Roy Jones Junior : The Greatest Fighter on ability of all-times..!

McCallum gave Jones problems

 

So you are saying that B-Hop was a complete fighter when he fought Roy? He was the Executioner when he fought Roy and didn't have a game plan. He became a much better fighter after he bacame champion and got more experience. Roy was always a great fighter and never really changed much. He didn't have to because of his athletic ability being off the chanrts. Look at it this way. Bernard is older than Roy, but he was never as gifted as Roy was, but he is a more intelligent fighter who realizes his body changes, and has made the transition of getting older and still being a factor. He has aged gracefully because he knows his limitations. Roy still tries to do the same things he did when he was younger, and he can't maintain that pace. He still mugs and shows off. You have to be wise if you want to survive. Guys like Mayweather can last longer because ring intelligence is part of their natural ability, not just athleticism.

 

McCallum was old, too.

 

From that point of view I can see where you're coming from.
But he lost nearly every round...so while he did redeem himself in a way, it wasn't a competitive fight.

How did he look versus Lacy? I missed that one.

 

I don't think you can lump together a non-prime Jones with a prime Jones. Roy's physical prime in the ring ended unambiguously on 03/01/03. Roy was always a counter puncher and always accustomed to being pressured - even by the average fighters he faced. He had an EXTREMELY low body fat %, was being highly muscled, and geared for speed.

He could have easily remained at 168 lbs as evidenced by his ability to cut weight at the end of his career - because normally middle age is where you move up and slow but often maintain your power by adding weight. Roy was basically a small LHW. [This is also why Hopkins was weaker at middleweight by middle age than he was in his early 30s. Moving up would have been more natural and he was comparatively weakened by making the same weight with his frame. But I digress ...] Roy's superior athleticism dictated that he could move up to the more prestigious weight class and be more than competitive even while giving away some weight on (every) fight night (a general disadvantage).

His athleticism AND skill as a FIGHTER combined with him packing on pure muscle WHILE maintaining his greyhound like physicality enabled him to challenge a MUCH bigger man and out quick him to win a heavyweight title.

The shedding of that much muscle IN middle age was debilitating and physically damaging. Roy has been a comparative corpse since then with slow feet that grow slower still. He is an undeniable shadow of the speed merchant he was.

But this is the post I'm responding to:

You're offering your thesis that Jones is purely based upon athleticism (or more so than not) and when (good) opponents fight back - "he struggles and looks befuddled". As evidence you provide Tarver, Calz, and Johnson - and then the first Montell Griffin fight.

That ignores that he has already faced better comp than that from his days as an amateur through his prime (ending with the Ruiz fight). Roy had already boxed and been in the ring with guys like Frankie Liles, Gerald McClellan, Bernard Hopkins, James Toney, Mike McCallum, and was never "befuddled".

def: perplex, bewilder, baffle, daze, muddle.

Roy ALWAYS had options in the ring BECAUSE he combined better reflexive athleticism & quickness WITH both an innate and a studied understanding of feints and subtle movement that is part and parcel of man-to-man combat. There is more to fighting than merely knowing how throw punches correctly. What Roy does as well as the ELITE fighters of all time is set his punches up with the shift of his body, the lean, the subtle movement and flex that makes an opponent react or expect something that may or may not be forthcoming.

No one is gonna blow away good/great opposition winning ever second of competition. That is true for Roy and for every other great.

But, he always fought through and was able to find what worked and got his fight "agenda" across and imposed his "bag of tricks" over what his talented opposition had in theirs. He did this over and over again while generally being the smaller man in the ring. He wasn't "befuddled" even in the few perceived close fights in his career.

Now, I rate Tarver as being a very decent fighter overall with some more optimal LHW attributes than Roy. Tarver is tall with great length (and left-handed). His general athleticism is good. But, Antonio never faced a prime Roy Jones Jr. Roy only looked decent in sparse moments in his three fights with Tarver. But, when he showed glimpses there was no denying the difference.

Roy has faced Frankie Liles several times. Frankie has many similarities to Tarver. Roy wasn't unable to adjust to Tarver's size or skill or left-handedness. Roy simply didn't have the physical tools of his prime. He was able to adjust to Liles. Prime Roy would have adjusted to Tarver.

The Glen Johnson fight is explained by the same circumstances (muscle/weight loss) as Tarver. While Glen was even better (many would contend) at LHW than at SMW, we have seen Roy deal with pressure fighters his entire career. I think Glen is a terrific LHW. But, he didn't fight a prime Roy Jones Jr. either. He brings nothing into the ring that Roy hadn't already dealt with successfully before. The difference is that Roy no longer had his legs about him.

Calzaghe. LOL.

Anyway, your first statement isn't correct and your second isn't supported by your examples. You state that Roy's "just quick". We know he sure wasn't anything close to the old Roy after he shed the weight. The losses and KO losses to Tarver and Johnson all came in the aftermath of the Ruiz victory at heavyweight. After these losses to Tarver and Johnson, Roy went on to face Ajuma, Hanshaw, Trinidad, Calzaghe, Sheika, and Lacy. There isn't a single LHW or a LHW that has done ANYTHING in the divison (including Joe who struggled with a 43 year old then fought a (comparatively) shot Roy Jones Jr. and promptly retired) in that list.

No, Roy's weight loss combined with age resulted in him being unable to do what he would have certainly done to Tarver, Johnson, and Calzaghe. It wasn't any special ability to "fight back" combined with being his "equal". Roy had been there and done that and seen all they could bring into the ring and more. These fighters were just not shot.

 

Yes. I am saying that Bernard Hopkins was a complete fighter that would have been the IBF champ eighteen months earlier if he had not had Roy Jones Jr. across from him in '93. The 28 1/2 year old Bernard Hopkins was materially the same fighter at almost 30 years of age that first became the IBF middleweight champ (and then held it for the next decade). Bernard was in his physical prime in the Jones fight and was the same fighter into his mid-30s. He brought the same ring generalship into ALL of the fights across the mid and late 90s (including the 1st Mercado fight).

No, I'm not convinced that "ring generalship", "being a more intelligent fighter", and "knowing his limitations" is what separates a Bernard Hopkins from a Roy Jones, Jr. in 2008/2009.

All fighters are going to age differently as a product of the fights they had. Roy dropped weight and muscle and it impacted his ability to perform. He got caught and destroyed and he will never be the same. No amount of "ring generalship" or strategy was going to protect him when he didn't have his legs.

Bernard is older. But, he has not added weight and then cut weight to return to middleweight. He hasn't been hurt like Roy and that is one thing to his comparative benefit vis-a-vis Roy today. Also, one shouldn't ignore a few things about this ending run in Bernard's career.

He fought two tough fights with a much less talented boxer in Jermaine Taylor at 40. He struggled against a fighter he would have dominated in his prime. He deserves credit for taking that fight against a younger man in his prime - his legacy required it. He then moved up to LHW and caught a weight dropping 38 year old Tarver and got a very credible win.

Then, instead of defending the LHW belt against a legit LHW, he fought a worn, small, Winky Wright (a great 154 lb fighter but also a past peak 36 year old with nearly 60 fights on his odometer). Next, instead of facing a young legit LHW he chose to meet the 36 year old SMW champ. After an embarrassingly poor performance against an often amateurish looking Calzaghe who Bernard overlooked, he had little choice but to seek redemption. So, he got the middleweight champ to move up and met him at a catchweight.

The point is that Bernard is doing a bit of a smoke and mirrors routine because the man is now ANCIENT in boxing terms. He is one of my favorites but there is no denying that these decisions are necessary not merely financially sensible and understandable.

If Bernard was throwing himself in the ring with a still strong Glen Johnson and a FAR, FAR faster handed Chad Dawson he would be taking punishment. If he shows up old and gets caught he could easily and certainly end up not all that different to Roy. Time catches up to everyone. It is the great equalizer. It just comes at different times and/or can be hastened by not taking care of oneself or meeting the wrong opponent.

If Bernard sticks to old fighters and slow footed fighters (as well as non-LHWs) then he avoids problems. This isn't "ring generalship". This is wise matchmaking.

 

You'll note that I did mention Mike here in this context:

McCallum was a great fighter. He did give a good account against Roy. But, my response was as it relates to this:

For all of the credit I would assign to the Bodysnatcher, he was in no way going to win that fight. Got your scorecard?

I don't want to say anything bad about McCallum. He was old and he gave a great performance. I think he is a great, great fighter. But, "befuddled" would seem to be closer to a situation in which the fighter was unable to solve the puzzle and was gonna lose or actually lost.

 

atsch Argument over. Oh dear.

 

Dear Sister Sledge,

You contradict yourself. You say Roy Jones isn't shot, while earlier you made the point that Hopkins and Mayweather age better because they don't rely as much on their physical gifts. So he relies on his physical gifts, they've now eroded or been compromised since his drop from heavyweight, and yet he's not shot to absolute pieces?

 

Deat Shake,

Shot means a fighter cannot fight anymore. While it is apparent that Jones is not an elite fighter anymore, he can still compete with most of the competition and beat them. His hands were just as fast as Calzaghe's. His foot speed is still great, too. He just cannot maintain it for as long as he did in his youth.

 

While Jones is not as good as he once was, the man can still fight. If he was shot. He can still beat a most of the top ten fighters in the LH division. Kassim Ouma is shot, Monte Barrett is shot. Roy is not.

 

Jones is not shot. He's ageing gracefully. He can still compete on the top level, but his speed is not what it once was. I wa convinced after two consecutive knockouts he was shot, but hes more than proved hes not, but going down to face smaller guys was probably a smart move on his part. The big guys at 175 were just getting to big for him. Even Glen Johnson who isnt considered a huge puncher manhandled Jones, because hes just not quick enough to keep the fight on his terms in the center of the ring anymore.

 

Jones isnt quite shot, shot is when a fighters brain damaged for me, however he is blatantly a shadow of his former self, nothing near the fighter he once was. Simply put hes lost his legs and lies on the ropes for most of the fight, he can't maintain an attack or throw as many punches or even hit as hard. He should add Danny Green to his past prime list of successes though and who knows I certainly wont rule out him winning a UD over a 45yo Hopkins

In retrospect he was past his prime against Ruiz and Woods too, nowhere near as good as the 94-98 prime version

Sister Sledge critiquing Jones career based on his way past prime self is clear bias against the man and if thats the best he can do its testiment to how good Jones was in his prime

 

Jones is shot.

When a former world title fighter is both (a) not capable of producing anything like they could at their peak, and (b) no longer capable of functioning at world title level, they are shot.

And Jones is both of those things.

Please don't delude yourselves, Roy Jones is not capable of beating world class opponents anymore. Jeff Lacy was mediocre at his peak and he is basically a punchbag now. Lacy, like Sheika, was handpicked to make Roy look good. Jermain Taylor had already shown Lacy was not a top 10 fighter anymore, and Sheika hasn't been for a long time, if he ever was.

The most recent times that Jones has mixed with world champion level comp, he has been badly beaten (Tarver, Johnson, Calzaghe). He looks good against weak comp (Lacy, Sheika, a fat ghost of Tito Trinidad, Prince Somebody, Hanshaw who was KO'd by Dirrell).

If Roy Jones had always been a 'maybe sneaking into the top 10 of his division but not good enough for world title level' fighter, then I wouldn't consider him shot now, because that's the level he is at now. But Roy was a great world champion, so for him to be at that level now means he is shot.

There is a difference between being past-prime and being shot. Bernard Hopkins is past-prime. He can still function at world title level, but he has won some and lost some as his physical abilities erode. He has beat some world title level fighters (Pavlik, Tarver, Wright) to prove that he is still fit for this level, and he has "lost" contentious decisions to fighters that he would have beaten in his prime IMO (Taylor, Calzaghe).

But Roy Jones, who was at the same level as Hopkins in the early 2000s, can't mix in this company anymore. He doesn't function there like Hopkins does, he loses badly.

Jones can keep fighting C-level opponents, and keep doing his tricks and talking a good game, but when you cannot even function at the level you were at, I don't mean can't function effectively, I mean function at all (being KO'd by Tarver & Johnson and humiliated by Calzaghe is not functioning) then you're shot, because there is a ceiling above you which you can no longer reach and the only way is down.

Bernard Hopkins was perhaps not the best example to use to illustrate my point, because he has not yet passed onto the 'shot' stage, his last performance proved he is still functioning effectively at the top level. A better example would have been Pernell Whitaker. Pernell's prime years were very approximately 1988-93. After '93, he began to decline gradually. By 1997 at welterweight, it was clear he was not at his peak anymore. But, he managed to prove against Oscar De La Hoya that he was still capable of performning at that level, much like Hopkins is doing now. By 1999 against Felix Trinidad, it was clear Pea was shot. He was no longer capable of functioning at that level, as he was soundly soundly beaten by someone who wouldn't have beaten him in his prime. The manner of the defeat meant he could retire, or do what Jones is doing now, and fight the C-level. Pea retired, Jones kept going. But shot is shot.

 

I disagree. If a fighter drops his level of comp enough, he will still be able to function. For instance, stick Barrera in with a rank novice with 7 fights under his belt right now, and MAB would win the fight. Therefore by your logic, he isn't shot. But we saw the way he struggled woefully with Amir Khan that he is shot, because he cannot function at world title level anymore, and because he cannot live with a fighter who is vastly inferior to Marco was in his prime.