How do you feel about Roy jones?

He is much like Ali

Once he lost that 1/10th of a second which decided getting hit or moving out of the way, his flaws were exposed.

That said, head to head, he is number one on the ATG list for me in his division. I can't see anyone beating a peak Roy Jones Jr.

His only downside is that he is sticking around due to financial woes.

 

NO HE DIDN'T. ffs don't make up ridiculous nonsense just because I've owned you so much. You sound really pathetic now.

:roll: lame. That's what you do. I routinely pwn jokers like you without even breaking a sweat. Get over it.

 

So who was the man at the time of the Calzaghe-Hopkins fight?

I rip apart your silly arguments daily while working a 50 hour a week job at the same time.. They call that multi-tasking.:good

 

Zaggers Ring, Erdei Lineal. Been done to death. Clearly you're still clueless.

No, I rip apart YOUR silly fukkin ******ed fanboy arguments :deal. Fact. Nice copying of my terms though. Get the fukk over it and learn from your defeats. You're boring as fukk.

 

So there was no man of the divison?:huh

And how do you feel about Joe being Ring champion? Do you back the argument that Erdei should have been Ring? and the belt should have never been in Joe's possesion? The ring was given to Roy as pretty much saying they backed him as the man of the divison.

You have looked pretty foolish in this thread Joe.:yep

 

Erdei still had his claim until he retired. How can you still NOT know all this??

The Ring light-heavyweight title? Complete disaster when they brought it back in 2001 up until Erdei retired.

Don't lie, everyone can see through it. I have completely schooled and destroyed you and you know it. Yet another easy win for me.

 

So you back Erdei as the man in the divison all those years?

So you don't agree that Calzaghe-Hopkins should have been for the ring title?

Anyone reading through this entire argument can see how many times you have changed your tune and contradicted yourself beyond belief..

 

Another ridiculous lie. Don't act like a silly child just because I've schooled and owned you. I've never changed my tune or contradicted myself once. You're just the latest in a series of ******s I've schooled in these debates.

You however have spouted nonsense, squirmed, lied repeatedly like an idiot, and continuously asked me for help. Well my help is no longer free :yep:hi:.

 

Answer the questions above please.:good

 

good in his prime,but imo hopkins didnt get into his prime until late life.hopkins was a far better fighter when he fought calzaghe than when he fought rjj earlier on in his career.prime for prime i would go for hopkins.

 

Jones wasn't in his prime when he fought Hopkins either.

 

For all you guys trying to compare Hopkins and Jones, don't you realize that you are making excuses for Hopkins? Like here you said 'Hopkins didn't get into his prime until late life'. So lets evaluate Hopkins and Jones entire career:

Roy was clearly better than Hopkins in his their early years.
Roy was clearly better than Hopkins in their prime.
Hopkins is generally seen as slightly better better than Jones in their later years.

You said Hopkins was a far better fighter when he fought Calzaghe than when he fought RJJ. But after they fought Calzaghe, they fought each other again, in 2010, and look what happened in that fight! All Hopkins could do is foul Jones, and Hopkins hit the canvas 3 times and needed 5 minutes each time, while Roy hit the canvas 0 times!!

How in the world do you say Prime for Prime you would go with Hopkins? Roy Jones Jr was the P4P king in his prime, while Hopkins was never the P4P king!! And if you're arguing that Hopkins got into his prime later in life (which I think is a fair point), then what years do you consider Hopkins in his prime?

I think it's accurate to say that Hopkins hit his prime later than Roy Jones, but that right there says a lot. Hopkins is older than Roy Jones, he didn't start boxing in his life until later than Jones did. Even if you say Hopkins is better late in his career than Jones (which I think is still hugely debatably given what happened in the 2010 rematch) clearly Jones was better early in his career and in their primes. Do you really think that a mid 2000s Hopkins would beat a late 90s Jones?

That said, clearly in the mid to late 2000s, Hopkins did seem to be the more relevent fighter. While Roy was getting KO'd, Hopkins was winning. You can't argue with that, but that's only a few years when evaluating a 20 year career.

It's the equivalent of a one mile race, where one guy (Jones) is 6 lengths ahead at the 3/4 mark, and in the final 1/4 of the race, the other guy (Hopkins) narrows the gap from 6 length to 3, but still loses.

If Roy retired in 2003, this wouldn't even be a debate. It's only become a debate because Roy didn't retire and did things that Hopkins never did like become HWC and then came back down to LHW and Hopkins had some great fights late in his career. I think what really hurt Hopkins was that 2010 with Jones. He got the decision, but it was such a terrible performance from Hopkins that it really made a lot of people re-evaluate if Hopkins is really better than a faded RJJ. That was why Hopkins was so heavily favored, most people expected Hopkins to walk right through Jones and possibly KO Jones but it didn't happen.

 

Always thought the was a physically gifted athelete. Extraordinary really, but had some fundamental flaws. When his reflexes went it was game over. Compare to Hopkins who steams on.

 

He did not officialy retire until early 2004 when the wbc was on his case to fight Vitali again

And how do you know that? What is your source?

He had not fought in a year
He was preparing for a easy fight against a journeyman
He took the fight on 2 weeks notice.

He knew it was going to be a hard fight which is why HBO offered him so much money to fight Vitali on such short notice.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/boxing/2003-06-09-lewis-klitschko_x.htm

He was reluctant to fight Vitali again, not Jones he was "up" for that fight

 

You keep saying this.

My posts contain facts, that can be backed up on request. If you want to know why I've said certain things, then ask me and I'll tell you.

I'm obviously a big fan of Roy's and I've gone out of my way to find info on him.

I told you last week that Roy's intentions around the Griffin fight, was to fight Hill afterwards. You then asked me how I knew what his thoughts were? I knew, because he said it at the time, and I can remember it. It was also in a link, that was posted on here by zod 3-4 months ago, when we discussed Steve Collins.

How many of your posts are genuine facts, without any of your own opinions?

I try and bend things to suit what I want it to be?

That's hilarious coming from you.