Roy Jones Jr. Vs The Black Uhlan of The Rhine

Once again, this has nothing to do with Jones for me. My point is your logic "if boxer A has achieved nothing at date X, then became the best fighter in history at a later date Y, then the win over him at date X is meaningless" is flawed. Esteban De Jesus' victory over Roberto Duran, for example, is pretty meaningless because Duran had only proved to be an ATG much later. Duran's victory over Leonard - same thing. Leonard over Hearns - meaningless. And so on. You are completely re-writing boxing history.

 

Could either Toney/Hopkins, you have 2 ATGs weighing between 170-180 in the ring against a slower less skilled ATG? Maybe, interesting contests in their own rights, both are more capable than Walker for sure.

That's irrelevant because Jones beat them at a canter with a broken hand and neither could land on Jones and Schmelling wouldn't be able to land on Jones either with his slower hands and wouldn't be able to defend himself against Jones attacks either.

Schmelling stands off looking to set up his counter right and he may not win a second of the fight.

An easy style match up really

 

Or Duran's wins over Leonard and Marcel, Leonard wasn't rated too high after Duran beat him for sure.

Something tells me Klompton doesn't downplay Greb's wins and struggles with unprovens like Tunney and Loughran so much, eh?

 

This is the ridiculous **** Im talking about. YOU DO NOT A CREDIT A WINNING FIGHTER WITH EVERYTHING HIS OPPONENT WILL DO. Period. Nobody with half a brain would argue that Hopkins was anything special in 1993. If you want to believe that Jones fought the best version of Hopkins we ever seen fine but you are deluded and in the VAST minority.

This situation is always taken completely out of context by Jones dicksuckers. At the time in question Hopkins was at his most popular. He had just unified the MW division for the first time in nearly 15 years and threw a wrench in Jones' plans by dominating the SMALLER guy that Jones was about to face in one of the events of that era in boxing that took a center stage in the sports world immediately on the heels of 9/11. Hopkins was at a high water mark. Jones on the other hand was in the midst of the unprecedented RoyCott whereby even his fans, tired of watching him fight no hoper after no hoper, refused to watch him fight until he faced a worthy opponent. He was also in the midst of a public feud with HBO and Larry Merchant over his refusal to negotiate in good faith to make fan friendly fights, opting instead to live off his contract and fight no hopers. He wanted Merchant muzzled on his broadcasts because of Merchants increasingly critical commentary directed at Jones refusal to face challenging opposition in general and Michalczewski in particular. Against this backdrop Jones (at a low water mark) demanded 60% split against Hopkins (at a high water mark). Hopkins was adamant about an even split. The fight was anticipated to BOTH FIGHTERS a career high payday. Jones, as usual talking out of both sides of his mouth, stated that he wanted to fight guys who knew how to win and instead walked and signed to face Clinton Woods in a fight Chris Bushnell called "the least anticipated fight of the year" for a fraction of what he could have gotten against Hopkins. If anyone doubts Hopkins wanted to fight Jones all they have to do is go watch every single fight of his while he was MW champion and see how he constantly called out Jones only for Jones to look the other way. When Jones finally agreed 20 years late Hopkins jumped on the fight and kicked Jones ****ing ass. So lets not pretend that Jones was just actively going out and fighting all of these great fighters because the list of marquee, challenging fights he missed during his career that were there for him is longer than any supposed P4P fighter you can name. Period. Fool me once shame you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me 12 times and shame on anyone for believing the Jones party line.

No what highlites a bias is the fact that people want to believe Jones popped Toney's cherry when McCallum, Johnson, and Tiberi had done that long before Jones ever did. The fact is that Toney was a notoriously inconsistent fighter even in his prime and if someone as limited as Tiberi can clearly beat Toney then why is so impressive that Jones did and why should give Jones a pass for the next decade simply off that one win? Why does beating an inconsistent Toney mean Jones can suddenly take early retirement and turn himself into a circus act that just fights garbage men?

 

Well maybe I won't detract from Schmelling's win though as it was a masterclass over a proven Louis. I think he had the style to give Joe nightmares and Max was past his prime in the second fight in an incredibly intimidating arena that most boxers would certainly feel 'cold' starting the fight.

Having said that his style doesn't match up nearly as well against Jones, Schmelling isn't nearly as effective on the front foot and he's stepping into the Matrix right here.

 

And thats where you would be wrong as seen above. But more to the point Ive written extensively about how Greb's first bout, the legendary win, against Tunney was essentially seen as a gimme for Greb because he was far more experienced and battle tested than Tunney. The fight people should be focusing on for Greb in that era, and the fight that people DID focus on as contemporaries was his bout with Gibbons in 22 not Tunney. The Gibbons bout was far more publicized, and garnered Greb much more attention. It was filmed (something Im not convinced was done for the Tunney bout despite the legends) and afterwards a massive parade was thrown for Greb and his popularity was so high he was booked to tour the country and Canada on the vaudville circuit. The Tunney win paled in comparison. The Loughran fight was even less important at the time. But again, as I said, Greb didnt just fight and beat those guys one time and then rest on his laurels. He continued to fight them over the years even as they became better fighters and more famous, win lose or draw. As I said, I dont think Jones fans really want to go there with that argument because every aspect of Greb's career shits all over Jones.

 

Exactly what style does match up well against Schmeling?

I am not sure he really answered that question.

People beat him, but nobody really gave us a formula for doing it.

Baer and Louis beat him by hurting him, and jumping on him when he was hurt, but if you don’t have their power, it would be hard to advise you how to fight him.

 

Hopkins physical and skill peak like any boxer differs. His physical peak was certainly '93' while '97

Stop making up lies, Jones regularly made a minimum 8m a fight for fighting anyone, a figure several times more than Hopkins made. Hopkins didn't constantly call Jones out, he was offered the fight and turned down 40 percent despite being a fighter who couldn't draw flies and would earn 200k against the likes of Hakar.

Hopkins slap and hug shouldn't be considered with an ass kicking, he hasn't kicked anyone's ass since fighting a smaller Trinidad in 2001, he's been way too old since then.

More disingenuous lies from yourself too. JOnes offered Hopkins the opportunity in 2002 and was turned down. Hopkins even turned down the fight in 2008/9 FFS

Name 1 fighter who was willing to take none extorniate money to face Roy he actually turned down. It didn't happen,

I don't believe Toney didn't deserve to lose a fight, nearly every fighter in the sport had though, Whitaker included. Maybe McCallum beat him, he wasn't at the races against Tiberi and Johnson was close but he won that one.

Against Jones he was in a super fight and Jones won every round, that's magnificent anyway you spin it.

He doesn't, he beat the champions like McCallum and Reggie Johnson (a man you credit with a win over Toney) and top contenders and LHW despite missing a few. Hill and McCallum were greats, Griffin beat Toney, Harding beat Tarver, Gonzalez beat Dariusz and he beat Tarver and Woods who beat the next generation of LHWs.

 

So you agree the versions of McVea and Jeanette that Johnson beat were nothing special?

 

Schmelling never really fought any skilled, extremely quick opponents resembling anything like Jones. Maybe if he was in the era of Walcott and Moore and fought them you could assess it a bit better.

 

I'm not swung 1 way or another, I think Tunney was already an excellent boxer who'd improve after Greb. I think he gradually got better but Greb's constant success is maybe more telling than his wins against Gibbons with Tunney ultimately proving himself better than Gibbons. But it is a fine a line, did Tunney just get far better? Perhaps.

Jones and Hopkins is a little different given both had similar levels of experience and both obviously improved after they fought. Hopkins ultimately could have fought a rematch but chose not to. Partly down to Don King's slave contract that would hinder his earning, something you seem to ignore in your pursuit of good and evil.

What you seem to misunderstand though is how fights are made and why fights are made. In Greb's day as many fights as possible were made to sell as many tickets as possible. In Jones day fights were made to HBO schedules or PPV dates based on the demand for opponents. Jones desperately wanted to move to PPV but few fighters offered that opportunity, namely Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis, perhaps Hopkins at a push. The first 3 were nearly retired when they turned down PPV fights with him and Hopkins wouldn't take it for 40 percent of the cut, which would be much less after Don King had his take.

 

If Schmeling truly analyzed Jone's syle and prepared a strategy for it like he did Louis I believe he would have doped out Roi's style and weaknesses like he did Louis's. I think Max could have broken Jones down like he did Joe Louis based on that.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected