Was Roy Jones a great defensive fighter?

How many fighters who ever graced the 154 division would have beaten him do you think? Other than Hearns, I'd probably say none.

 

I don't think Hearns is a given either. What about Griffith? How would he fare against McCallum?

 

But wasn't he from a prehistoric era that doesn't count??!

 

I don't think Hearns is a given exactly, not over 15 rounds anyway. But I'd probably favour him over 12, although of course McCallum carries the live puncher's chance that he could do to Tommy what he did to Don Curry.

I find it so difficult to have a strong conviction about any hypothetical involving Griffith. Thinking about how he would do against virtually anyone just drains my confidence away. I can just imagine him dragging anyone into his kind of fight and making it close as hell. I'll duck that one if you don't mind!

 

I think Fitzsimmons could blitz a powerpuncherodactyl though.

 

From the current thread on Fitz as the GOAT:

 

This is really hairsplitting, but for me the term "technique" can be applied to anything you learn by training. I e making your body and nervous system accustomed to it; consciously patterning it in your movements and reactions.

But "text book technique" (or fundamentals) can be applied to anyone and that's why it's the one being taught in gyms. Its great advantage is that it is uniform and applicable to every situation. Its disadvantage is that it can be predictable, and if used to literally, even a bit robotic.

"Unorthodox technique", on the other hand, is taylor made for the individual, and specialised for a certain style and certain talents. Its advantage is that it makes the most of the individual's special traits and talents and that it's unpredictable. Its disadvantage is that it is not applicable to everyone or to every given situation. Hence, as the individual changes (ages) the unorthodox technique losses a lot of its effectiveness.

In Ali's case he somewhat compensated for aging in three ways:

1. He started using more fundamentals. He never became a text book technician, but he at least used text book tecnique a bit more. For example, he wasn't as vulnerable to left hooks again after FOTC. He learned that his reflexes and legs weren't enough for him to disdain blocking them anymore.

2. He learned that he could take a punch.

3. He started to use new unorthodox techniques that he had practiced since he was a young man. One such was holding. Not pretty, but a part of most skilled boxers' arsenal. More famously, he learned how to stand with parallell feet and his back against the ropes, protecting the vulnerable areas with arms and gloves while still maintaining balance as well as getting leverage and sharpness in his punches. The rope-a-dope. He started training for this as early as before the first Liston fight, but made full use of it against Foreman.

In Jones' case I can't really say. He seemed to be holding his hands up more, but his chin detoriated if anything.

 

Most of the greats have high levels of the following three practical, if you will, assets:

1. Technical skill
2. Athleticism
3. Will

The technician who can bang, like Moore, Arguello, Charles, Louis, et al, has athleticism to enhance that textbook.

The speed guy who is nasty inside has an advantage as well, becuase his natural athleticism is delivered more safely and he is more well-rounded. Meldrick Taylor for example.

But the strongest foundation is built on fundamentals. There are exceptions, big ones, but as a general rule, guys who fight like Ali will never advance beyond the amateurs because they get wrecked or chased out of the gym.

Well, I think that you may be overthinking this. Ali didn't tailor-make anything and no part of his style was tailor made for him. He relied on instincts and his gut, he did not strategize or fight off of a boiler plate. He was gifted with something else that made it unnecessary for him to drill or practice anything but what his instincts told him to practice.

Ali wasn't marching to a different drummer. He had jazz riffs in his head.

I personally, think that it is an unspoken tragedy that Ali fought at all after 1973 ...1975 at the latest. I do not believe that he adjusted much of anything in their besides rudimentary stuff -he relied on his will and his chin -and that just isn't healthy.

It is a great irony that the man who was the most beautiful boxer since Robinson himself -so graceful and lithe and barely touched in the mid 60s became the most famous victim of the brutality of the sport.

He was an old butterfly trying to avoid threshers.

I wish he retired after Foreman.

 

Well, let's just say we disagree somewhat, but not completely. I remain convinced that there were more method to Ali's style than most think. Concerning Roy Jones I couldn't really say. Haven't followed him that closely.

This whole discussion got me thinking of technicians with sound fundamentals who mix in the unorthodox. Leonard would be a good exampel of this, perhaps also Whitaker. Just rewatched Leonard-Hagler yesterday. It was interesting to note how Leonard mixed very correct defending with more unorthodox, and how well this worked.

 

I can see what you both are saying.

I think Bokaj despite Ali not being textbook by the general accepted sense that Stonehands is saying, Ali had his own textbook where he did things his way - he didnt just make it up completly as he went along. If this is what you are meaning I full heartedly agree.

So Muhammed Ali is an 'Ali technician'

 

My man.:good

 

I'm very interested in how the "Death Row" guys (Burley, Walcott, Moore etc) developed their particular styles. You can see that they are not as schooled as for example Louis or Robinson, but makes up for it by developing traits of their own.

I mean, if Blackburn had taken Walcott under his wings at an early stage, would he be as exciting to watch?