Harry Greb vs Roy Jones Jr.

He didn't look that marvellous.

 

So its your contention that Hopkins was a finished fighter, as good as he was going to get, and deserving of a title shot when he first faced Jones based on...

Let me ask you this: Was there not plenty of room for improvement with Hopkins when he first fought Jones? Did he not drastically improve over the next 10 years or more? How do you reckon, based on his competition, that he deserved a shot at a title and if he had managed to win what had he ever done to consider himself a champion considering Jones was the only legitimate contender level/marquee name he had ever fought and frankly Jones was largely unproven at that point as well. If that title fight is not a perfect example of what some of us on here are arguing I dont know what is. 80 years ago that fight would have been a club fight between two young up and comers with a lot of potential but a lot to prove. In this era it was a championship fight.

 

Not to hijack the topic but the record in the 100 has increased from 9.93 in 1982 to 9.57 in 27 years. The same duration saw the 800 go from 1:41.77 to 1.41.1. That's a huge disparity in improvement.

And Wells was among the best in 79 and 80, along with Floyd, Sanford and Leonard (all of whom Wells beat in 80). Floyd's best was 10.03, Sanford 10.02. Wells, who did most of his sprinting colder weather went 10.11. Carl Lewis, in 81, went 10.01.

 

Hopkins wasn't as green as some (including you) are trying to describe him. Skillwise he was close to finished, tactically he wasn't, but his style back then was supposedly more suited to beat Jones than his more developed lazier versions. Considering their dedication to training (before Jones got bored by boxing in early 2000s), talent and skills, I don't doubt they would have done as good as the greatest fighters in any other era.

That was a fight for one out of three (or even four) recognized titles. Not something a usual historian would consider a true championship fight. Consider it as if they fought an elimination bout to face the champion. Certainly it'd not be an ordinary club fight.
I recall Jimmy Britt getting a lot of attention in SF press starting several weeks before he had his pro debut.

 

Unorthodox, but I somewhat agree with Senya. Hopkins lacked only the experience. His skills were already very polished. I agree that the younger, more aggressive version of Hopkins was a lot more suited to facing Jones than at any other stage.

 

I agree with that actually. He didn't fight like it though.

 

That's maybe because Jones was one of the only educated movers he ever fought.Hopkins footwork isn't that great on the front foot. not as bad as someone like Eubank(thought it was by the time of the Taylor fights), but he's always relied on poor man's conteh/duran like surges instead of being able to press in an educated manner.I tend to down a GOOD mobile opponent would have been his biggest weakness.

 

Not to mention Jones out-fought him handily on the inside whenever Hopkins was able to close the distance/whenever Jones felt like trying his hand on the ropes. Hopkins was never Jones's equal, bad matchup or not.

 

I think Hopkins didn't fight more aggressively because he was too intelligent and well-trained already to simply use brute force without any thought of self-defence. He tried fighting at long range with no success (Jones' right hand being not fully healed yet actually played against Hopkins, Roy being more laid-back than usual). He tried infighting - only on even terms. He tried to feint and counter-punch at mid-range, but the difference in handspeed made him look silly (kinda like Leonard-Hagler). Hardly a matter of lacking experience.

 

For all you breast feeders picking a music artist over the immortal 300 fight Harry Greb.....would you need film to pick Harry over a window? you can double glaze that mother ****er if you want

 

post of the day, gentlemen.

 

Klompton hit the nail right on the head...Jones wouldn't have fought Greb...just like Jr. doesn't want to fight Pacman...then say how he WOULD have defeated him...

 

I dont know why anyone would bother comparing boxing to sprinting.
Sprinters are really competing against a constant physical environment. They run in a straight line from one end to the other, over the same distance, against the same forces and principles of gravity and inertia.
Sprinters have become bigger, stronger, faster, and more professional. And the scientific advances plays a big part.
Theoretically at least, there is a perfect way to run for any given athlete, and a maximum potential speed.


Boxing is simply about beating the man in front of you, and that rests of thousands of momentary choices about possible moves made (or not made) by both fighters. It's like chess, but more so.

 

There are some desperate posts coming out now.

 

100 sprinting is a simple, relatively unskilled and very fixed sport(and indeed any pure running event) compared to something as intricate and laden with second-to-to second possible factors as boxing.It's such a shame in these old-timer/modern debates people arguing for a certain viewpoint always feel the need to bring it up.

It has it's own place of course, but still.