Roy Jones Vs today's best fighters, across 6 divisions.

I'm looking purely from Roy's perspective.

He was a LHW who once fought as a JMW.

So he was facing a big puncher in Ruiz.


:good

 

Both fighters were greatly skilled.

Roy relied heavily on his speed, but he was still extremely skilled. Look at the punches he used to put together.

He also had a great jab, when he wanted to use it.

He also had success fighting out of a southpaw stance.

I don't think Marvin would have beaten Roy at MW.

I think McCallum could have done.

I also think that McCallum could have beaten Marvin as well.

 

general zod,


You're so argumentative.

I'm talking about overall skills.

Roy was exceptionally skilled, but he relied heavily on his athleticism.

I said he possessed a great jab, but rarely used it. That's not the same as not having a good jab.

I said he had success.

Why not?

Did Marvin breeze past all of his competition at MW?

Roy could definitely have beaten him.

He had superior speed, and he was hard to hit clean.

He was also bigger at the weight, and had lots of power.

It was more than possible.

You want to bring up Harding up as an example?

A 6ft plus LHW?

We could go back and forth like this all night.

A small former LW in Duran gave Marvin all he could handle at the weight.

Don't tell me that Roy, with his blazing speed and skills wouldn't have had a chance.

Not in my opinion.

 

You can add to the list if you wish?

 

:good

 

What names would you liked to have seen?

 

general zod,

Again, you're being argumentative.

Roy had great shot variety, and he had great footwork and timing etc. You already know this. He may not have been as skilful as Marvin in a conventional way, but he was still highly skilled. Throwing double and treble hooks, and uppercuts from either hand etc, with great timing and accuracy, all constitutes as skill.

I don't need to put up an argument. How many times have you seen Roy fight? He relied more on his speed and reflexes, and his technique was flawed. But he could get away with it when he was young. James Toney was more skilled than Roy, but it didn't make a difference on the night. If you want to strip Marvin's skills down and say he was more skilled than Roy, and he had better fundamentals, then I've no issue with that. But IMHO, Roy could definitely have beaten him at MW.

No.

True regarding Marvin, but Roy didn't do it just for a gimmick.

No, but Hopkins was a great fighter, and Roy had a fractured hand.

But you've answered a question, by asking a question.

Again, did Marvin breeze past all of his MW competition?

I don't have to insist anything.

If you believe that Marvin would have beaten him, then I respect that. But if you're saying Roy COULDN'T have beaten him, then you're having a laugh.

Of course Roy COULD have beaten him.

Marvin used to weigh in regularly below the MW limit, with same day weigh ins. When Roy was at MW, he'd be weighing in as a SMW-LHW on fight night. He was bigger, heavier, he had superior speed, great variation, great power, and he was hard to hit clean.

You know I've watched the fight.

When did Roy even try to use his power against Hopkins? It was a technical fight, and he had an injured hand. Why are you focusing solely on that one fight?

So what if Marvin was never close to being stopped?

Again, I don't have to insist anything.

The evidence is to hand.

I couldn't care less about the Harding fight.

Is that your evidence that Roy couldn't have beaten Marvin?

?

I didn't say I'd be confident, I said that Roy could have beaten him. That opinion is based on his attributes that I've already mentioned. Roy didn't need to have beaten a host of great MW's for me to say that he would have had a chance. We saw what he brought to the table between 92-03. The versions of Roy at SMW and LHW weren't that different to the version at MW. He was just obviously a little bigger, fighting better overall comp at the higher weights. He never fought as a CW in his prime, but I'd have picked him over any of them back then. He only had one HW fight, but I'd pick him over a number of today's top 20, just based on that one fight. So if you're trying to say that there's a lack of evidence at MW to suggest that he could have beaten Hagler, then I don't buy it. Again, we saw Roy's capabilities. You saw what he did to a decent fighter in Thomas Tate. I'd have put the Tate version of Roy in with Marvin and I'd have fancied his chances. Who did Marvin beat to convince you that Roy couldn't have beaten him?

IMHO, Mike McCallum was a better fighter than Marvin Hagler.