How would you describe a prime Roy Jones?

Toney and McCallum were about 15% of their best, if that. Still close fights.

Hopkins is a good close win, though Bernard didn't really come into his own until '97-'01 and looked pretty poor against a pretty poor Mercado, even being punched through the ropes.

Virgil Hill was very very long in the tooth and had already lost good. Great bodyshot though.

Tate was fairly good. Thornton was good but faded and had already retired - and his shoulder went. Pazienza - a blown-up lightweight recovering from a broken neck. Sosa was long in the tooth and never much of a technician at all, which you needed to be to challenge an unorthodox style like Jones's.

Griffin was tricky, and proved so. Fresh and with experience. Griffin beat him fair and square, even schooling Jones. Close one though.

Reggie Johnson was very faded, his speed and sharpness had gone and he wasn't near as slick as he was 7-10 years prior.

Harding was good and fresh and did good with Jones. Another close one.

 

Sorry no.... A prime Jones was avoided by most of the best. Not the other way around.

 

The most talanted athlete/greatest athlete to ever put on gloves..!

 

Wow, this post has a few truths but is mostly full of bull****.:yep

 

:thumbsup Class post tommy!!

 

Still, Jones had great reflexes and a very unorthodox boxing style. He was talented with great quickness of hand and foot, his power was very interesting because it was generated through tendon strength and range of motion in the shoulders; it allowed him to leap in or punch relaxed.

The quadruple left hooks were good to see, etc.

But he was over-rated and unproven 'prime opponent-wise'.

 

All completely true my friend.

 

it's been on here time and time again but the pre bryan brannon pre conference where someone calls him on his lack of elite opponents and roy tells them EXACTLY why they've never fought. The only two that made any real attempt to fight him were collins and hopkins. That's it, no one else wanted **** to do with him and collins didn't bring enough to the table for roy to risk getting screwed. Hopkins' ego was too big at all times in his career to make it happen: 60/40 was more than good enough for him to get his ass kicked

 

1)Nope

2)Nope

3)Nope

And Toney and McCallum were 15% of their peaks? That's a bold statement. Bold but very wrong.

 

Toney I think was his best win. Toney at the time was p4p top 5 and was favored to beat Roy. IMO these 2 would've beaten Calzaghe, Benn, Eubank, Collins, or McCallum in their primes. Toney and Jones in their primes were the creme of the crop.

 

Superman.

Nuff said.

 

you know how they say you cant get to the top of of talent alone, well, jones has pretty much gotten him self into the boxing hall of fame on pure talent.
imagine what he could have been if he truly dedicated himself to the sweet science.

 

Overrated as a boxer but had amazing physical attributes.

 

Toney was not 15%, Hopkins was not a close fight. Griffin did not school Jones when Jones was DQed. If you actually watched that fight you would realize Jones was up on two of the three scorecards and just got his second knockdown.

Virgil Hill was not prime, but he was good enough to later move up to Cruiser and get a belt.

Eric Harding close???? What are you smoking? Jones beat the **** out of him.

 

Toney was the best fighter in the world, period. That was clear in the Barkley fight.

But he lost nearly 50lbs in little over a month for the fight against speedster Jones. It was rumoured Toney was even on a drip to keep him alive at one point, prior to the fight.

Toney at his very best was the very best. He was better than Jones. He would've beaten Jones, despite styles.