Carl Froch vs Roy Jones jr ... Prime for Prime

Prime for prime Jones without question. Jones in his prime would have beat Calzaghe as well.

 

Why?

Are you just trying to stir up the debate, or are you for real?

Why would you favour Carl?

Roy had superior skill, footwork, hand speed, reflexes, shot variation and had more power.

If Carl had've fought Roy in the 90's, he'd have been beaten easily, and my guess is, you'd be on here dismissing the win, saying it was nothing special etc.

 

Don't be silly.

 

Many fighters perform differently in different divisions. Many times I have watched fighters be impressive at MW and LHW but unable to make the same impact at SMW.


Tell me, what big SMW fights have American/American based SMWs won in Europe? There wont be many and I have noticed many of these fighters get phased when in Europe. Its a tougher scene at SMW in Britain, which would favour Froch.

At LHW, I would go with Jones

 

No one not even Carl would favor himself over a prime Jones in any arena

 

At 168 - in england - with his right hand tied behind his back - Roy Jones destroys froch inside of 3 rounds.

this is the most mind numbing **** i have read on these boards in six or seven years.

Carl froch over RJJ? carl f-ucking froch??


i think RJJ still beats him today..but prime RJJ at 168 or 175 beats calzaghe and froch on the same damn day.

 

slightly beyond prime?

 

What if Roy Jones retired after beating Ruiz?

 

Slightly beyond prime….????

You only saw Jones career after ruiz huh?

Do yourself a favor..watch him dismantle toney and Hopkins.

After the toney fight ask yourself…"what round does carl froch die in?"

 

prime-plus? or just prime+

 

Of course a boxer at the age 35 has lost some speed, reflexes and power. But in Roy Jones Jr case, he was only one year away from what has been seen as one of the greatest victories of his career. Glen Johnson didn't allow Jones Jr to dictate the distance or pace, and that's why Jones Jr fell apart. The term "shot" doesn't refear to any natural or unavoidable decline that explains a boxers shortcomings, but rather covers very real weaknesses in a his game that starts to surface. The reason to why the likes of Mayweather or Lewis never seems to get "shot" is because they are too sound.

The right boxer could have thrown even a prime Jones Jr of his game, for the same reasons that Johnson could later at his career. Obviously not if they get smached to pieces, but it's not like all of prime Jones Jr opponents were unable to go the distance with him.

 

Remember Clinton Woods? Glenn Kelly? People forget what Roy did to guys in 2003.

As much as I like Carl Froch, this is how the fight would look if it happened in Roy's prime http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytfjGRpd9G0

 

\

To quote you:
"The term "shot" doesn't refear to any natural or unavoidable decline that explains a boxers shortcomings but rather covers very real weaknesses in a his game that starts to surface"


May I ask -- why do those weaknesses start to surface? Do they do so spontaneously?

 

In the case of Jones Jr, I think he needed a big edge in athleticism to control the fight. There was a weakness you could get to the whole time, even though he looked incredible. More sound boxers, like Andre Ward for instance, may look less impressive but they will get more and more awkward the more you push them.