Name light heavy champs that could have beat McCallum more convincingly than RJ did in `97

Why the need to compare Roy and Floyd? To equally great fighters that fought differently. Floyd is more of a defensive counter puncher and Roy relied on his super human reflexes and speed. Some of the stuff you post is just purely trash. How can you possibly say Jones never proved himself against elite fighters? I'm not even that big of a Roy Jones fan but a stupid disrespectful comment like that is just idiotic.

 

So just to be clear are you implying and/or stating that RJJ was/is not an ATG???

 

Style wise it does not make sense. It would make more sense to contrast him with Pea and even there outside of a lot of reflex and speed based defense they had differing approaches and styles.

 

Anyone who know anything about boxing would never tell you Jones was fundamentally sound, esp when comparing him to Mayweather Jr. (Yes I did omit Loma,because in truth a fighter with 13 total pro fights doesn't have the body of work to be comparing to fighters with over 30 pro fights) Jones was like Ali, A gifted athlete that happened to box, and like Ali he was able to use those athletic gifts to overwhelm most fighters, though fundamentally they were not as sound as most of their opponents. No one disputes that I know . Say what you will about Jones jr. But he does have some scalps under his belt that were still relevant when he faced them( Unlike most of Mayweather Jr's opponents) Jones's wins over Hopkins and Toney who went on to a long successful career AFTER he faced them shouldn't be sneezed at. His lack of fundamentals came back to haunt him once he slowed , and after he slowed we learned he had a great deal of weaknesses in his game. But that shouldn't be held against his body of work while he was in his prime. Though I feel that great middles like Hagler, or Monzon, or great Lt.heavys like Foster, Spinks, or Qawi would've been able to find those weaknesses even in his prime.

 

But you say that Gennady Golovkin is one the best middleweights you have ever seen and he "PROVED HIMSELF" against Canelo...?

 

You won't find balanced posters overdoing his win over Hopkins as it's obvious Hopkins was years away from what he was to become.

So apart from the time Jones absolutely and utterly schooled Toney he hasn't proven himself against elite fighters. That's one more time than many great fighters have on their resume.

Overrated? They were the top two P4P fighters in the world, how would an utter schooling be overrated. You are just making it up as you go along. You don't want to acknowledge Jones so you just cast aside what you think you need to and pretend it didn't happen.

Many ATG's didn't have perfect fundamentals but had other great qualities that allowed them to scale the heights they did regardless.

 

Firstly this was Jackson's first gig on the big stage. He was basically unknown. This fight put him on the map.
Secondly this is McCallum at his peak weight and in hindsight was very close to if not his peak as a fighter.

No i don't think any version of Jackson beats McCallum.

So obviously yes i am talking about 39yo McCallum, when they fought. Jones was a freak around this time and if it was any other "name" i think he would have stepped on it substantially harder. Between McCallum's age and Jones form at the time i think it would have been hard for Mike to see the end if Jones really went at him.

 

Mike was old, but very crafty. No, I wouldn't give any other LHW a good chance of destroying him. Perhaps Kova, with his excellent control of range, could force Mike, due to his eroding reflexes and speed, to a quest for survival, as he did with Hopkins, but I see no beat downs.

Toney wouldn't hurt him much either in their subsequent fight at CW, not at all as he later would do with an aging Holy, for example. So not much to say about this fight really. Mike did it well to keep it respectful against a peak Jones. That's about it.

 

They were skilled in different ways.

Roy was incredibly skilled. It's just that his unorthadox skills were based around his unique athleticism. But throwing perfectly placed combinations with great leverage, timing and accuracy is still based on skill.

I've said countless times that Roy either needed to retire early or change his style to compensate for his age.

He didn't lose later in his career because he wasn't skilled. It was because he tried to implement the same gameplan that was based around split second timing. I'm sure that had he have changed his style, he could still have been successful. But you live in the moment and you don't realise that you're ageing, especially when you're still getting results. Roy also had a huge ego.

 

Get real Mark.

Roy is an ATG.

How many elite fighters has Floyd faced?

Sure, his oppnents had more name recognition than Roy's. But when you break them down, they were really no better than the best guys who Roy fought. And that's because they were all faded.

Floyd's best win was over a faded an inactive Oscar.

Wins over shop worn versions of Cotto and Shane etc, are no better than Roy's wins over Hopkins, Toney, Griffin, Hill and Tarver.

How many elite fighters has Loma faced?

You are talking nonsense.

 

One more thing:

If you're going to start a thread like this, at least get the year right.

It was 1996.

 

Apart from schooling what many considered to be the nr 1 p4p fighter at the time, Toney, he never proved himself against elite fighters? Really?

He destroyed Malinga, who had given Benn and Eubank tough fights, as well as Johnson, Griffin and Sosa - all tough opponents for Toney - and Paz and Hill as a bonus. And let's not forget Ruiz.

Not great fighters, but certainly good ones. And he treated them like they had no business sharing a ring with him. It is very rare to see something like that.

 

I think Virgil Hill had the style and legs to beat Mike.. He could move all night. Ward.. guys who box..