You may be right about Charles. Not sure ... He seemed to have bigger power at heavyweight but he fought much smaller guys than Ruiz so who knows ?
Dude, go back and watch his fights prior to being 35...John Ruiz a heavyweight hit him with good solid shots, as did Tarver, and Hopkins...the older you get you lose your punch resistance...do you really think JOnes went 49 fights without being hit clean?Chin isnt a skillset So in other words Charles chin is crap considering he was only kayoed once in his prime but 5 times past prime dude was 35 punch resistance, antciaption and reflexes dimish with age...its the punches you dont see coming that hurt you...Jones didnt see that Tarver left, that Johnson right, and just was getting hurt and buzzed by shots he would shake off in his prime...you gotta go back and watch some of Jones fights
Why Jones didn't fight the likes of Benn, Eubank, Collins, DM we can't say for sure, what we do know is that it didn't happen. If Jones had proven his quality against these fighters, then I would have a better idea of how good Roy Jones was. Ezzard Charles proved his quality against a much higher level of opposition, which gives us a better idea of how good Charles was. Of course I don't discount Jones' chance out of hand, however I favour Charles in this match up. I don't think Jones would knock him out, and I don't think Jones' would have the high volume offence to win a clear decision. Jones would look to pot-shot and run, Charles was effective against fighters who liked going backwards. What is your logic for choosing Jones in this match up?
Also consider this...i good portion of his heavyweight defenses and fights were to small heavyweights or former lightheavyweights Gus Lenevich, Lee Oma had a horrible chin but good skillls, Joey Maxim and Jimmy Bivins, Marciano was small, Walcott was a modern cruiserwieght, also Bob satterfield
never said i chose jones. charles and spinks are the two 175 pounders in history that i would favour over jones, with moore and conn at 50/50. just wanted to push the discussion past "charles was better" or "jones gets knocked out cause he's jones" as these threads tend to go. nice chatting with you, good debate:good
Charles was a phenomenal fighter, his style was fantastic to watch. He was such a skillful boxer, that past his prime, and above his prime weight he was still able to be very competitive with a prime Marciano, who was naturally a much bigger man. Spinks gets underrated by many as a result of that Tyson loss. However, he managed to go through arguably the strongest era in the LHW division undefeated, and be the lineal champion. He had a very awkward and unique style. I think Spinks would win a decision over Jones. Against his toughest opposition in the likes of Toney and Ruiz, Jones fought a very different fight. He had a lower punch output, and was not willing to engage, nor press the action. I struggle to see him winning decisions, or especially score KO's, fighting with this style, over skillful, crafty veterans like Charles and Spinks, who were also very durable. Nice chatting with you too :good
Absolutely STOKED to see Jones getting his due! In betting i'd make Ezzard the 7-5 or MAYBE 8-5 fave.
He almost turned Rocky Marciano`s lights out in similar fashion. :good Did Archie also ice Willie Pastrano with one punch?
dude was a heluva puncher accurate good combos...set good traps but he had over 140 kos of ourse he is gonna have some one punch kayos but he has never had long stretches like Gomez, Tyson, and Foreman...who were really one punch hitters laying guys out early and often...i think his longest streak was like 9 maybe 10 in a row....he has the most kayos ever but there are alot of fighters who were true one punch hitters