Finally did research on Roy Jones. He actually did avoid most of the top MW-SMW.

What are you talking about ?

 

It was around that time that Holyfield was losing to Toney.

Jones vs Toney at HW at that time would have been interesting as they had history and at HW would likely have been a different type of fight

 

Toney would have beaten Jones at either Cruiser or HW

 

Dont care. Greatest fighter ive ever seen in his prime.

 

Certainly possible.

 

Toney actually had a better resume than Roy at MW, CW and HW. SMW and LHW was clearly Roy though. And I would likely pick a prime version of Roy over Toney at all 5 weights. Styles make fights. I think Roy had his number.

 

I would imagine the fights would have been closer the higher the weight.

 

Toney was always a guy who can give anyone a problem would have loved to see him and Roy mix it up again

 

A rematch with Toney and Hopkins would have been a big draw. HBO mentioned Jones vs. Michalczewski many times, big money, but Jones would not fight him. I finally got to see Michalczewskil fight, he was really good fighter in his prime, no wonder Jones refused to fight him...................

 

shadow111,

Hi mate, I hope you got my PM.

Yes, he'd definitely slowed down since his last fight at LHW. But in my opinion, he was a faster CW in 2011 than what he is currently.

I respect your opinion. But I've noticed a gradual decline in his speed over the past few years. Which I suppose is to be expected. He was cautious in the Lebedev fight, but Lebedev was a more dangerous fight than the one against Enzo. Lebedev is a better fighter than Enzo and he's also a southpaw. Like we've both mentioned, Roy had been inactive, and it was only his second ever fight at around 200 pounds. So I guess if you wanted to do a direct comparison, you could say those versions of Roy looked similar. But I'm taking into account the training footage that I've seen, and his most recent fights before he fought Enzo. He looked very slow to me against Eric Watkins.

At present, he just looks uncoordinated to me. The Green knockdown just highlighted his lack of reflexes.

In my opinion, at this stage, Roy's got no business fighting any hard hitting CW's. It doesn't matter who he fights, his lack of mobility means that sooner or later, he's going to get tagged. The only reason he's fighting at CW, is because he can't possibly make LHW, yet he doesn't want to retire. Like you, I was impressed with Roy for the first 3 rounds. He was doing well. But for me, Enzo was always going to catch him at some point.

I still don't know what happened in his corner, but again, I think an Enzo knockout was inevitable. I don't think Roy could have kept him at bay for 10 rounds.

Roy's still capable of fighting at a certain level. But it'll have to be against the level of competition he's been fighting over the last 12 months, prior to the Enzo fight.

He did surprisingly well against Lebedev. And to me, it just highlighted that he was on a different planet when he was prime. The Ruiz version of Roy would easily beat any of the current CW crop in my opinion.


:good

 

You got me.



:good

 

It's not easy to tell with you.

You've got to bear in mind that you've said you couldn't see any noticeable difference between the versions of Roy from 2000-2008, and that you think Carl Froch could/would have beaten Roy in the U.K.

 

atsch

 

I asked people to point out the differences with Roy on the videos I showed and nobody could, yourself included.
As for Froch/Jones I would have to see what was written on that thread, as I seem to think I was non committal but mentioned scenarios

 

bailey,

Look, I'm not arguing that Dawson and Tarver were better fighters than the guys you've mentioned. I'm just arguing that they aren't/weren't levels BELOW. It's you who's being silly.

Once again, Tiozzio lost to Hill twice. And the second time around, Hill was faded yet he took him out in a single round.

Nunn was faded at LHW, and he lost to Roch.

Roch lost to Dariusz, Maske, Eubank, Ulrich, and he drew with Seillier.

So taking the above into account, why is it inconceivable to think that those guys couldn't have dropped losses to the likes of Harding, Pascal and Johnson?

Now obviously, I've only looked at things from a negative standpoint. But that's what you have done with Tarver and Dawson. Again, Nunn, Roch and Maske etc, were all very good fighters. But again, so were Dawson and Tarver.

Between them, Dawson and Tarver beat the following guys:

Roy, Adamek, Johnson, Harding, Tarver, Woods, Griffin and Hopkins.

So could you say with certainty, that Maske, Nunn, Dariusz, Tiozzo and Roch, would have beaten those guys?

I don't think so.

There is no evidence whatsoever that suggests that the guys you've mentioned were levels above Dawson and Tarver.

You've exaggerated, but are just refusing to back down.

Dawson and Tarver fought whoever was relevant at the time. It's not Dawson's fault that his top competition was much older. Why do you keep referring to Roy-Tarver? He wasn't at his best, because he was exhausted. But Tarver gave him the hardest fight of his career, and then took him out with a great shot in the rematch.

I never said he was a journeyman, I merely used him to illustrate your exaggerations. You have labelled Glen Johnson a SMW journeyman, and have completely dismissed his entire LHW career. You have asked if a guy like Roch would ever have lost to a guy of Johnson's ability. Well yes, I think he could have done. Bearing in mind that he lost to Eubank, Maske, Dariusz, Ulrich, and couldn't beat Seillier, then why not? Who did Seillier ever beat? The only named fighter he beat was Nardiello. And his biggest win was a split over Malinga. Which again, just illustrates that a guy like Roch was not in another league to Tarver and Dawson.

Where's the confusion? What don't you understand exactly? The version of Roy who Tarver beat wasn't the same as he'd once been. But going into that rematch, Roy was mentally and physically in better condition than he'd been in their first fight. The rematch was 6 months after the first fight and Roy was back with Mackie Shilstone. I've got to give Tarver credit for that win.

It doesn't matter if it was at CW. Stop splitting hairs. So what if he gave him a tough fight? Again, you've only focused on the negative points of Dawson and Tarver's career. But be honest, and ask yourself this: Do you think Tiozzo would have beaten all the guys who they beat? Would Tiozzo have beaten Hopkins, Roy, Harding, Griffin, Woods, as well as Tarver and Dawson? I don't think so. Now ask yourself that same question for Maske, Nunn, Roch and Dariusz. There is no certainty there. And that's because Roch and Tiozzo etc weren't in another league to Dawson and Tarver.

You're just kidding yourself.

It doesn't matter what weight it was at. You're trying to tell me that a guy who couldn't beat Seillier etc, was levels above Dawson and Tarver.

We have both agreed in the past, that Hill was faded around the time he fought Dariusz and Roy. Yes, of course I credit Roy with having a great win over him, despite the fact that he was faded. Why? Because Roy took him out in just 4 rounds with an amazing body shot. Roy was the only guy to ever knock him out in 58 fights. Unlike you, I take into account many factors when rating a win.