I see Jones taking Nunn out.

Nunn was a more orthodox boxer, when the hell does that make him a better one? Jones was faster, more powerful, and overall, a more skilled fighter. What advantages does Nunn have? Height? Reach? Jab? How often were any of those tools useful on a prime Roy? His speed and unorthodoxy negated them all. Nunn is much more predictable than Jones was. Toney was doing well against Nunn, just being outworked. Jones shut Toney out.

Jones TKO's Nunn at 168, IMO.

He hit just as hard as Toney did.

[Russell]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

Your analysis is some of the worst on this board, and you're very biased toward your little group of favorites, so I could really care less. I see Jones taking Nunn out.

Nunn was a more orthodox boxer, when the hell does that make him a better one? Jones was faster, more powerful, and overall, a more skilled fighter. What advantages does Nunn have? Height? Reach? Jab? How often were any of those tools useful on a prime Roy? His speed and unorthodoxy negated them all. Nunn is much more predictable than Jones was. Toney was doing well against Nunn, just being outworked. Jones shut Toney out.

You fail to mention Nunn being heavily into drugs by the time of the Toney fight, and not being at his best weight regardless.

Things you do excuse Whitaker for in, say, the Trinidad fight.

[PhillyPhan69]

Chris Eubank

[werety]

I really can't pick anyone, move up to lhw and im confident Charles beats him though.

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by Russell

You fail to mention Nunn being heavily into drugs by the time of the Toney fight, and not being at his best weight regardless.

Things you do excuse Whitaker for in, say, the Trinidad fight.

Nunn's best weight was at 160, the weight he fought Toney at, what are you on about? The Toney fight was one of his best performances prior to getting caught late. Whitaker was shot by the time he faced Tito. Nunn had showed no signs of slowing down, and was still very good at 168, afterwards. At 160, he was at his best, and was performing very well against Toney.

Let's not try another post like that again.

[brownpimp88]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

Nunn's best weight was at 160, the weight he fought Toney at, what are you on about? The Toney fight was one of his best performances prior to getting caught late. Whitaker was shot by the time he faced Tito. Nunn had showed no signs of slowing down, and was still very good at 168, afterwards. At 160, he was at his best, and was performing very well against Toney.

Let's not try another post like that again.

nunn showed no sign of slowing down? Try the iran barkley and marlon starling fights.

You completely overrate roy jones, so i could care less about ur analytical skills you know it all.

Yeah nunn does have the height and reach advantages and he could always outbox roy. he aint no david telesco or richard hall. You know the guys roy looked so invincible against.

I mean wasn't Michael Nunn roy's mandatory at one point, yet he wouldnt fight him, that seems odd to me. Roy Jones Jr. was a cherry picker, dont try and act like james toney was not weight drianed for this fight. Everyone on this forum was making excuses for curry after he got his ass kicked by honeyghan, toney had to cut 40-50 pounds for this fight and everyone including roy knew about his weight problems.

[Pat_Lowe]

Originally Posted by brownpimp88

nunn showed no sign of slowing down? Try the iran barkley and marlon starling fights.

You completely overrate roy jones, so i could care less about ur analytical skills you know it all.

Yeah nunn does have the height and reach advantages and he could always outbox roy. he aint no david telesco or richard hall. You know the guys roy looked so invincible against.

I mean wasn't Michael Nunn roy's mandatory at one point, yet he wouldnt fight him, that seems odd to me. Roy Jones Jr. was a cherry picker, dont try and act like james toney was not weight drianed for this fight. Everyone on this forum was making excuses for curry after he got his ass kicked by honeyghan, toney had to cut 40-50 pounds for this fight and everyone including roy knew about his weight problems.

James Toney would have always lost to Roy Jones. The speedster usually beats the defensive technician. Toney is at his best when a fighter comes straight to him ala the Jirov or Barkley fight. His footwork isn't great. When Roy Jones potshotted from the outside Toney didn't have any success countering.

[brownpimp88]

Originally Posted by Pat_Lowe

James Toney would have always lost to Roy Jones. The speedster usually beats the defensive technician. Toney is at his best when a fighter comes straight to him ala the Jirov or Barkley fight. His footwork isn't great. When Roy Jones potshotted from the outside Toney didn't have any success countering.

yeah but isnt nunn a bad style for roy, hes the superior boxer, hes almost as fast, hes a much better jabber than roy is. Alot of people know roy avoided nunn, i could care less if sweat pae doesnt acknowledge it, nunn even called him out when he officially became roy's mandatory, yet he wouldnt fight him.

[brownpimp88]

I've never stated that nunn would be a clear winner, roy beating him wouldnt be an ultimate shocker. But nunn has just as good handspeed, hes only slightly slower, he throws better uppercuts and he has a better jab. Speed usually works to your advantage if your the better jabber or if your opponent is a slow handed and slow footed fighter, does michael nunn fit the categories of a slow footed/slow handed fighter, nope.

Nunn stood right infront of james toney and outboxed the guy for 9 straight rounds, who else has literally stood right infront of james toney and outboxed him.

[Russell]

Outboxed him while not in the best condition of his career.

On drugs.

While pissed off by Toney's trash talk.