Roy Jones Jr. vs. Murderers Row

(You know I don't mean SRL beats them both/all.)

I'll leave you to your fantasy of Super-Jones whipping Burley as easily as Burley whipped ARCHIE MOORE.

 

Amen. I remember seeing something about Futch making that comparison as well. That about ends the matter for me.

 

--That's some good analysis, man. I might quibble with a few details, but so what.

I think you are underestimating Burley in a big way. He was far-more battle-tested and from a far more battle-happy era. He was ducked and avoided and his manager at least twice had to petition commissions to get him the ok to fight men 20/30+ lbs heavier than he was. Jones, on the other hand, was a cherry-picker. He was an extraordinary athlete but he was not tested between Toney and Ruiz. That's over 8 years. He made his reputation stomping midgets like Paz and assorted municipal workers when he should have been facing the threats that were indeed around him. He chose not to.

Jones, and this is a grudge I have, wasted his prime. He wasted it in no-contests against no-hopers.

You box and so ought to know the value of experience. At middleweight, Jones was a phenom, but he was not experienced enough to handle something like Burley or Booker particularly.

Burley no faster than Toney means what? I 'd bet you my condo that my hands are faster than yours -will you now concede that I'll whip you based on that?

"Champions" by what definition? Do you know how many times Jones either defeated the actual champ or was involved in a #1 vs. #2 contest to take a divisional throne?

Vinnie Paz is heralded by himself and others as a "5-time world champion." Do you buy that too?

Well, you went careening through a fence and into a pond here, PP.

 

Elmer Ray "is" a member of MR? How about Harold Johnson? Ezzard Charles? Billy Smith?

In other words, what's your criteria -or is there any?

 

I think it's one of those terms that's lost meaning. Now people use it to refer to any black contender that didn't get a title shot.

 

Yeah. I don't think it ever was properly defined. I have my own, but no one is bound by it.

 

Burley began fighting in a similar way after getting a taste of Aaron Wade's power in their first fight and then twice again. Same reason, I expect.

And yes, Charles-Burley I was a shoot-out -both were hurt in that one, though Burley more than Charles.

 

Charles was aggressive and hurt him multiple times the 1st time, punches to the head, both left and right. He was hurt many times by punches to the body in the rematch. And he was hurt multiple times by somewhat heavier Lloyd Marshall, who employed counter-punching tactics, both with left and right hands again. I think these three fights and the Smith fight give very good idea of how Burley would have done vs Jones.

 

Thank You, I will infuriate many with my lofty ratings of Jones but it's not without consideration.

I have a great deal of admiration for Burley and think he would of beat all the MW champs during his time pre Robinson. That doesn't help him here.

I'd call him more business man than cherry picker, much like Robinson before him. Remember the words of Burley 'if I was Robinson I probably wouldn't have fought me either'. Boxing is about risk and reward. Jones wanted PPV opponents to up his 8million HBO paydays, outside of heavyweights there weren't any.

Also you're underestimating how many weren't too keen on facing Jones. After he retired Eubank admitted he wasn't keen on facing him as 'it'd shorten both of our lifespans'. I think Toney himself didn't fancy his chances before the fight.

I think he picked up some impressive and underrated wins in that time and most of the names he didn't match up with were managed by King. King wanted Jones on a long term contract, to fight the fighters on his ledger, see Nigel Benn, Nunn, Lyles, McClellan. Jones wanted to be his own man and not let anyone take his money out of his pocket. Hopkins was a King fighter in 2002 too, if King wasn't dipping in Hopkins pocket maybe he'd have accepted the 40 percent, who knows?

Ultimately his resume suffers from him finding it all too easy, people want boxing 'matches' not 1 sided exhibitions, but some of those opponents post Toney were still top contenders/champs, they would have given serious contests to many. There wasn't really anyone out there who could have given him a close fight in his prime imo either.

Still Reggie Johnson, Hill, Griffin and Harding were better than many of the opponents he supposedly avoided and both pushed him harder than Toney. McCallum past his prime was still a good opponent a few years short of those Toney performances. Woods and Gonzalez would become champions.

Indeed but a large part of gaining experience is minimising any weakness you have. Jones at MW despite his inexperience had few weaknesses and he was more experienced with his amateur and pro careers than the Charles and Bivins who outgunned Burley and a similar level to Patterson who overwhelmed Archie. That's really Burley's problem he's outpowered and outsped here, possibly similar to the Charles bout.

So when do I pick up my new condo Stoney? :hey

I think Toney has similarities to Burley with obvious lesser movement, certainly the most similar opponent on Jones ledger.

Burley's opponent who most resembled Jones is probably Marshall, who he fought to a stand still. I'd consider Jones much more talented than Marshall though.

Ultimately if Burley can't get off first, gets beat to the punch and can't slip the punches after he sets traps he'll lose wide. And as much as I respect Burley I think that would happen.

Good point, a belt is a good achievement but ofcourse it's not the same as establishing lineal championship.

Jones-Tarver 1 was arguably 1 and 2, as was Jones-Toney.

Lineal champs at 1 weight or another would be Toney, Hopkins, McCallum, Gonzalez, Tarver (debatable), Trinidad (a big stretch I know and he won it on a gift anyway).

 

Well, don't feel lonely. I'm catching some hell because Sugar Ray Leonard didn't make my Top 30 (in the appendix of "The Gods of War"). As long as there are intelligible reasons, who can really knock who?

Boxing isn't always about risk and reward -and those are legacy-boosters for guys like Duran, Burley, Greb, Moore, Charles, et al. They'd fight anyone and that's what a fighter should do.

I've done four big series on Murderers' Row and Robinson figures into three of them. One of the things I dug up was that he ran out on signed contracts to fight two of them, and was involved (unknowingly) in a fixed fight with a third one. And those don't even count Burley, who Harry Otty already established was avoided/ducked by Robinson.

BUT, BUT, BUT.... Robinson's 200-fight record has too many beasts on it to fault him too much. Hell, you only have to look at his first 12-months as a pro to see a monster-difference between him and Jones.

Jones' business' savvy hurts his legacy. He shouldn't get a pass for it because how good he actually was, is partly hypothetical. He ducked so many fighters he screwed himself out of ever taking a true championship!

Great points.

But there were others that Jones should have fought (I wrote an essay a few years ago called "Me & Mr. Jones" that discusses many of them. Google it if you're bored). Eight years is a long time between serious challenges.

My condo hasn't been painted since I got it in '97. And I had a maniac who lived downstairs who lit the joint on fire. I took the insurance money and left the soot stains! So it ain't much!

I saw 40-year-old McCallum showing indications that he would have done really well with him 5 years earlier. I saw Montell Griffin give him fits. Why? Because Futch told him how to deal with Jones's style. Griffith, stupidly, got rid of Futch for the rematch and what happened then was no surprise. But that always amused me: Futch, who held the Holman/Burley torch, just knew how to whip any style -he took away the 0s from Ali, Holyfield, Jones, etc.

The point is, there are ways to beat Jones. Reggie Jones didn't know it. Toney was too much of a head case with an eating disorder to apply it. These days, everyone gets high on athleticism (power, speed) but those guys from Stillman's Gym ate athletes for breakfast. That probably explains why there weren't many athletes in the Ali/Jones/Hamed mold in the 30s/40s. Were they chased out of the gym early on?

Sure, but he wasn't more skilled and there's a difference between athleticism and skill (happy to see HBO commentators finally figuring this out. They must lurk on ESB Classic.). Long guys with high-level skill was where Burley had a little trouble.

Or.... Burley exploits the living hell out of Jones's many technical flaws.

McCallum and Tarver were never legit champions. Shockingly enough. It's another disgusting byproduct of the confusion the sanctioning bodies have brought and thrived on.

Jones never was either, but that doesn't remove the fact that he was the premiere fighter in three divisions.

Now, I'll tell you this. Jones whipped Hopkins and that speaks loudest to me. No other fight comes close to that one on his ledger. I don't rationalize his win over Toney, but let's face it, Toney approached that fight like Duran did the Leonard rematch.

The fact that Jones whipped Hopkins (and Hopkins was at or near prime, never mind this late-blooming stuff) tells me that he would be a H2H force in history against anyone with a style like Hopkins.

But Burley is a different beast. Put Futch's brain in a stylist and attach cannonballs to his wrists and give him a concrete chin. Jones beats that? No, no, no.

 

Griffin didn't whip nobody that night. He chose a spoiler tactics and made Jones look awkward by his own awkwardness (kind of how Whitaker made DLH look less than a month later), but he was landing few clean punches himself. He just didn't let Jones look spectacular, the way everyone got used to seeing him in the ring.

 

Read the sentence, man. Futch knew how to whip any style. Griffin gave Jones a hard time in the first fight because Futch told him how. You question that?

This "Jones = Superman" cult has been silly since Max Kellerman anointed himself high priest of Jones-related nonsense a dozen years ago.

H2H, it seems to me that he's a problem for many fighters in two, maybe three divisions. But it's all hypothetical. Unfortunately for him, we have to get hypothetical about how he would do against his own contemporaries during his prime, because he was too much of a low risk/high reward fighter.

 

If you think that by using Futch's advice Griffin whipped Jones' style with his spoiler tactics, then John Ruiz must have had one of the greatest trainers of all time. Griffin was making his opponents look bad missing him, but he hardly punished them for missing.

 

That left hook by Jones which sent Griffin all the way across the other side of the ring was nasty.

 

Stonehands, just out of interest, how did you score either of Toney-Griffin bouts? Did Futch whip Toney's style as well?