Charley Burley vs RJJ @ 160

Those are two pretty important things to bring to the table. Jones wasnt just another fast guy. He had freakish speed for his size. Not just hand speed but his foot quickness and his ability to move and still punch off his movement with power.

Burley did face superior fighters but he didnt beat them all. He lost to Charles a couple of times. Its not as if he dominated Charles.

 

It means a huge edge in reflexes and overall quickness, as well as strength. Combine that with Jones' greater size and Burley is in trouble. Burley's style and pace would suit Jones.

 

I watched him vs B-Hop at 160 and he looked i-ight.

It was a yawner and he was in his prime. If Hopkins would have pressed him hard and threw at him I believe he would have beaten him with realitive ease. Once he put Jones back to the ropes Roy was very limited and really had no way to get out. Those rounds I gave to Hopkins. Hopkins just decided to not go all out each round. His fault, his loss. When Johnson put Roy against the ropes Roy was dead in the water and was dropped for almost an hour. All Glenn did was what Hopkins did not do. Continue punching.

I say this because Burley has dealt with speed and power before and handled it well. With Burley's skill I don't see him getting hit a whole lot by the cauious Roy Jones. I see Burley being able to outbox Roy and test him severely.

Roy never developed the skills needed to be great in the times of Burley. Had he fought the likes of Robinson, Charles, and Moore I have no doubt he would have been exposed for his lack of defense and jab and gotten the heck beat out of him until he learned. Basically, he would have been a solid contender but, not at the upper eschelon's or greatness.

 

Let's break any other great fighter's wrist, and get them into the ring before it fully heals, and see how they look? Oh, wait, actually we have had plenty of examples in history, where it happened during the fight and those great fighters looked much-much worse than they usually did.

About 3 feet away from the ropes is being called "against the ropes" now?

 

Give the examples big guy. Please.

Here is your three feet away from the ropes.

This content is protected

One more

This content is protected

And the result

This content is protected

Not exactly three feet from the ropes is it? If the links don't work just search it by bing or watch the fight. BTW, what do you think about Roy Jones Jr. vs. Charley Burley?

Have a great day!

 

[yt]xurWHNylVdg[/yt]
Around 13:30 is a replay from the side, although not the best angle, all the same, but Roy is nowhere "against the ropes", 2 or 3 feet away, he could step forward, step back, step to the right to avoid a punch, there was enough space, but he decided to duck under it.

 

that is nonsense. Which fighter did Tyson, for example, have an advantage in athleticism over? Utter nonsense; you heard Jim Lampley say that and he knows nothing about boxing.

 

Burley exposes the the flaws in prime jones.

 

Based on two Charles' fights and Lloyd Marshall fight, I'll take Jones to outpoint Burley by wide margin. Left hooks and right crosses would make Burley respect Roy's power early and make him timid and defensive. He's too small.

 

Roy Jones W 15

Ive seen both. Burley wouldnt be able to cope with so much speed. As a result, loses by the score of 12 rounds to 3

 

I want to apologize to rusak; while I disagree with him, my comment was rude.

 

I'm sure he'll forgive you.

BTW, there's no way an awkward bum like Burley could compete with Roy. Beaten to the punch 9/10 times!

 

Hopkins felt Jones`s punch and that was one reason why he didnt "press him hard". Just walking Roy Jones down was dangerous. He could punch. Check out his performance agasint James Toney at `68. Toney was an exceptional fighter himself but Jones was just too damn fast.

Not counting Burley out or even saying he would be dominated but I would go with Jones based on that incredible speed and footwork.

 

Great match up, but made difficult to predict with any real certainty due to a comparative lack of footage of Burley.

I tend to think that, in a single, one-off fight, Jones' complete unorthodoxy and unique style give him an edge over just about anyone in history (perhaps the odd exception aside here and there) between 160 and 175. I think for stylists like Burley, Tunney and so on, a series against Roy might be more beneficial (take the way that Tunney was completely befuddled by Greb's unusual angles, mixed bag style and incredible pressure first time out before slowly getting to grips with it as their series wore on, for instance).

I think part of being able to beat Roy is to make him cautious, and while Burley was a hurtful puncher no doubt, I don't think he had enough pop to put the fear of God in to Jones, particularly at Middleweight.

I'd expect Jones to win a tight decision over Burley in a fight which never really comes to the boil. Both were hard to hit but judging by the footage we do have of Burley I'd give an edge in speed to Jones, and I think Burley would have the tougher time of the two trying to pin his man down, plant his feet and score with any worthwhile punches.

One for the purists, and as I said over a series of fights Burley may well reverse the trend, but as an opener I think Jones would outpoint him in a stinker.

Howdy to everyone here, by the way, as it's my first post.

 

Very nice post. First post at that. Thanks for taking the time to put some thought into. For whatever it is worth, I agree completely.