Light-Heavyweights: Ezzard Charles vs Roy Jones, Jr.

nobudius · Post by **nobudius** » 15 Jan 2008, 15:23

dempseyfire wrote: If Jones Jr had great boxing skills he would've never gotten beaten up by Glen Johnson.

This will be countered, or equated to the level of Charles losing numerously in his later years.

Assuming, of course.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 15 Jan 2008, 15:35

Charles was in a different class to Jones, look at the guys he beat compared to the limited fighters Jones beat!. Charles never needed any extra cough cough!!... vitamins either!... 8)

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 15 Jan 2008, 15:50

nobudius wrote:
dempseyfire wrote: If Jones Jr had great boxing skills he would've never gotten beaten up by Glen Johnson.
This will be countered, or equated to the level of Charles losing numerously in his later years.

Assuming, of course.

And by the time Charles was Jones's age he'd scored as many knockouts as Jones had total fights. The difference in mileage was extreme to say the least.

Also, Charles was losing to Heavyweights. Jones Jr fought one and then ran away from the rest of them.

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 15 Jan 2008, 17:17

Charles was 34 years old in 1955. You can look it up yourself who he was losing to by that time. And "beaten up" is a word that cannot really describe the Glen Johnson fight, if you actually had taken time to watch some of it in slow motion, which you obviously never did. It can be seen at normal speed too, if you have a trained eye for such things and watch it without prejudice and without listening to commentators. Alas, most people can't do even such simple thing.

Also, Charles was fighting a lot of cruiserweights, not heavyweights by modern standard.

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 15 Jan 2008, 17:33

Simple question to anyone who has a few spare minutes and the video of Jones-Johnson fight, how many clean legal (not to the back of the head or to the back) punches did Johnson land out of those 100+ punches he threw in the 1st round?

theone · Post by **theone** » 15 Jan 2008, 18:15

Anyone who says Jones would have remotely had a chance against the likes of Tunney, Moore, Foster, Spinks, Conn, let alone Ezzard Charles is not only Jones' biggest nut hugger, he/she is practically retarded and wearing too dim of rose colored glasses and obviously ignorant of past eras.

I wouldn't pick Jones against any of those guys but to say he wouldn't have a remote chance of beating any of them...thats retarded. With the speed, reflexes and power he possessed in his prime, Jones would have a chance against ANY fighter in history from light heavy on down.

As to the post that Cerdan gets "owned" by Jones wow some of the things you read on here are just too much.

I totally stand by the statement. Cerdan was a very good all around fighter but there was nothing extraordinary about him. I've watched enough fight film of Cerdan to come to my own conclusion that Jones at his best would have an easy time with him. Jones was unlike any fighter Cerdan had ever stepped foot in the ring with. Cerdan gets owned.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 15 Jan 2008, 19:01

Senya13 wrote:Charles was 34 years old in 1955. You can look it up yourself who he was losing to by that time. And "beaten up" is a word that cannot really describe the Glen Johnson fight, if you actually had taken time to watch some of it in slow motion, which you obviously never did. It can be seen at normal speed too, if you have a trained eye for such things and watch it without prejudice and without listening to commentators. Alas, most people can't do even such simple thing.

Also, Charles was fighting a lot of cruiserweights, not heavyweights by modern standard.

Haha, ok. One guy was losing almost every round and ended up on the canvas looking like a dead man . . .I would say that was beaten up.

It doesn't matter how accurate Johnson was. He's never been particularly accurate vs anybody . . his game is to put on continual pressure and force the other guy to work. He was completely successful vs Jones Jr.

And Charles was fighting Heavyweights . . maybe a bunch of guys who actually got in shape and weighed in the 190s but they were HWs. Cruiserweight is a bogus division primarily for lazy light HWs who don't cut weight. And Jones got spanked by two 175lbers, not cruiserweights. And I see you completly disregarded by comment about number of fights and again went to age, which is made completly irellevant.

A fighter can be shot by 30 after 80 pro fights, whereas a safety first guy with half of that number (like Roy) can be doing ok through his mid 30s.

Marlin · Post by **Marlin** » 15 Jan 2008, 20:53

There is some real overkill in the lack of respect for Roy Jones Jr on here. Just because he didn't fight 'back in the day' where blokes had many more fights doesn't mean he isn't a great fighter that, at his best, would give Charles major trouble...

nobudius · Post by **nobudius** » 15 Jan 2008, 21:36

Jones, like Tyson somewhat, is one of the most underrated/overrated fighters I've seen in recent years. He is either a fighter wearing a cape that is faster than a speeding bullet, or a glass jawed hype job fighting can cans.

Probably somewhere in between.

Similar to Tyson, his devoted fanbase are some of the most sensitive IMHO-not directed at anybody in particular here, but I find some, if not most RJJ fans to get extremely riled up in ANY scenario where he may lose. And considering it's hypothetical anyway, all it shows me is the fanboy SCREAMING inside.

Reminds me of the days I was following Hearns. The losses to Leonard & Hagler were quite painful to experience.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 15 Jan 2008, 21:40

"Jones, like Tyson somewhat, is one of the most underrated/overrated fighters I've seen in recent years. He is either a fighter wearing a cape that is faster than a speeding bullet, or a glass jawed hype job fighting can cans..." - Nobudius

Diamond WEAPON · Post by **Diamond WEAPON** » 16 Jan 2008, 00:38

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"Jones, like Tyson somewhat, is one of the most underrated/overrated fighters I've seen in recent years. He is either a fighter wearing a cape that is faster than a speeding bullet, or a glass jawed hype job fighting can cans..." - Nobudius

Seriously, that's the truth...

Marlin · Post by **Marlin** » 16 Jan 2008, 01:08

Diamond WEAPON wrote:
Goodnight, Irene wrote:"Jones, like Tyson somewhat, is one of the most underrated/overrated fighters I've seen in recent years. He is either a fighter wearing a cape that is faster than a speeding bullet, or a glass jawed hype job fighting can cans..." - Nobudius

Seriously, that's the truth...

Well at least the first of the half the people are right...

:P

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 16 Jan 2008, 02:01

dempseyfire wrote:One guy was losing almost every round

Judge: Gerald Deming 74-78 | Judge: Dan McLellan 75-77 | Judge: Fred Steinwinder III 75-77

It doesn't matter how accurate Johnson was. He's never been particularly accurate vs anybody . . his game is to put on continual pressure and force the other guy to work. He was completely successful vs Jones Jr.

Compubox stats for punches that landed is most of the time wrong, but punches thrown is usually pretty close to reality. Johnson was throwing about 53 punches per round, if we exclude 1st round, he threw 50 punches per round, whereas light-heavyweight average, according to compubox is 54 punches per round. In 2nd and 3rd rounds Johnson was throwing about 43.5 punches per round after he found out he couldn't land much on Jones on the ropes despite throwing over 80 punches almost all of the power punches in the 1st round (my memory was wrong about 100+ punches).
That's how much pressure Johnson was applying on Jones.

And Charles was fighting Heavyweights . . maybe a bunch of guys who actually got in shape and weighed in the 190s but they were HWs.

Fact: according to today's standards, anything from 175+ to 200 is a cruiserweight.
And anyone will tell you that fighting cruiserweights and actual heavyweights is completely different.
There are almost no top heavyweights below 210lb today. Charles fought only 6 opponents who weighed 210 or higher.

And Jones got spanked by two 175lbers, not cruiserweights.

Jones is naturally smaller than Charles too.

And I see you completly disregarded by comment about number of fights and again went to age, which is made completly irellevant.

How much did it affect his skills, which he was supposed to use to outpoint the tomato cans he lost to? It had nothing to do with number of fights, but with natural slowing down and to Charles' boxing style, which consisted mostly of slugging at mid and close range, with not very good defense at these ranges (again based on film).

A fighter can be shot by 30 after 80 pro fights, whereas a safety first guy with half of that number (like Roy) can be doing ok through his mid 30s.

It has nothing to do with number of fights, because simple evaluation of careers of all time great fighters with, going by consensus, excellent skills, shows that absolute majority of them started getting worse and worse slightly past 30 years of age, after they began slowing down, because their boxing style did depend on speed, reflexes and coordination as much as it did for Jones. No matter how skillful and clever you are, when you are always a fraction of a second too late reacting to everything and not as precise with your moves anymore, you are going to have a lot less success in the ring, it's natural (exceptions can be counted on fingers of one hand).

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 16 Jan 2008, 08:01

How is Jones smaller? Charles and Jones started at 160. Both moved up to 175 and both fought at HW too.

You'll be back to telling me that McCallum was naturally bigger again, no doubt, some time soon.

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 16 Jan 2008, 08:04

1) Jones started at 154.
2) Jones was a natural super middleweight. Charles wasn't.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 16 Jan 2008, 08:14

I totally believe Jones would give Charles or any other great LHW major problems but I can't take seriously anyone who picks Jones to win. At this level Roy is unproven.

He was a fabulous talent but he chose not to step into this arena.

Put these guys on a level playing field and take away Roy's pep pills and look at what both men proved they could do.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 16 Jan 2008, 08:16

Senya13 wrote:1) Jones started at 154.
2) Jones was a natural super middleweight. Charles wasn't.

Roy had the benefit of boiling down (not sure when the weigh in time changed so won't comment on that). Diet and technology for doing this has vastly improved over the years.

Point 2 is not verifiable, just an opinion you have.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 16 Jan 2008, 08:20

Senya13 wrote: It has nothing to do with number of fights, because simple evaluation of careers of all time great fighters with, going by consensus, excellent skills, shows that absolute majority of them started getting worse and worse slightly past 30 years of age, after they began slowing down, because their boxing style did depend on speed, reflexes and coordination as much as it did for Jones. No matter how skillful and clever you are, when you are always a fraction of a second too late reacting to everything and not as precise with your moves anymore, you are going to have a lot less success in the ring, it's natural (exceptions can be counted on fingers of one hand).

Number of fights does have something to do with it. The aging process does too. How well an athlete maintains their physical prowess when past their peak is to do with age, wear and tear (number of fights), lifestyle outside the sport, how they train, psychological outlook, their style (some styles e.g. swarmers tend to go down hill quicker) and the basic luck of the draw, which is genes.

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 16 Jan 2008, 08:58

Had Charles been fighting today, because of the difference in nutrition and training methods, he'd be more of a natural cruiserweight, than light heavyweight.

Prime Jones was a 168-pounder, he bulked up to light heavyweight not because he couldn't make weight anymore, but seeking for new challenges. Charles was at his best at 175 (after the WWII) because he grew up naturally by that time.

There is little dependancy between number of fights and starting to go downhill, while there is a clear dependancy between that process and the age of 30-32 (possibly slightly later for heavyweights) for pretty much everyone, and in different sports too, not just in boxing.

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 16 Jan 2008, 09:04

Ezzard wrote:Put these guys on a level playing field and take away Roy's pep pills and look at what both men proved they could do.

1) Jones' handspeed is coming from genetics, obviously.
2) Jones looked better before he bulked up.
3) Even when he was just a light middleweight amateur, Jones already was showing most of the things he did in the pro's. His skillset and style was developed to large degree back then also.
4) His stamina came from strict discipline (from his father) and regularly jogging a few miles every morning.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 16 Jan 2008, 10:23

dr_devious wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:
dr_devious wrote: He beat Hopkins and Toney, who were the next best of his era. Who did he duck that were better than Hopkins and Toney, and who could have beaten him?
Hopkins win was good, but nothing extraordinary...Plus BHop was NOT THE SAME FIGHTER THAT BEAT FELIX "TITO" TRINIDAD 8 years later. Jones vs Hopkins and Hopkins vs Tito were 2 different fighters.

There were excellent competition for Roy to face in the 90s: Nigel Benn, Dariuz Michaelweski, Gerald McClellan, Chris Eubanks and Michael Nunn...Do not forget Steve Collins, Tim Littles and Julian Jackson

Pernell Whitaker instead, fought the VERY BEST: Julio Cesar Chavez, Buddy McGirt, Felix "Tito" Trinidad, Oscar De La Hoya, Julio Cesar Vazquez, Rafael Pineda and guys like Harold Brazier and Anthony Jones

That is 2 guys for Jones, but 8 for Sweet Pea.
Micalcewski might have given Jones a go at LH, but I think Jones wins wide on points. Out of the others, Benn and McClellan and Jackson would have a punchers chance, the rest no chance against Jones

Then, why he did not fight them back in the 90s? Those are just SPECULATIONS that Jones would easily beat those guys...He really was not seriously matched or tested with the VERY BEST.

IN THE OTHER HAND, Whitaker, he fought the VERY, VERY BEST OF HIS TIME, and Jones is better than he?

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 16 Jan 2008, 10:24

Senya13 wrote:Had Charles been fighting today, because of the difference in nutrition and training methods, he'd be more of a natural cruiserweight, than light heavyweight.

Prime Jones was a 168-pounder, he bulked up to light heavyweight not because he couldn't make weight anymore, but seeking for new challenges. Charles was at his best at 175 (after the WWII) because he grew up naturally by that time.

There is little dependancy between number of fights and starting to go downhill, while there is a clear dependancy between that process and the age of 30-32 (possibly slightly later for heavyweights) for pretty much everyone, and in different sports too, not just in boxing.

WOW, where do I start??
Number of fights has nothing to do with it? You mean more fights wouldn't equate to more wear and tear??? That's basic common sense.

You have no proof Jones didn't naturally move up to 175 just like Charles did. Given he carried over 190 lbs pretty damn well, I think 175 lbs was Jones's best fighting weight, hence why he pretty much stayed there almost his whole career.

Charles had to even cut down on his usual training routine and roadwork to get in the 180s. He was not a 'natural' cruiser at all. But yes, with today's vast nutritional knowledge and large quanities of Double Whoppers, maybe that changes.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 16 Jan 2008, 10:29

dempseyfire wrote:
Senya13 wrote:Charles was 34 years old in 1955. You can look it up yourself who he was losing to by that time. And "beaten up" is a word that cannot really describe the Glen Johnson fight, if you actually had taken time to watch some of it in slow motion, which you obviously never did. It can be seen at normal speed too, if you have a trained eye for such things and watch it without prejudice and without listening to commentators. Alas, most people can't do even such simple thing.

Also, Charles was fighting a lot of cruiserweights, not heavyweights by modern standard.
Haha, ok. One guy was losing almost every round and ended up on the canvas looking like a dead man . . .I would say that was beaten up.

It doesn't matter how accurate Johnson was. He's never been particularly accurate vs anybody . . his game is to put on continual pressure and force the other guy to work. He was completely successful vs Jones Jr.

And Charles was fighting Heavyweights . . maybe a bunch of guys who actually got in shape and weighed in the 190s but they were HWs. Cruiserweight is a bogus division primarily for lazy light HWs who don't cut weight. And Jones got spanked by two 175lbers, not cruiserweights. And I see you completly disregarded by comment about number of fights and again went to age, which is made completly irellevant.

A fighter can be shot by 30 after 80 pro fights, whereas a safety first guy with half of that number (like Roy) can be doing ok through his mid 30s.

I agree with you 100%, brother

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 16 Jan 2008, 10:47

Ezzard wrote:I totally believe Jones would give Charles or any other great LHW major problems but I can't take seriously anyone who picks Jones to win. At this level Roy is unproven.

He was a fabulous talent but he chose not to step into this arena.

Put these guys on a level playing field and take away Roy's pep pills and look at what both men proved they could do.

To be fair to Jones, he didnt get the chance to move into this arena because there werent too many Ezzard Charles' fighting between 1990-2005!

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 16 Jan 2008, 10:54

elmersalsa wrote:
dr_devious wrote:
elmersalsa wrote: Hopkins win was good, but nothing extraordinary...Plus BHop was NOT THE SAME FIGHTER THAT BEAT FELIX "TITO" TRINIDAD 8 years later. Jones vs Hopkins and Hopkins vs Tito were 2 different fighters.

There were excellent competition for Roy to face in the 90s: Nigel Benn, Dariuz Michaelweski, Gerald McClellan, Chris Eubanks and Michael Nunn...Do not forget Steve Collins, Tim Littles and Julian Jackson

Pernell Whitaker instead, fought the VERY BEST: Julio Cesar Chavez, Buddy McGirt, Felix "Tito" Trinidad, Oscar De La Hoya, Julio Cesar Vazquez, Rafael Pineda and guys like Harold Brazier and Anthony Jones

That is 2 guys for Jones, but 8 for Sweet Pea.
Micalcewski might have given Jones a go at LH, but I think Jones wins wide on points. Out of the others, Benn and McClellan and Jackson would have a punchers chance, the rest no chance against Jones
Then, why he did not fight them back in the 90s? Those are just SPECULATIONS that Jones would easily beat those guys...He really was not seriously matched or tested with the VERY BEST.

IN THE OTHER HAND, Whitaker, he fought the VERY, VERY BEST OF HIS TIME, and Jones is better than he?

No, Jones is not better than Whittaker p4p but he dominated for more of the 90s. Whittakers peak years were late 80s-early90s.
In the 90s and early part of this decade Jones was viewed as fighter of the decade, his later losses caused a revision of history.
A lot of the views on this site are speculation, based on opinions, some more knowledgeable than others. Jones dominated his opposition until late in his career. I think its a fair bet unless someone like Benn or McClellan caught up with him in a hypothetical match that nobody from his era would have outboxed him, or beat him down.