Kovalev and Ward vs Roy jones

That's fair actually. The fight might end dominantly but each would have competitive moments and Roy would probably lean towards being careful.

 

Yeah, I'm thinking 2 U/D's.

 

Again, if he'd have caught him perfect, yes. But would he have been favoured to have done so?

Again, you've just seen him go 20 rounds with Andre Ward. So why would you be so confident? Roy would have presented him with a lot more problems that what Andre did.

 

Lololol!

 

BTW I'd favour RJJ to win clear decisions against both.

Not sure who presents more difficulties. Ward is a very smart fighter who knows all the tricks of the trade, clean or not, whereas Kovalev has the power to score a KO upset.

 

You don't have to catch Roy with a perfect punch to KO him. Kovalev presents Roy with a lot of problems as well. Kovalev and Ward are far better than anyone Jones fought at 175. Tarver was the best Jones fought at that weight and he eked out a Decision, then was brutally one punch KOed, then lost a wide UD.

 

Of course they would have presented Roy with a lot of problems. But the best version of Roy at LHW would had to have been favoured.

Stop debating with stats. Roy was exhausted in the first Tarver fight. You saw what happened. He was gassed after 7 rounds, due to making weight. In an old 15 round fight, I don't think he could have pulled out the win. In the rematch, he got caught perfect. Yes, Kovalev could also have landed that type of shot. Their 3rd fight was completely irrelevant. Roy was 36, he'd had 50 plus fights, and he was coming off of 2 back to back knockout losses with over 12 months of inactivity.

I know you're a hater, but even you have to acknowledge that the versions of Roy who fought Tarver, weren't the same as the versions who'd beaten the likes of Hill and Reggie.

 

What evidence is there that Roy would have to be favored? Was it his fight with Glen Kelly? Otis Grant? Richard Frazier? Richard Hall? Or even Clinton Woods? Hill who was 34 and had been inactive for almost a year when he fought Roy having lost his belts to DM in the fight before. So why does Roy being inactive matter but Hill being inactive doesn't? Do you see the hypocrisy you have in these type discussions?

Did feather fisted Glen Johnson also land a 'perfect' punch? Roy had no Chin. None. He was exposed as being a one trick pony and having no plan B in a fight when the going got tough in there he crumbled worse than just about any fighter I have seen.

 

British boxing didn't have the reach that it has today (thanks in large part to Calzaghe and Hatton). People faulting Roy for not fighting Eubank and Benn don't quite remember or understand the dynamics back then. If those guys really wanted the fight, they needed to start fighting in the US and to make the case for themselves. Even though Calzaghe eventually got the memo and did it, it wasn't until the end of his career. I'll bet he wished he did that sooner. He got the big fights he wanted as soon as he came over. The same would have been true with Eubank and Ben. And I guess DM, though he seems to be one of those Euro-only legends.

I suspect the McClellan fight would have eventually happened had he beaten Benn, but I would have faulted Roy had McClellan beaten Benn and not gotten the Roy fight shortly after.

Toney was so thoroughly beaten I don't think there would have been a market for a rematch, and I'm just as inclined to fault Hopkins as I am Roy for the rematch. Hopkins is known as a ridiculously unrealistic negotiator, and that doesn't work against Roy, who was P4P #1 at the time, was the champion at Light Heavy, and already held a win. Why would Hopkins feel he was entitled to 50/50? Sure, it might make sense in terms of market power, with Hopkins being at the height of his popularity after winning the Middleweight tournament and knocking out DLH, but look at it from Roy's standpoint - why would the challenger who already lost the first fight be entitled to an equal share? There was no ducking on either side with that rematch.

 

Rico Spadafora,

What evidence?

Ha!

What about the fact that Roy was extremely hard to hit clean due to his incredible athleticism and reflexes, and the fact that he was one of the fastest fighters of all time??

Why do you always mention the low level mandatories he fought to try and make a point?

How about the fact that he beat Hopkins with a fractured hand, who didn't lose for a further 12 years?

The fact that he beat Toney like nobody else ever did?

The fact that he beat Griffin in just one round with a lead uppercut?

The fact that he beat Reggie Johnson like he was nothing?

The fact that he dominated a top 10 HW with absolute ease?

The fact that he consistently beat top 10 ranked guys without barely losing rounds?

Why do even bother?

Regarding Hill, yes, he was faded. But he was still a top level fighter. Roy was the only person who ever knocked him out in almost 60 fights. And 2 years after Roy had beaten him with ease, he went on to knock out Fabrice Tiozzio in a single round. The difference between Hill's inactivity and Roy's, was that Roy had been knocked out twice back to back, and he was obviously a shell of the fighter he'd once been when he fought Tarver for the 3rd time approaching 37 years of age.

Roy being beaten by Tarver and Johnson means nothing in a fantasy fight discussing the best LHW version of him fighting Kovalev. We know that Kovalev would have beaten those same versions of Roy. If you're going to try and kid yourself that Glen Johnson would have knocked out the best LHW versions of Roy who fought in the late 90's, then you're an absolute clown.

Kovalev would have been a very dangerous opponent. But he couldn't have been favoured just because he was better than Tarver and Johnson and possessed more power. It's not as simple as that.

Kovalev has great power, but he's easy to hit. We've seen Pascal land repeated telegraphed right hands with no leverage in their first fight. We know that Boone dropped him. We know in his first fight with Andre that in the 2nd half of the fight he looked devoid of ideas. We've seen in the rematch that he was gassed and despondent. You saw the body language. Andre broke him psychologically and physically. He's simply not the T-1000 that many people first believed.

Although Andre is crafty with great skills, he doesn't possess the speed and the power that Roy did. It's obvious that Roy would have presented him with huge problems. Also, I never said that there's no way Kovalev couldn't have won, I just said that at his absolute best, Roy would had to have been favoured. And it's only logical to think that.

Exposed?

Ha!

What, in his 51st fight, in his 3rd weight class at 35 years of age??


Was Glen Johnson the 2nd best fighter he ever fought?

Ha!


How on earth did it take 15 years and 51 fights, for a glass jawed former JMW to be exposed??


Run along.

 

You've made some great points.


I'd just like to add the following:


Eubank and Calzaghe didn't want the biggest fights out there. They were both content to repeatedly defend their lightly regarded WBO belts.

A fight against Gerald would have been extremely difficult to make, as his promoter - Don King, and Roy's advisors - the Levin's, had a mutual dislike and distrust of each other.

Hopkins never wanted to fight Roy in 2002. He's solely to blame for it not having happened. He declined a $6m offer from HBO and demanded $10m. That was for a 168 pound C-W. He then spent over a year out of the ring, before returning to fight Morrade Hakkar for $1.3m. Then just prior to his fight with Calzaghe in 2008, he admitted that he could have moved up to LHW 6 years earlier had he have really wanted to, but he didn't, because he didn't want to give up the advantages that he held.

 

Thanks. That's good color you've added. Didn't know that about Levin and King.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives...es-adviser-wary-stacked-deck-article-1.693936

 

I'm not sure what you are talking about with Benn when you say:

"People faulting Roy for not fighting Eubank and Benn don't quite remember or understand the dynamics back then. If those guys really wanted the fight, they needed to start fighting in the US and to make the case for themselves."

Roy Jones was Nigel Benn's WBC mandatory at SMW for over a year, Jones was also the WBC Intercontinental champ at the time. Instead of fighting Benn he dropped back down to 160 to fight for a vacant belt. Benn also at the time had travelled to America twice to KO Iran Barkley and DeWitt so it's not like he wasn't willing to travel like you've suggested.

 

He was right in regards to Eubank and Calzaghe, but he was mistaken in regards to Benn.

Benn wanted to fight Roy. He was a warrior.


Have you read the links that I sent you yesterday?

All of the answers to your questions are within them.