Comparing Roy jones Jr at LHW to Artur beterbiev is crazy talk

You don’t know anything about Reggie.

You’ve just been on BoxRec.


McCallum wasn’t just a LMW.


It’s funny how Dariusz was faded at 35 isn’t it.

The same age that Roy was against Tarver.

 

Based on what?

Because you believe that he didn’t want to fight Dariusz?

 

Great post.

As always.

 

You haven’t got the capacity to take any information onboard.

I’ve been trying now for 12 years.


YOU say that he was a glass jawed fraud.

Those are YOUR words.


So if that was true, even though Ruiz was only a B level HW, that by any metric, still HAD to have been a risk for Roy.

Burning healthy muscle in just 2 months, in order to fight a tough stylistic match up, against a talented and highly motivated southpaw, also HAD to have been a risk for him.


There’s simply no getting around that.

BOTH of those fights were risky for him.


You can’t just say things like: “Ruiz was boring, and he wasn’t Lennox etc”

A glass jawed fraud fighting ANY WORLD RANKED HW, HAD to have been a risk.


Yes, fighting Johnson was also a risk.

Because he was in the ring in September, after being badly knocked out in May.


Regarding HBO, please read carefully:

Along with Roy’s advisors, they went out of their way to try and make fights with Dariusz and Hopkins.


That is factual information.

Over the years, I have posted numerous links, with direct quotes from HBO’s execs.

Statements from Kerry Davis and Mark Taffet.

A direct quote from Mark Taffet, after meeting with Hopkins, the week after the famous live on air argument had ensued.


I’ve told you all of this before.

But you can’t comprehend it.


Also, Roy fought over 25 times on the network, across a period of around 15/16 years.

Yes, at times they were frustrated. But they were happy for the most part.


Hopefully you can absorb this information.

 

Great.

Now you might answer the points that were put to you on two posts.

 

No problem.

I just wasn’t sure.

Personally, I think that both Artur and Bivol would had to have been favoured over those guys.

However, they were very good fighters.

 

Are you having fun looking at boxrec records about fights and fighters that you have never seen?

LMAO about Reggie Johnson? You must be out of your mind. The guy has a few losses on his record sure but you have to look at those losses and who he lost to. Discounting his first 10 fights his next loss came to James Toney and he lost by a split decision. He also lost by UD to John David Jackson and being humble that is a fighter that I know very little about.

His two losses were split decision losses vs Jorge Castro himself, Jorge Castro was a phenomenon, the most underrated fighter of all times. Look at the Jorge Castro vs Roy Jones jr fight, Roy wasn't alot better than Castro, the difference between the two was mindblowingly small and to make things worse Roy enjoyed a size advantage over the guy, without that advantage who knows what would have happened.

A while after the loss Reggie would sign up to fight Tarver only to lose by again split decision and then he went on to defeat DM conqueror Gonzalez, not a bad run at LHW at all. And then you have to think of the way that Roy beat this accomplished fighter, he made him look like a nobody and your silly brain fell for it.

 

Gotta love the insane level of spinning and mental gymnastics here. Insert ""

It's mentioned by the exact same poster in the previous page that Tarver(pretty conveniently) is the only worthy rival at LHW aside from DM, yet Reggie Johnson who was a legitimate titlist and went on to gave Tarver a tough fight(by Tarver's own admission) 3 years after losing to Roy was no good at LHW

Tarver was the only notable RJJ opponent, yet Virgil Hill who's a greater LHW than Tarver(greater than Bivol too) and would beat Tarver H2H who then went on to win a title at cruiser is not worth mentioning

Oh, who can forget Eric Harding who went 1-1 with the great Tarver, but apparently isn't worth mentioning either

Clinton Woods, a titlist with several title defences is a nobody, therefore Julio Gonzalez who dethroned DM is a nobody to because he lost to the aforementioned Woods twice

And my favourite part is that we've been hearing for over 30 pages that Roy being faded at 35 is just an excuse, yet Gonzalez beating Michalzewski was meaningless because Dariusz was faded at 35

I acknowledged more than once in this thread that It's reasonable to rank Beterbiev over RJJ at LHW for going undefeated&undisputed(I thougt he lost to Bivol, but gotta respect the official verdict). But overall body of work, overall quality of opposition? Roy has the clear upperhand on that.

Gvozdyk was a top amateur, and looked to be goods in the pros. But that's it, looked to be. His entire work in the pros consists of looking very good against journeyman/gatekeeper level opposition, dethroning an ancient Stevenson who was very lucky to get away with the draw in his previous fight against Badou Jack, losing to Beterbiev, disappearing for 3 years only to come back to lose to Benavidez who was making his debut at 175. The fact that he keeps being brought up as a career defining win for Artur only supports my statement in the paraghraph above.

PS: Excessive use of "" is exclusive to the poster I'm quoting, which apparently has a power of strengthening the argument.

 

Hill beats AB?

 

What points did you make exactly? The discussion was a comparison between:-

Beterbiev MD12 Bivol
And
Jones Jr MD12 Tarver

Which was more impressive?
Which was more clear?
Which was more definitive?

I threw an unanswered 7 point combination making a solid case that Beterbiev's MD12 victory was more impressive than Roy's. Just a quick replay of the 7 point combination thrown:-

1. Beterbiev was damn near 40 years old while Roy was in his mid 30s.
2. Beterbiev was coming off a knee surgery.
3. Beterbiev had his ring rust out of the ring for prolonged periods at a time while Roy was active.
4. Bivol was the superior boxer to Tarver.
5. Beterbiev showed more dominance over Bivol than Roy did over Tarver.
6. Beterbiev had more wear and tear on him at near 40 than Roy did at 35.
7. Beterbiev started his pro career late.

And I could have thrown a few more shots following this 7 point combination but just like Beterbiev held back from throwing extra power shots at Campillo after his knock out combo and walked away, so did I.

You still insisting on me to continue this intellectual bout is like Campillo insisting on getting punched a few more times after Beterbiev walked away. Unnecessary. Its done. It's over. It's concluded.

Now I been following this thread a while and seen you mention earlier the following:-

Are you trying to pad up this thread to a 50 pager similarly to how Roy Jones Jr was padding up his record with the likes of Telesco, Glen Wolfe, Byrdie? Whats your play here Loudon?

Hopkins wasn't as atheletically gifted as Roy Jones Jr. Nor was he as talented as James Toney. Therefore Hopkins never relied upon his athleticism or talents, but his main attribute was his discipline and ring craft. Once Roy's athleticism diminished he was getting knocked out left right and centre, as he was heavily reliant upon this. Tarver was able to capitalise on this over Roy but never over Hopkins as BHop never relied upon athleticism. Bivol and Beterbiev are two more greats that are not reliant upon either athleticism or talent. They are disciplined students of boxing that have harnessed their boxing skill. Beterbiev could have fallen in love with his own power and be solely reliant upon it just like many a boxer before him, but he hasn't, instead he insists that one day he will finally become a good boxer. These are some stark differences between Beterbiev and Roy, hence why Beterbiev can achieve longevity like his predecessor Bernard Hopkins while Roy was completely shot overnight.

The Beterbiev that fought Bivol would have absolutely crushed the Roy that fought Tarver.

The Bivol that fought Beterbiev would have boxed the head of and possibly outworked the Roy that fought Tarver.

Beterbiev that fought Bivol vs Tarver that fought Roy. Buddy McGirt who is known for quickly throwing in the towel would have saved his fighter by the 10th round.

Bivol vs Tarver, like I said before, if BHop can box Tarver's head off I only see Bivol doing a similar or better job.

 

It’s very simple.

If you wish to carry on the debate, that’s cool.

If you’ve said all that you need to say, then that’s also cool.

At the end of the day, you didn’t respond to two posts put to you, but you then made a post from a reply to another poster.

I don’t care how many pages this reaches.

That was just a joke.

I’m happy to debate for as long as anybody wants to.

In my last 2 posts to you, I addressed all of your points, and I told you that Artur’s resume isn’t as deep, and that he didn’t look as spectacular.

I also told you what the circumstances were surrounding Tarver’s comments to Roy.

I’ve enjoyed debating with you and everyone else.

Again, if you’ve nothing more to add, that’s cool.

We can leave it.

I’ll just ask you a quick question though.

How do you think the rematch between Artur and Bivol will work out?

Thanks.

 

Great post.

 

What are you taking about, unanswered points?

I literally answered every one of your points.

I agreed with most of them.


Regarding Artur and Bivol having fought the version of Roy who fought Tarver, yes, they would have been heavily favoured over that specific version.

Of course.

It would hardly have been some huge feat would it?


Again, what would happen if Bivol and Artur had fought 50 pro fights, where they'd burnt off healthy muscle, like Roy, Dawson, Byrd and Tarver did?

Then what?

Something to ponder.

We have no idea how they'd look.


Regarding Tarver and Hopkins, the point was: We don't know if Hopkins outclassed him because he was great, or it was because Tarver was drained.

Also, Hopkins being able to have beaten Tarver with ease, isn't a guarantee that Bivol could definitely have replicated that performance.

 

This content is protected

 

Probably your best post to be fair.

The others are terrible.