Roy Jones in better times?

[CharleyMitchell]

I just recently stumbled upon this forum and decided to contribute.

At what time, if any, do you feel Roy Jones Jr. could have been a top contender(by this I mean able to pose a real threat to or defeat a world champion) as a middleweight in the '40s and '50s?

I, personally, don't think that his chin and heart could have stood up to the relentless pressure of the fighters of that time period. His speed and power may present problems, but who knows? Obviously he was never tested by a better that B-class(in my opinion) fighter.
I think that he may have been able to crack the top 10 for short periods of time but no more. Where do you think he would have ranked during that time period?

[Robinson]

If you transported RJJ back in time as he was at his best
I see him winning the belt in most eras. I see a few men giving
him trouble, but he would account for himself well at LHW
in those glory days.

Welcome to the board.

[Goodnight, Irene]

The hypothetical is Jones as a Middleweight, though. He was greener, then. Interesting question.

[Ambling Alp]

Against the middleweight champions of the 1940's and 1950's, Jones would probably beat the following:
Cerfino Garcia, Ken Overlin, Rocky Graziano, and Bobo Olson. (Graziano in particular would be a dangerous fight for Jones.)

He would probably lose to:
Tony Zale,Marcel Cerdan, Jake LaMotta, Ray Robinson,Gene Fullmer, and Carmen Basilio. (Out of this group, Zale is the fighter that Jones would have the best chance against.)

Randy Turpin would be a tossup. The Turpin that fought Robinson would beat Jones, but Turpin didn't always fight at that level.

[Robinson]

True...at 160 it would be interesting. I see him still doing well.

Cat like reflexes, decent power and fun to watch.

[bjermaine]

in the 40s and 50s, roy jones would have been champion anywhere from middleweight to heavyweight. tony zale could have beat jones??? gene fullmer?? we all have our opinions but his skill level was too much for any of the fighters listed above. he did things in the ring that no other fighter has. at his best, jones was the best i've seen. jones in his prime is the champ in any era.

[dempseyfire]

in the 40s and 50s, roy jones would have been champion anywhere from middleweight to heavyweight. tony zale could have beat jones??? gene fullmer?? we all have our opinions but his skill level was too much for any of the fighters listed above. he did things in the ring that no other fighter has. at his best, jones was the best i've seen. jones in his prime is the champ in any era.

[dajuggernaut]

in the 40s and 50s, roy jones would have been champion anywhere from middleweight to heavyweight. tony zale could have beat jones??? gene fullmer?? we all have our opinions but his skill level was too much for any of the fighters listed above. he did things in the ring that no other fighter has. at his best, jones was the best i've seen. jones in his prime is the champ in any era.

I agree.

[Goodnight, Irene]

in the 40s and 50s, roy jones would have been champion anywhere from middleweight to heavyweight. tony zale could have beat jones??? gene fullmer?? we all have our opinions but his skill level was too much for any of the fighters listed above. he did things in the ring that no other fighter has. at his best, jones was the best i've seen. jones in his prime is the champ in any era.

Double , & that, gents, comes from a life-long Roy defender (many bitter wars waged in his name through much of this decade, LOL), but he ain't doin' none o' that.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

in the 40s and 50s, roy jones would have been champion anywhere from middleweight to heavyweight. tony zale could have beat jones??? gene fullmer?? we all have our opinions but his skill level was too much for any of the fighters listed above. he did things in the ring that no other fighter has. at his best, jones was the best i've seen. jones in his prime is the champ in any era.

--- Whilst agreeing that Jones is a natural great champ, I'd have thought all this heavyweight nonsense had dropped off the radar a while back along with Roy's stamina and confidence.

Roy overrated by moderns on the backs of his two best prime wins over a game but overrated Pops and vastly overrated Toney who simply disappears at certain times all through his career, quite the majic act but not boxing worthy to the level his fans spew forth. Since we never saw the rematches against these natural rivals and of course the spector of the other name in this era, Super Joe, has properly stirred up the pot, it's problematic rating this era.

Roy a bit like young Ali with a longer prime in that he wins his biggest bouts on natural talent which he's improvised a one off signature style that proves difficult to beat. Roy obviously not the showman and lightning rod Ali was, actually had a very crowd wowing style, but a bit hampered by his overblown ego that sees him thinking he's a relevant rap talent and basketball star, leaving him well plumped at the sacrificial alter.

He'd definitely have to check that ego to fight in the 40s and 50s since there wouldn't be an HBO passing out silly money to him for single fights. In 6oz gloves he'd be deadly until the hand problems started. 40s/50s premium years for middleweight talents as any check of the HOF will reveal. There was a reason the title was being swapped out back then.

LHs a better division to settle into, but considering how Charles ultimately abandons the division to secure his only title at heavy, getting a crack at the title another ball of wax.

One thing that bothers me about prime Roy was the amateurish leaping off balance style he sometimes ended up with. When he timed correctly, spectacular results, but he was often off with it. Those middles would be making him pay for such transgressions, and of course we don't know how'd he react to being roughed up on the ropes, butted, stuff that Nady protected him from against Ruiz and were generally discouraged in his era.

Just plucking Roy out of this era in his prime and putting him in single fights against any of the 40s/50s era names, and he does well. Putting him into the whole era and making him earn his chops, well, that's when lesser talents like Pops and Toney's superior toughness starts to pay dividends. Not saying Roy's not tough, but having to fight injured to put food on the table instead of being able to stay in your bathrobe and consult specialists for rehabilitation as promoters preen his feathers will reduce that natural talent advantage he holds.

He still holds a natural talent advantage over Tarver and Johnson for example. Seeing as most any LH might have been KOed by that one off type of Tarver shot, the rest of his career from that point on reveals a fighter struggling with confidence in the Tarver rematch, a fighter struggling with stamina and tactics against Johnson, and a fighter trying to recover his mojo, subsequent fights to SuperJoe.

In that fight he's trying to resurrect his game, his ego, and leverage his experience to beat another aging natural talent who looks ripe for the picking. Roy looked in exquisite condition for the fight, not having that raggedy haggard look of previous fights and fell well short of the mark though he had a brief moment. That's the age Archie Moore was just really finding his feet, so obviously Roy is no Archie.

These types of struggles would be routine in the 40s and 50s, no gravy trains to hide behind is the point. Fighters like Cerdan, Zale, Robinson, Moore, these guys prevailed ultimately with great careers. Roy'd be in the mix, just not the top dog in an weak era that he was.

[Robinson]

Interesting points Mr Broughton.

[TigerMoth]

[quote="BroughtonRulesRefuge"][quote="bjermaine"]in the 40s and 50s, roy jones would have been champion anywhere from middleweight to heavyweight. tony zale could have beat jones??? gene fullmer?? we all have our opinions but his skill level was too much for any of the fighters listed above. he did things in the ring that no other fighter has. at his best, jones was the best i've seen. jones in his prime is the champ in any era.[/quote]

--- Whilst agreeing that Jones is a natural great champ, I'd have thought all this heavyweight nonsense had dropped off the radar a while back along with Roy's stamina and confidence.

Roy overrated by moderns on the backs of his two best prime wins over a game but overrated Pops and vastly overrated Toney who simply disappears at certain times all through his career, quite the majic act but not boxing worthy to the level his fans spew forth. Since we never saw the rematches against these natural rivals and of course the spector of the other name in this era, Super Joe, has properly stirred up the pot, it's problematic rating this era.

Roy a bit like young Ali with a longer prime in that he wins his biggest bouts on natural talent which he's improvised a one off signature style that proves difficult to beat. Roy obviously not the showman and lightning rod Ali was, actually had a very crowd wowing style, but a bit hampered by his overblown ego that sees him thinking he's a relevant rap talent and basketball star, leaving him well plumped at the sacrificial alter.

He'd definitely have to check that ego to fight in the 40s and 50s since there wouldn't be an HBO passing out silly money to him for single fights. In 6oz gloves he'd be deadly until the hand problems started. 40s/50s premium years for middleweight talents as any check of the HOF will reveal. There was a reason the title was being swapped out back then.

LHs a better division to settle into, but considering how Charles ultimately abandons the division to secure his only title at heavy, getting a crack at the title another ball of wax.

One thing that bothers me about prime Roy was the amateurish leaping off balance style he sometimes ended up with. When he timed correctly, spectacular results, but he was often off with it. Those middles would be making him pay for such transgressions, and of course we don't know how'd he react to being roughed up on the ropes, butted, stuff that Nady protected him from against Ruiz and were generally discouraged in his era.

Just plucking Roy out of this era in his prime and putting him in single fights against any of the 40s/50s era names, and he does well. Putting him into the whole era and making him earn his chops, well, that's when lesser talents like Pops and Toney's superior toughness starts to pay dividends. Not saying Roy's not tough, but having to fight injured to put food on the table instead of being able to stay in your bathrobe and consult specialists for rehabilitation as promoters preen his feathers will reduce that natural talent advantage he holds.

He still holds a natural talent advantage over Tarver and Johnson for example. Seeing as most any LH might have been KOed by that one off type of Tarver shot, the rest of his career from that point on reveals a fighter struggling with confidence in the Tarver rematch, a fighter struggling with stamina and tactics against Johnson, and a fighter trying to recover his mojo, subsequent fights to SuperJoe.

In that fight he's trying to resurrect his game, his ego, and leverage his experience to beat another aging natural talent who looks ripe for the picking. Roy looked in exquisite condition for the fight, not having that raggedy haggard look of previous fights and fell well short of the mark though he had a brief moment. That's the age Archie Moore was just really finding his feet, so obviously Roy is no Archie.

These types of struggles would be routine in the 40s and 50s, no gravy trains to hide behind is the point. Fighters like Cerdan, Zale, Robinson, Moore, these guys prevailed ultimately with great careers. Roy'd be in the mix, just not the top dog in an weak era that he was.[/quote]

Much of your post is thoughtful and well written. however, as is usually the case in these types of discussions an essential element is left out. Fighters, including RJJ, using whatever natural ability they have, develop styles that are as effective as possible given the conditions prevailing at the time. And, RJJ developed a style that was extremely effective. If he had fought in another time period, he would have developed a somewhat different style to accomodate different conditions. He would not have been the same fighter. He would have to be extremely stupid to use a style that suits the 1990's in the 40's and 50's. And, he is not stupid. So, he would have been a different fighter. I don't know exactly how he would be different and neither you nor anyone else knows. But, he would have been different and given his unusual natural abilities, I believe he would have been just as successful.

I can't account for the difference in RJJ after fighting as a heavyweight against Ruiz compared to RJJ before fighting as a heavyweight. But, clearly, he has never been the same. So, personally, I discount his career after fighting as a heavyweight. And, if you look at his career up to that point, he was superb. Take a look at RJJ against a well conditioned, undefeated James Toney on youtube - I have never seen an extraordinary fighter in excellent condition, as Toney was, totally outclassed the way he was outclassed by RJJ.

[theone]

Roy would have been utterly dominant in the 40's and 50's. he would have dominated Zale, Cerdan, Burley and the rest as easily as he did Hopkins and Toney, two fighters who throughout their careers have been referred to as "old school" fighters or "Throwbacks". At middleweight, only Monzon beats Jones most often than not.

[Goodnight, Irene]

^^^I can see the headlines now --- Greb helpless against Jones!

[dempseyfire]

in the 40s and 50s, roy jones would have been champion anywhere from middleweight to heavyweight. tony zale could have beat jones??? gene fullmer?? we all have our opinions but his skill level was too much for any of the fighters listed above. he did things in the ring that no other fighter has. at his best, jones was the best i've seen. jones in his prime is the champ in any era.

--- Whilst agreeing that Jones is a natural great champ, I'd have thought all this heavyweight nonsense had dropped off the radar a while back along with Roy's stamina and confidence.

Roy overrated by moderns on the backs of his two best prime wins over a game but overrated Pops and vastly overrated Toney who simply disappears at certain times all through his career, quite the majic act but not boxing worthy to the level his fans spew forth. Since we never saw the rematches against these natural rivals and of course the spector of the other name in this era, Super Joe, has properly stirred up the pot, it's problematic rating this era.

Roy a bit like young Ali with a longer prime in that he wins his biggest bouts on natural talent which he's improvised a one off signature style that proves difficult to beat. Roy obviously not the showman and lightning rod Ali was, actually had a very crowd wowing style, but a bit hampered by his overblown ego that sees him thinking he's a relevant rap talent and basketball star, leaving him well plumped at the sacrificial alter.

He'd definitely have to check that ego to fight in the 40s and 50s since there wouldn't be an HBO passing out silly money to him for single fights. In 6oz gloves he'd be deadly until the hand problems started. 40s/50s premium years for middleweight talents as any check of the HOF will reveal. There was a reason the title was being swapped out back then.

LHs a better division to settle into, but considering how Charles ultimately abandons the division to secure his only title at heavy, getting a crack at the title another ball of wax.

One thing that bothers me about prime Roy was the amateurish leaping off balance style he sometimes ended up with. When he timed correctly, spectacular results, but he was often off with it. Those middles would be making him pay for such transgressions, and of course we don't know how'd he react to being roughed up on the ropes, butted, stuff that Nady protected him from against Ruiz and were generally discouraged in his era.

Just plucking Roy out of this era in his prime and putting him in single fights against any of the 40s/50s era names, and he does well. Putting him into the whole era and making him earn his chops, well, that's when lesser talents like Pops and Toney's superior toughness starts to pay dividends. Not saying Roy's not tough, but having to fight injured to put food on the table instead of being able to stay in your bathrobe and consult specialists for rehabilitation as promoters preen his feathers will reduce that natural talent advantage he holds.

He still holds a natural talent advantage over Tarver and Johnson for example. Seeing as most any LH might have been KOed by that one off type of Tarver shot, the rest of his career from that point on reveals a fighter struggling with confidence in the Tarver rematch, a fighter struggling with stamina and tactics against Johnson, and a fighter trying to recover his mojo, subsequent fights to SuperJoe.

In that fight he's trying to resurrect his game, his ego, and leverage his experience to beat another aging natural talent who looks ripe for the picking. Roy looked in exquisite condition for the fight, not having that raggedy haggard look of previous fights and fell well short of the mark though he had a brief moment. That's the age Archie Moore was just really finding his feet, so obviously Roy is no Archie.

These types of struggles would be routine in the 40s and 50s, no gravy trains to hide behind is the point. Fighters like Cerdan, Zale, Robinson, Moore, these guys prevailed ultimately with great careers. Roy'd be in the mix, just not the top dog in an weak era that he was.

Much of your post is thoughtful and well written. however, as is usually the case in these types of discussions an essential element is left out. Fighters, including RJJ, using whatever natural ability they have, develop styles that are as effective as possible given the conditions prevailing at the time. And, RJJ developed a style that was extremely effective. If he had fought in another time period, he would have developed a somewhat different style to accomodate different conditions. He would not have been the same fighter. He would have to be extremely stupid to use a style that suits the 1990's in the 40's and 50's. And, he is not stupid. So, he would have been a different fighter. I don't know exactly how he would be different and neither you nor anyone else knows. But, he would have been different and given his unusual natural abilities, I believe he would have been just as successful.

I can't account for the difference in RJJ after fighting as a heavyweight against Ruiz compared to RJJ before fighting as a heavyweight. But, clearly, he has never been the same. So, personally, I discount his career after fighting as a heavyweight. And, if you look at his career up to that point, he was superb. Take a look at RJJ against a well conditioned, undefeated James Toney on youtube - I have never seen an extraordinary fighter in excellent condition, as Toney was, totally outclassed the way he was outclassed by RJJ.

Toney was not in excellent condition vs Jones Jr . . .he had taken off a huge chunk of weight in a very short time frame, leaving him completly drained and flat in the ring as you can tell even early in the fight. And this isn't Toney just making excuses . . many observers pre-fight noticed that Toney was having major issues making weight, and Toney shut off his camp to reporters as a result. Completly James's fault and I'm not saying Roy still doesn't beat him, but that has to be taken into account while viewing the fight.

I don't see what other results on Roy's resume lead people to contend he beats one of the deepest middleweight eras in history. A snoozer 8-4 decision vs a still developing Hopkins? After that you have his light HW wins vs Hill, Reggie Johnson, Griffith (who gave him major problems in their first fight), Woods and Tarver I (another very close fight). None of those are in the league of a Zale, Cerdan, Fullmer etc. I don't see how you can discount Roy's career after the move up to HW . . weight issues for Tarver I . . fine . . .after that, what excuses? The likes of Archie Moore had moved up as high as 206 at HW and then went back to 175 without the bitching and moaning Roy did. The Tarver rubber match showed Roy's true colors . . .faced with the man who'd sparked him out previously, Roy put in a crap effort and didn't really want to fight.

Vs the cream of the crop in the 40s and 50s, Roy would be facing fighters much more skilled and his speed advantage would not be nearly as pronounced vs the likes of Lloyd Marshall, and he'd be timed badly with his wild leaping hooks.

Roy is like Tyson with many fans today . . a great natural talent who people watch HL films vs C class fighters and they go nuts. . .'oooh, no-one could beat him at his best etc' In both cases, dead wrong.

[bjermaine]

in the 40s and 50s, roy jones would have been champion anywhere from middleweight to heavyweight. tony zale could have beat jones??? gene fullmer?? we all have our opinions but his skill level was too much for any of the fighters listed above. he did things in the ring that no other fighter has. at his best, jones was the best i've seen. jones in his prime is the champ in any era.

--- Whilst agreeing that Jones is a natural great champ, I'd have thought all this heavyweight nonsense had dropped off the radar a while back along with Roy's stamina and confidence.

Roy overrated by moderns on the backs of his two best prime wins over a game but overrated Pops and vastly overrated Toney who simply disappears at certain times all through his career, quite the majic act but not boxing worthy to the level his fans spew forth. Since we never saw the rematches against these natural rivals and of course the spector of the other name in this era, Super Joe, has properly stirred up the pot, it's problematic rating this era.

this is where i stopped reading. the jones that fought calzaghe was completely shot. joe should be embarrassed for getting dropped in that fight.

[The Great John L]

in the 40s and 50s, roy jones would have been champion anywhere from middleweight to heavyweight. tony zale could have beat jones??? gene fullmer?? we all have our opinions but his skill level was too much for any of the fighters listed above. he did things in the ring that no other fighter has. at his best, jones was the best i've seen. jones in his prime is the champ in any era.

His natural ability was great, but Jones boxing skills were always rather under-developed. While he probably had greater natural abilities than many of the top MW's of the 40's and 50's, his skills were lacking compared to most of them, who fought often against top competition.

[bjermaine]

Toney was not in excellent condition vs Jones Jr . . .he had taken off a huge chunk of weight in a very short time frame, leaving him completly drained and flat in the ring as you can tell even early in the fight. And this isn't Toney just making excuses . . many observers pre-fight noticed that Toney was having major issues making weight, and Toney shut off his camp to reporters as a result. Completly James's fault and I'm not saying Roy still doesn't beat him, but that has to be taken into account while viewing the fight.

I don't see what other results on Roy's resume lead people to contend he beats one of the deepest middleweight eras in history. A snoozer 8-4 decision vs a still developing Hopkins? After that you have his light HW wins vs Hill, Reggie Johnson, Griffith (who gave him major problems in their first fight), Woods and Tarver I (another very close fight). None of those are in the league of a Zale, Cerdan, Fullmer etc. I don't see how you can discount Roy's career after the move up to HW . . weight issues for Tarver I . . fine . . .after that, what excuses? The likes of Archie Moore had moved up as high as 206 at HW and then went back to 175 without the bitching and moaning Roy did. The Tarver rubber match showed Roy's true colors . . .faced with the man who'd sparked him out previously, Roy put in a crap effort and didn't really want to fight.

Vs the cream of the crop in the 40s and 50s, Roy would be facing fighters much more skilled and his speed advantage would not be nearly as pronounced vs the likes of Lloyd Marshall, and he'd be timed badly with his wild leaping hooks.

Roy is like Tyson with many fans today . . a great natural talent who people watch HL films vs C class fighters and they go nuts. . .'oooh, no-one could beat him at his best etc' In both cases, dead wrong.

this is the normal response from so called old-school boxing fans. they dissect and criticize jones' good wins and then point to the losses late in his career to show everyone the fighter they think he really is. jones is so hated by a lot of boxing fans and they usually make up crap like this. the fact is this, jones was named the fighter of the decade by boxing writers who hated his guts. he is an all-time great like it or not.

max kellerman put it best recently. he said people who say roy is the best they've seen are telling the truth and the others are just player hating.

[dempseyfire]

Toney was not in excellent condition vs Jones Jr . . .he had taken off a huge chunk of weight in a very short time frame, leaving him completly drained and flat in the ring as you can tell even early in the fight. And this isn't Toney just making excuses . . many observers pre-fight noticed that Toney was having major issues making weight, and Toney shut off his camp to reporters as a result. Completly James's fault and I'm not saying Roy still doesn't beat him, but that has to be taken into account while viewing the fight.

I don't see what other results on Roy's resume lead people to contend he beats one of the deepest middleweight eras in history. A snoozer 8-4 decision vs a still developing Hopkins? After that you have his light HW wins vs Hill, Reggie Johnson, Griffith (who gave him major problems in their first fight), Woods and Tarver I (another very close fight). None of those are in the league of a Zale, Cerdan, Fullmer etc. I don't see how you can discount Roy's career after the move up to HW . . weight issues for Tarver I . . fine . . .after that, what excuses? The likes of Archie Moore had moved up as high as 206 at HW and then went back to 175 without the bitching and moaning Roy did. The Tarver rubber match showed Roy's true colors . . .faced with the man who'd sparked him out previously, Roy put in a crap effort and didn't really want to fight.

Vs the cream of the crop in the 40s and 50s, Roy would be facing fighters much more skilled and his speed advantage would not be nearly as pronounced vs the likes of Lloyd Marshall, and he'd be timed badly with his wild leaping hooks.

Roy is like Tyson with many fans today . . a great natural talent who people watch HL films vs C class fighters and they go nuts. . .'oooh, no-one could beat him at his best etc' In both cases, dead wrong.

this is the normal response from so called old-school boxing fans. they dissect and criticize jones' good wins and then point to the losses late in his career to show everyone the fighter they think he really is. jones is so hated by a lot of boxing fans and they usually make up crap like this. the fact is this, jones was named the fighter of the decade by boxing writers who hated his guts. he is an all-time great like it or not.

max kellerman put it best recently. he said people who say roy is the best they've seen are telling the truth and the others are just player hating.

The same Kellerman who said Judah was one of the best of all time before he got sparked by Tsyzu??

Like it or not, Roy's resume does not pack any names equal to the ones you are saying he beats besides (arguably) a pre-prime Hopkins.

[BoxBuzz]

in the 40s and 50s, roy jones would have been champion anywhere from middleweight to heavyweight. tony zale could have beat jones??? gene fullmer?? we all have our opinions but his skill level was too much for any of the fighters listed above. he did things in the ring that no other fighter has. at his best, jones was the best i've seen. jones in his prime is the champ in any era.

I would give anything to have Roy Jones face Archie Moore at their primes. Just to show you how flimsy your statement is. The Moore that takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin' would just completely deflate Jones. A smart and tough fighter like Archie would just be too much for Roy. Why? Because he WOULD hit him and NOT be paralyzed by a reputation. Archie might hit the canvas at time or two but Roy could not keep him down....and that would spell the end of Roy's confidence. Roy could simply not take the incoming and believe me Archie would offer up incoming the likes Roy has never seen. Early on Roy would have Archie missing....and then the mongoose would simply take in the lessons, develop his counter attack in real time, and eventually grind the heart out of Roy. He would recognize right away that Roy don't like gettin hit....and that would work out pretty well for Archie.

I agree that Monzon would dominate Roy as well. I don't see Roy doing well against skilled and steady, steamrollers.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Don't misunderstand me, BJerm --- I'm determinedly sympathetic to your cause. As I've stated, I spent the early part of this decade vigorously defending Jones, at a time (you likely remember it as well) when he was both on top, & largely loathed. It was exhausting work! LOL

Truth is, though, he ain't got the wins against the competition to get the benefit of the doubt in this scenario. What can you do?

A great, great fighter --- let no one take that mantle from arguably the best of his generation

[BoxBuzz]

Don't misunderstand me, BJerm --- I'm determinedly sympathetic to your cause. As I've stated, I spent the early part of this decade vigorously defending Jones, at a time (you likely remember it as well) when he was both on top, & largely loathed. It was exhausting work! LOL

Truth is, though, he ain't got the wins against the competition to get the benefit of the doubt in this scenario. What can you do?

A great, great fighter --- let no one take that mantle from arguably the best of his generation

Agreed, just because Moore and Monzon may be able to best another fighter, that hardly robs them of genuine greatness. Especially if they are among only a few names that can be considered to have such a chance.

However when you get to the genuine heavyweights I think the list gets bigger.....He picked on one of the few that he would have a chance with...namely John Ruiz.

[Jaywheel]

max kellerman put it best recently. he said people who say roy is the best they've seen are telling the truth and the others are just player hating.

if max said so...

[Goodnight, Irene]

Just as an aside, what are everyone's thoughts on Kellerman? I have a lot of time for him, but all I seem to hear is negativity. IMO, his links of present-day fighters & bouts to past ones, though at times forced & a bit tenuous, can only be a good thing in educating younger fight fans, & broadening their historic scope. His determined crusade against the alphabet organisations, & subsequent sympathy toward the Ring belt-recognition movement, endear him to me as well.

[Jaywheel]

And his Sweet Pea worshiping must make him hard to hate for you.
I don't mind him and as long as you don't take for granted everything he says when he feels the way he feels for Judah for instance(asking him to make shadowboxing imitations of the young Tyson when he received him on FNF); I find him articulated and educated enough to be enjoyable to watch.