Charley Burley v Roy Jones jr at middle weight

Where I agree pretty much with Stonehands I have to disagree on a few points.

I think Jones brings some things to the table that make it a tough night for Burley:

Firstly, his speed is something that has to be taking into account. Jones is one of the best purely athletic specimens we have at Middleweight, he had the speed, the power, the reflexes etc... And I think Jones' speed could allow him to give Burley problems with fast counter shots, but the best way to give Burley problems with it would be the Ezzard Charles way, where he focussed sustained, fast volleys at Burley, yet I do not see Jones adopting this type of plan.

Secondly, Jones' safety first mentality. He's not going to be that bothered about taking the lead like most young pro's would, he'd be happy to sit back and wait for Burley to do the work, this might give Burley some problems because of Jones' reflexes and countering, but then again, Burley was incredibly intelligent with his feints and could probably out-feint Jones in this situation, and Jones is too relaxed at times, often giving away the chance to lead.

Overall, I can see Jones posing some problems with his athleticism but ultimately his safety first mentality may come back on him and his chin may falter.

I'd expect Burley to have a few teething problems early with Jones landing a few hard shots and maybe making his natural size tell a bit, but once Burley has the handle on him, I can see Burley starting to out-feint him and put together crisp accurate shots to take Jones out of there by the mid-rounds.

 

Burley was not much of a safety first fighter was he? he did take risks at times, unlike Jones who would be outmatched.

 

No, you are dumbing down the point to suit your ends. Athleticism is not transferable to boxing in a day -it takes time to adapt into the ring- but that doesn't make something it is not. The word skill is thrown around too much and is often confused with talent. What is the root of skill? Fundamentals. Skills are acquired through rote and drills. If you have speed and power and quick reflexes, they are great supplements, and sometimes they will be so great that fundamentals become less crucial. Thus Ali. Thus Hamed. Thus Jones.

He was lacking alot more than that in terms of technique. Watch film of Chavez and then watch Jones vs from from his prime. Try not to get distracted by the style and watch them like a technical analyst. The difference is clear as a bell.

 

Make no mistake, I do not see Jones as easy for anyone. However, Burley's power and chin, and his experience, disposition, and style would give him a decided edge in my opinion.

 

I get you, you just didn't expand into the problems that Jones could pose.

I agree with your reasoning though.

 

jones' unorthodox style is what made him so great. and yes he was great even though you say he wasn't as "skilled" as most people think. again, from the film we have of burley, he and jones were very similar in their styles.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYFu7s37md4[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GvJjMawMtA[/ame]

 

What ends?

That you name Hamed and Ali in the same sentence here... Ali was actually more fundamentally correct than Burley in that footage against Billy Smith.

But that's not the discussion, the point is that Jones do a lot of things that someone with his exact athletic abilities but without boxing training couldn't do. That difference is boxing skill in a broader sense. The difference between someone who has trained boxing and someone who hasn't, everything else being equal.

And where have I ever said something different? Jones had numerous flaws that his athletic ability let him get away with. No one has said anything different. But he still had a lot of boxing skill. Often his punching is off balance and overreaching, but at times it's very technically good, as is his combinations. His head movement and inside game (the few times he elects to stay there) are also good. So much better than a novice's with the same athletic ability that I really shouldn't have to make this point again.

 

Just to clarify:

For me "boxing skill" is what you learn by training boxing. It's the difference between two persons with identical physical and mental abilities one of whom have trained boxing and one whom hasn't.

"Technical skills" are the skills you are taught in boxing through specific drills.

Jones and Burley both had lots of the first category but less of the other.

 

Skills are for ***gots with no talent and **** genes

 

Jones aint easy for anyone-but he dont beat Burley at 154 or 160. At 175 he'd be a chance coz he'd out weight Charley like a lot of guys who beat him did.

 

And with a 24 hr weigh in, Burley would have been a welter a lot longer, even light welter? Mayweather-Burley at 147? Same result, Burley ud. Burley v Pac at 47? Burley by stoppage.

 

Apologies for the long delay...

--To suit your point about athleticism and boxing.

Hamed was taken apart by the technician Barrera. That fight exposed him. Ali fought heavyweights who were never known for their skill as a group. Frankly, Ali had it easier than Fritzie Zivic. Much easier.

I'm not so sure about how similar Burley's style was to Jones' in an actual sense -and I think it was me who made the original observation some time ago. They look similar at first glance but looking closer reveals that Burley's style was a throwback style. It was very similar to the masters of the 1920s and I surmise that that is by design. He was using more geometry than fighters today and was not, mind you, blindingly fast like Jones or Ali. Nor did he rely on reflexes like them. He relied on positioning and angles. That is indeed technique, albeit from an earlier time. His trainers were from that era, so it makes perfect sense.

I think that you're shading the issue. Obviously, a tennis player or a rugby player isn't going to become the next Roy Jones Jr. When I say that Jones' success was due to athleticism, not technique, it is very clear what I mean.

Where did you say anything different? Right here:

...You are trying to argue from both ends. You seem to be trying to say that Jones 'wasn't so skilled' but 'still had a lot of boxing skill.' Was he a technician or not? I offered you something to consider and you evidently ignored it -I'll try again, why has Jones success rate dropped off remarkably since he hit 35 as compared to his two greatest opponents?

We can discuss another, similar point: If Jones did not have his speed and reflexes, would he have been as successful or anywhere near as successful?

You may have watched Morales and Maidana the other night. Morales was slower than Maidana, with less power than Maidana, smaller than Maidana, and older than Maidana. And Morales fought 9 rounds with one eye. Why was he so successful? "Tecnica" -that's what Morales promised before the fight and that's what Maidana answered when asked why he had such a problem with Morales. Given those same variables, and pretending that Jones had a great chin would he have lasted? I say.... nope.

Why not? There's only one answer. Because he never developed those fundamentals that carry a fighter when he ages or when he is out-sped or outgunned. Because he was so fast and hit so hard that he actually made his opponents pay for his mistakes until his powers lessened just enough for better-skilled fighters to get to him. See, Jones had deluded himself into thinking that boxing is an athletes' sport. It ain't. It's a skills sport. The field of war belongs to the technician in the end.

 

I didn't know I had a particular point here, but ok.

Ali met many skilled fighters, more than most HWs, but that's not the point; the point is that Ali and Hamed are two completely different animals. Ali had flaws, but he had fundamentals to fall back on when the athletecism had gone. Hamed had not one fundamental in sight.

This is Ali, with hardly any physical ability left, giving a younger, stronger contender a test in his last fight:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDQmFOyXgy4&feature=related[/ame]



This is Hamed being schooled by a physically inferior opponent in his last fight:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx0Rf8OEOYs&feature=related[/ame]

The difference is absolutely huge.

In that footage he relies very much on his reflexes and explosive legs. His movement is very uneconomic (just like Jones') and very much dependent on physical ability. And his defence when in range is very dependent on reflexes (as Jones'), since he has no guard to speak of. On at least one of the occassions when he slips several punches, he's not in balance and can't counter effectively and is therefore wholly at the mercy of his reflexes and awareness, and finally his legs to get him out of the position.

This doesn't mean that he doesn't utilise a lot of ring generalship to get the most out of his unorthodox (at least by modern standards) moves. It's exactly the same with Jones.

Ok. And here we actually agree. I also stated in above posts that Roy was dependent on his athletic ability. I just mean that he had other skills to go with that, like some of those I listed above. Did you see my differentation between overall boxing skills and technical skills?

It seems we fundamentally misunderstand each other. What I said there was basically that, while technically flawed (at least in his style), Jones had abundant skill when it came to awareness, reading an opponent, ring generalship, feints etc - just like Burley. And that (together with quite a bit of technique as well, of course) separates him from someone with the same athletic ability but no boxing training.

But he wasn't a technician, since several of the things he based his style and success on was just too flawed from a technical perspective.

If you read my posts, you'll see that I very much agree that Jones' dependance on his physical abilities meant he was never going to last long. He boxed with too little technical skill to do that. This have never been in dispute. I'm just pointing out that there are other boxiing skills than the purely technical ones and that Jones was well endowed with those (as was evidentlly Burley). This is how I explained my view earlier:

Of course, I see technical skill as a part (a very important one) of overall boxing skill.

 

Haven't watched nearly enough of Burley to be sure.


Just to state the obvious.

 

This...by a landslide.