Roy Jones Jnr

[stujones]

Would Roy care to fight a rematch agaisnt either Hopkins or Toney? IF Roy should fight Toney and win, he will be the only former middleweight to be heavyweight champ twice.

Would he take that fight for mega bucks? I am sure the fight will sell very well.

Who would win? Would Toney clock Roy or would Roy outrun and outpoint a very heavy Toney?

It would be a fight that I would definately buy if it was a PPV event in the UK - I'm not completely sold on the notion that Roy is shot to pieces or if his performances are due to weight making difficulties. It might be best for Roy's legacy if he just calls it quits now. A loss to Toney and your argument that Toney's performance in fight 1 was due to being weight drained will hold more substance.

However, Roy might feel he still has his number (as I am sure Holyfield still feels over Tyson) so this might be the one fight that can entice Roy back.

[Manos de Oro]

I disagree somewhat - I think it is impossible to really categorically say who is the greatest fighter of all time. One fighter who is always mentioned in such esteem though is Sugar Ray Leonard (he is in most "experts" top ten of all time). Leonard is there primarily because of his signature wins over Hagler, Hearns, Duran and Benitez - apart from these fights the rest of his various reigns is pretty ordinary and there is a lot of absences in his career due to the retirements.

Jones might not have been blessed with those FOUR at his time, but look what he did to two of the fighters who could geniunally mix it with those four in terms of skills and achievments (Toney and Hopkins) - he not just beat them, he dominated them something Leonard could only Duran in their two rematches (he never dominated the other 3). Surely there is some claring opportunities that RJJ never fought (Dariusz, the three brits, The G Man) - however, this could be said of alot of other fighters, i.e. for Leonard he could have fought Cuevas, Curry, McCory, Mguabi, Graham, Colin Jones.

I'm not saying the RJJ is the greatest fighter of all time, indeed similar threats have shown I have always backed Leonard in such debates - I'm just saying there is a case for Jones. Nobody (apart from his early career loss) has dominated Hopkins, Bernard is considered one of the greatest middleweights of all time - so why not Jones?

Stu you said it yourself, Ray Leonard beat Hagler, Hearns, Benitez and Duran, that alone is enough to elevate him above Jones. He also had far better skills than jones, better technique, better defence, and his comeback to beat Hagler was sensational.

Hagler - I have him on video admitting he ran like a bitch. What a way to 'fight' the undisputed, record-creating, supposed greatest Middleweight Champion ever. Hagler wasn't exactly Charles Atlas himself and he still ran.

Hearns - His only undisputably great win, IMO. Was a great performance I often watch.

Benitez - Farce, fight was a fix.

Duran - Got exposed badly as a physically weak man in their first fight (could tell by his bone structure anyway), the second fight is one of the most overblown non-fights I've ever seen, the third another non-fight when Duran was a fossil.

Leonard never had better technique or defence than Jones. How many times did you see Jones even marked in the face before Tarver 1?

[Manos de Oro]

Hopkins very green at 28 - I don't buy that one. It was still the closest fight of a prime Roy career - why, because Hopkins is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. He was even back then, just hadn't gone on to prove it.

It was an unseasoned Hopkins but you are right in 'counting' that loss. Jones got him that night by tricking Hopkins into fighting his fight. Bernard learned a huge amount from that fight and no way should it be discarded - that is just revisionist bollocks.

I don't think Hopkins is any better now than he was back then, just Roy is great.

Dicey - I can see a case for what you're saying, but not in the same sense you mean it. Under your reasoning I disagree totally.

As for Toney being weight drained, again another one I don't buy. He is such a big talker that when he slips up he has to make all kinds of silly excuses. Didn't he blame being weight drained vs Montell Griffin aswell? Toney had a few non title fights during his Super Middle reign in which he would balloon in weight, but normally he would come in comfortably inside the limit (he was 11st 13 vs Jones).

I agree with you about Toney and the weight drained thing. He was weight drained for plenty of fights at Middleweight that he ended up looking good in, likewise ended up looking bad in. He was just using the excuse because it suited (plus it was technically true). His ego was the main thing that was drained in that fight.

[stujones]

Manos - In my opinion, Hopkins in 1993 would have beaten any Middleweight that he has faced later on in his career. For example, the Hopkins in 1993 would have beaten Tito 2001, he would have beaten Joppy 2003, Eastman 2005, DLH 2004 whoever he faced. What he has done post Jones has made him one of the greatest middles of all time, but I think it could have been achieved earlier if the competition was there back then.

On Leonard, I disagree with your previous posts - Leonard boxed and move vs Hagler, he hit him a fair few times - watch round 9, he is fighting there.

Also, can you eloborate on the "fix" with Benitez, not sure I believe it.

[Manos de Oro]

Stu mate, I will split my repiles into two separate posts so they're easier to read/respond to.

Manos - In my opinion, Hopkins in 1993 would have beaten any Middleweight that he has faced later on in his career. For example, the Hopkins in 1993 would have beaten Tito 2001, he would have beaten Joppy 2003, Eastman 2005, DLH 2004 whoever he faced. What he has done post Jones has made him one of the greatest middles of all time, but I think it could have been achieved earlier if the competition was there back then.

Not so certain. Without thinking long about it I would say:

Joppy - Yes, it would have been uglier and Joppy may have won up to 3 rounds. Bernard's style would have suited his tactic of smothering Joppy's jab, even in that version of Hopkins. Come to think of it, he may have actually stopped Joppy.

Tito - Hopkins was more liable to make a mistake back then. Sure, he always (from the start) kept his hands up and kept a tight defense - but he came forward and aggressively attacked so much more back then. This would cause him to make the odd mistake - and one mistake is all you need to make against Trinidad and suddenly you are in a completely different fight. His whole success has relied on his opponents making even the most slight of mistakes - he catches them with one and before you know it you're slugging to survive (with him coming out on top). I think Hopkins may just have made one of those mistakes; I also think he is liable to make one or two in a rematch with Trinidad and that's why I see that fight as going to be closer than the first, provided they both win their next fights - and there's never a guarantee of that - and it happens.

Eastman - Yes, Eastman relies on you engaging with him to have any success. Scott Dann decked him in an exchange and I have no doubt Hopkins is simply a better all-rounder than Howard, and always has been. Saying that, I don't believe Eastman is as bad as a lot of people make out. I still see potential in him to be a decent contender to a legitimate titlist, but his age and inactivity (un-marketability also) all go against him making anything of that potential.

De La Hoya - If Hopkins had attempted to outbox DLH back then, I think there's a healthy chance Golden Bollocks may have nicked it. If he had charged forward and swarmed all over him from the off, I think DLH would maybe get stopped in about the same time he did - though he would be marked up and it would have been more comprehensive.

[Manos de Oro]

On Leonard, I disagree with your previous posts - Leonard boxed and move vs Hagler, he hit him a fair few times - watch round 9, he is fighting there.

I see you Stu. No doubt round 9 he fought - was probably the best of the fight if I remember (haven't watched it in a couple years). Thinking back to Harrison vs. Polo, I think we have a different definition of boxing and moving - no problem with that, though.

Also, can you eloborate on the "fix" with Benitez, not sure I believe it.

Can't offer solid proof of this - or obviously it would be common (public) knowledge. These are the signs of the fix I see:

1) Benitez was out on the piss up till a week, maybe even a few days, before the fight. I've heard he did this for other fights, but here I take it to be a sign that he knew he was gonna 'win' even if he lost (purse wise).

2) Benitez's usual cornermen refused to work the corner - supposedly because of him being out on the piss. I see this as them having a crisis of conscience more than anything else.

3) Benitez's style; Leonard wasn't the dance and 'mover' we think of him as until after Duran exposed his vulnerabilites - in his earlier fights (agaisnt Mayweather, for example) he stands in the pocket more and is willing to trade. Where is the silky movement El Radar showed against Hearns (for example)? Even in his fight with Cervantes - where he doesn't move excessively - he still doesn't do what does in the Leonard fight, and move in straight lines. He fights completely Leonard's fight and I would even go so far as to say he might be pulling more than a few of his punches.

4) The stoppage. One of the worse of all time. If you make a 'worst stoppages' thread among the plethora of 'too soon is better than too late' posts you can expect mention of this fight to pop up. Less than half a minute left (wasn't it like 12 seconds or something)? Benitez not firing back, but not necessarily taking many either - a few were getting through, but it was hardly DLH - Quartey round 12 was it?

5) Benitez's reaction: A 21 year old who has been a legitimate titlist for four years (I think it was?) and loses against a much hyped, but really unproven at that level, prospect; not by clear descision or knockout, but by dodgy stoppage in the last seconds of the fight. He goes wild, throws of his gloves, vows to give up boxing and acts like a spoiled brat? No, he starts pissing himself and runs after the aloft Leonard trying to hug him (only to be humiliatingly snubbed). "Hey man, thanks for bringing the hotshot bucks that big TV network stars bring, you made me some serious dough!" He probably accepted the money because, at only 21 and already proven/established at that level, he thought he could comeback easy.

I only watch the fight nowadays for Benitez's entrance and the staredown.

The Duran rematch was another dodgy one for Leonard. I was told (by a Latin gent) that Duran had been involved in gambling with some dodgy characters in the perpetual partying that followed the Montreal win. According to some, Duran would have found himself hanging from a lamp post in Bogota had he not went through with the deal. I, personally, don't quite believe that. It sounds too exaggerated to me, however I do know that those folk, if he really was betting with them, could be extremely vicious and ruthless - I'm not convinced Duran's celebrity, if was true, would have saved him if he had reneged on the deal.
Whatever. The reason I believe for his performance in that fight was down to weight making problems, being completely un-focussed due to the partying, and also un-motivated to chase a guy he had already proven himself stronger than - you can not underestimate the importance of this 'macho' factor in Duran's mindset, however good his technical boxing skills were.

[Syntax Error]

I disagree somewhat - I think it is impossible to really categorically say who is the greatest fighter of all time. One fighter who is always mentioned in such esteem though is Sugar Ray Leonard (he is in most "experts" top ten of all time). Leonard is there primarily because of his signature wins over Hagler, Hearns, Duran and Benitez - apart from these fights the rest of his various reigns is pretty ordinary and there is a lot of absences in his career due to the retirements.

Jones might not have been blessed with those FOUR at his time, but look what he did to two of the fighters who could geniunally mix it with those four in terms of skills and achievments (Toney and Hopkins) - he not just beat them, he dominated them something Leonard could only Duran in their two rematches (he never dominated the other 3). Surely there is some claring opportunities that RJJ never fought (Dariusz, the three brits, The G Man) - however, this could be said of alot of other fighters, i.e. for Leonard he could have fought Cuevas, Curry, McCory, Mguabi, Graham, Colin Jones.

I'm not saying the RJJ is the greatest fighter of all time, indeed similar threats have shown I have always backed Leonard in such debates - I'm just saying there is a case for Jones. Nobody (apart from his early career loss) has dominated Hopkins, Bernard is considered one of the greatest middleweights of all time - so why not Jones?

Stu you said it yourself, Ray Leonard beat Hagler, Hearns, Benitez and Duran, that alone is enough to elevate him above Jones. He also had far better skills than jones, better technique, better defence, and his comeback to beat Hagler was sensational.

Hagler - I have him on video admitting he ran like a bitch. What a way to 'fight' the undisputed, record-creating, supposed greatest Middleweight Champion ever. Hagler wasn't exactly Charles Atlas himself and he still ran.

Hearns - His only undisputably great win, IMO. Was a great performance I often watch.

Benitez - Farce, fight was a fix.

Duran - Got exposed badly as a physically weak man in their first fight (could tell by his bone structure anyway), the second fight is one of the most overblown non-fights I've ever seen, the third another non-fight when Duran was a fossil.

Leonard never had better technique or defence than Jones. How many times did you see Jones even marked in the face before Tarver 1?

I think if Jones had of faced a 22 year old Tommy Hearns, he may have had some marks on his face.

[Manos de Oro]

I think if Jones had of faced a 22 year old Tommy Hearns, he may have had some marks on his face.

A 22 year old Hearns, comfortable at 147lbs, against a one punch knockout artist 160 pounder, who was 175 come first bell? A fighter who was comparable in speed, arguably faster, at 160 (168 even) than Leonard was at welter? A fighter who used tricks that people still don't seem to pick up on - and that Leonard never had - even after a decade? Yes, he would have given him quite a fight.

[Syntax Error]

I think if Jones had of faced a 22 year old Tommy Hearns, he may have had some marks on his face.

A 22 year old Hearns, comfortable at 147lbs, against a one punch knockout artist 160 pounder, who was 175 come first bell? A fighter who was comparable in speed, arguably faster, at 160 (168 even) than Leonard was at welter? A fighter who used tricks that people still don't seem to pick up on - and that Leonard never had - even after a decade? Yes, he would have given him quite a fight.

To be honest, I meant if Hearns was in his prime & he weighed the same as Jones Jr. I firmly believe that Jones would have had marks on his face & a whole lot more.

[Manos de Oro]

I think if Jones had of faced a 22 year old Tommy Hearns, he may have had some marks on his face.

A 22 year old Hearns, comfortable at 147lbs, against a one punch knockout artist 160 pounder, who was 175 come first bell? A fighter who was comparable in speed, arguably faster, at 160 (168 even) than Leonard was at welter? A fighter who used tricks that people still don't seem to pick up on - and that Leonard never had - even after a decade? Yes, he would have given him quite a fight.

To be honest, I meant if Hearns was in his prime & he weighed the same as Jones Jr. I firmly believe that Jones would have had marks on his face & a whole lot more.

Right, gotcha. I don't really bother much with mythical matchups, which is why I took your first comment literally.

[stujones]

It was a premature stoppage no doubt, not as bad as Mitchell vs Calzaghe but up there, I do completely agree there. I say it is not as bad Calzaghe vs Mitchell because Leonard had hurt him a few times in that round and also previous in the contest. It wasn't a huge punch that fatterned Benitez but an accumilation of shots that wore him down.

However, Leonard was winning the fight anyway it was closish but I don't think many people saw Benitez ahead - so surely even if Benitez had not being stopped

[barry]

>>>>Right, so what exactly did this bit mean, you should pay more attention about what you write and how you write it if you don't want it to be misconstrued.<<<<

------The rest of Jones' resume is loaded with a hell of a lot more quality fighters than any other fighter during the last 15 years in the weight range of 160 thru 175. No other champion from 160 to 175 have faced anywhere near the same competition as Jones, while in his prime it was just overall greatness that made every Jones bout look like a mismatch, it wasn't because of lack of talent in his opposition!—--


See the first sentence James, it is part of the paragraph and it plainly states the last fifteen years! Now had it been two separate paragraphs it might be misconstrued. Get it right, I’m not going to explain myself to you any more unless you start reading and answering to something that I actually say!