Roy Jones - Who Would You Choose...

McCallum?

 

1. The "prime" argument can be applied to any fighter, and is usually blown out of proportion. Joe Frazier was at his absolute peak Vs Ali, but not against Foreman (according to the Frazier fans, anyway), does this mean the Foreman fight should be disregarded completely? Ofcourse not. Roy Jones technical flaws were exposed in a way that hasn't been the case for Bernard Hopkins, because he is the much more polished fighter.

2. Um, well, I'm pretty sure Jake LaMotta knows a whole lot more about boxing than you do. That's your problem - You completely disregard the opinions of other professionals, writers and experts, when in reality it's ALL significant - I'm humble enough to admit I can't possibly know as much about boxing as Jake LaMotta, or about the older fighters than Nat Fleischer, but certain imbeciles not even out of their teens insist they do, on what basis I have no idea.

3. I romanticize old timers? My opinion of Corbett is based on what people like Jack Johnson, Gene Tunney, Nat Fleischer etc. have said about him. His style was based on defense, counterpunching, evasion and footwork. You just look at the date he fought and assume he can't possibly know how to box. This is indicative of your narrow minded block your ears and bang the wall approach to learning about boxing.

4. I don't always pick old-timers in "fantasy matchups", that suggestion is absurd. I would be reluctant to pick anyone over Mayweather at 130lbs, though there are a few, and a prime Hopkins at 160lbs is another one I would favour only a few older fighters. The simple fact is that gloved boxing has been around 120 years+, the "modern era" comprises perhaps 15% of that depending on when you believe it began, so statistically there will be a much greater selection of fighters in the remaining 85% - Especially considering that a case can be made that better athletes, and in general MORE COMPETITORS were attracted during that "85%" i.e., pre1980.

5. I haven't been wrong in predicting a matchup for months, since the Calzaghe-Kessler fight I've made a boatload of cash picking victor and method of result (except the Mayweather fight where I went for decision), so I'm certainly confident in my ability to compare fighters styles and pick a winner.

6. I don't have a high opinion of Roy Jones because he doesn't impress me all that much. His speed is up there with the greatest of all time, which makes him a difficult stylistic matchup for some, but I would still favour a lot of fighters to take care of him - Mayweather is the better fighter in every way.

 

How exactly did LaMotta prove his knowledge of boxing anywhere? In an introduction for a book about Archie Moore (I think) he wrote some false statements, for example, showing lack of knowledge of history of boxing at the time he was fighting.

 

Call him more polished all you want to, Jones still handily beat him when they fought, and quite easily as well.

So because LaMotta boxed, it means he has studied up on boxing history and learned about the greats before and after him? Shaq plays basketball, yet didn't even know that coach Lenny Wilkens(one of the 50 Greatest) played. And as Senya pointed out, where has he proven his knowledge other than writing false info in a book? I'm not claiming to know more than Nat Fleischer, but his bias toward the old-timers overshadows his knowledge.

Of course Fleischer said it, he romanticizes the old timers worse than someone like Bert Sugar even. Johnson himself was primitive, so what really does it matter? Tunney was a more modern fighter, but certainly a better one on film than Corbett. I don't look at the date he fought. In fact, I've tried to argue against people with this way of thinking before because of my love for classical boxing, and found that it was damn near impossible, considering they actually have footage, and the footage kind of ruins your argument.

Prime Hopkins would have about a 25% chance at beating a Roy Jones, so as long as you have that down, you're good. Your argument there is flawed for this reason. We're not talking greatness here, otherwise you have a point(and my own ATG rankings reflect it) we're talking head to head ability. The sport has been in the more modern stages since about the 40's overall, the guys who fought in before then(barring a few pioneers) wouldn't be able to hang with more modern techniques, especially the HW's(hell, even the HW's of the 40's and 50's, for the most part anyway) due to their size are at a disadvantage.

So why does Mayweather have a lot more trouble with the level guys Jones made look amateurish? In every way? Jones was quicker and more powerful. He got hit clean less, even though his defense was much less orthodox. You seem to think moreorthodox=better. I guess you lost a bit of that cash betting on Hill over Jones, or Hopkins over Jones then.

 

Very good post and I'm going to have to agree with it. Well said. Some may get mad but thats life.

 

A lot of Light Heavyweights in history. Moore, Foster, Spinks, Conn, etc.

He beats all Super Middleweight.

At Middleweight, he was great but didn't have much experience, so I would pick many prime ATG Middlweight to beat him.

 

You said Joe Louis was P4P faster than Roy Jones, so it's safe to say your opinions on him don't exactly equate.

 

He had plenty of experience, and looked great there. His fight with Toney at 168 was his first title fight there, and happened immediately after Jones captured the IBF middleweight title. So if he had arguably his best performance one fight after ending his reign at 160, I think it's safe to say he was near his peak towards the latter end of his 160 run.

 

:rofl Immediately after his big performance against Kalambay when everyone thought he was the **** he looks mediocre against Starling and Barkley. That doesn't tell me he was past his prime after one fight, it tells me he simply wasn't as good as you think.

You completely overrate your favorites like Nunn, Camacho, etc.

You forgot Bernard Hopkins and James Toney. Virgil Hill, etc. Nunn KO'd Kalambay with a big shot, and got KO'd by Toney(same guy Jones shut out), and as you said, didn't look good in the two fights directly following Kalambay.

I mean wasn't Michael Nunn roy's mandatory at one point, yet he wouldnt fight him, that seems odd to me. Roy Jones Jr. was a cherry picker, dont try and act like james toney was not weight drianed for this fight. Everyone on this forum was making excuses for curry after he got his ass kicked by honeyghan, toney had to cut 40-50 pounds for this fight and everyone including roy knew about his weight problems.[/quote]Toney may have been a bit weight drained, what does it matter? Style-wise he would've always lost to Roy.

And explain this, what the hell does Jones knowing about Toney's weight issues prior to the fight happening have to do with anything? The contract was already signed for the fight, the fact that Toney decided to be a fat, lazy ****** like always doesn't change the fact that Roy signed prior to these issues. It's not like he would've pulled out if Toney wasn't weight drained.

 

In alphabetical order,

Ezzard Charles
Billy Conn
Bob Foster
Archie Moore


Billy Conn is the least likely to knock Roy Jones out but he's the most likely of these four to beat Jones by a convincing decision win. Foster would probably knock him out the earliest of the group.

 

still doesnt change the fact that nunn was his mandatory and did not get the shot, why not if roy would have easily beaten nunn like you say, it would look great on his resume. He gave frazier, telesco, otis, glen kelly, and a truckload of other bums title shots, why not his actual mandatory?

Style-wise nunn would have given him a very hard fight, its roy nuthuggers like you that want to belive he was superman.

 

Greb. Possibly Langford and Charles. Not too many others (if any).


Ps: Mayweather plain ain't as good as RJJ was at his best. It's that simple.

 

Roy was a bit of a cherry-picker later in his career, that is true, but that doesn't change the fact that style-wise I would pick him over Nunn. You could say the same for Floyd and Margarito.

 

how so? a shutout win for roy or a close fight? I mean sure he can win but i really dont see how hes gonna outclass him. Like i said before, speed wins if you can outjab your opponent or if your opponent is slow footed, nunn would always outjab roy and his hands r also lightning quick.

 

You're not helping yourself here. Louis has one of the fastest ever hands at heavyweight (its not an opinion, its a fact so accept it) and was larger than Jones.
You just seem to be one of those fans that are upset to see Jones not be the best at something.