Since Roy fought at one time or another each of the divisions the row were best at... How does he do against these fighters at what you consider their best weight Burley Marshall Williams Cocoa Kid Elmer Ray Booker
He knocks them all out. He beat Hopkins, Toney, and McCall at those weights and they are better than all but possibly Burley. Burley couldn't beat Ezzard Charles, so I don't think he'd beat Jones Jr. who I put in a similar position at light heavyweight. Burley is supposed to fight with a similar style to Jones except at welterweight and middleweight. Since Jones fought at middleweight and light heavyweight, I'm going with the bigger man.
As great as they were for their era(s), they never saw anything approaching Jones' speed. I just don't think they'd be equipped to deal with it.
Elmer Ray isn't a member unless we just want to add guys in willy-nilly. Never mind that crazy talk in the two posts above. Roy at middleweight or (at over-the-weight middleweight/super middleweight) gets knocked out or stopped by Burley, Booker, and Wade. Holman would make him look like an eager amateur. Lytell would either outbox him or swarm him to death and there is no way Jones is stopping that beast, even if he was on roids. Jones may have dented Lloyd's Marshall's chin, and stopped him; that is a real possibility. He would have a chance with Chase, but I don't see him winning that one. Cocoa Kid was a welterweight. By the time he fought at middleweight, he had declined in a big way. Jones may have taken that one too. ...A better question would be which member of MR would do the biggest job on him? Jones's style was reminiscent of Burley's, but Burley had a better foundation in fundamentals and had a much better chin and far more willingness to fight anyone. Jones was a cherry-picker. Unless Burley felt like coasting or carrying, he rolls right over Jones. Burley hated braggarts. I think he's punish Jones worse than anyone. Warning to Jones excuse-makers: Unless you know more than what you looked up in wiki about MR, leave this one alone lest you be subjected to a public quiz you are sure to flunk.
On their individual best, any has the ability to beat anyone. They all seemed to share a trait of a fluency between technique and grit. So all have the ability to time Joned and to take him out of his coasting gameplan. That being said, there isn't one man I would favour over Jones in one off fights. Where he in that era and had to go through a guantlet of them fighting some multiple times, then of course he loses the odd fight. The more consistent members like Burley and Williams lose a series to him imo whether it 1-2 or 2-3. Any of the other members could easily be underestimated and that's when he could suffer a ko loss. I don't like classing Charles and Moore as they got their title shots in the end. Let me just say this though, where to beat every member of MR in clear dominant fashion, he would be demonstrating a superior skillset than he did in his real career.
This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
I see this a lot and it never makes any sense to me. Nobody was fast then? Roy Jones Jr was the fastest guy ever and that is supposed to be accepted fact?
For those who find Burley's style similar to Jones', did Burley throw to the body often? In the film vs Smith he rarely if ever does that, even though it seems a better idea when Smith is covering up a lot of time. The way he often throws a jab while jumping up in the process looks kinda silly. He didn't use uppercuts nearly as often as Jones did. He also rarely used right crosses against high guard, preferring swinging hooks. Although, he used the tactics vs heavier opponent that was similar to Jones-Ruiz, throwing one or two punches, then clinching.
The details differ, but the styles are similar. Both relied on timing, distance, and countering. Everything came from rhythm. Both used leverage to enhance power. Watching Burley jump back out of the way of shots is akin to Jones. It's rooted in athleticism though I think Burley was more of a stylist than an athlete. What he was doing was far more sophisticated than Jones. Burley's talent was so high-level that he would often play and at times fought as if he were thinking about ice cream afterwards. That cost him a few fights, to be sure, but what he did to Moore and Chase for that matter, spoke volumes.
It's the details that make a difference. After all, the variety of moves in boxing is limited. Both used in and out movement, but Jones was using angles a lot more. Both used range-finding jab vs opponents who weren't too eager to attack, but the punches following that jab were different. Jones was obviously much faster, which also makes a lot of difference, say Benny Valger - Sid Terris, Valger was more skillful and clever, but Terris was slightly faster and that made a difference. Although that example may not be good enough, as Jones had punching power complementing the speed, which Terris was lacking, and which allowed Valger to even up the fight. And the rest of my observations have been left unanswered
I answered your question and stand by it -the two fought similarly. Your basing generalized observations about what Burley did and did not do on one grainy old film from one fight and comparing that to a library of Jones films. The Billy Smith fight isn't exactly representative of his whole career, and I'm not about to go fishing through 40 fight reports for an informed retort! You say that Burley looks "kinda silly" at least with that jab, I say what he is doing is far more sophisticated than what Jones ever did... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81non05aKX4
I'll concede right here that there is no need to quiz a historian like you, but I'm cringing over here. Give me this --Jones at middleweight, anywhere from '89-93. He beats Burley? Holman? Wade? Lytell? Booker?? Oh hell no.
It may be that Roy Jones Jr. would have done well in a given bout with a Murderers' Row fighter, but would he be exposed if he fought all of them multiple times? Considering his durability issues, that is a big question. - Chuck Johnston