I didn't drop Hill anywhere. He has accomplishments at the weight that surpass what Qawi has done at 175 lbs. We can disagree on who wins certain matchups, but to deny that at lhw Hill is better than Qawi based on resume is silly. Qawi may have beaten everyone in your mind. In reality he achieved nothing much at the weight, and was simply a tough grinding swarmer with little skills or generalship, hard punch but not a KO artist.
Still riding that Virgil horse! It is going to be a long and lonely journey through the desert of stubborn myopia. What I'm denying is your sense of perspective which from your opening gambit required a countersignature from a guardian. You're going backwards again if you really believe that Jones beating Hill was a better achievement than Spinks beating Qawi. I can't believe you are prepared to commit such a skewed opinion to words and then return again to cement your dementure. The silliest thing here is that I'm prepared to even patronise such a position. "little skills"
What I'm denying is your ability to observe the things of the past objectively, without rose-colored glasses. I didn't say it was better achievement for Jones. I say that in all-time rankings based on achievements Hill clearly stands ahead of Qawi. Yes, little skills, outside of that awkward defense.
Eh? First of all rose-tinted glasses are better than your blindfold. Secondly Spinks, Jones, Hill and Qawi are ALL from the past. So not only is the rose-tinted glasses argument the refuge of the intellectually bankrupt its also, in this case, completely irrelevant. I had to go back and re-read what you did say in terms of Qawi and Hill because I was laughing so much when I first read your fumbling observations. So you think it wasnt as good an achievement for Jones but that Hill is better than Qawi nevertheless. How many straws can you clutch in your hands at one moment in time? The only thing you are denying here is the fact that Jones gets a free pass for essentially, in terms of the upper echelons of the sport, a B grade career (and Im being generous). This has led you to your folly: desperately lurching around, like Jones after a Tarver left-hand, from one error to the next in an attempt to glue your broken beliefs back together. little skills
DUMBASS,what does "overall" have to do with it?DUMBASS,the whole point of this thread is who was better Jones or Spinks,and what's the common weight?Lightheavyweight,DUMBASS.And Toney and Hopkins are CLEARLY not better at lightheavyweight than Qawi DUMBASS.And no,DelValle is not the best I can do.But he did put Jones on his ass at lightheavyweight,DUMBASS,where Spinks was never put down until he fought Tyson at heavyweight in his last fight.Not only r YOU ****,but you most definitely are far more suited for the General,DUMBASS.
Michael Spinks would have stopped him in five or six rounds ..size, speed, reach, power, chin ... all too much for Roy at this weight ..
I don't see anyone going 12 rounds with Michael Spinks without shipping some big shots, and Roy Jones Jr is no exception. Can Roy Jones Jr stand up to Spinks' best shots? Highly debatable, he's never really given us reason to believe he could in my estimation.
There's the past and there're more or less modern boxers. Anybody knows the difference, match up a fighter who fought 10 years ago with someone who fought 30 years ago, and a lot of people (you included) will pick the 30 yrs one to win, fighting in better era, better opposition, et cetera. Joey Giardello beating Dick Tiger was a bigger achievement, but him beating the Sugar was him beating a better boxer. If you can't follow even such simple logic, you have a problem. Compared to Greb, Charles or Moore, Spinks and Foster have C-grade careers (Foster may have D-grade, actually). Where do you rank each at LHW?
Interesting fight. I think Jones at Light Heavyweight tends to be a little underrated (he has some good wins against some creditable contenders/champions at the weight), and he would certainly be the fastest fighter that Spinks would have faced at the weight. Yet, Spinks was probably the most versatile fighter that Jones would have faced, with the ability to circle and bide his time behind the jab, and the raw power to end the fight at any point with one punch. In my mind, this plays out a bit like Spinks-EMM did. I can see Jones winning the early rounds by landing one or two cleaner punches in each stanza, but as time progresses, Spinks finds his rhythm, manages to hurt Jones and puts him on the defensive more and more as the fight goes on. Jones might manage to survive the distance (he showed some grit in the two Tarver fights), but ultimately I see Spinks coming from behind to win the decision without controversy.
I think Qawi could beat Toney and Mccallum but I think B-Hop would beat Qawi. Hopkins can fight many styles as he has proven and Qawi ain't knocking out Hopkins either. So I can go for other 2 but I don't see him beating B-Hop. Only 2 fighters who did that was Taylor and Calzaghe at that point and they got controversial decisions cause they were more active cause of their speed not more accuarate though. Qawi ain't fast enough to trouble B-Hop and Hopkins, as always proven he can make any fighter fight his fight.
Spinks fought in the 80s. Jones' best was in the 90s. I choose the man I think would win and the man with the evidence behind him. You're stuck in a corner, devoid of argument, depserately trying to appropriate some line of thinking. So...you trot out the cliches of a man trying to warm his his hands on the dying embers of misguided inspiration. Your'e trying to tell me who I would pick in a fight? Based on your own prejudice! You should have divorced Jones not your grasp on reality.
