Comparing Roy jones Jr at LHW to Artur beterbiev is crazy talk

Gotta love the insane level of spinning and mental gymnastics here. Insert ""

It's mentioned by the exact same poster in the previous page that Tarver(pretty conveniently) is the only worthy rival at LHW aside from DM, yet Reggie Johnson who was a legitimate titlist and went on to gave Tarver a tough fight(by Tarver's own admission) 3 years after losing to Roy was no good at LHW

Tarver was the only notable RJJ opponent, yet Virgil Hill who's a greater LHW than Tarver(greater than Bivol too) and would beat Tarver H2H who then went on to win a title at cruiser is not worth mentioning

Oh, who can forget Eric Harding who went 1-1 with the great Tarver, but apparently isn't worth mentioning either

Clinton Woods, a titlist with several title defences is a nobody, therefore Julio Gonzalez who dethroned DM is a nobody to because he lost to the aforementioned Woods twice

And my favourite part is that we've been hearing for over 30 pages that Roy being faded at 35 is just an excuse, yet Gonzalez beating Michalzewski was meaningless because Dariusz was faded at 35

I acknowledged more than once in this thread that It's reasonable to rank Beterbiev over RJJ at LHW for going undefeated&undisputed(I thougt he lost to Bivol, but gotta respect the official verdict). But overall body of work, overall quality of opposition? Roy has the clear upperhand on that.

Gvozdyk was a top amateur, and looked to be goods in the pros. But that's it, looked to be. His entire work in the pros consists of looking very good against journeyman/gatekeeper level opposition, dethroning an ancient Stevenson who was very lucky to get away with the draw in his previous fight against Badou Jack, losing to Beterbiev, disappearing for 3 years only to come back to lose to Benavidez who was making his debut at 175. The fact that he keeps being brought up as a career defining win for Artur only supports my statement in the paraghraph above.

PS: Excessive use of "" is exclusive to the poster I'm quoting, which apparently has a power of strengthening the argument.

 

Hill beats AB?

 

What points did you make exactly? The discussion was a comparison between:-

Beterbiev MD12 Bivol
And
Jones Jr MD12 Tarver

Which was more impressive?
Which was more clear?
Which was more definitive?

I threw an unanswered 7 point combination making a solid case that Beterbiev's MD12 victory was more impressive than Roy's. Just a quick replay of the 7 point combination thrown:-

1. Beterbiev was damn near 40 years old while Roy was in his mid 30s.
2. Beterbiev was coming off a knee surgery.
3. Beterbiev had his ring rust out of the ring for prolonged periods at a time while Roy was active.
4. Bivol was the superior boxer to Tarver.
5. Beterbiev showed more dominance over Bivol than Roy did over Tarver.
6. Beterbiev had more wear and tear on him at near 40 than Roy did at 35.
7. Beterbiev started his pro career late.

And I could have thrown a few more shots following this 7 point combination but just like Beterbiev held back from throwing extra power shots at Campillo after his knock out combo and walked away, so did I.

You still insisting on me to continue this intellectual bout is like Campillo insisting on getting punched a few more times after Beterbiev walked away. Unnecessary. Its done. It's over. It's concluded.

Now I been following this thread a while and seen you mention earlier the following:-

Are you trying to pad up this thread to a 50 pager similarly to how Roy Jones Jr was padding up his record with the likes of Telesco, Glen Wolfe, Byrdie? Whats your play here Loudon?

Hopkins wasn't as atheletically gifted as Roy Jones Jr. Nor was he as talented as James Toney. Therefore Hopkins never relied upon his athleticism or talents, but his main attribute was his discipline and ring craft. Once Roy's athleticism diminished he was getting knocked out left right and centre, as he was heavily reliant upon this. Tarver was able to capitalise on this over Roy but never over Hopkins as BHop never relied upon athleticism. Bivol and Beterbiev are two more greats that are not reliant upon either athleticism or talent. They are disciplined students of boxing that have harnessed their boxing skill. Beterbiev could have fallen in love with his own power and be solely reliant upon it just like many a boxer before him, but he hasn't, instead he insists that one day he will finally become a good boxer. These are some stark differences between Beterbiev and Roy, hence why Beterbiev can achieve longevity like his predecessor Bernard Hopkins while Roy was completely shot overnight.

The Beterbiev that fought Bivol would have absolutely crushed the Roy that fought Tarver.

The Bivol that fought Beterbiev would have boxed the head of and possibly outworked the Roy that fought Tarver.

Beterbiev that fought Bivol vs Tarver that fought Roy. Buddy McGirt who is known for quickly throwing in the towel would have saved his fighter by the 10th round.

Bivol vs Tarver, like I said before, if BHop can box Tarver's head off I only see Bivol doing a similar or better job.

 

It’s very simple.

If you wish to carry on the debate, that’s cool.

If you’ve said all that you need to say, then that’s also cool.

At the end of the day, you didn’t respond to two posts put to you, but you then made a post from a reply to another poster.

I don’t care how many pages this reaches.

That was just a joke.

I’m happy to debate for as long as anybody wants to.

In my last 2 posts to you, I addressed all of your points, and I told you that Artur’s resume isn’t as deep, and that he didn’t look as spectacular.

I also told you what the circumstances were surrounding Tarver’s comments to Roy.

I’ve enjoyed debating with you and everyone else.

Again, if you’ve nothing more to add, that’s cool.

We can leave it.

I’ll just ask you a quick question though.

How do you think the rematch between Artur and Bivol will work out?

Thanks.

 

Great post.

 

What are you taking about, unanswered points?

I literally answered every one of your points.

I agreed with most of them.


Regarding Artur and Bivol having fought the version of Roy who fought Tarver, yes, they would have been heavily favoured over that specific version.

Of course.

It would hardly have been some huge feat would it?


Again, what would happen if Bivol and Artur had fought 50 pro fights, where they'd burnt off healthy muscle, like Roy, Dawson, Byrd and Tarver did?

Then what?

Something to ponder.

We have no idea how they'd look.


Regarding Tarver and Hopkins, the point was: We don't know if Hopkins outclassed him because he was great, or it was because Tarver was drained.

Also, Hopkins being able to have beaten Tarver with ease, isn't a guarantee that Bivol could definitely have replicated that performance.

 

This content is protected

 

Probably your best post to be fair.

The others are terrible.

 

Padding posts to make a thread a 50 pager being compared to Roy padding a record with a few bum opponents. Man. That's just a bit of honourable trolling, a bit of wordplay camaraderie, or showboating on my part, just to add flavour to this intellectual combat of verbal warfare. You mentioned Team Elite earlier, well just ask any of their generals who used to give them the toughest time years back.

See this is the age old debate. And it comes down to how people score fights, and the debate was reignited post the Beterbiev/Bivol result.

Scoring criteria factors:-
1. Who landed more
2. Ring generalship
3. Damage
4. Hit and not be hit
5. Affective aggression.

But one of the overlooked factors these days is who was more of a man in the ring. Beterbiev had Bivol on passive mode, playing it safe, on retreat in the last three rounds. Championship rounds. Which is why I give the nod to Beterbiev. Out of all 4 Beterbiev, Roy, Tarver, Bivol, it's Beterbiev that looked the most dominating in this regard. He took the least damage whilst dishing out the most.

You bring up Roy's KO of Griffin with the lead uppercut. Do I think Artur can pull of such a KO over Griffin? No I don't. But I believe we both will agree that Beterbiev would crush Griffin. Maybe not with a lead uppercut, but he will crush him regardless. You bringing up Roy's lead uppercut KO over Griffin is just highlighting Roy's athleticism. He is gifted in this regard more than Beterbiev, more than pretty much every boxer than existed to be fair.

Both Roy and Beterbiev dominated their opponents in their own way.

Can Roy get a KO win over his opponent if there is a tap of blood opened on his forehead gushing out like Beterbiev did over Marcus Browne?

Can Roy demolish Joe Smith Jr's chin that has never been down as an amateur or pro within two rounds?

Can Roy carry his opponent for 11 rounds, holding back from knocking him out, and then go and get the KO win in the 12th as Artur did against Enrico Koelling? Artur purposefully held back his punches over Enrico Koelling because he wanted to prove to himself he can do the 12 rounds.

And I believe Roy comes out on top in all those hypothetical match ups. But he does it differently to Beterbiev. Both are killers in their own right that killed in a fashion that suited them. What makes Beterbiev a more proficient killer is he never relied upon one attribute like Roy did. Roy solely relied upon his superior athleticism without developing more diversity to his style. Once his athleticism diminished so did he. Beterbiev could have fallen in love with his power like Prince Naseem, or Iron Mike, or Wilder without harnessing other boxing attributes, and only relied upon power because he had a 100% KO ratio. But instead till this day into his 40s he continues an attempt to become a good boxer. Thats a major difference between Artur Beterbiev and Roy Jones Jr.

 

realsoulja,

Ha!

Very good.

I enjoyed seeing the old gang back.

Team Elite used to bring hours of entertainment.

I can remember HEADBANGER.

Yes, it's very subjective.

Bivol always had to be wary of Artur's power. But he impressed me a lot. He was actually more aggressive and offensive than what I expected him to be.

How do you see the rematch playing out?

You've made some great points.

I fully believe that Artur would have beaten Griffin etc.

Yes, Roy had incredible athleticism. But also amazing skill too. Great balance, timing and technique etc.

Yes, Artur's wins were extremely impressive.

I believe that Roy could have beaten Artur's opponents, but yes, they may have played out very differently.

I think that Roy's win over Hill was great too. Just because of the quality of the opponent, and how early it was.

Again, it's subjective on what we class as being impressive..

I do believe that Roy has got the deeper resume too. Although Artur is slowly catching up to that.

I respect this a lot.

Roy's style wasn't built for longevity.

He needed to either retire early, or he needed to change his in order style to compensate for his age. But I guess that that is very hard to do when you're living in the moment, and you've been doing the same thing for years.

 

In rematches, we should ask the question: Who can do more?

In my opinion Bivol boxed the best he could, he did better than expected. What more can he do? I can't see him doing anything extra in the rematch. He can't slug it out with Beterbiev. If he tries to conserve his energy for the championship rounds, then he might end up conceded earlier rounds to Beterbiev. How much more Bivol can do in the rematch depends on how much more risks Beterbiev is willing to take, the more Beterbiev forces the fight the more openings there will be for Bivol. But Bivol's preparation and gameplan as the initiator, I don't see what he can do more this time round. However in post fight interviews Bivol did say he could do more, so perhaps he can surprise me, that will be interesting.

Beterbiev on the other hand I can see him doing alot more in the rematch. Bodyshots, work rate, cutting the ring off, getting dirty with the grappling, rabbit punching, forcing the fight earlier, aggressive clinching. Beterbiev has more in his arsenal to add to his gaemplan in the rematch. However this will give the better boxer Bivol more openings. I don't think Beterbiev's age being a factor will be any different in the rematch than it was in the first fight. So this time round I see Beterbiev winning more clearly.

 

The fight could have gone either way. So a draw was reasonable.

 

The thing was that before Roy Jones jr destroyed Griffin he was acctually a great boxer. The Griffin that existed before that destruction would never have lost to Artur.

 

Correct. Beterbiev has fought his main rival & fully unified wheras Jones wouldn't & couldn't .. & then he got knocked out 3 times. Beterbiev >Jones.