Roy Jones Jr vs Michael Nunn At MW

Tarver was gunning for a Jones fight for years. Years. It took forever to get the match made. But motivated good fighters wanting a Jones fight didn't get the matches. We got other guys instead.

I think a southpaw safety first boxer is all wrong for Jones. Always was. He doesn't jab and throws that long lead right hand from way on the outside. ILeft hand at his thigh or knee. Things that work against conventional fighters but becomes ineffective against those southpaws.

He also falls in whenever he throws right leads. That leaves him right in the zone to get hit by the southpaws. And when Roy gets hit a little, he backs off the gaspedal. He doesn't like it and wasn't a trade kind of fighter anyway. So he takes less risks & this is why, I think anyway, he loses the decisions. Winnable fights, but more risk taking is a necessity.

Frankie Liles was another southpaw wanting a fight.

I always look at who a guy doesn't fight in addition to who is selected. There's a definate reason.

And I sure don't give Jones a get out of jail free card because he was almost as old as Tarver. Nobody was hailing Tarver too much going into their first fight afterall. He was just a guy & decent fighter/boxer. Not a hitter whatsoever. Anyway, all it means is Roy was fighting a contemporary. Not the up and coming 24 year old. A guy his age.

What he wasn't getting was a 40 year old McCallum, when Roy was 28. Stale reflexes. Or a B or C grade guy. Tarver was one of his toughest matches going in & I'm saying if that's the case at that stage of a career, matchmaking has certainly not been any sort of a minefield.

 

Whenever it happened, Smith was far older and had far more fights by then and against p4p more potent opponents than what Jones had by that time so your comparison is wrong.

 

Robinson was younger at that point than Jones was when he met Tarver. Sugar Ray would go on to win the middleweight title again after that, so that the "far more fights" excuse is nil as well. This is like saying Battling Nelson was Joe Gans' hardest H2H opponent, or Tiger Flowers was for Harry Greb, which makes little sense.

 

He was 1 year younger than Jones was in this comparison, but past far many more fights and fighting a man 7 yrs his junior, compared to Jones fighting a man 7 weeks his senior.

 

I repeat, he had had more than enough left to win and fight for the middleweight championship of the world several times after that loss. And he lost to a fighter who was on a 5-fight losing streak; in his next fight the Sugar barely squeaked past another fighter with an almost identical to Jones's, worse than mediocre record. Simple aggression and toughness were enough to win a near shut-out over him. Did that make Jones his hardest H2H opponent? No.

 

I respect your opinion.


But here are a few things to consider:

Tarver could have fought Roy three years earlier, had he not lost to Harding.

According to Roy and HBO, Liles was offered his biggest payday to fight, and he turned it down. His manager Jack O'Halloran, said "We had a great fight lined up against Roy Jones, but he went back and asked for more money" At which point O'Halloran walked away from him.

Regarding the age factor with Tarver, yes, they were the same age. However, Tarver didn't turn pro until 28/29, and he'd only had just over 20 fights when they first met. Roy turned pro in 1989, and he'd just come back from HW, after going through five weight classes. The fight against Tarver, was his 50th fight. Now Roy won that first fight fair and square, even though he was absolutely exhausted. So there's no reason not to think that a younger, fresher version, that was more motivated and fighting to his full capabilities, wouldn't have had an easier fight against him.


Again, I respect yours and Zod's opinion.

I can see why you think Nunn would have beaten him at MW.

But I don't know why you're both concentrating on the Tarver fights as much.

You're both basically asking the question 'If Roy struggled with Tarver, how could he possibly have beaten Nunn'?

Yet you're analysing a guy who fought Tarver in his mid to late 30's.


Chad Dawson and Bernard Hopkins beat Tarver pretty easily.

Glen Johnson and Harding also beat him.

Roy struggled.

So what does the above mean?

Would Dawson, Hopkins and Glen Johnson etc have beaten Michael Nunn?


There's many factors to consider.

 

Another Difference is that Jones was stopped by Tarver whereas Smith only lost a decision. So again your comparison does not hold. And it is not that Jones got nothing left by the time he fought Tarver, it is just that he finally had to fight a more dangerous opponent than he ever did.
I guess Smith lost because he underestimated some of his opponents so much that he did not insist on his fixed fight stipulation.
Jones, Murad Muhammad and Alton Merkerson had their more legal ways of fixing fights, such as only fighting smaller and older men/ drained to death Toney or plain hyped nobodies.

 

You are again coming with nothing but excuses for Smith. What's worse, getting stopped by a lucky punch from the second best fighter of your weight division, or getting badly outpointed in nearly every round by a unranked fighter who is on a 5-fight losing streak, and then putting up another awful performance in the next bout as well vs another unranked fighter with worse then mediocre record?
You don't like Ray Robinson's examples? Joe Gans had a 1-2 record against Battling Nelson, including getting stopped twice. Only an idiot would insist that Battling Nelson was his hardest H2H opponent.
Just admit you are trying to defend a BS claim.

 

In addition to being Jones' master, Tarver also outdid him vs Glen Johnson, Montell Griffin & Danny Green. A 6 (for Jones) 7 (for Tarver) fights coincidence.
Jones did better vs Hopkins, Harding, Reggie Johnson & Clinton Woods, due to Tarver being drained to death vs Hopkins of course.
Glen Johnson, in addition to KOing Jones outdid him vs Tarver (*2 for Johnson / *3 for Jones ) and Griffin.
Jones did better vs Woods, Sosa, Julio Gonzalez & Hopkins (due to Johnson being both drained and inexperienced vs Hopkins, and also a premature stoppage with Johnson upright throughout, whereas Hopkins was inexperienced vs Jones, which all just make this comparison relative to Hopkins nearly completely irrelevant).

All in all Jones is the h2h inferior of Tarver & Johnson, after multiple tests.


You raised a flawed comparison due to number of fights and final outcome, and were shown wrong.

Who was Jones' hardest fight in your opinion? Glen Johnson? (I can bare this one) Montell Griffin? (I will disagree and the evidence is also in y/t) Lou DelValle? (again I disagree)
Or was it drained to death James Toney?
The relatively immobile (compared to Jones) John Ruiz (at least this 1can make sense) ?
Will you reveal who was Jones' hardest opponent (in your opinion) ?

 

Are you for real?

Jones's master?

He out did against Johnson etc?

 

Tarver was more dehydrated than Roy in each and every one of their fights including their first.

Notice how Tarver and Johnson managed to do it to Jones, but not to one another despite having fought each other twice, or was it Jones' all time chin that made the difference?

Tarver was older, more drained, past cocaine abuse, a lengthy amateur career and a much more difficult, albeit shorter, professional career.
So who had no realistic chance of winning?

And neither does the Johnson fight.
Only the Pazienza and Vaca fights have much of a bearing.

It was more of a matter of finally having to fight an opponent not far far more dead than he was, the way he used to do in his early 20's to early 30's.

And neither was Tarver due to the reasons I enumerated above.

Tarver, Nunn and McClellan would have always been too much for Jones.

 

We've discussed all of the above, many times.

We're just covering old ground.

If you think Nunn and Gerald would always have been too much, that's fine.

But you can't say Tarver would always have been too much, when Roy beat him at almost 35, whilst exhausted.

If that version of Roy could beat him, there's no reason at all why a fresher, younger version of Roy, fighting to his full capabilities also couldn't have beaten him.

 

You always try to make much of the fact that Jones weighed 199 against Ruiz 8 MONTHS earlier, and a full 14 months before Tarver KHTFO, and had to weigh in at 175 for those fights.

But unless you are prepared to quote both Jones's walking around weight, and ALL his in ring weights in his L / Heavy fights up until Ruiz, quite frankly you are pissing in the wind.

 

It's a pleasure to debate with you again, without any insults.

:good

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to debate here?

Is it in reference to my previous post, or another one?


The Tarver rematch isn't an issue here.

Roy was in much better condition, both mentally and physically.

He'd re hired Mackie Shilstone, and was motivated.


In my last post to Frank, I stated that if Roy could beat Tarver at 35, after 50 fights, and losing muscle, there's no reason why a younger, fresher version of Roy couldn't also have beaten him.

Again, you'll have to tell me which point you're querying.


Roy didn't have 8 months to lose the weight before he fought Tarver. He kept his physique in the hope of securing a big money fight at HW. He turned down the opportunity to fight Corrie Sanders, and almost signed to fight Holyfield late June, before Holyfield agreed to instead face Toney. Holyfield was so pissed with King's demands, he fought Toney for less money. Roy's fight with Tarver was signed in September.

 

Ok I'll keep it simple.

What was Jones walking around weight, and what was his in the ring weight on his 6 previous fights to Ruiz. I am ( purely ) guessing but I reckon he would be at least 190 in both instances. So your constant reference to losing 25 pounds for Tarver would be more likely to be less than 10 pounds more than he usually had to lose.

Could even be as little as 5, who knows?