Roy Jones interview

really you do not know so much about lamotta, and it is obvious.

lamotta weighed 190 pounds at amateur, he was a natural lhw, but he was not so tall and his stamina was not great at lhw.lamotta had bigger structure of bones, jones was more athletic and more muscular because he had modern advantages in nutrition and training, but lamotta is the stronger man of natural way. robinson was better than jones in every department. robinson was a natural welter but he fought at middle and jones too fought at middle, at middle robinson would destroy jones, simple. robinson had better footwork, the hands speesdabout the same, much better chin,much better stamina, better combinations,more accurate... simple better fighter. robinson by late ko.
and no, i am not comparing lamotta with jones because lamotta was a savage animal, stronger than jones and he had x4 more balls.

 

Thanks BMAN, very insightful, a couple of interesting points:

Numerous times he asked the ref to stop the fight before ko'ing an opponent, he said he didn't want to hurt opponents and gave the impression he carried some of his opponents. Against Griffin he said 'he was going to know the difference between pretending to be knocked out and being knocked out', he was pretty upset about that loss feeling robbed

Roy just doesn't seem to comprehend his body can't do what it once could. Despite saying 'I know moved like a HW and punched like a LW' in retort to Foreman saying at HW he 'moved like a LW and hit like a HW' he still thinks he can beat everyone. Then he went onto have this exchange 'Best advice you've been given' 'quit while your ahead' 'when are you ahead Roy?' 'I don't know yet'

 

Mainly because he didn't box technically and had the ability to tear up the textbook, lets look what Jones does better than Robinson:

Defense: gets hit far less, much better radar
Counter punching: instead of getting into brawls like Robsinson Jones would slip and counter with flush shots, amazing counter punching
Hand Speed: not close far quicker
Left Hook: best left hook in history for me, the speed/power of it, the shortness of it, the ability to treble/quadrupple it, the power in it, the ability to lead and land with against quality opposition
P4P Power: this is pretty close and Robinson was literally a murderous puncher. Some of Jones KOs were just devastating though looking back, more so than Robinsons

Roy is a technician, some so called better technical boxers can't punch as short, don't have the recoil, can't counter punch, can't slip punches, can't put combinations together aswell. Not saying that applies to Robinson but Jones gets underrated in the skill stakes as if he was just an athlete that went from running track and had zero skill

 

Very true. I feel Jones' technique gets very underrated just because he adopted a style that relied heavily on speed and reflexes. His balance and accuracy when punching are second to none, as is his footwork, counterpunching and use of angles.

Non-textbook is too often mistaken for bad technique.

 

Well, this is an old argument, but I just don't agree. Punching with that balance and accuracy, putting together combinations like that - that's technique. His movements were smooth and exact: that's technique.

Then he also did things that you never should teach. He leapt in with punches, didn't set up with the jab, kept his hands low etc. That's poor fundamentals, but in his case I think it was by choice. Looking at footage of him as an amateur (for example sparring the then WW champion) it's clear he has the fundamentals, but adopted a style that suited his gifts better.

Guys like Foreman or Fulmer, that's poor technqiue for me. Looping punches, poor balance, poor combination punching, unability to keep desired distance etc.

 

This is exactly the way I see it Bokaj, the use of punch technique, distance, balance, countering, feinting, use of movement/distance/angles. I especially liked the way against Toney he'd pull some punches, quickly recoiling so he couldn't get tagged and next time when Toney was expecting him to do the same he landed a huge power shot. The fact is you just can't have that sort of speed anyway without great technique

The balance was something special, the way he could switch between othodox/southpaw if it suited him and sit on his punches with near just as much authority, thats one trait that impresses me in Andre Ward and its something Mayweather has occasionally attempted with nowhere near the same success

 

Your mixing up technique with textbook boxing. Balance is technique, punching is technique, recoil is technique, slipping shots is technique, countering is technique, footwork is technique, timing is technique.

Technically Marquez makes mistakes himself, being open to jabs/left hooks/straight lefts because of his low right hand, which is maybe partly because he likes to have his right ready to throw, which is the same reason Jones likes to drop his hands and have them both ready to pounce

 

I see what you're saying, and personally I'm still not sure if there's a way to separate good fundamentals from good technique. But that's another discussion.

If we stick with Jones, I'd say there were things he could have done technically better (more economic footwork and a tighter stance/guard for example would have made him less dependent on physical ability), but the things he did well (punching, combinations, countering etc) he did with such technical acumen that I can't really call his technique bad. And I'm not a fan in any particular way - don't have any personal feelings invested. I think it's more about if you view the glass as half full or half empty.

Ps. And being balanced when you punch has everything to do with technique. No one comes into the ring and punches with great balance and accuracy. Doesn't matter if you're a tight-rope walker or a ballet dancer; to punch with great technique you have to painstakingly learn the correct moves in the gym. It will come easier for some than for others, of course, but that's true for all forms of technique.

 

Balance in itself isn't technique, but applied balance is.

I'd say that technique is the specific moves that you work on. Things that are methodically taught and learned. And things like punching, slipping and footwork are of course such.

Timing is rather something you instinctively pick up through practice, I'd say. As is radar, anticipation, ring generalship etc. These are skills, but not technical skills since those are specific moves/forms honed through methodical practice (specific exercises on pads etc). I think this is a pretty useable definition (McGrain's to start with, actually).