Roy Jones v. Fitzsimmons

Because religion doesn't "force you to believe into things despite common sense and proven facts". The idea that religion works that way is extremely, extremely short sighted.

No, it's not. If you think that people believe in something simply because they got indoctrinated, then you don't understand how complex this topic is.

If you base your opinion about a few fools that don't understand their own religion, then I can also point out massive amount of fools who treat science like a religion despite knowing nothing about it. I've been saying this as a physics engineer.

 

He would also dominate Lennox in grappling, making him look like a child.

You forgot that Karelin was a better boxer than Fitzsimmons as well, because he was too modern

 

I was actually really tempted to start a "Roy Jones vs Nishinoumi Kajirō I in Sumo" thread, discussing whether Roy's modern boxing technique wins him a sumo match against Nishinoumi's primitive Victorian sumo.

EDIT: But that would have been a dickish move in retrospect, since @White Bomber has been quite reasonable here in spite of both sides being pretty far apart in their views.

 

In general, I think that normal people tend to hold most of their beliefs for pretty bad reasons, and rarely understand those views all that well. Religious, secular, whatever.

A boxing fan can easily test this claim by asking a regular person who wins between Bruce Lee and Tyson. A significant number will pick the 130 pound actor, and many of the remainder will respond with some variant of "Hurr, hurr, earbite."

 

That's true, but it's not the weakness of the framework they decieded to hold of. It's simply because most people don't think deeply about their opinions, beliefs ect. and they rely on emotions.

Here's perfect example - people have such a strong belief in modern boxing technique that they literally think that someone like Fitzsimmons wouldn't be able to even clinch a modern boxer. They believe that boxers are so much better now, that even the way they move is different, better. I'm not talking about the footwork, it's literally about old fighters being so stiff they wouldn't be able to stay in front of modern boxers.

The reality is that even relatively untrained person would be able to clinch a boxer, if he decided to do that for all costs. He probably wouldn't repeat it more than a couple of times, but still. Boxers are not superhumans, they are extremely well trained and that's all.

 

I agree that religious people are in no way unique. Ask a normal person to describe evolution through natural selection and see how quickly you get some sort of weird Lamarckian or Hegelian nonsense when you ask basic questions.

 

Gracie literally did just that. As did Steve Jennum of all people. A guy who couldn't even outstrike a boxer from top mount, but he still clinched and threw Melton Bowen over his hip.

 

Really? How about people who believe there's a God, who has created everything? Isn't that the result of them being told, that this is so?

 

I don't think the way you're framing the question is going to get you a helpful answer.

Pretty much the entirety of Western education revolves around being told things.

 

No, but what is the relevance of that ?!?
Fitzsimmons wasn't a grappler. Granted, Fitzsimmons is better at it than modern boxers, but what they did back then was more like wrestling than actual grappling. It's not like they could do takedowns.
My point was Roy is just too fast, he'll dart in and out, hitting Fitzsimmons at will.

 

Karelin ain't a boxer, but he's probably one of the best wrestlers in human history. And he's way way stronger than Fitzsimmons, it ain't even close, the power gap is humongous. Have you ever seen him ? The man looked like a tree trunk, he was built like a brick wall.
And Karelin is also a million times more skilled at grappling than Fitzsimmons.

 

A beat down is what's gonna happen in this instance too.

 

Sure. I mentioned him because he's easily recognizable. My point (which you seem to agree with) is that you don't need incredible boxing skills to be favored to be able to clinch. A grappler with no boxing training can clinch the best boxers (Lennox being the example I used; not Fitzsimmons) just using his grappling ability.

 

This, for me, is all about speed vs timing.

Jones Jr was nearly impossible to time due to how quick he was.

Hopkins and Toney couldn't do it. Griffin and Tarver showed it could be done.

We don't have a lot to go on here, but for my money, I'm saying Fitz is good enough to catch him, and I think that's all it takes for him to win.

Fitz ko.

 

Put it another way:

Working with the assumptions we've already discussed, Fitz is a better wrestler than Jones, and a better striker than Karelin.

Fitz may actually be better at old timey jab-n-grab than Jones is used to, since Fitz's style is designed with the assumption that strikes should transition into an advantageous clinch position.

Jones fought in an era when the refs weren't going to just allow a boxer to use his punches as a bridge to dive into a clinch and octopus his opponent to death.