Roy Jones.

You can garner the answer to your question by examining almost any activity in your own life.

For example, a drummer ...

Early on he learns how to do a single-stroke roll. He alternates his hands in a sticking pattern going RLRLRLRL. Then he learns a double-stroke roll. He is alternating RRLLRRLL.

Several steps after that he is doing double paradiddles (RLRLRR LRLRLL), or five-stroke rolls or even seven stroke rolls. RJJ's ability to throw a triple left hook OBVIOUSLY is demonstrable that he has mastered the fundamentals of throwing a single left hook.

If a builder or general contractor, tears down a wall to enlarge a room or connect two spaces you understand the knowledge required. If, OTOH, he completely tears down a building and creates an entirely new comprehensive dwelling/structure on that same space we can see that the first (simple) project's level of difficulty is firmly under his belt.

If I am a clerk in an accounting department, I will perform one small aspect or several small aspects related to the financial accounting of a business or the transactions of a business. If I am the accounting manager, I close the books each period which means I handle ALL the accounts that lead to the eventual preparation of the income statement and balance sheet. I make the adjusting entries necessary at period end to start the process again. If I am the controller, I prepare the financial statements out of that for each period and you can be quite certain that I have long ago mastered the fundamentals necessary to be a clerk.

You can come up with your own examples easily enough.

There are endeavors in life that continue to improve over long horizons with consistent repetition (like surgery or musical instrument playing). There are other pursuits which are far less demanding to master. You can be certain that RJJ boxing most everyday or close enough for this point - since he was ten years of age - had ample time to master the fundamentals of boxing at a level of understanding FAR beyond ANYONE on this board to express or easily understand. That his application of fundamentals was tailored to his own physical attributes and capabilities does not mitigate his understanding of what he is doing, how he does it, and why he approaches combat situations in the manner he did. One can not separate their own unique characteristics from the overall package to be some mechanistic ideal representation of what some layperson thinks are proper "fundamentals". The ability to do things in the ring that others cannot - if deemed anything - is a progression not a weakness or example of under-development.

What a lousy indictment it would be of every other boxer if RJJ without fundamentals was able to reach the status he achieved in professional boxing.

 

Well said. I think the idea that Jones didn't have fundamental boxing skills throughout his career is preposterous.

 

Agree with all of that. Especially the impact of dropping weight in middle age. Moving weight in youth is completely different than in middle age.

I can understand RJJ not deciding to stay at heavyweight as he simply was too small (for this era). Even if he could have been more than a one-off at heavyweight the physical toll of giving away so much size in multiple fights would have been such a (life-shortening) price to pay (and he's already set up for a large bill just being a fighter and then one with a long career to boot). But, the physical detriment of cutting back down at 35 years of age cannot be ignored if one is familiar with athletics and/or merely the aging process.

Additionally, I agree with your comments on steroids. They are not an all or nothing thing. You can go on cycles at one period in your career and for many reasons stop. For all anyone knows most champions could have dabbled and/or many could have been periodic abusers. Why does one single out RJJ and ignore Wladimir - just as an example? There are lots of fighters that are obvious candidates and many that would simply be missed and perceived as clean. Why assume that some never have when there are so many examples across so many sports of guys believed to be clean for years that turned out to be anything but?

It would seem to me that if one chooses to denigrate and extrapolate from meager information then indict any and everyone at the top. Because the assertion is just as possible for nearly all when you have no in-depth knowledge and first hand access to information of the pervasiveness of the "problem". It could be very prevalent.

Cheers

 

Thanks for your comments.

I personally think Jones had a couple of options at heavyweight. He could have fought Holyfield, perhaps Toney, or Byrd.

There were options, each would have been pretty big paydays so he wouldn't have to have fought too many fights to have a huge payday.

There was even talk of him fighting a past prime Tyson, although that may have been a very dangerous choice.

But the other 3 mentioned were, if not winnable, unlikely to be career ending beatdowns.

 

Agree with that. But, this board (and the General) would have torn him up for cherry picking (g) and avoiding the super heavyweights. Those would have been three/four decent fights and he would have fared better without the weight cut. Would have loved to have seen RJJ/Byrd, RJJ/Holyfield, RJJ/Toney, and perhaps a RJJ/Tyson matchup rather than his three struggles against Tarver, the Johnson KO, and all that came after - and then a retirement to preserve his health for old age.

 

Critics aside, that would have been the better option. I remember thinking that trying to loss muscle and go down in weight at 35 is not only a bad idea, I can't recall any other boxer doing it, or having any degree of success doing it. Can you?

I'm not talking about Foreman going down from 267lbs because that's pure fat he was losing, but with Jones this wasn't the case.

 

I've cut weight (judo/grappling), known people who have had cut weight, seen people struggle or have to move up. But no one does what Jones did, never mind in your 30's. As I have gotten older, I appreciate more what Jones did coming back down in weight.

 

No. I'd defer to the board historians ...

Three most (or more) recent examples of middle-aged moves down ... RJJ (almost thirty-five), Byrd (almost thirty-eight), De La Hoya (almost thirty-six) speak for themselves.

 

Roy Jones Jr. has a Tiny Little Head

 

It is the antithesis of what is "normal" (i.e., adding weight as we age).

I think the day before weigh-ins are far more beneficial to the younger fighter. Using FMJ as an example, if he could - at 37 years of age - weigh-in at 147 and come back at 160 the next day he'd be thrilled. I would expect the differential or added weight potential overnight is progressively less as we age. Probably equalize matches or bouts more if there was an added weight stipulation and a pre-fight re-weigh.

 

Oh dear. atsch

 

How touching.

 

The only guy with an agenda is YOU!

 

Good post.

Roy wanted huge money to stay at HW.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but he should never have rushed back for Tarver.

A Holyfield fight was almost made, but from what I can gather, Don King and Murad Muhammad got too greedy.

Evander was so mad with King, he took the Toney fight even though it was for less money with no title at stake.

A Byrd fight didn't interest Roy. Because it wouldn't have brought huge money, and it would have been a bad match up stylistically. Roy said they'd both have been waiting on each other, and it would have been a boring fight.

A fight with Tyson was in the pipeline for 2004, until both fighters were knocked out.

 

What was minimal?

Overprotective matchmaking?