Where does Roy Jones Jr rank?

Hearns only had two good displlays at middle, the fight with Shuler and the clasic with Hagler he nevder recaptured that form at middle ever again, Ray was a more skilled fighter than Roy and Benitez was a better defensive fighter in his respective weight class.

 

Hagler was too short to fight at 175.

 

This is what he can't grasp.

"They say I ain't fought nobody, I just make em look like nobody"

 

Oh no mate.

That would have been awful.

He really shouldn't have been fighting at that point.

 

You can't criticise him for that. He was weighing in at 157 pounds for some of his fights, back in the days of same day weigh-ins, whereas Spinks was huge and training himself down from around 200.

There was no SMW division back then.

 

What are these fantasies based on?

Who has GG ever destroyed who was on Bernard's level?

The answer is: Nobody.

It doesn't matter if he wasn't highly ranked at the time.

It doesn't matter if he hadn't received the exposure that he went on to receive.

Just watch the fight back and see how good he was. And then also note that he was 6'1 with a 75" reach.

Both Canelo and GG would have had their hands full with the version of Bernard who Roy fought.

And if you think that either Canelo or GG would have beaten Roy, you need to book yourself an appointment at the drug rehabilitation clinic ASAP.

 

I've seen a link from the early 90's, where Roy was quoted as saying he'd fight Gerald if the money was right and he could reach a compromise with King.

 

It's very hard to distinguish what you mean.

 

Yes, I know.

I was just pointing out that Benn wasn't awful at MW.

Regarding King and the Levin's, I was referring to 1995.

 

Okay, I don't know how this is relevant to the post which you quoted.

Also, I don't actually agree with you. Because I honestly believe that Tarver could have been drained for their fight in 2006. That was the opinion of Mackie Shilstone, who helped prepare Hopkins to face Tarver.

He said beforehand that due to Tarver's weight loss from his role in 'Rocky Balboa' he expected him to be flat during fight night.

I've always found that comment very interesting.

Tarver swears that he felt great in camp, but by the time of the fight he was just completely devoid of energy.

Now of course he could have fabricated that as his ego had been dented. But on the other hand, it could definitely have been legit, as Roy, Chris Byrd and Chad Dawson also experienced the same thing.

The issue was, there's no way that Tarver could have declared that in public, due to what he'd said to Roy at the start of their rematch in 2004:

"Have you got any excuses tonight Roy"

He threw that at Roy, as Roy had told the media beforehand that he was absolutely exhausted in the fight due to the weight loss where he burnt muscle.

Tarver's pride was never going to let him apologise to Roy, which is why in my honest opinion, he claimed he'd been poisoned.

Like I say, I definitely think something could have been amiss, as a few years later, Byrd moved down from HW and complained of the exact same things after getting stopped by Shaun George at LHW.

We then had Dawson saying the same things regarding the Ward fight, and I spoke to his trainer - 'Ice Man' John Scully about it online just shortly after.

 

Okay.

So why do you keep saying that Roy couldn't have beaten Hearns at MW?

They were all skilled in different ways.

Roy had a very unconventional defence. But it was still great, as it was very hard to catch him clean.

 

After the Ruiz fight (and well before) Roy was being discussed seriously as an All Time Top Ten fighter, many making comparisons to SRR. Think of that what you may, reasonable or ballyhoo. How does that conversation evolve if Roy retires in 2003, unbeaten and at a reasonable retirement age of 34. Did his opponents post-2003 do what no one could do in 14 years previous and "figure him out" or did his great physical assets deteriorate and bring him back to the pack?

 

Yeah, he can't be criticised for not fighting Spinks.

 

Nobody figured Roy out after 14 years.

His demise came because he was a reflex based fighter who tried to fight in the exact same style in his mid 30's to 40's, as what he'd done in his 20's.

I love Glen Johnson, but he'd never have beaten a pre-HW version of Roy. Roy looked like a zombie in there.

Tarver was a quality fighter, but he couldn't beat Roy in their first fight despite the fact that Roy was exhausted.

Look at the Lebedev fight. Although it was an awful knockout loss, Roy made that fight very competetive. Lebedev didn't carry him, he truly had his hands full. And that version of Roy was a 200 pound shell of the fighter he'd been. He went to Moscow at 42, and he hadn't fought in over a year due to having had knee surgery. Despite Lebedev not being a great fighter, he's been classed as one of the best CW's in the world for most of the last decade. So what that tells me, is that the 200 pound version of Roy who fought Ruiz in 2003, would have stood Lebedev on his head. He'd have beaten him with absolute ease without breaking a sweat.

Anybody who believes that Roy lost because he supposedly stepped up his competition, is an absolute fool. (I'm not referring to you)

 

Like Pac was too short to fight at JMW?

Look, I get why he stayed at MW. And there's nothing wrong with him doing so, but taking on guys moving up is not presenting oneself with big challenges. Moving up himself would be.