Boxing Historian Herbert G. Goldman on Floyd Mayweather Jr, Naz, Roy, Tyson...

THE SCHOLAR CONSIDERS:
An Interview With Boxing Historian

This content is protected

By Katherine Dunn
Year: 2001

[SIZE=-1]WHY ROY JONES, JR?

KD -- Some of the questions put forward by the CBZ scholars come to mind at this point.They’ve sent them to me by e-mail and I’ve printed them out and have them here. May I run a few by you?

This content is protected

-- Well, I’ll see what I can do, sure.

KD -- A couple of years ago you published your own greatest pound-for-pound list in International Boxing digest. You had Roy Jones Jr. at the top of your list. You’ve received much criticism from historians and others—typically older folks—What about Jones’ abilities and accomplishments prompted you to make such a bold statement? And how do you compare greatness in boxers? And would you still put Jones up at the top?

This content is protected

-- OK. My ranking of Jones in such a dramatic fashion, had to do not with his accomplishments but simply with his skills. He has more and greater skills than any fighter I’ve ever seen in my life. The way he can hook and go immediately to a straight punch, the way he can fire shots from all angles, his domination of every opponent he faces. I’ve never seen a comparable fighter in my life. I went out on a limb in making that pronouncement at that time. I don’t think I was that overboard. Now it’s true that Mr. Jones’ accomplishments in terms of being in great fights, in terms of being a super-star of his period do not begin to equal his skills. That’s the down side. Of course to make great fights it takes two to tango and Mr. Jones is so far above his competition that there are no great fights out there for him, certainly within his own weight classes. Now in terms of looking at the careers of certain fighters, certainly there are a number of men who outshone him in that respect. But I still maintain that Mr. Jones is the most skilfull, is the most over-powering man, pound-for-pound, in the history of boxing. I don’t think even Sugar Ray Robinson was as dominant over his opposition as Roy Jones has been. That takes nothing away from Sugar Ray. But I have never seen a phenomenon like Roy Jones. Of course Roy Jones knows it, too. He knows what he wants, what he doesn’t want. He’s a star. He won’t fight here. He will fight only here. He’s his own promoter, more or less. So he’s certainly not everyones’ ideal of what a fighter should be. But in terms of skills I think he’s the greatest.[/SIZE]


SOME OF THE BEST MODERNS

KD -- We discussed your controversial stance that Roy Jones Jr is one of the greatest boxers of all time. Would you care to mention any other of today’s fighters who you consider to be among the best?

This content is protected

-- I don’t think there’s any denying Naseem Hamed. Now here’s a small featherweight, when you look at him. He’s 5’3. He was European bantamweight champion. I think if he moved up to Jr. Light or Lightweight, he’d be very hard pressed because of his size. I would never put him in with Floyd Mayweather, Jr. I think Mayweather would just…unh! Would really knock him flat and give him a terrific beating. But at featherweight I don’t see anyone today capable of beating Naseem Hamed.

Fighters of today develop tremendous reflexes, they learn to punch from all angles. This is the new style. It’s replaced even the Muhammad Ali move-and-jab style. It’s not just Hamed, it’s the same basic style you see from Roy Jones, Jr. –shooting these punches from nowhere. The way Roy Jones can turn a straight jab into a hook is something I’ve never seen any fighter do. When I was watching boxing as a kid I used to imagine fighters who could do that, but I never saw anybody do it until I saw Roy Jones. I think that’s part of my fascination with the man. This is a new development. By the way, one fighter of the old days who really, to a large extent, fought like that, was Jimmy Wild, the greatest flyweight of all time. I mean traditionally regarded as such, a Welshman active from 1911 to 1923.

Oh Floyd Mayweather, Jr. My god! Ability like nobody’s business.

Another man-- a shame what’s happened to him, and I’d say the only man who could have beaten him eventually did beat him, and that was himself—Mike Tyson. Now Mike Tyson’s style—talking about a boxer learning from boxers of the past—and it’s amazing that more has not been made of this. Mike Tyson’s style is Jack Dempsey, completely. The way he comes in quickly with a bob and weave, ducks down low and comes up with a smashing left hook to the larger man’s head and face, that’s Jack Dempsey. When Tyson turned pro he even came into the ring with the sides of his head shaven in emulation of Jack Dempsey. There is no doubt about this. No socks, low shoes, black trunks. This was a young man who studied old fight films like crazy. And he found that the style of Jack Dempsey was more conducive to his own abilities than any other style. And that’s what he developed.

KD -- I always felt that Tyson was a small heavyweight and he was often misunderstood and under-rated in terms of the level of genuine skill that he brought into the ring.

This content is protected

-- That’s right. A lot of people did not understand what they were watching when they saw Mike Tyson. He was not some slugger as such.

KD -- He was not a super-power in terms of his physical strength

This content is protected

-- Oh no. One thing about Mike Tyson that I don’t think a lot of people understand because of, let’s say his psychological-social problems, a lot of people think he’s some kind of stupid brute. He’s not. He happens to be, as far as I can see-- and I don’t know the man but I have had a couple of conversations with him-- an intelligent young man. He’s probably one of the most intelligent fighters, certainly in terms of boxing, that we’ve seen. His emulation of the Jack Dempsey’s style. His knowledge of boxing history is considerable, by the way, and when you listen to him, this is not a stupid man. He’s a very misunderstood boxer, and people also do not understand that his skills eroded after a certain period. People will say Ah he was never anything,. They start to question him all the way back. No. He peaked when he knocked out Michael Spinks in the first round. But beginning about a year after that he really started to go down hill.

KD -- That was a period when he had separated from Rooney, his remaining D’Amato trainer, and he no longer had a real trainer who understood his style.

This content is protected

-- Right. Tyson was a fighter who needed a certain edge. He needed to be on edge. And when he lost that he lost a tremendous amount. He still has too much power and over-all ability for ninety or ninety-five percent of all the fighters out there. There’s no question about that. But at his peak I can’t imagine—and I say this with all respect and deference for Evander Holyfield—but at his peak I can’t imagine Tyson being defeated by Holyfield. At his peak he would have been a terrific fight even for the peak Muhammad Ali.


http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/w42x-kd.htm

©2001 CBZ Media, Inc. -- All Rights Reserved



LONG INTERVIEW AND THIS WAS CUT/PIECED



______
___

 

______________