Hamed vs Barrera rematch.

How can anyone admit Roy didnt have a jab but say he had solid fundamentals? The jab is the basic building block of the sport. It all starts with the jab. That of course is not the only thing roy did wrong but if you admit he doesnt have an neffective jab then basically admit he is fundamentally flawed. Roy DID NOT have solid fundamentals and winning or getting jobbed out of a gold medal does not prove otherwise. If anything amateur style boxing is far more suited to someone of Roys gifts than a well schooled professional style fighter.

 

What opponent? What two fights? If you mean Griffith I saw him knock Griffith out once. In the first fight I saw Griffith frustrate Roy so bad that Roy cheap shotted him and got himself DQd. To pretend that Roy was comfortably ahead at the time of the stoppage is horse****. Griffith was still very much in the hunt and everyone but Roys delusional fans knew it.

 

Honestly, I can't see any other outcome.
Marco was/is a different class of fighter.

 

I would've liked to have seen it. Hamed won rounds in the first fight despite looking like **** and not throwing a single combo.

 

That illustrates my point exactly, Jones was a defensive fighter who had no jab to set up his own attacks, therefore when a counter puncher, Griffin, made him take the lead, asked him to close the gap, set up his own attacks, he looked awful, being a defensive fighter he (Jones) is not used to pressing the attack and leading to the opponent, therefore he looked uncomfortable, its not his bread and butter, his only answer was to get overly aggressive to try and go for the KO to negate the fact he could not close the distance slowly and work!!!! his way in because he has no fundamentals, like a jab etc.

 

I agree fully that ROy Jones is a technical midget, but you can't knock his effectiveness. To do so reeks of bias.

 

Roy did have a jab, it wasn't the best ever due to his short arms but it was fast and snappy, do you people actually watch boxing :huh

 

BS Griffith was on his way to getting KO'd and Jones hit him lightly with a tap as he was down, I take it you think Pacquaio should have been DQ'ed in the first Marquez fight, otherwise you're a hypocrite

 

Toney fought as counter puncher too and what happened, Jones led and won every round, Jones led against plenty of boxers, he has 1 somewhat close fight that should have been scored a KO in his favour and all of a sudden he can't lead

 

Difference with Toney is he did not make Roy come and fetch him out the corners the way Griffin did, Griffin used!! the ring, Toney sat there in centre ring, plus, Toney's style had its limitations, Roy was able to feint him into a defensive shell, then leap in with left hooks, step around him because he has this habbit of bending to his right, Jones was able to use Toney's Philly shell to his advantage, plus, Toney was not sharp in that fight due to weight.

 

Jones was on his way to knocking him out, not because he figured out how to win a Boxing match with Griffin though, but because he did away with trying to think his way in (Box)and tried to take him out, also, it was more than a tap, but Griffin did play act, i agree with that.

 

The thing is he led plenty of times in pretty much every fight, whether with the jab/hook/right, its not like he only counter punched. Griffin was a skilled boxer fighting a great gameplan, using his jad and coutner punching and under the tootledge of the great Eddie Futch. It wasn't like Griffin was ahead either, it was pretty much even from what I remember.

 

Well ive seen most of his fight, i cant say i remember anyone using the ring and drawing him foward setting him up for counters the way Griffin did, coming foward is one thing, coming foward and leading whilst having to fetch the man out the corners is another, if you cant pin him down with the first punch he can slip away and most probably counter you on the way out.


He was ahead most of the fight though, Roy only evened it up because i think he scored a KD prior to the DQ, might have been in the same round, not sure.

 

So for you the question:

"Does fighter X have good fundamentals?"

is the exact same question as:

"Does fighter X have a good jab?"

I disagree, I do not think the fundamentals of boxing can be reduced to one solitary facet of a boxer's game, and I don't think that is the common understanding of 'fundamentals'.

I take this question ("Does fighter X have good fundamentals?") to mean does fighter X possess good, well-rounded abilities in the fundamentals of boxing, ie:

- does he have a good jab?
- does he have an effective defence, a decent guard?
- can he hit to the body as well as the head?
- does he have decent combination punching ability?
- does he have good punching technique?
etc

Because if a fighter has a good jab, but doesn't throw combos, doesn't hit to the body ever, has no idea of how to defend himself and punches with his hands open, well then he doesn't have 'good boxing fundamentals', does he??

Roy Jones did not have a good jab, but he did have an effective defence (based on movement, but had a decent guard too and could defend himself on the ropes when required), he did punch well to the body as well as to the head, he could throw decent combinations, and I think he had very good punching technique. Therefore, because he did not score especially highly for one fundamental factor like the jab, he still had solid fundamentals overall because he registers on all other counts.

I can think of many great boxers who did not have a great jab, but still scored so highly on the other aspects of a boxer's fundamentals that they were very technically gifted and fundamentally excellent overall. For example, I don't think that guys like Floyd Mayweather Jr, Bernard Hopkins, James Toney, Mike Tyson and Manny Pacquiao had what you would call great or classic jabs, but all are fundamentally sound - and in fact Mayweather, Hopkins and Toney are very strong in that regard.

On the flip side of the coin, guys like Joe Calzaghe and Naseem Hamed in my opinion did not have good fundamentals. Neither of them had good jabs at all, but unlike Jones they were deficient in other key fundamental areas. Both men had sloppy guards, both men did not throw effective combinations (Calzaghe was a slapper/flurrier, Hamed was a headhunter).


The fundamentals of boxing are far more than one solitary punch.

 

Yawn. No, I just don't agree with your assessment of him. You know, it is possible to think something positive about a boxer without having a poster of him on your bedroom wall.