Did Roy Jones start losing at LHW when his competition stepped up?

Roy did I admitted that but I felt like you never acknowledged that which is why I bolded parts of my first post on here. I also feel that Hopkins won but that's for another day(too ineffective, Hops landed the better blows.

Roy and Calzaghe were too untested to me to consider them great. Jones did fight and beat the better men in Toney & Hopkins which is a greater accomplishment imo then a Kessler or questionable decision against an older Hopkins(again Hops was/is the man so not a bad choice of opponent but he was too ineffective against Hops imo to consider that a victory. Hops landed the better punches)


Make of this what you will man this is a subjective sport :good

 

Not for legacy, that Jones was a shell. It was for profit and I admitted a Jones fight would be bigger. Should've fought both imo I like to keep it old school lol. Still you're right about boxing being about business first and it's always been like that as soon as promoting fights came into the equation for example.

 

OK I understand after re reading your post:-

You are not saying Shot RJJ > Chad Dawson, which I thought you said.

You are basically saying Calzaghe not taking the risk to fight Dawson is justifiable.

It can be justified, but you cant deny a win over Dawson would have been better for him than a win over shot Jones.

To be honest, there isnt much of a difference. The differences I do see though are:-

Calzaghe's punching technique changed due to hand problems, and Calzaghe's balance wasnt as good. But his workrate/stamina/speed/reflexes were still in good working order.

As for RJJ, his prime and his latter career there is a major difference. And I never said Roy was shot vs Tarver, tell me when I said that.

I said RJJ was shot vs Calzaghe.

 

Totally agree he should have fought both, joe shoul have come over here earlier, instead of fighting pointless bouts e.g manfredo jr and wasting his own time. Jones was shot to ****, but his name on that record looks better given the choice.

 

Jeez, we're gonna be here all night at this rate!

As has been pointed out, what had Hopkins achieved when he fought Roy? He needed another two attempts to win a world title. That was not the Hopkins of the 2000's. Toney barely showed up to that fight, and was horribly out of shape, he also went on to lose to Montell Griffin, and draw with Drake Thadzi. It was hardly the Toney of the Mccallum or Barkley fights that Roy beat (it was still a very good win for Roy).

Joe beat the best version of Kessler and a very dangerous Hopkins, who went on a great run after losing to Joe, and hasn't been beaten by anyone at LHW but Joe.

It is a very subjective sport, I haven't even mentioned Roy's probable steroid abuse throughout these years of his career.

 

Joe is smart for knowing when to hang em up unlike Roy I'll give him that too I just hate that it seems like he always wanted the easiest way he could get out of boxing apart from beating Kessler and facing Hops. Could be wrong about that but in general I just hate when fighters avoid challenges, pisses me off.

 

Joe was at the end of his career, above his prime weight and had already beaten the lineal champion of the division. As I said, it's harsh to hold that against Joe.

I'm not denying that, read my above post about why it made sense for Joe to make the fight with Roy instead.

Whilst these were in good working order, you cannot deny that Joe was not the fighter he once was. If Roy retired after Ruiz, as many said he should have, would you accept it if I criticised him for ducking Tarver?

Joe managed the end of his career better, and left the game at the top, he deserves credit for that.

I never said that you did, I was posing that question because others say that Roy was shot after Ruiz, or shot after Tarver 1, and don't accept the Tarver 2 KO as a legit loss.

 

It's easy to pick at anyones record really(other than Ali) but Hops was still a solid contender whne Jones beat him and Toney was still highly rated with a legit belts. Very dangerous Hopkins lol? Oh stop it. Legit challenge yes and rightfully so but not "very dangerous". To finish, steroids don't give you the ring IQ RJJ had. Joe probably was doing something during his career too. He did like coke but that's speculation(For Joe, not for Roy). If it's anything I criticize of him it's his resume and the same goes for Joe.

 

I would.

 

Prior to the fight with Calzaghe, Hopkins had beaten Tarver and Winky Wright, and after the loss to Joe, he schooled Kelly Pavlik and won the title back from Jean Pascal. It's a very good win, against a top opponent.

As for Toney, it's a very good win no doubt, but as I pointed out, that was not the Toney that beat Mccallum or Barkley. Very favourable circumstances for Roy, you cannot deny that.

As for the steroid accusations, I'm basing that on the fact that Roy actually failed a random drugs test, what are you basing your accusation against Joe on? That was after Joe had retired from boxing :roll:

Steroids give you advantages with speed, strength and stamina that allowed Roy to be 'Superman'. As Bailey said, when he came off them and became a clean fighter, he fought cab-drivers, and when he stepped up his competition he looked vulnerable against Tarver, and got sparked in the rematch.

 

stop, just ****ing stop. why the **** do posters keep dismissing anabolic steroid abuse as though it is a trivial matter?

taking anabolic steroids as part of a boxers training programme enhances a fighters fitness, strength, speed, and power, 4 huge facets of a boxers arsenal.

the very 1st time roy jones was tested for anabolic steroids in his entire professional career, he was found to have 6 times the normal level of testosterone in his body.

quit dismissing anabolic steroid abuse, any fighter who takes anabolic steroids in a sport where you are putting an opponents life at risk is an absolute ****ing disgrace to the sport.

 

The loss of weight particularly muscle did have to do with his decline and with his style(reflexes) he was going to fall eventually as he aged. And if steroids was the only reason(which is wasn't) why Jones was "Superman" than more guys would show what he did while doing them and RJJ would not be held to the "rare one of a kind" talent he is held to. I also said Calzaghe taking drugs during his careerwas speculation and Roys was not. Calz googles off please lol.

 

Who did he fight after testing positive for anabolic steroids? Clinton Woods, Glen Kelly, Julio Cesar Gonzalez, Derrick Harmon. Hardly greats of the era. John Ruiz was a cherry pick, as he was slow, plodding and feather fisted, tailor made for Roy. When Roy stepped up his competition at LHW, he got exposed by Tarver, then KO'd twice in a row.

I think you're underrating the advantages that steroids gave Roy.

 

When did I say it's right? Drug usage is a part of boxing. I hate that it is but athletes do it and to only pin it on a few individuals avoids that. Also Hall tested positive too so it was two guys on roids going at it. Anything more is pure speculation. Again, steroids don't do everything for fighters they still have to know how to fight but it does give unfair advantages and it sucks that it's part of the sport. More sports than boxing too, sadly.

 

Again he still had to lose muscle and with only relying on athleticisim he was bound to fall in his 30's anyways. Plus Hopkins & Toney(93 & 94 though he could've been on roids then too but no proof of that) were the best guys he beat so don't overrate the guys you named. Roids does put necessary suspicion on his career but it did not do everything for him.