Name a fighter that would have beaten RJJ the night he fought Toney

Because he was moving up in weight to fight an undefeated SMW champ, that many thought would knock him out. But instead, he completely dominated him... Toney was viewed as one of the best fighters alive at the time...

This was a big fight in the 90's for a non HW fight.

But I know you are incapable of giving Roy credit for anything.

 

it wasn't an action packed domination like you are making it out to be. It wasn't like a Calzaghe-Lacy type fight. It was pretty pedestrian for most of the fight. Odd that both are convicted Steroid cheats. :think

 

I enjoyed Jones-Toney much more than Calzaghe-Lacy.. Toney is a much better fighter than Lacy too. "Pedestrian?" wtf are you talking about, those were two of the most talented fighters of the generation... and what do steroids have to do with it?

 

I am still not sure you have seen this fight... Roy landed 263 power shots on Toney who had great defense... Jones threw many blazing 6 punch flurries at Toney..

Calzaghe landed 351 total punches on walking punching bag Jeff Lacy...

I would rather watch 263 Jones power shots, over 351 total Calzaghe punches, any day...


How ****ing boring could a fight have been with 263 power shots landed by a blazingly fast handed savage puncher... do you even like boxing? Or do you just like watching people get knocked out?

 

How would Roy have done at CW?

Here are some guys who would give Roy a good fight:

168:

Nunn
McClellan
Liles
Benn
Eubank
Collins

175:

Spinks
Foster
Conteh
Galindez
Moore

 

Toney definitely had looked better in his title fights at 168 than at 160. Although Toney did look terrific in his first fight against McCallum (the first 2 fights with Mike were at 160), he didn't look that great in their rematch, he got a gift against Tiberi, and was dropped and hurt in a close fight against Johnson.

He was winning his fights at 168 in a more clear fashion, and his workrate was excellent.

 

Absouletey, his career best performances came against Barkley and Littles at 168 pounds

 

You didnt educate me. As I recall you were slaughtered on the subject and kept saying a defence in a months time was ok atsch

 

Ah how terrible your memory is ,yet you think I was slaughtered .I never said it was ok to defend in months time ,I'll let you tell it

You knew nothing of the situation then as you do now .

 

All these guys would have a good chance of beating Jones

McCallum (Prime)
Eubank
Benn
McClellen
Watson ( At his best i.e Eubank II, and before we get the normal McCallum loss digs Watson was recovering from Flu and didnt think it best to fight but was talked into the fight by Barry Hearn his promoter, also McCallum states that Watson gave him one of his hardest fights and was the strongest he fought and yet Watson was nowhere near 100% when they fought)

Calzaghe

 

Serge,

Ha! That made me laugh.

Ok mate, I can take that on board. I think my attitude towards him is based on fans in my opinion seriously overrating him, while at the same time under rating other guys, obviously Roy included. Then there's Joe's persona that I've never liked, playing the victim, telling people he wanted these big fights but couldn't get them. He's contradicted himself so many times and he has a huge ego. I know most boxers do, Roy included, but I don't respect Joe as a person.

But in every debate/argument that I've ever had, I've always said that he was truly a great fighter and that I respect him as a boxer. I've also stated on numerous occasions that he found himself with some tough choices to make, especially in regards to pursuing Roy in the early 2000's. He was proud of his WBO belt and the defences that he made of the title, comparing himself to Holmes etc. He was earning decent money, and he had a family to support. Bailey always asks the question 'Why should he have given up his belt, when he wasn't guaranteed a shot at Roy?' Which is a fair question to ask. Again, I respect the predicament that he found himself in. So in regards to his circumstances, I feel that I have been fair.

Maybe as you say, I haven't been fair when assessing some of his performances, which again, I'll take on board.

Thanks for sharing the above info. I've actually read this before, so I can see why you were upset with what I'd written. But without wishing to appear child like and saying 'I don't care', in my honest opinion, the result may have been different if Joe had've fought to his full capabilities, but I think it would still have been a competitive fight. That's how I feel and Robin Reid was a good a fighter. As we all know, styles make fights.

So I was just emphasising, that a guy who had competitive (I shouldn't have used the word struggled) fights with Reid and Kessler etc, wouldn't in my opinion have been good enough to have beaten a prime version of Roy.

:good

I can take this on board, and I hated Hopkins' tactics. But in my opinion he outboxed Joe before he had to employ those dirty tactics to have a breather. Bika was very dirty. But I don't think a guy that was capable of beating a mid 20's Roy would have encountered those same problems.

I respect your opinion. I'm surprised you were rooting for Kessler though. Why was that?

I agree with what you and Joe have said. He obviously had more power when he was younger with better hands. But I agree with his own assessment, that overall, he was a more complete fighter towards the end if his career. That's why I've including the Hopkins, Kessler and Bika fights etc, when weighing up the outcome if he'd have fought Roy earlier.

A quick question, if you were to put Joe in the ring with the Toney version of Roy, which exact version would you choose, to give Joe the best chance of victory?

If an intelligent guy like yourself wants to get hold of me and give me a kick up arse, then I'll take it no problem. I can take the criticism, and I'll look to be more fair in the future.

I always get Brewer and Byron Mitchell mixed up. atsch

With regards to the rest, I enjoyed reading it. I wasn't fully aware of all the circumstances surrounding the Salem fight. Again, I'm more than willing to take on board what you've written.

:good

Nice talking to you.

 

Again, I respect your opinion.

It can get like a school playground on here, although I'm one of the worst culprits.

Likewise, I think you're a good poster and I'd like to see more of you on here.

 

Thanks Serge, he certainly went through it.

Are you surprised that he ended up having 46 fights?

Did you think back then, that he would had to have retired a lot sooner than he did?

 

I would expect people to pick Benn, Gerald, Nunn, Spinks, Foster, Liles, Tarver and Calzaghe etc, but Ottke and Collins?

Steve Collins and Sven Ottke?

No chance.

 

Just a post containing zero information.

Nothing really to respond to, apart from your ridiculous thinking that Joe could have knocked out Roy, because Tarver did it, and they were both southpaws. atsch

Go and read the thread title.

Also, how can you criticise Roy's opposition and say that he was a coward who fought nobody?

Go and look at who Joe fought for the majority of his career.

You're a complete joker!