But you simply have to factor in all of Joe's comments, in the three years leading up to the fight. How can you call it a legit win, when Joe literally laughed that Roy was shot, and said that fighting him would be pointless? At the end of the day, boxing is defined by levels and the timing of the fights. Love him or hate him, Joe was an elite fighter. Although he was 36, he was still at the top of his game. Whereas Roy had proven that he could no longer perform at the highest level.
Roy only fought at SMW for a brief period, whereas Joe fought there for the majority of his career. Both were great fighters. Based on accomplishments, Joe obviously ranks higher. Joe's win over Roy in 2008, meant nothing. It was simply a 'cash in the chips before he retired' fight. Nothing more. :good
Nothing is a stretch. The kind of wins you count as meaningful for Roy, i.e. beating a top 10 rated fighter, must also be meaningful for Joe as Roy Jones was rated in the top 10 at 175 back then.
No, not when Roy was only capable of beating B and C class fighters, and Joe had dismissed on him three occasions.
:nono Joe was shot to bits and remains the only person to this day to give Jones a comprehensive boxing lesson. All of his other defeats where because of his glass chin or where fairly close. :happy
How was he shot to bits, coming off of two of his biggest wins? He was far from shot. He was an elite fighter who'd won at the top level. Glen Johnson outboxed Roy for 9 rounds before knocking him cold in 2004. Tarver also outboxed him to a clear win in 2005.
But they didn't school him from start to finish while bloated with shot hands in his back garden like 'Zaggers did. Like Pacquiao v Mayweather, they was both far enough past their primes to suggest what happened was what would've happened 5 years earlier. I admit I thought Pacquiao would've beat Mayweather in 2009 but after what happened on May 2nd, I also admit to being wrong about that. It's time for Jones fans to admit the same :yep
Not sure many people would agree with that. Quality of opponent is obviously important and Froch is a higher level of opposition than Bute as evidenced by his superior resume and stoppage victory over him.
Let's just say, resumes and lasting impression on boxing taken into account, if neither ever fought again, Froch is more deserving of a place in the Hall of Fame than Ward.
When I say "legit" I mean legit in like beating up another mandatory. After Roy had lost to Tarver the second time around he did a number on three second tier fighters. Roy could still fight even though he wasn't the best of the best anymore. By the way, what do you think of Roys performence against Tarver the second way around? What level do you think he was at by that point?
I took into consideration two main things when comparing those wins:- 1) Who they beat 2) The manner of the victory Froch is a better quality of opponent than Bute, I agree. But I prefer Froch's destruction of Bute, taking his undefeated record in the process, despite being favored to lose as more credible than Ward's dominant performance over Froch while Ward was the favorite. Srill I rank both wins in the top 5 SMW wins among RJJ UD12 Toney, Calzaghe UD12 Kessler, and Benn KO10 G-Man.
I think when Roy fought Tarver the second time, he was still a top fighter. He'd brought Mackie back into his camp, and he was in much better shape both physically and mentally, compared to when they'd fought the first time. Obviously, he wasn't the same guy who'd beaten Toney etc, but he was still a top level fighter. The loss to Tarver hit him hard. I personally think that it had a huge psychological affect on him, and he was embarrassed by it. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. But he should have taken some time out before slowly coming back. But the opportunity to fight Johnson presented itself, and I believe that he jumped at it, to eradicate the loss to Tarver. I believe he just wanted to grab a quick win as soon as possible. But according to his father, Roy hardly trained for the fight, and was just going through the motions. I think he greatly underestimated Glen Johnson, and he thought he just had to turn up for the win. Although you have to give credit to Glen for pressuring him from the opening second, to me, it looked like a different fighter in there. After he'd lost to Glen, he became gun shy. His hands were still like lightening, but he wouldn't commit to the same punches as before. His legs were also noticeably different to me. It was sad to see. I wanted him to either retire at that point, or just continue to fight against lower level opposition. He really had no business fighting at the top level after three straight defeats against Tarver and Johnson. Joe knew exactly what type of a threat that Roy presented, when he signed for the fight. He knew there was only a minimal amount of risk involved.
Thats what I was pointing out to you dummy. Bute wasnt mandatory, Stieglitz was at the time you pointed out. You really have backed yourself up again. Now please give me this list of fighters he should have fought and didnt fight at SMW that were fights that the opposition wanted