Roy Jones Jr. vs Thomas Hearns

It took Sugar Ray to beat him at 147lb and it was a classic fight, no one beats Hearns at 154lb. I would've loved to have seen a Hagler rematch though.

 

Yeah, this one certainly wouldn't be going to the cards. Hearns is getting caught eventually and put out just like in the Barkley bout.

 

A comment about Roy Jones`s "heart".

He did have heart when he needed to. For a long while nobody could touch the man.

He showed me his fighting heart during the first Tarver fight. Tarver was a good puncher and Roy was getting hit alot in that fight. His eye was damaged and he dug down and out hustled Tarver. It was tough fight.

Coudve probably went either way. Roy found a way to win that night. With his heart, desire and a good deal of determination.

Now getting knocked out doesnt mean you lack heart or if it does than we have to look at Hearns as well.

 

I see your point but the thing about Hearns which most people remember is he got to guys offensively which other people never did. Duran,Cuevas,Leonard and even Hill, he was hitting with the jab and right hands when Hill was prime. The only guy he couldn't hit was Wilfred Benitez, but that Wilfred. I see Hearns getting to Jones. Either way it is a fight which might not last long. Both guys can punch and both guys usually land.

 

Knockout,

Hi mate, thanks for the reply.

Roy was more than lucky on Saturday to get the win. Like you say, I just hope he doesn't get hurt in November when he fights Wlodarczyk.

Obviously Eubank's win vs Watson was probably his best win. But I didn't include that because of the terrible tragedy. But really it has to be his best win. Nigel's best win will always be the one he had against the G Man. The Carl Thompson fights were incredible. Eubank had absolutely no business whatsoever fighting a guy as big as Carl.

I don't know if you've heard this, but around the time that Eubank was fighting Carl, Naz had a bit of a falling out with Eubank. Brendan Ingle started arguing with Eubank at a ****** press conference, as both fighters they were on the same bill. The arguement started when Brendan told a story of how Eubank came to the Ingle gym to spar with Herol Graham. Brendan said that Eubank couldn't hit him with a single punch, and when Eubank denied it, Naz started bad mouthing him.

A few months later, it had all been forgotten about, because Frank had managed to calm everyone down. But later on in the year, Carl Thompson was fighting (it may have been the Eubank rematch) and Naz was again on the same card. Apparently Naz and Carl Thompson were together in a car laid on by Frank, and they were attending a press conference or the weigh in. Apparently Naz started being funny with Carl and they had a bit of a row. It was never confirmed exactly was they were arguing about, but he was trying it on, like he had done a few months earlier with Eubank. Apparently, when they arrived at their destination, and they'd both got out of the car, Carl turned to Naz and said "Talk to me like that again, and I'll crush you" or words to that effect. Apparently Naz never said a word and walked off in complete silence. Ha! Maybe you've heard the same story? It makes me laugh thinking of Carl threatening him ha! There was no way Naz was going to carry on winding him up!

You've got to read Hands of Stone. I assumed you'd already read it. You'll have to order it. There's all sorts in it. They gave him a **** load of money up front to fight Tommy, and he blew most of it before he even went into camp. He didn't even train properly at all, he was just partying all the time. You'll love it!


Naz had a lot more to give. He was only 28 when he retired. But his heart was no longer in it. He'd lost all motivation. It's a shame really. At the end of the day, he was a great entertainer. I miss his interviews, talking about his two rocket launchers and his corkscrew uppercut ha!

I'll be honest, I don't know anything about young Chavez. I've only seen him fight once. But everyone says he's over hyped, although I've heard he's improved a lot in the last year or so. I'd like to see Alvarez move up and fight him. But like you say, you wouldn't expect Arum to take a risk on him at the moment. I'm expecting big things from Alvarez in the next 18 months.

You might be right regarding Haye not stopping Chisora. But I hope I'm wrong and Chisora knocks Haye out, or beats him. I'm not a massive fan of Del Boy's, but I don't like Haye and Adam Booth at all.

I think Roy at his absolute peak, was better than Floyd. Floyd has better fundamentals, and he's got his great shoulder roll defence etc, and he's truely great. But people underestimate Roy's skills, and they just say he was an incredible athlete. People say, he wasn't a great boxer with great skills, he was just an athlete and that's why he looked as great as he did. But I don't agree with that. I think he did rely on his speed a hell of a lot, but his overall skills were phenominal.

His shot repertoire was amazing. Obviously his lead left hooks and lead uppercuts, were because of his ridiculous speed and reflexes. But when he was against the ropes or up close, he threw shots that other fighters don't throw. His use of the uppercut is amazing. It's one of the rarest punches thrown in boxing. Roy would throw a 6 or 7 punch combo that included three uppercuts, and they were off different hands too. I've never seen anybody throw shots like that, not even the old timers like SRR.

I've never seen anybody throw two left hooks to the body, then an uppercut off of the same hand, and then throw a right uppercut straight afterwards. It's never been seen before. You can't class that as just been athletic. Ray Leonard had awesome handspeed, and he used to throw 6 and 7 punch combos at lightning speed, but he didn't throw the same shots that Roy did. I've never seen anyone throw Tripple left hooks etc.

So I think Roy had more skills. Floyd is also an incredible athlete, but he couldn't do the things that Roy could do. But it's so hard to compare them, because they're at different stages of their careers and they fought at different weights. You can only do a fair assesment when both fighters have retired. If you started a thread on here now asking the same question, it would get laughed at. Because Floyd is the best in the world, and he's undefeated. Roy is 43 and he's lost 8 times, and he's completely shot.

All of that will influence most peoples decisions. Floyd is still beating elite fighters and Roy's struggling with nobodies. Maybe Floyd will fight into his late 30's, early 40's and get beat a few times? We don't know. But when I look at Floyd at his absolute best, from 7 or 8 years ago, and then I look at Roy at 26 in 1994/95, I think Roy was better. Floyd certainly has better fundamentals, but in my opinion, Roy could do things that Floyd couldn't do/hasn't done, that's got absolutely nothing to do with Roy's athleticism.

If you look at any of todays top fighters from any weight class, and compare them to Roy when he was in his mid 20's, in my opinion Roy is on another level completely. I watched the entire Super Six, and it just put into perspective just how great he was.

As for their rankings all time, again I think we'll have to wait a few years first, and wait while they've both retired for good. But It depends which way you look at things? Anybody can pick each fighters record apart. I think Floyd's zero will play a huge part if he remains undefeated, as it should, but Roy could have had a zero next to his name, but he's just carried on too long. I just think that Roy will get a raw deal in his overall ranking because of all of his recent losses. I suppose you could say that's fair, obviously they all count, and you can't just dismiss them, but you've got to put things into perspective, and rank him on what he achieved when he was at the top of his game.

People don't rate Ruiz, and they think it was a cherry pick, like yourself. But Roy started at 154 and won a version of the Heavyweight title. That's an incredible achievement that gets overlooked way too easy. So I don't know where I'd rank Floyd. He isn't as good as SRR or SRL, but he is one of the greatest of all time. But in a head to haed with Roy, I think Roy had more ability, and his achievements at least have to match Floyd's. But It's all about opinions isn't it? At the end of the day, they're both incredible fighters, and we're lucky to have seen them both.

Great debate!

Regards, Loudon.

 

**** = FW press conference.

 

A fully roided Jones would have had a good shot at beating Hearns at 175 or so. Otherwise I take Tommy every time.

 

P4P I might favor Hearns. Just not at `60 or `68.

 

This is a tough fight to pick. Both had power and both guys could end fights quick with it. The higher you go past 160 the more it does favor Jones. The key for Hearns would be the jab and if Jones could land his punches if Tommy is landing his jab trying to set up the right. I could almost see the first few rounds. Not much landing at all, but very tense with both guys tight not landing much. This fight seems like a fight which would open up after round 4 a little, sort of like Leonard/Hearns 2 or even the first fight.

 

Not that simple. Jones never fought an offensive machine like Hearns who had a jab like Hearns and a 78 1/2 inch reach. McCallum said after he fought Jones that Hearns could beat him. The issue here is quality of opposition and who comes to fight. Hearns has both of those things. Thomas Hearns is not Robert Frazier or some of those other guys Jones fought. Virgil Hill found out the difference between the 10 guys he defended against and an older Thomas Hearns. The guys who beat Thomas Hearns went for the knockout. If they were tentative they usually did not beat him, and if they went for the knockout they were usually hit. Jones is not going to fight like that. I honestly see it hard for Jones.

 

Hi Loudon

I didn't see the fight, but I heard Roy was a bit lucky in getting the decision. I don't know anything about Wlodarczyk, does Roy have a chance? Or will they be cashing in on Roy's name again? It's borderline exploitation.

Agreed. Did you see the documentary at Christmas titled 'the fight of their lives' about the Benn-Mclellan fight? It was an excellent documentary on ITV, well worth watching.

The Carl Thompson fights showed just how tough Chris was, to stand in there with a guy who's that much bigger than you naturally. Eubank had an exciting career, and if his son was anywhere near as entertaining that would be great. I'm sure Chris is enjoying the extra attention

I can't imagine having a guy like Carl Thompson threatening me! I've seen the conferences where Naz is trash talking Eubank as well, Chris did his best to keep cool, but it was getting to him! Am I right in thinking that Chris was sparring Johnny Nelson for the fight with Thompson? And they were saying that Nelson was beating Chris up in the gym, which was further annoying him. I hadn't heard the story about Naz and Carl Thompson

I have the book, and need to get round to reading it, I read the four kings and I completely recommend that. Duran was perhaps the most interesting of them outside the ring! The stories of his partying and lifestyle are legendary! His wife was also a huge gambling addict, which is where their money went. Tommy abused Duran in a way that no-one ever did before or after. Duran was actually intimidated by Tommy, he hardly trash talked or tried anything with him, the complete opposite of how he treated Leonard. Tommy had his number, if Tommy fought the (Montreal)Duran who beat Leonard he'd still knock him out. Duran had an iron chin, but he couldn't take Tommy's power.

Perhaps Naz was one of those characters who would never have been successful in the long term, like Tyson. They were explosive and fun while they were at their best, but never achieved their full potential. I know Naz surrounded himself with a lot of hanger-ons, who did him more bad than good. He was an entertainer! He was unique, his entrances are the best ever, I can't forget him dancing and entering to thriller by Michael Jackson! Still makes me laugh

My issue with Chavez jr, is how protected and coddled he has been. He is not a true champion, and he didn't defeat the champion who's belt he's parading around. His best win is over Andy Lee, who I don't know much about. I think Sergio is going to systematically dismantle him.

Canelo is fun to watch, but Golden Boy really need to step up his competition. I hear they're looking for him to fight Maidana next which is terrible. Maidana looked poor at 147 against Alexander, he'll look even worse at 154. I'd like to see him fight Cotto or Lara personally.

I think both are entertaining characters in a terrible HW division. I don't mind who wins that fight, as long as it's fun to watch. It's a good chance for Haye to redeem himself, he needs to put on a show for his fans. Haye has great power, but he doesn't commit to getting the KO's, his work-rate is too low against dangerous opposition.

 

Fair enough mate, both have been outstanding fighters. My issue with Roy, is that in his prime he didn't test himself and push for those big fights that would have asserted his greatness. If he'd have beaten most of the opposition we mentioned, his reputation and rating would be so much higher. The reason I can't rank Roy near the same level as the Four Kings, or other greats like Ali and Ray Robinson is because Roy didn't give enough great fights to the sport. The one time Roy fought a (recognised) elite fighter in a super fight was James Toney, which he won in a dominant fashion. But it wasn't a memorable fight, and after that Jones didn't really have any 'superfights' against excellent fighters. This could explain why his PPV figures weren't particularly impressive. I think better fights were out there, but I think he was happy facing the opposition he did, low risk medium reward. It makes sense, but his legacy suffers for it.

Roy couldn't do the things that Floyd can do, Floyd has superior fundamentals, but he's also much tougher than Roy, and has a phenomenal ring IQ. I'd say Floyd against Coralles is hands down as good as any of Roy's performances, including against James Toney. Furthermore, if you look at the circumstances Floyd went into the first Castillo fight with, and that he still found a way to win. If Roy was in the same scenario, I'm not sure he could have found a way to win. Roy didn't show that he could adjust the way Floyd has. I know he fought hard to beat Tarver, but I think Tarver beat himself just as much, he was too cautious and passive at times, when he needed to be aggressive. The pressure Tarver was applying was causing Roy nightmares.

None of the Super Six contestants stand a chance against a 168 pound Roy Jones. The likes of Nigel Benn, Chris Eubank, Gerald Mclellan and Joe Calzaghe would have been hard fights for Roy.

Personally I think Floyd's faced better opposition throughout his career. Also you have to give Floyd the advantage in the longevity department. Roy Jones was arguably more fun to watch, in that he was a maverick in the ring. Floyd beats his opponents in a more systematic fashion. I think missing out on the Pacquiao fight a few years ago though has hurt Floyd's legacy, that win would have really cemented his greatness.

In time, Roy won't get much of a raw deal for his post prime career, when you mention Roy Jones, you think of Roy Jones at his best. Ali fought on too long, Thomas Hearns and Ray Leonard fought on too long, but it hasn't affected their legacies. If Roy wins a piece of the CW title, it will enhance his legacy. If he loses, it won't diminish his legacy.

I think too much is made of the weight difference. As Floyd says, it's not so much about weight, but more about skills. It's when you have evenly matched guys, that weight becomes more important, or when the weight difference is too much. David Haye at 6 ft 3 and 220 pounds, beat Valuev who was 7 ft 2 and weighed 320 pounds. Look at how much mass Haye gave away there. Roy's win over Tarver is hands down better than his win over Ruiz, because Tarver is a much better fighter than Ruiz. Take nothing away though, winning titles from MW-HW is a fantastic legacy in itself.

When it comes to all time rankings, I'll be honest, I don't know enough to even try and compile a decent list of top 50, top 100. I know a lot about the careers of certain fighters.

Perhaps what seperates the likes of Floyd and Roy from the fighters that will rank higher than them, is the fact that they didn't face the same level of opposition. Both had phenomenal skillsets, and could have both achieved even more than they did. Someone like Hearns ranks higher than both, because even though he suffered losses in his prime, he fought the very best out there and his fights are still talked about today.

Thanks for taking the time to respond

Regards :good

 

theres quiet a few i'd favour over him there

 

I try my best to respect all opinions but anybody picking Hearns to beat Roy is either lacking knowledge or just too much of a fanboy for Hearns.

Hearns can be very basic in his approach and even one dimensional in his offense which was mostly left jab,jab,jab, and try to wait for his opponent to be still enough to throw a right hand.......Roy times that offensive output quite easily and gets a stoppage win by the 8th round or so.