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

bailey,

You're talking absolute nonsense. Once again, my argument is not that Dawson and Tarver are better than the guys you've mentioned. My argument is that there's no way that they're levels below.

You're trying to convince me that Fabrice Tiozzo was levels above them, and then giving examples of how they lost to Harding and Pascal. Then when I point out that Tiozzo got iced by a faded Hill, you just dismiss it by saying that it was at a higher weight.

I think we need to do a separate thread with a poll. Because nobody is going to tell me that Roch and a faded Nunn etc, were not just a level above, but LEVELS ABOVE those guys.

It's ridiculous.

He was used in the hope of giving you some perspective.

I don't think so. Because you only concentrate on a fighters overall resume and achievements, whilst overlooking any factors that were involved.

I didn't mention anything about Tiozzo being faded. I said Dariusz was faded. A faded Hill beat Tiozzo. Then 5 years later Tiozzo beat Dariusz. Considering that Dariusz was faded against Gonzalez 2 years earlier, it would be unfair to give Tiozzo a huge amount of credit for beating Dariusz. It's quite clear that he'd seen better days. That was also his last fight. So you have to put the win into perspective.

That's fine. I've acknowledged that. But do you think Tiozzo would have pulled off the same result against a peak version of Dariusz?

Again, you have to put things into perspective.

As above.

Are you just being argumentative, or have you just got no concept of what I'm talking about?

Answer me this:

If in November, 2014, Hopkins had've beaten Kovalev, would you still have rated Tiozzo's win over Dariusz as the greater win, based on the fact that Dariusz has a better resume than Kovalev and he's accomplished more?

Now do you get my point?

There's more to look at than just accomplishments and resumes.

Do you understand?

Dariusz was far more accomplished than Kovalev. And as yet, he's got a better resume. But despite that, if Hopkins had've beaten Kovalev, it would clearly have been a better win than Tiozzo's over Dariusz.

Why?

Because of the following factors:

Dariusz was faded.

Kovalev is a wrecking machine who you'd have favoured over a prime Roy.

Hopkins was 50 years old!


I can't explain it any better than that.

Now apply that same logic to Tarver.

Antonio Tarver wasn't better than a prime Dariusz. Nor did he achieve more. But in my opinion, Roy's win over Tarver was better than Tiozzo's win over Dariusz. Why? Because of all the factors that I noted in an earlier post.

Roy and Tarver were the same age, but Tarver was much fresher. He didn't turn pro until he was 28/29. Going into the fight with Roy, he'd had less than half of the fights that Roy had fought.

This has been covered above.

Again, I'm not saying that Tarver should be rated above Dariusz. Again, I'm saying that in my honest opinion, Roy's win over Tarver was better than Tiozzo's win over Dariusz. But you can't appreciate it, because you are blinded by statistics. Because Dariusz has the better resume, you just can't comprehend how Roy could possibly hold the better win.

The Hopkins-Kovalev example was perfect to illustrate my point.

Regarding Roy's win over Tarver and comparing it to Tiozzo's win, again, you have to take into account the following factors:

Dariusz was faded.

Roy had to burn through muscle in just 2 months just to make the weight.

Although Tarver had been beaten, he was still a formidable challenge. He was extremely motivated, and he was a 6ft southpaw with good speed and skills.

Roy had fought 49 times across 5 weight divisions.

He was absolutely exhausted in the fight.

He made history by dropping back from HW to reclaim the LHW titles.


Do you understand? Even though Dariusz had a better resume and has achieved more, again, in my opinion, Roy's win over Tarver was better than Tiozzo's win over Dariusz, due to the above factors.

Now this is a great debate. But get some proper perspective. Because I know that if a 50 year old Hopkins had beaten Kovalev, EVERYONE would have rated that over Tiozzo's win against Dariusz, despite the fact that Dariusz is more accomplished than Kovalev with a better resume.


:good

 

It's a shame that it was seen as an unglamorous division.

 

:good

 

I don't think so. Roy still had incredible speed back then. It would certainly have been better than their first fight though. I'm quite sure of that.

 

Roy didn't refuse to fight him. He just refused to go to Germany.

Big difference.

Now go and look at Dariusz's resume and then come back and tell me that he wanted the fight.

 

You had to have been trolling.

Forget a few clips, Roy was obviously a completely different fighter at 31, to what he was when he was approaching 40.

Regarding Froch, you said you'd have fancied him over Roy at SMW/LHW if it had been in the U.K.

 

:good

 

I think Roy was past it by the Harmon fight. I think he looked noticeably slower there, compared to him in the McCallum fight.

 

I've heard someone else say this. But he looked really fast and sharp against Gonzalez and Woods. He also looked great against Ruiz at just under 200 pounds.

 

I think he'll fight at least one more time.

 

Lets try and cut the length of this down a bit

 

Jones vs. Kovalev would have been fun to see. Both had the power to hurt each other though Kovalev likely has the better chin.. Roy would have to fight a perfect fight but I could see him winning.

 

There is no way Roy would lose on the scorecards IMO. If went the distance I would highly favor Roy.

 

bailey,

'The King of Spin' at his finest.

How does me not rating them higher, indicate that they were a level below?

Again, I'm saying that they were all operating on a similar level.

You have yet to show me any evidence of how the guys you've mentioned were levels above Tarver and Dawson. And that's because there is no evidence available. All you've got is that Dawson and Tarver lost to Pascal, Harding and Johnson. But so what?

You've clearly exaggerated. It would have been bad enough if you'd said that they were a level above, but you didn't. You said that they were LEVELS above.

I'm sorry, but a faded Nunn wasn't levels above Chad Dawson.

Nobody is going to buy that.

I can account for stylistic match ups, or someone landing a 'hayemaker' but Tiozzo obviously wasn't as good as what you think.

Griffin was a good fighter. And Roy took him out because he was an exceptional fighter. When Roy was prime, he was on another level to the guys you've mentioned.

It's common knowledge that Nunn was faded. He beat Guthrie after a faded Reggie Johnson had taken him out in 5 rounds.

Dariusz embarrassed himself in their first fight, but he beat him in their rematch.

Yeah, they were close fights. But when a fighter is having close fights with Maske, Seillier, and he can't beat a faded Eubank who was hit and miss at the time, it paints a clear enough picture. It tells me that all of those guys were of a similar level, and again, not LEVELS above Tarver and Dawson.

Let's be real, the way you're talking, you must feel that Maske, Nunn and Roch etc, would have comfortably beaten Tarver and Dawson as well as all of their opponents.

That's basically what you're implying if you are convinced that they were levels above.

So you must think they could easily have beaten Roy and Hopkins etc.

Yes?

It doesn't matter if it wasn't at LHW. At his peak, you could say that Eubank was better than Tarver and Dawson. But not the post Watson version who Roch fought. That version of Eubank wasn't levels above. How do we know that? Because despite having good wins, he also struggled with the likes of Close and Schommer, and went on to lose to Collins.

You'll be telling me next that Collins was levels above Dawson and Tarver too.

You think it's unfair for me to mention Ulrich?

When Dariusz fought Tiozzo, he was also at the end of his career, and he'd been out of the ring for 16 months.

Yet you're celebrating Tiozzo's win, saying that it was arguably better than Roy's best wins at the weight.

So you've tied yourself up in knots.

You can't dismiss Ulrich's win while at the same time crediting Tiozzo's.

Really?

Michael Nunn lost to a huge underdog in Steve Little. And don't try and say that it was at SMW, because it makes no difference whatsoever. So if he could struggle and drop a decision to Steve Little, then it's plausible that he could have dropped a loss to a fighter of the ability of Pascal, Johnson or Harding, especially while in the latter stages of his career at LHW.

Yes, Glen Johnson was nothing special. But he put in some good performances at LHW, and he was tough stylistic match up for lots of guys.

Also, it's okay for you to use a guy like Johnson as an example of how Dawson and Tarver were poor and levels below your guys, but again, how can you account for the wins they had over the likes of Roy and Hopkins etc?

Again, there's no evidence to suggest that any of your guys could comfortably have beaten Roy, Hopkins, Adamek, Griffin, Tarver and Dawson etc.

:good

 

:good

I'm praying that we see Ward-Kovalev. Ward needs to get into gear now.

Where's Joe.Zero?

I think you may have upset him.