Mistakes Roy Jones Made?

He was posing while backing towards the ropes against Tarver. Johnson he had his back square and his gloves up close to his cheeks. All those tactics that never failed him in the past started to consistently fail him.

 

I get you but I do not think his career would have been better. When you have an extremely unique skill-set, the rules go by the wayside.

 

He wasn't posing or against the ropes when he was knocked out by Tarver. He wasn't against the ropes when he was knocked out by Glen Johnson. The point is, Jones was fine staying at the ropes, he had all the skills to be successful at rope-a-dope tactics and he had proved it over and over for almost 20 years, except for last several fights, and even there it wasn't that bad, actually, both times he got hit by round punches to the side/back of the head rather than his opponents being able to penetrate his block or hurt him to the body.

 

He got me into boxing as well, but it happened in his last impressive performance - against John Ruiz. I wasn't interested in boxing prior to that fight (actually until after the fight, as it was a replay some days or weeks after it had taken place).

 

Tarver threw as Roy threw. Johnson clattered Roy on the side of the jae/by the ear with a right hand. In neither fight was Roy up against the ropes, he was moving towards them (pretty static against Johnson really) but not in the way which was being discussed earlier; laying against the ropes with his hands up letting his foes tee off on him. The Green and Lebedev scenarios are more similar to Bryant Brannon one described earlier rather than Johnson and Tarver.

 

We just disagree then. Good fundamentals is a help for anybody. Roy was such a phenom in his prime that he did great anyway, but when his physical abilities started to leave him so did his success.

Fantastically entertaining in his best moments, though.

 

Just watched them. Jones was posing and timed in the two fights. Regardless being caught by those type of shots was clearly from slowed reflexes and Jones became a very ordinary fighter when he could no longer rely on his blazing speed and ability to react to his opponents movements and punches.

 

But how much better could he have been during his prime? I think that's part of the question. Surely fundamentals can help increase longevity when ability begins to erode. Would better fundamentals have served him better against Griffin for example?

 

This content is protected

 

That's pretty much it. Roy was so far ahead of the rest in his prime that he really didn't need anything more, it was later on they'd served him well. Had he had close to perfect technique he would have been even farther ahead, I think, but he was superior enough as it was.

The funny thing is that I seem to be coming off as a Roy hater here, which I'm absolutely not. I was merely answering the thread, since I like these topics where you analyze someone's style and technique. But Roy was fantastic to watch when he was on and I'm just grateful for what he gave us when at his best. Really no disrespect meant in any way.

 

I didn't take it that way Bokaj. You negative hater.

 

You aren't coming off as a Roy hater. You're probably the even-keeled poster on classic. Well no, GreatA probably wins that award.

I too think fundamentals may have increased Roy's longevity, but that's debatable anyway. He was 35 years old when he got blasted by Tarver. He was phenom that relied on his sensational ability. Nobody denies that. I think it's fair to say that some strain from the technical and by the book approach often allows for more creativity and dare I say genius. Obviously it depends on the fighter, which is what this discussion is about. Generally speaking most fighters should find that balance, wherever it may be.

I am not sure Roy could have been better than what he was in his absolute prime. Falling back on fundamentals would be nice in an ideal world. However the strain from this fundamentals allowed for his genius ability to shine. I don't think Roy doesn't understand boxing fundamentals, as much as he was a fighter that became a product of his habits. Maybe he strained too far in the nontechnical terms of boxing. That's open for discussion.

What makes me resist saying Roy could've served better with more of a discipline to his craft was the fact that once he lost his abilities his fragility might have always gotten exposed sooner, rather than later. If he could've sustained for longer, he may have ended up less dominant or great during his peak, however. I am a serious believer in Roy's suspected weak durability being even more hindered by all the weight loss after the Ruiz fight. Draining all that muscle to make 175 again has adverse effects on the brain, apparently. I'm not all to versed on the technical science bits of it all. Look what happened to Chris Byrd even when he claimed to feel better than ever.

 

No.

His crazy lead left hooks, his unguarded right leads to the body, his movements straight back... these things won him fights over championship calibre opponents. These facets are an integral part of what made him so great.

Again. and I repeat, he was unbeatable for TEN YEARS in weight divisions between middleweight to heavyweight. How much more proof do you need? Could you possibly under any contortion of logic rate a Dempsey who had at best a two year prime or a Marciano who at best had a four year prime or a Hagler who at best had a three year prime over him?

If you can, you are a conjurer and a liar.

 

How the **** did Hagler have a 3 year prime?

 

I have no idea. The tequila was talking.

Still, give Hagler 5 years. Jones still had ten.