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

Good post MR.
But we dont know how Roy would have travelled and at SMW in a big fight away. He hasnt had too much success on the road

 

Very true.

But to be fair, Roy didn't start traveling until in his 40's when he flat out had to.

He did travel to Seoul in they Olympics and wiped the floor with the home fighter in the finals which is pretty much the highest stage in amateur boxing.. I don't see anything that would make me believe prime Roy wouldn't have risen to the occasion professionally.

I can see maybe if Roy was pretty evenly matched, giving the home fighter the advantage, but I don't believe that is the case with Froch. But anything can happen of course.

I also kind of look to Taver-Jones I, that was basically an away fight with the crowd anyway, cheering Tarver on because he was giving Roy the fight of his life.. Roy needed those last 2 rounds big, and he got them, though it took everything he had... I honestly believe Jones was a fighter, we just didn't see him pushed that much in his prime.

 

Just watch RJJ Hopkins 1 He was just special.

 

I didn't say Littles was considered one of the best fighters on the planet.

I was referring to Toney.

There's no way that any knowledgeable fan would favour Carl, if they did an objective and logical breakdown.

 

Prime Roy Jones Jr lost rounds against world level opponents, and they were also able to go the distance with him. Of course I'm not saying Carl Froch is as good as all time greates like Bernard Hopkins, but he is without doubt world level. I don't think you can use Jones Jr performence against average boxers as a measure stick to tell how he would fare against Froch.

Considering Jones Jrs loss against Glen Johnson: I don't believe Jones Jr when he says he was dehydrated with reference to the ringside doctor. But I do believe the sources saying he didn't train properly, and that must have made him look worse than he otherwise would have.

Mentally I doesn't mather if Jones Jrs mom died the morning of the day of the fight. The reason to why Jones Jr was against the ropes was because he lacked the boxing skill and heart to handle Johnsons pressure. He reacted the same way against Joe Calzaghe, who ain't a power puncher. I think this weakness within Jones Jr could have been revealed during his prime, albeit to a very high price paid by a boxer with the right fighting style.

 

Dude please. Is this for real?

Jones Jr against glen johnson was shot and DONE. Nobody is talking about that Roy.

PRIME Roy. Prime fu-cking Roy at 168lbs = the hopkins or toney fights.

 

a post using jones vs calzaghe as a yardstick to work out prime jones is a post that deserves ignoring, don't worry.

 

Roy lost to Johnson and Calzaghe because he lacked skill and heart? Not because he was past his best? ok.atsch

Some of the things I read on here.

By the way, prime Jones was a beast on the ropes, and very dangerous.

I also find it amusing that you state that we can't use Roy's performances as a measuring stick...Roy has beat great fighters.

What performances can we use of Froch's as a measuring stick of how he would do against Roy? Who has he fought that is even remotely close to Roy's level? Ward??

 

you must have only watched Jones after he came down from HW.

At his best Jones could fight off the ropes the difference is when his legs went he became a stationary target he relied way to much on his athleticism ,that's the difference ! You don't become a standout in the Olympics with out having a fundamental base ..Froch would have been TKO ed in 6 ..I mean if Jermain. Taylor didn't have stamina issues he would have ended Froch and he's nowhere in a prime Jones league!

 

As ESB CONTINUES going down the Drain....:-(

EVERYONE should be MURDERED for even replying to this dumb ass post (myself included, lol), but at least I won't give an answer, I'll just say,

"PRIME Roy Jones against PRIME Carl Froch".................REALLLY:-(

 

carl froch..in prime...could not beat andre dirrell in his own backyard....so the short answer is NO WAY IN HELL

 

Yeah, two. Bernard Hopkins and Antonio Tarver. That's great, But Roy Jones Jr did not fight world level opponents or the toughest opposition available on a consistent basis. And besides, Tarver avenged his loss in a convincing manner. If Jones Jr also hade granted a more experienced Hopkins a rematch, that could have straightened out a questionmark or two. But Jones Jr didn't seem to fancy the idea. One might wonder why.

Carl Froch has never fought anyone with the same strength and weaknesses as a prime Jones Jr, but he has fought world level opponents throughout his career. And he has never been knocked out, stopped or dominated. It seems strange to assume Jones Jr would have toyed with him.

 

Okay ... which boxers have been able to defeat the ring magician Bernard Hopkins? Roy Jones Jr did it, and who was that other guy, he who did it twice?

Of course Jones Jr had technique, but world level boxing technique doesn't disapperar by itself. If you have it, you will put it into use when someone pounds away at you.

 

AnotherFan,

Roy in his prime at SMW hardly lost any rounds.

Roy was also content to take points decisions.

But the outcome of any fight, depended on the style of fighter he was facing, and his mindset.

Carl is a come forward fighter, and he doesn't have a great defence

It would have been a recipe for disaster.

You can analyse just about any version of Roy, from 2002-2003, to predict how he'd have fared against Carl.

Well he did get hit on the side of the head, but it didn't look particularly hard to me, and he was out cold. So they may have been some truth to it.

But again, it doesn't make any difference to me,

IMHO, Carl would have destroyed the version of Roy that Glen fought. But a peak version of Roy would have beaten Carl with ease.

Roy clearly couldn't handle Glen's pressure and tactics that night. But again, IMHO, that's because he'd just been knocked out by Tarver.


Do you think Glen could have beaten the version of Roy from the Tarver rematch?

I think that would have been a great, competitive fight.


Do you think Glen could have beaten Roy at his peak?

I don't think he'd have had any chance.


The Calzaghe version of Roy, was confident and in good shape. But he was almost 40 and hadn't won at the top level for five years.

So that's another fight that doesn't really tell us anything.


I agree that the right style could have caused Roy all sorts of problems.

Guys like Spinks, Foster and a peak Mike McCallum etc.


But I just can't envisage Glen, Joe and Carl even troubling him at 25.


Again, you've made some good points.

Carl could pressure like Glen could.

But IMHO, he would have had zero success trying to pressure Roy at his peak.


So basically, I don't think you can make a case for Carl beating him, by looking at the outcome of Roy's fight with Glen. Because again, the version of Roy from 1994, is a completely different fighter to the one from 2004.

 

not when you are 40.
all the greats got pounded out at 40, and often to comparative midgets of boxing- roy jones is no exception to father time, he lost to much lesser men such as joe calzaghe then.

you just want it to be an exception. why do you want it to be an exception? tell us.