Marvin Hagler vs Roy Jones, Jr @ 160

I would never claim that Roy was very durable or had a great chin. But there was something seriously amiss in that fight with Johnson.

He took harder shots than that one throughout his career. I'm sure of that.

Toney caught him good and so did Ruiz.

There was definitely a weakness there with Johnson.

Look at Chris Byrd.

Look at some of the huge punchers he fought before getting knocked out by Shaun George back at LHW.

 

I don’t think Jones was fragile at all while in his Prime. In what fight did he look Fragile prior to going up to heavyweight and then coming back down? Post Ruiz he was different going up and down in weight and all the years in the ring finally caught up to him. He fought his guts out and really for the first time ever had to dig deep in that first Tarver fight, I was very impressed with his moxie. He always had that in him he was just so much better than everyone he faced he rarely had to show it. Growing up rooting against him because he was so good trust me I never saw him look fragile, everybody has their own opinion but I disagree with the opinion that he was fragile in his prime.

 

You don't seem to understand that brain trauma means you get ko'd easier. Going by your logic. Mugabi got taken out in a round by Norris and McClellan therefore Hagler is feather fisted. Yet the Hagler loss probably took something out of Mugabi. Hearns and Nunn stopped Roldan quicker. Rocchigiani knocked out Hamsho in a single round. Duran got taken out by Hearns in 2. Leonard got stopped by a lightweight So all of Hagler's opponents were fragile and he couldn't even stop Duran or Leonard.

James Toney said Sosa was the biggest puncher he ever faced. Jones went toe-toe with Sosa and took him out in 2 rounds. Hagler wasn't a huge puncher.

 

You can do that with anyones wins. Ultimately I'd rank them higher than any of Hagler's opposition as middleweights. Toney was P4p top 2 at the time. Hopkins would rise up to P4P top 2.

Hopkins had better stamina back then btw. Had a machine like workrate, which dropped off as he aged. People will point to the Mercado draw but that was a hometown robbery, Hopkins easily won that one.

 

You don't seem to understand that GLEN JOHNSON, a man with a 42% KO rate, KTFO'd Jones with a love tap...

You know how little Jones was hit in his prime? Particularly clean? You know there are more than one factor in scoring a KO than just power. You have to land it first, some styles don't do that as effectively.

The rest of your post is moronic drivel which doesn't even make sense.

 

Roy had over 50 fights at the point of the Johnson fight, this fight is irrelevant as he was washed up.
What The other poster is trying to point out to you is you shouldn’t take into consideration fighters losing by knockouts against non-punchers when they are past their Prime. Could you answer my question please when did Roy look fragile in his prime?

 

He didn't. He wasn't hit clean too often in his prime, and the guys who did hit him clean with some degree of frequency aren't known for power.

It's not irrelevant at all. Once Jones didn't have the goods to avoid the punches, he started routinely getting stopped. By less than stellar punchers.

I'm aware. The Hagler analogy was poor at best. Since Jones never fought many hellacious punches, particularly ones good enough to land on him, we don't know how his chin was. Hence why you need to fast forward into his later career when he couldn't avoid guys. Look what happened. Tarver thrashed him. Glen put him to sleep. Danny Green stopped him in 1.

Yeah, he was past it but how many other guy's chins fell apart that badly whilst past prime? Jones was hardly the peak of durability. Hagler was good enough to land, and hit hard enough to keep him on the mat.

 

Not sure I would rank the Hopkins win over the Hearns win.The Toney fight was at 168 where Roy peaked.

 

He was shot to pieces against Johnson and it was an overhand right to the temple. Shot fighters are easier to KO. If you don't accept that you have to accept Hagler was feather fisted because he took 10 rounds to dispatch Mugabi who decent punchers put to sleep in a round. You can't have it both ways.

Seriously using an argument of a shot fight is more than disengenous. Do you do the same with Louis, Charles, Moore, Pep? This is the only argument Jones detractors have because his prime was pretty much perfect so they have to point to when he was shot to pieces.

 

Fair enough. That’s your opinion and you seem a good poster, I’m on the other side with Jones, but he was just so damn good in Prime he never was going to be drug into a war. Again though he didn’t go 50 fights without being hit. Some of those light heavyweights just on the basis of being light heavyweights could punch. I think he was hit enough for me to feel like the Johnson fight is not an accurate representation of his chin. But you make a good point the guy had the most insane reflexes I’ve ever seen in a boxing ring and he was barely touched. I mean he stopped you or won every damn round. What a fighter.

 

Tarver actually hit him allot with his straight left in the first fight and Jones took it and won.

That aside, your argument that he wasn't hit points to him being the best defensive fighter of all time. Hagler couldn't even catch with Leonard very often, who's defence isn't close to what Jones was, so how does he get near Jones?

 

Hearns was knocked out twice by Barkley too though. Roy fought at 160 the fight before Toney looking damn near peaked. In fact he probably looked at his absolute best against Mallinga a few fights before that.

 

Yes.

Ok?

Yes. Not because their chin gets worse, although it can happen, it's because they get slower, or they lose their reflexes. Which is what happened to Jones. You think losing to Tarver ruined his durability? I don't. Maybe losing the weight, but even then he didn't wilt in the first Tarver fight.

I mean... I don't.

Hagler's beating of Mugabi is an anomaly, there's cases where a fight does demolish a fighter's durability. Most of the time it's a long drawn out beatdown, not a 2 round demolition job.

Well I can.

Yeah, about as Disingenuous as calling Gerald McClellan a "decent puncher".

No. Since they proved their durability in their primes, AND held up better in their later careers. Jones didn't prove it in his prime and was awful in the later years of his career.

First of all, Jones was far from perfect in his prime. And second, yeah... That's when he started taking punishment, and showed he couldn't hack it. If it happened 6 years earlier I'd be saying the exact same thing.

Also, not picking him over a top 3 MW ever makes me a detractor? Ok then.

 

Tarver hit him clean sparsely in the first fight. He landed a lot on glove and was too timid to attack him in the centre of the ring.

Hagler was ridiculously past his prime vs Leonard. Watch him in his prime.

 

Once*. Hearns was also beating the **** outta him before walking onto a huge punch. He also arguably won the rematch.