RJJ vs Ezzard Charles

I agree with Pea on this point, Jones basically had the great mind to maximize the potential of his athletic cababilities; however, I don't think he was nearly as intelligent as Charles. Against Burley, Charles was extremely skinny and undeveloped so although there might have been a firepower difference its not nearly as big as the experience difference which made Burley the favorite. We've already mentioned that Charles didn't have the greatest chin and against someone as tricky as Moore for Charles to fight him three times and not even get knocked down shows his intelligence for AVOIDING TRAPS, much like the traps Jones would try to set.

 

I don't think there is much comparison when it comes to the boxing brain of both fighters Jones always had his amazing physical gifts to get him out of danger he rarely was confronted with a style where he had to out think the man or devise an excellent game plan then and there. Charles on the other hand had to do this often every time he fought Moore, Archie came out fighting a different style yet each time Ezzard was able to adjust and pull out the win over such a dangerous opponent. I see Charles doing the same against Jones, Roy would probably win the first few rounds but then Ezzard would adjust his style and bring it back and added to the fact Charles was a great finisher he would probably end it late.

 

Guess what.. I owe you an apology. I honestly thought I was reading a post from Senya. You are an apologist for Whitaker, yes, but I was off when I said Jones.

The boxing brain you are touting cannot be separated from his serious speed and agility. Meldrick had sounder fundamentals but was a Philly fighter who wanted to war -even if it wasn't sound. He was his own worst enemy and Duva and Benton should have taken better care of him after Chavez. Instead they put him in with dragons out of his weight class. They shouldn't have. Now he is hurt for life.

Jones wasn't thinking moves ahead, he relied on his superb reaction time. That's reflexes. He would zero in on openings. That's timing.

Nothing you have said strengthens your argument that he was any kind of great strategist. Roy's strategy was usually about blitzing vulnerable guys, taking pot shots from the outside on technically sounder guys, flurrying and scurrying, and countering off the ropes when openings presented themselves.

Again, he relied on speed and reflexes and timing. When those faded, he was vulnerable. This is undeniable. Moore fought in 4 decades. Duran fought in 5. Charles had over 100 fights over 20 years in 3 legitimate divisions against serious men. Had Jones been a serious strategist he would have found a way to compensate for the deterioration of the gifts of youth like they did by emphasizing that cleverness that you see and that I don't see. I see a cleverness that cannot be separated from speed and agility. That is not cleverness, I call that natural athletic talent, not cleverness. If it was, a Tarver and a Johnson would never have been able to destroy him so easily.

Thus Jones was an athlete. Those traps were set by the second, and reliant on quick hands, not grand strategy.

I hold that there are three general boxing styles. The technician, the athlete, and the warrior. The greatest of boxers combine all three. Jones was an athlete. He was not a technician and I think that history is casting doubt on his right to proclaim himself a warrior.

Here is what you say here: Jones was a master strategist. He just chose not to show you because of his ego. When he was winning it proves that he was a master strategist. When he got KOd it was because of his ego.

...that is circular reasoning.

 

Damn stonehands killed that one off.

 

Charles would win probably on points or a late KO.

 

..i'm on record as choosing charles to beat jones...but let's face it..while these fantasy matches are just that...and while i think those of us who pick charles have the stronger arguments i must admit that sweet pea makes an excellent and well written case for his man.

 

Timing isn't strategy?

That is all strategy. he was not orthodox, that doesn't mean he was not strategic. He adapted to his opponent's style and took him out of his game.

So would you say if a top notch basktball player trained in boxing for a few years they could become at least what Jones did due to their athletic superiority?

I disagree, he would set them up, as I said. He would loosen his stance so the opponent thought they saw an oppening, and as soon as they opened up to act, he countered. He would throw a lazy punch to the midsection repeatedly looking for the counter from his opponent, and would then counter the counter. That is strategy, that is looking ahead.

When he got KO'd it was because of his age and not adapting to it. That was because of his ego. He didn't get KO'd in his prime because of his ego, he got KO'd in his old age because his ego wouldn't allow him to adapt, even after the first Tarver fight when he clearly needed to(though he showed he had the heart and ability to adapt in that one).

You seem to think someone who is unorthodox like Jones and has athletic ability is less strategic, someone like Hamed, but Jones was on a whole nother level than Hamed.

 

Unfortunately I'm arguing with Stonehands, who my writing skills pale in comparison to, so I have to rely on getting the point across as clearly as possible.

 

no... not in the strict definition of the term. Strategy is what Leonard crafted against Hagler and Duran II, and what he innovated against Hearns I midstream when he found that he could not outbox the athletically superior Hearns. Strategy was Ali realizing that Foreman was damn good at cutting the ring off and the ring itself was a bit soft which prevented mobility.. so he took a calculated risk by baiting Foreman to wear himself out while he lounged on loose ropes. Strategy is apparent in every Moore fight.

Nah. It's all based on talent. It's all reaction time stuff.

Not necessarily. Boxing ain't basketball. Take a look at Jermain Taylor. He is an athlete and his technique is woeful if you know what you are looking at. He is not as flashy nor as fast nor as powerful as Jones but he relies on talent, not skill.

Strategy is defined as an "elaborate or systematic plan of action." Planning is key. Roy is looking for openings and then simply reacts with speed. He is reacting more instinctively than intellectually.

 

I'm just a bum from the neighborhood.

And your writing skills are not to be underestimated.

 

You have to realize what is wrong with this. Jones in his prime would've absolutely tooled Tarver. Tarver was not even as good as a Virgil Hill, much less a Toney or Hopkins. An older, weight drained Jones beat him in the first fight even while it was clear that after dropping weight from Heavy, he was not quite the same. He lost the second fight, and wasn't even capable of putting up much fight in the rubber match.

I want you to do something if you've not. Watch the 5th round of the 3rd Tarver/Jones fight. He absoutely toys with Tarver and dominates him all over the ring. That was Jones glimpsing a bit of his prime, as happens sometimes before a fighter fully flames out. After that round, he had nothing left, it was just a glimpse of his former greatness. A prime Jones was that fighter all fight long. Based on that, and especially based on Tarver and Johnson's mediocrity compared to other Jones opponents, I simply cannot and will not believe Jones was anything but a shot fighter, I'm sure you have to see some of this.

I cannot even begin to describe how much I disagree. I honestly believe you underrate Jones to a very high degree. What can I say, I respect your opinions, but some people see things in a different light, being as you seem to appreciate fighters who perhaps took more risks, fought more wars, and took an all comers. I think that makes you underrate Jones vastly in the head to head department.

See, what I said above shows here, makes me think you dislike Jones or don't appreciate his lack of warrior spirit, so to speak, by making it seem like only under perfect circumstances could he have beaten top notch fighters like Toney and Hopkins.

I am one who appreciates Jones to the fullest extent due to his head to head ability and his immense talent in his prime. You appreciate other styles of boxing, I get that, I don't think you get about me that I do as well, but I see something in Jones that I've never seen in any other fighter skill wise, regardless of whether or not he took on ALL the best. I think we've just analyzed two fighters in a totally different way.

 

sweet pea...don't worry about your writing skills paling compared to stonehands, a statement with which he gracefully disagrees.

although i pick charles in this one,as he does, his writing skills pale considerably compared to mine, so it evens out.

seriously, i find this has become a discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of jones more than a discussion of jones vs charles, which is what the thread is supposed to be about. i don't have to downgrade jones to make my case, if only to myself, that ezzard would beat jones,and,as i said, i think he would score a kayo because think jones would have the talent to make ezzard go all out. it's not that i rate jones low so much as i rate charles so very high.

 

All argument aside, I don't downgrade Jones' talent or his head to head capabilities. I strongly believe that his skill and strategic capabilities can be very much overrated out here.

For the record, and I've asserted this before: Jones is the most athletically talented boxer I have ever seen. His combination of speed and power is second to none p4p.

Head to head, he is hell to deal with. I will grant you that at 35, his output, reflexes, and speed had lost a step, which rendered him more vulnerable to Tarver, et al.

Can he beat every MW or LHW ever? No, and I would argue that point against anyone. He would simply not have been as dominant in every era because he would have been forced to fight far more lions.

But... can he beat any SMW ever? Yep.