Was Roy Jones a great defensive fighter?

Yes, I think he was a great defensive fighter, for the same reasons as most do on this thread.

However, I disagree with those who have said that Roy was good at fighting off the ropes, rope-a-dope etc. I do not think he was, at all, at least not compared to someone like Toney. Roy wasn't even as good as someone such as Azumah Nelson, who only fought there when necessary. I think that on the ropes was the only scenario where peak Roy did get hit, I definitely don't think he could've lasted a whole fight that way without getting dropped or stopped. When Roy went to the ropes in his prime, it was always only a matter of time before he sprung back out and reasserted his superiority.

 

Like in the Brannon fight. He's literally standing there letting this undefeated fighter 'do his thing' and let off steam because he knows he can do so. He knows this man doesn't have enough quality to get through those ear muffs and that as soon as his man gets tired Roy can take him out (as he did in, briefly merciful, fantastic fashion)

However; against someone that is going to pose him problems offense wise, I think Roy would be best pressed not to do this. He was much better on his feet, pulling away and dictating the pace with his pot shots, which in turn lead to combinations, and onto dominance or stoppages.

In short I felt he was doing the 'rope a dope' thing because he felt he could, not necessarily because it was always the right thing to do.

 

Never understood why he did that in the earlier rounds, particularly later in his career when his chin was on the downslide. I think he could have easily kept a guy like Danny Green in the center of the ring if he so chose.

 

I think we worked it out.

How about these rough categories for upper echelon fighters:

Technician, unorthodox and effective, and Savant.

...the term "unorthodox technician" strikes me as internally inconsistent. Technique suggests textbook, fundamentals, and the like, while unorthodox suggests the opposite.

 

SH, who would you consider the best Technically Defensive fighter?

 

Watson against Benn is a clinic one of my favrouites.

I would probably say Zapata myself.

 

Hopkins I'd say. Even though his smothering tactics are not from the purist textbook, his defensive style is very much a developed and honed system, it is not natural and intuitive. Every movement has been practiced and learned through many hours in the gym, and allows him to do pretty much everything perfectly from a defensive standpoint. When do you ever see B-Hop caught out of position or off guard? Very, very rarely. He is technically superb IMO.

 

good points in there. Never thought of old BHOP

Yeh very very impressive, what really impressed me asides the discipline was the way he held his hands shred to pieces, i myself have forgot to block with an open hand and got mashed up. Also Watsons timing when t strike was superb.

 

I liked McCallum vs Watson as a better choice for a true boxing clinic. An aging McCallum putting the young upstart Watson in his place and teaching him a thing or two about the sweet science. Damn near flawless performance.

 

I agree. It's a monumental performance. Really opened my eyes to how truly great McCallum was. I know it's such an overused term on here, but I genuinely do think McCallum is underrated. In his prime he really was a very, very high-level operator.

 

it was amazing

 

McCallum's slow feet were his only real flaw IMO. In a close to mid-range stand-off he could've held his own with pretty much anyone, but defensive slicksters and movers (as Kalambay showed in particular) made him look like his feet were planted in cement.