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

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 16 Jan 2008, 11:01

dr_devious wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:
dr_devious wrote: 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.

Still, Whitaker flourished in the middle 90s with a victory over Julio Cesar Vazquez. He won his third world title in the decade. Jones was the BEST in the late 90s, circa 1997-99. But almost for the MOST PART OF THE DECADE, Whitaker was the pound per pound king with Julio Cesar Chavez. He cleaned up the lightweight division in the 90s BETTER than what Jones did at 175, fighting guys that were MEDIOCRE at best.

How can a guy that ONLY fought 2 great fighters in his prime is BETTER than one that beat and fought 9 of them, beating them and dominating them in MASTERPIECE FASHION?.....I DO NOT GET IT.

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 16 Jan 2008, 11:44

dempseyfire wrote: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.

Charles is said to have been on decline by early 1950's already (unless you want to say he was at his peak by the time he got knocked out by Walcott and lost decisions to him and Layne. By that time he only had like 70-75 fights. Some old-timers had 2-3 times as many fights, fighting in worse conditions and more frequently, yet their decline began about the same age as his. Using your version of "basic common sense" Greb had to be on decline sometime in 1917 already, when he hit 70-75 fights too. Langford by late 1908. Joe Gans by the time he lost to Frank Erne. Ted Kid lewis - before he fought a single fight outside of England.

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.

At 168 Jones was throwing on average about 1.5 times more punches than he did at light heavyweight. At 168 he was aiming for the head a lot more often than he aimed for the body, that changed also. At 168 he was a lot more light and mobile on his feet. At 168 he was going to the ropes a lot less often. At 168 he was using jab and multi-punch combinations a lot more often. At 168 Jones could keep up a very high pace without taking breaks.

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.

I said that would happen "today", not back when he fought.

nobudius · Post by **nobudius** » 16 Jan 2008, 11:58

Curious. How much did Jones weigh when he was in the ring during his 168 tenure?

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 16 Jan 2008, 12:24

On the point of what amkes a fighter decline I guess number of fights can be used as a yard stick only. This is because many fighters fought 4 and 6 rounders to keep busy. Also, how many shots you take has a big bearing on it.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 16 Jan 2008, 12:26

Senya13 wrote:
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.

1) Not according to ref Alan Sugar who claims that Roy ate steroids like candy.
2) all fighters are better before bulking up
3) agree, his style was there

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 16 Jan 2008, 12:28

Senya, how would you train and prepare a fighter of yours (in fantasy mode now) to fight the 168 Jones?

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 16 Jan 2008, 12:40

People seem to forget or not to know that Charles steep decline as a fighter in his mid-30s was in actual fact due to him being in the early stages of the illness which would cripple him and lead to his early death... on the other hand Jones decline has been largely due to him abusing his body...

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 16 Jan 2008, 13:10

Ezzard wrote:1) Not according to ref Alan Sugar who claims that Roy ate steroids like candy.

Who is Alan Sugar and how was he involved in RJJ's training in mid-1980's where he already showed superb handspeed?

2) all fighters are better before bulking up

Was Sam Langford better at welterweight than he was at heavyweight? Was Henry Armstrong better at featherweight than at lightweight or welterweight?

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 16 Jan 2008, 13:14

Ezzard wrote:On the point of what amkes a fighter decline I guess number of fights can be used as a yard stick only. This is because many fighters fought 4 and 6 rounders to keep busy. Also, how many shots you take has a big bearing on it.

Sam Langford was fighting mostly between 10 and 20 rounds. Joe Gans - between 10 and 25 rounds.
So was Ezzard Charles working as a punching bag before early 1950's?

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 16 Jan 2008, 13:42

Senya13 wrote:
Ezzard wrote:1) Not according to ref Alan Sugar who claims that Roy ate steroids like candy.
Who is Alan Sugar and how was he involved in RJJ's training in mid-1980's where he already showed superb handspeed?

2) all fighters are better before bulking up
Was Sam Langford better at welterweight than he was at heavyweight? Was Henry Armstrong better at featherweight than at lightweight or welterweight?

Hard to say about Langford. He had success against welterweights up to heavyweights, and we don't know how big he was for most of his fights.

Armstrong was defintely better as a lighthweight and welterweight than he was as a featherweight.

Some fighters are better when they move up in weight, some are worse. Some are about the same. A lot depends on if they are moving up because their body is physically maturing and it natural for them to move up. If that is the case than they will be as good or better.
If it's just because they are out of shape and can't make the weight anymore, than they usually aren't as good when they move up.

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 16 Jan 2008, 16:53

Langford weighed 140 pounds when he met Gans. Probably he was welterweight in other bouts from the same period. The thing is he didn't look natural as a heavyweight, it was clearly him bulking up from the way he looks on film vs Flynn and Lang.

Moving up in weight, I objected to one thing, basically. To word "all" (fighters are better before bulking up). It's a very dangerous word in debates (just one example proves an opponent wrong) and should be used more carefully.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 16 Jan 2008, 17:37

elmersalsa wrote:
dr_devious wrote:
elmersalsa wrote: 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.
Still, Whitaker flourished in the middle 90s with a victory over Julio Cesar Vazquez. He won his third world title in the decade. Jones was the BEST in the late 90s, circa 1997-99. But almost for the MOST PART OF THE DECADE, Whitaker was the pound per pound king with Julio Cesar Chavez. He cleaned up the lightweight division in the 90s BETTER than what Jones did at 175, fighting guys that were MEDIOCRE at best.

How can a guy that ONLY fought 2 great fighters in his prime is BETTER than one that beat and fought 9 of them, beating them and dominating them in MASTERPIECE FASHION?.....I DO NOT GET IT.

Read what I said, I didnt say that Jones was better than Whittaker, just that he had more longevity in the decade.
Which 9 great fighters did Whittaker beat? He may have beaten 9 very good fighters, but not 9 greats

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 17 Jan 2008, 05:44

Alan Sugar was a ref. He did some of Jones' fights. He's been around boxing most of his life. He trained and sparred regularly with Rubin Carter, Emile Griffith and Dick Tiger.

He was a policeman who was instrumental in helping Carter fight the charges against him. Unfortunately Carter then acted badly towards Lipton who I believe was left feeling bitter about helping Carter. I don't know the full story but seems as if Lipton's job in the force was seriously compromised by his fight for the justice he believes Carter did not get.

Lipton has interviews people like Archie Moore and Harold Johnson. Everything I've read about him makes me think he's a good guy who knows more about boxing than I ever will (and before you all say it, that might not be that hard).

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 17 Jan 2008, 06:59

I'll ask again, how was Alan Sugar involved in Jones' training process? Or does he suggest that Jones was eating steroids like candy in the ring, during the fights he refereed? According to boxrec, he refereed only one Jones' fight - vs. Bryant Brannon, at 168lb.
Sorry, but I have absolutely ZERO belief in the bullshit he might have to say on this matter, if your quote of his words is correct.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 17 Jan 2008, 07:35

Senya13 wrote:I'll ask again, how was Alan Sugar involved in Jones' training process? Or does he suggest that Jones was eating steroids like candy in the ring, during the fights he refereed? According to boxrec, he refereed only one Jones' fight - vs. Bryant Brannon, at 168lb.
Sorry, but I have absolutely ZERO belief in the bullshit he might have to say on this matter, if your quote of his words is correct.

No, but you've more reason to believe it than not believe it considering the IBF report (and the way fighters move up and down weights with ease these days) and considering he has more access to boxing sources than either of us do (well I do, you could be Roy Jones for all I know).

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 17 Jan 2008, 08:26

First, there's no IBF report, there are only two letters informing both fighters that they must contact the Indiana Boxing Commission to have a Specimen B tested. Written by a secretary, who by her own admission doesn't know what anabolic steroid is and doesn't know how it is different from banned substance.

Second, if you watch Jones as far back as 1986 in his welterweight Golden Gloves final, he already possesses excellent handspeed. It is obvious it's coming from genetics in his case.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 17 Jan 2008, 09:50

Senya13 wrote:First, there's no IBF report, there are only two letters informing both fighters that they must contact the Indiana Boxing Commission to have a Specimen B tested. Written by a secretary, who by her own admission doesn't know what anabolic steroid is and doesn't know how it is different from banned substance.

Second, if you watch Jones as far back as 1986 in his welterweight Golden Gloves final, he already possesses excellent handspeed. It is obvious it's coming from genetics in his case.

Neither of your points prove anything.

Anyway, most athletes these days will be on something. So why it doesn't necessarily mean anything in hypothetcical match ups between same era fighters it does have to be an issue when comparing fighters from different eras.

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 17 Jan 2008, 11:19

Where's the proof that most boxers are on something?

There are a lot of reasons to doubt anabolic steroids being involved in Jones-Hall fight. I've heard several versions, but none of them stand a simple logical test.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 17 Jan 2008, 11:40

Senya13 wrote:Where's the proof that most boxers are on something?

There are a lot of reasons to doubt anabolic steroids being involved in Jones-Hall fight. I've heard several versions, but none of them stand a simple logical test.

It's pretty much accepted that all athletes are now on substances, banned or otherwise, which were not commonplace in decades gone by. The study on HW height to mass correlation also suggests steroid abuse in the sport.

Tommy Morrison was prepared to admit it and intimated he was far from the only one.

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 17 Jan 2008, 13:00

So no proof of most boxers on anabolic steroids? Careful with your accusations.
Do anagolic steroids help to increase average height of heavyweights too? I posted average height of heavyweights by decades before, it was gradually increasing.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 17 Jan 2008, 13:52

Senya13 wrote:So no proof of most boxers on anabolic steroids? Careful with your accusations.
Do anagolic steroids help to increase average height of heavyweights too? I posted average height of heavyweights by decades before, it was gradually increasing.

Height is NOT increasing, that is not true.

The 19teens (with Morris, Fulton, Willard, Tate, Daily, Stewart, McCarty etc.) and 1930s-40s (Carnera, Impellitere, B Baer, Simon, Hawkins, Ace Clark, Campolo etc.) had just as many, if not more, super HWs as today.

I disagree weight is increasing due to steroids. Most of this weight is fat. It's due to under-training and over-eating, mostly among American Heavyweights.

The period 1997-2005 saw a slew of super-sized HWs come up and get hyped as the next big thing (Golota, Grant, Klitschko brothers, Jefferson, Whitaker, McCline)

ALL lost to smaller men, only Wladimir, despite his losses, remains a viable HW. Now you have 6'1 Chagaev and Ibragimov, 6'0 Peter, 6'2 Boystov and Povetkin, Arreola etc.

The brief era of Super HWs height-wise is over. Unfortunately a good many are still coming in very overweight.

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 17 Jan 2008, 14:04

Average height of heavyweights, based on data from boxrec database at the end of 2005:
1880-1899 - 177 cm (5'9 1/2")
1900-1919 - 178 cm (5'10")
1920-1939 - 179 cm (5'10 1/2")
1940-1959 - 180 cm (5'10 3/4")
1960-1979 - 181 cm (5'11 1/4")
1980-1999 - 184 cm (6' 1/2")
2000-2005 - 188 cm (6'2")

Average weight:
1880-1899 - 81,3 kg (179lb)
1900-1919 - 84,57 kg (186lb)
1920-1939 - 84,80 kg (187lb)
1940-1959 - 85,72 kg (189lb)
1960-1979 - 88,78 kg (196lb)
1980-1999 - 96,42 kg (213lb)
2000-2005 - 101,62 kg (224lb)

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 17 Jan 2008, 14:22

..every boxer of the last fifty years has been on steroids except jerry and reggie strickland.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 17 Jan 2008, 15:26

Senya13 wrote:Average height of heavyweights, based on data from boxrec database at the end of 2005:
1880-1899 - 177 cm (5'9 1/2")
1900-1919 - 178 cm (5'10")
1920-1939 - 179 cm (5'10 1/2")
1940-1959 - 180 cm (5'10 3/4")
1960-1979 - 181 cm (5'11 1/4")
1980-1999 - 184 cm (6' 1/2")
2000-2005 - 188 cm (6'2")

Average weight:
1880-1899 - 81,3 kg (179lb)
1900-1919 - 84,57 kg (186lb)
1920-1939 - 84,80 kg (187lb)
1940-1959 - 85,72 kg (189lb)
1960-1979 - 88,78 kg (196lb)
1980-1999 - 96,42 kg (213lb)
2000-2005 - 101,62 kg (224lb)

I remember you brought this up before and failed to explain how you calculated these numbers. Nevermind the fact that of course boxers in the past 30 years would have more heights listed than those from the earlier.

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 17 Jan 2008, 17:04

Most boxers have a weight division listed for them in the table at the top of the page with their record. Those, who were listed as heavyweights were included in these calculations.
It's a lame excuse about last 30 years, as fighters of the past who have the height listed for them, are pretty much random. Nobody was trying to enter the height only for shorter heavyweights and omit the taller ones. Even more likely is that most of the well-known heavyweights of the past had the height listed for them, so average height was more like height of average more or less top heavyweight.