Roy Jones fought trash opposition

I think what you’re saying is a huge stretch.

Although I don’t agree with Roy’s last minute stipulation, I don’t think it weakened Hill in any way. He came in under their agreed upon weight, and that shot left him unable to breath properly. It cracked his ribs. That was nothing to do with having a weakness there through not rehydrating etc, it was just a perfect shot that was debilitating. Although Hill was obviously angry at the time, I’ve never heard of any complaints from him throughout the years. Whenever he’s asked about the fight, he just says that the shot was just so unexpected.

Regarding his loss to Dariusz, I’ve already accounted for that. I have heard Hill say that he was injured for that fight though. I don’t know if it was true, but he says that he had a foot condition that hampered his movement. He also says that he tried to get a rematch.

 

So what? They competed at a high level.
Whats so bad about loosing? Your obsession with being undefeated is bizzare.
Hill and McCallum were solid world class LHWs at the time. Why go and twist that reality?
Nothing wrong with loosing. It's a sport ffs.

 

Agree completely. Fight enough top level competition and eventually you will fight someone who has your number. Or you will have an off night.

Too much is made of a loss in boxing nowadays. There is a tendency to over hype a guy after a win and consign him to the trash heap after a loss, even a competitive one.

Just the era we are in I guess.

 

There is no obsession with being undefeated but even a fool knows that some fighters (not all) take a bit of time to rebuild after a loss.
In the case of Hill, he was fighting straight after his biggest defeat so may not (not saying was or wasn't but speculating) have been at his best.
How is that a twist on anything?
Look at how Currys career changed after a loss. Look at how Toney had been undefeated in over 40 fights, suffers his first defeat and losses again straight after as just a few examples.
I'm sure even you could work that out.


It is no twist in saying that at that time when Hill fought Jones he had in the previous fight lost his biggest fight.
Call that a twist as much as you like but I would call that a fact

 

I'm just honestly trying to work out your posting with how you think others bend facts but not yourself.
Off subject but another example of you doing it is when you say to me that Collins didn't have a good win over Benn saying Benn was finished and retired but you rated Froch for his win over Kessler who also retired after losing. You seem to go all over the place with these varied opinions you accuse others of having, so genuinely trying to figure out

 

And then you have Hopkins who took the Lineal LHW championship after back to back losses.

Yes, some take for the worse after a loss due to lack of motivation. Some examples are more clear than others.
In Hills case nothing pointed to him having lost a step physically or mentally.

 

What is there to figure out?

My issues with you are very simple:

1. You like to debate on statistics, where you focus solely on the numbers, whilst not applying context and ignoring any relevant circumstances.

2. You contradict yourself depending on who you’re debating with.

Regarding Benn, I don’t mind if you think Collins had a GOOD win over him. That’s not the issue. The issue, is that you hardly rate Andre Ward’s win over Froch, as in your opinion Froch was tired and faded, yet you think that Collins has TWO GREAT wins over Nigel Benn.

That’s my issue.

Andre Ward had a double fractured hand, yet he easily beat Carl, who went on to crush Lucian Bute.

Steve Collins fought a version of Nigel Benn, who had nothing left. Once again, he’d retired after the Malinga loss. Again, he had to bet a huge sum of money on himself as a motivational tool. His tank was empty. And in the first fight, he had to withdraw with an ankle injury in the 4th round. So how can that possibly be a great win? If I was a fan of Collins’ I wouldn’t even have celebrated that as a win at all, let alone a great one. And then they had the rematch and Collins won comfortably. Benn then retired and never fought again.

So again, my issue is with you completely dismissing Wards win by literally typing:

‘It was a decent win, but not great as Carl was faded”

Whilst on another thread, you’re typing:

“Collins has a great SMW resume, as he has 2 great wins over Eubank and Collins”

How can you be taken seriously after typing out those 2 comments?

You don’t even factor in the that Andre won easily despite having a fractured hand.

You don’t factor in that Carl destroyed Bute afterwards.

All you gave was: Froch was faded.

Well, wasn’t Benn faded?

And then when you’re questioned on it, out come the stats.

“Benn had better stats going into the fight”

So what?

How about applying context?

How about looking at the circumstances?

If you don’t rate Ward’s win, that’s fine by me. But don’t dismiss Ward’s win, and then tell me that Collins has 2 GREAT wins over Benn, ignoring that he was finished, and the first fight had to be stopped due to injury.

Saying that Collins had one GREAT win over Benn would be a huge stretch, but claiming that he had 2 great wins over him is an absolute joke.

That’s it.

There’s nothing more to discuss.

You’re a stat man who only looks at the whole picture when it suits your agenda.

 

Did you not read what I had put in brackets about not all?
Some fighters seem to thrive after a loss. Froch is one that springs to mind, but I don't think they are the majority. Do you?

nothing?
A stoppage loss for the first time in his career
Also Hill suffered a loss straight after his 2nd fight with Maske which was another high profile fight and loss

 

You have basically explained in that post exactly why Hopkins has a better resume. Apart from Toney and a green Hopkins, and I suppose Ruiz at HW, name Jones's best opponents? And wins? The calibre of fighters? Take a long hard look at the list.

 

I’ve already explained it in detail.

Beating naturally bigger opponents, is better than beating naturally smaller opponents.

Bernard’s stand out wins have marquee names.

They have great name value.

A guy like Oscar jumps off of his resume. It looks impressive. But that win is no better than Roy’s win over Montell Griffin when you break it down. It’s not a popularity contest.

What’s his best win?

It’s either Tito or Tarver.

The Tito win was great for me, because Bernard was 36 and Tito looked to be a credible MW. But people are always going to point to the fact that Tito was a former WW.

His win over Tarver was his greatest, IF Tarver wasn’t drained. But I honestly think that he was drained. And Bernard’s own trainer thinks the same.

Again, Bernard has incredible longevity. He reigned at the top for longer than Roy. But Roy reigned for 15 years, across 4 divisions, where he barely lost rounds, let alone fights.

Bernard doesn’t have more impressive wins overall.

Again, he ruled a weak division for years where he fought smaller guys.

Roy has lots of very good wins:

Castro
Tate
Hopkins
Malinga
Toney
Sosa
Griffin
Hill
Reggie
Hall
Harding
Tarver
Ruiz

When Roy was fighting Ruiz and burning muscle to drop back for Tarver, Bernard was still at MW where he was calling out for the JMW champs to come up and fight him.

By his own admission, he could have fought at SMW and LHW years before he did, but he didn’t want to give up his advantages. He also stated that if he could get a fighter to move up and be at a disadvantage, he’d do so. This is while Roy was fighting in his 3rd weight class.

Roy was taking out Hill, while Bernard was fighting guys like Robert Allen.

Again, Bernard only showed any ambition when he lost to Taylor twice.

During his prime, he was basically a bully. He made incredible sacrifices to fight naturally smaller guys, when there were much better guys to fight at the higher weights.

His MW resume is poor overall.

Yes, he gets huge credit for being a world class LHW in his 40’s. But it’s not enough to eclipse what Roy did.