A question to Roy Jones Jnr fans about his win over J Toney

Exactly both those guys are hall of famers

 

Aaah didums. What is the matter little boy, don't you like the TRUTH?

After all it did come out of your scabby hero's own mouth. He admitted he KNEW Toney had big trouble making weight.

That is the beauty of you weird Jones Jr fan boy freaks, even when he admits things himself. You don't.

 

Good stuff right here. I remember i was still in high school when I saw that fight, the build up was immense, and yeah... 'Frightening' is the apt description of jones that night.

 

^^^ it's not the first time in history a boxer decided to be an opportunist and go after a fighter who's known for having trouble cutting weight.

For me personally it doesn't take anything away from the win. IMO this is the best win on RJJ's resume- edging out Hopkins. At the time he took on Hopkins in DC (around 1993 I believe,) Bernard was still a little too green of a fighter. Would've been a far better matchup had jones and Hopkins met around 1998 or 1999, when both men were at the peak of their powers.

 

It's not being an opportunist when the guy in question has had weight issues his entire career. No one can sit around waiting for a guy like that to 'decide' to dedicate himself to the craft.

'Catching' James Toney having problems cutting weight is the equivalent of 'catching' a stripper wanting money for a lap dance. It ain't that hard.

 

exactly. Cheaply belittled in defense of probably Calzaghe lol.

 

Your right Sweet Jones these hoes are quick for a dollar

 

I'd be highly offended if a r.e.t.a.r.d like you could.

 

A few things, Foxy....

Having read a few of your posts in the past and usually finding them pretty interesting, you should know better than to start off the way you have above. McCallum was 35 in 1991, but he clearly aged better (or at least held off the ravages of father time) better than Jones did. Just because one fighter (McCallum) was still a good fighter at 35 it doesn't automatically mean that another fighter (Jones) can't have been finished at that age. Fighters peak and decline, sometimes very suddenly, at different ages. It's entirely possible for a speed and reflexes-reliant fighter like Jones to be done in his mid thirties and hit a steep decline while a less speedy but more savvy, ring-craft based guy like McCallum can produce the goods at such an age.

Do you actually watch fights or just judge off what BoxRec and the fighter's date of birth says? You're having a laugh if you think that the Jones who struggled first time with Tarver, got wiped out by him in the return and then looked abysmal before getting flattened again by Johnson in late 2003 / 2004 was the same fighter as the one who was pound for pound top dog a few years before. You might have your own reasons for why exactly he declined and became washed up so quickly, but washed up he was - all you need is a working pair of eyes to see that. And all you need is a working pair of eyes to see that McCallum was just better equipped to hang with better fighters aged 35 onwards than Jones was, as his showings against Toney and Harding demonstrated.

So no, I don't think there's any hypocrisy in praising Toney's performance against McCallum in 1991 and pointing out that Jones was going way over the hill by 2004 purely on the basis that they were both 35 at the time. Using that kind of gauge is just ridiculous, the same as the dullards who claim that Tyson couldn't have been shot against Lewis, or that the timing of the fight actually favoured him more than Lennox because it was Lewis who was actually older etc.

Are we pretending that McCallum wasn't vastly more experienced than Toney in 1991 now or something? Apologies, may have misinterpreted your second point but I'm struggling to see the relevance of it. Toney was taking on top-quality opponents in a short space of time which would seem alien to most today.

Ah, so you're taking umbrage to me stating that 1993 / 1994 Toney, at 168 and dominating his opponents rather than squeaking past them, was the best Toney ever had been or has been since. Well, either tell me when he was in better form or his stock was higher or keep quiet on that point, otherwise it just looks as if you're disagreeing for the sake of it because it doesn't fit your agenda. When was Toney ever performing better than he had been in the eighteen months prior to fighting Jones?

I'm well aware of the weight-making excuse on Toney's part. It's interesting, though - he went up to 175 to fight Griffin immediately after the Jones fight, lost a contentious decision, and guess what the excuse was. Yep, weight-making again. The way you're talking, you'd think the Jones fight was the only time Toney had ever had issues boiling down to his weight class (most of which were his own fault anyway) and Jones had made up some evil scheme to time his assault perfectly and basically cheat Toney out of his title.

Do you refuse to give Leonard credit for the 'No Mas' fight as well? Or for the Hearns win in 1981? After all, Leonard himself says in his autobiography, "When Tommy took off his robe and stepped on the scale at Caesers for the weigh in on the morning of the fight, I was stunned. He looked like a famine victim from Africa. Offically, he came in at 145, a full two pounds under the Welterweight limit. I'd felt the difference in Montreal against Duran, and I was convinced the lesser weight would make Tommy weaker as well. 'I am going to kick his ass', I thought. I glanced at Angelo and Janks. I could tell they felt the same way."

If you try hard enough you can make an excuse for any defeat of a fighter you like, or find a way to downplay a victory for a fighter you don't like. Weight, problems in camp, couldn't focus, location got to them, lost motivation etc. Unless a fighter is just washed up and can't perform to any kind of level anymore (so in short, if it's not their fault, ala Holyfield losing to some of the dross he did in his latter years etc) then those kind of excuses should be left outside the ropes once you step through them.

As for saying that people are building up McCallum or Jones to Robinson or Ali levels - you sound like a pre-menstrual tart. Talk about stupid and childish over exaggeration.

 

indeed: "all you need is a working pair of eyes ".

Haters, review the film. Enjoy it, appreciate what RJJ did in in the ring. Just use your eyes and try and have some modicum of aesthetic sense, a feeling for talent even if you suffer from talent-blindness as bailey does.

 

Toney was undefeated, he'd decisioned the likes of Mike McCallum and Reggie Johnson, and he'd KOed the likes of Michael Nunn, Iran Barkley and Prince Charles Williams ... and you want to know why it was a big win?

Do you watch boxing? Is this your first rodeo?

If someone stepped up and shut out and embarrassed Andre Ward, would that be a big win?

And, unlike Ward, Toney fought five times the year he faced Jones, seven times the year before that, five times the year before that, six times the year before that - when he faced Nunn, Johnson and McCallum (the first time).

He wasn't a "I'll fight in May and September" type. As super middleweight and middleweight champ, he was fighting someone on TV every six weeks or so.

If someone like Pac fought SEVEN TIMES A YEAR, and occasionally had an off night because he couldn't get up for an opponent who he knew he could beat, I don't think most people would mind.