Prime Jones Jr would be dismantled now by the MEN at 160, 168 & 175

Aquamarine,

It falls under the same category - circumstances.

Why does he have to have been in wars to decline?

He was 35 years old and had been boxing since he was a young boy, under the brutal regime of his Father. He'd been through 5 divisions, and he'd fought over 50 times. It happens. He went to HW and back within the space of nine months, and nobody knows exactly how much that took out of him.

Mackie Shilstone advised him to stay at HW, and he said that losing muscle can effect your immune system. How many wars had SRL been in? Yet he was past it in his 30's. Every fighter ages differently. Buddy McGirt thought Roy was on the slide at the time of the Tarver fights, as did Alton Merkerson and Stanley Levin.

Nobody's arguing that Joe was peak. But he was in much better condition than Roy. Roy was 3-3 in his last 6 fights, and hadn't won at the top level for five years. Whereas Joe, his Father Enzo, and Frank W, had all claimed that in 2007, Joe was at his best, as he was more of a complete fighter than he'd been years earlier. Joe had form. He went into the fight after wins over Kessler and Hopkins. Roy went into the fight after beating a 172 pound Tito who hadn't fought for years.

Roy was 9 weeks from his 40th birthday and had been destroyed over four years earlier. It was a nothing win, especially after what Joe had said on Setanta Sports and after what he'd wrote in his autobiography. Like I say, everyone has different circumstances. We don't know what would have happened to Joe, if he'd have bulked up to HW and then gone straight back down again afterwards.

No I'm not saying that.

One guy had fought just 23 times, and he was extremely motivated.

The other guy had fought 50 times, and had lost muscle to drop back from HW.

You don't think Tarver had an advantage?

Yet it still wasn't enough.

So again, there's no reason not to think that Roy could have beaten him earlier on in his career.

What's the purpose of these questions?

It's circumstances.

Look, let's list Hopkins's five best wins at each weight, and nitpick through them.

Let's do the same with Calzaghe's best wins.

How about Tarver's, Eubank's, Benn's etc?

Reggie Johnson was past his best. But without putting both guys in a time machine, there's nothing anyone could do.

But although past his best, Reggie was STILL a very good fighter.

Roy beat him with absolute ease.

It was also to unify the division.

So yes, it was one of his best wins at the weight.

What, that he crushed him with ease, and was the only guy to do so in his career, even though he ended his career at CW?

atsch

He got caught with a beautiful shot. It's boxing. It happens.

Based on logic.

 

I think not.

 

Ok, tell me exactly WHAT legitimate title Jones has held and exactly WHO did he win it from?

 

The IBF Middleweight title. He won it from Hopkins.

 

No, they are not. The sanctioning mob's trinkets are MEANINGLESS. They have no value whatsoever.

The only legitimate title in any weight class is the lineal title. Jones has *never* held a lineal title.

 

Sorry but NO. That was a paper title.

 

That's not what paper title means. It isn't a paper title because you say it is.

Roy had the WBA, WBC, and IBF belts at LHW. Those were the belts that mattered back then.

 

Who were the lineal title holders at the time?

 

Serge,

I've never heard of that book. That sounds great. I'd love to read that. I'm absolutely terrible with books though. Because I read half of one, and then start others. I don't know why. It's not because I get bored, so I don't really know. I've read some great books, and I like books on travellers which I've mentioned before, and the old bare knuckle fighters. I've got a book on an old prize fighter called Bendigo from the 1800's. It's great.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thompson_(boxer)

I've got a Bob Fitzsimmons biography, and a really old biography of Jack Dempsey. My grandad gave it to me years ago, and I still haven't read it. My grandad boxed as a MW in the navy and he knew Randolph Turpin's brother, D*ck.

He was a huge Dempsey fan when he was younger, and when he went to New York, he went to Dempsey's restaurant.

Ha!

I think it would be great.

MVC would probably have his hands full.

We don't need anymore encouragement.

You've put me in my place a few times.

But sometimes I'm just in the mood to argue.

I was honestly a fan of Joe's earlier in his career.

I can remember watching fights of his whilst I was on holiday.

I do give him a hard time, because he's contradicted himself numerous times, and I hate it when he brags of his title defences on one hand, while claiming how he was a victim of circumstances on the other.

His ego is so big, that he can't understand that all of those WBO defences, actually contributed in him not getting bigger fights sooner.

But I've never said that he wasn't a great fighter.

I'm only one of a few people who think he could have beat Kovalev.

But you can challenge what I write whenever you want.

It's what the forums about.

If you've got proof that my comments are incorrect, then I'll accept it, and retract my statements.

I relish the challenge.

Haha!

My girlfriend is demanding to know why I've just laughed out loud.

Ha!

Dr. Who, CGI and dogs flying in the air. :rofl

Oh dear!

This will make me laugh out loud again tomorrow when I read it back.

:good

I agree.

Ronnie must be so p*ssed off!


:good

 

Look, if you're going to question the worth of the belts, then no modern day fighter will be credited with much.

Roy legitimately won the IBF, SMW title from Toney.

He won the WBA from Ruiz.

But again, everyone has different circumstances.

The lineal holders aren't always the best guys at the weight.

Wasn't Zolt Erdei the lineal champ at LHW?

Who cared about that?

Would you have credited Roy if he'd have beaten Erdei?

Roy was the man in the division before he left for HW, and he was afterwards, when he came back down.

 

Remember how ****ed people were when Floyd fought Baldomir for the lineal title?

To say the lineal title is always the only title worth anything is completely ignorant.

That must mean GGG is just a trinket holder, and one should get more credit for dethroning Cotto.

Lineal titles can be just as bogus as any other title, especially when they get held hostage while the lineal champ fights sub par opposition.

DM wasn't proving anything to me, much of his LHW opposition was far worse than Roy's, there were years at a time where Roy totally out shined him at the weight.. DM simply got to an aging Hill a little before Roy did.

Would a fighter have got more credit for beating Prime Roy, or Prime DM at LHW?? I think Roy was the man to beat. Would someone have really thought a victory over DM was better than dethroning the P4P King because he was "lineal?" I highly doubt it.

 

I agree entirely with everything you've wrote.

If people are going to start saying things like Roy didn't win a legitimate belt at HW etc, then you can't say that Lewis was ever the unified champ.

You can trace the history of any belt can't you?

It will eventually lead you to someone who once won it when it was vacant etc.

 

Ya, found one that had Jones as lineal LHW after his victory over Toney. Jones - Toney - Barkley - Hearns.