Mathew Saad Franklin vs. Roy Jones jr. @175lbs. who wins ?

[Oswald]

People are too blinded by how Roy has ended up. At his best Franklin would have been dazzled and probably stopped.

You've never heard of "Franklin".

[polecateddy]

People are too blinded by how Roy has ended up. At his best Franklin would have been dazzled and probably stopped.

You've never heard of "Franklin".

What are you on about? I've read plenty about the guy. He has featured in Boxing News and Boxing Monthly from time to time. Matthew Franklin. And yes brain trust, I'm aware he changed his name to Matthew Saad Muhammad.

[Ezzard]

Think it’s more obvious now for most to see that his career is like a slice of Emmenthal. And that it takes a big, big leap of faith to get him anywhere near the top guys at 175.

[SamWise72]

People are too blinded by how Roy has ended up. At his best Franklin would have been dazzled and probably stopped.

You've never heard of "Franklin".

What are you on about? I've read plenty about the guy. He has featured in Boxing News and Boxing Monthly from time to time. Matthew Franklin. And yes brain trust, I'm aware he changed his name to Matthew Saad Muhammad.

So you haven't watched him? Your opinion doesn't have much weight if you haven't. I think Roy would win on points, but you can be sure that the guys arguing the other way have watched plenty of Roy and plenty of Saad. Homework time.

[polecateddy]

Naff off! I've watched him too. I remember in particular watching a rerun of the 1979 Marvin Johnson fight. Roy has handled better light heavies.

[Counter-puncher]

name one

[dempseyfire]

Ughh, now the convo will go from a sensible position (arguing that Jones Jr wins a decision) to PCT saying some nonsense like Montell Griffith was better than Saad . . .

Saad would have been the best 175 lber Roy would have ever fought but I still think he wins due to the styles matchup.

[Ezzard]

Conteh was like the 70s version of Virgil Hill (and I'd rank Conteh over Hill, but I don't think the differrence is massive). We saw how Roy handled Hill. If you think Roy doesn't possess qualities Conteh lacked vs Saad, then you are just reading from a totally different playbook.

And sure, Conteh showed good defense vs Saad, but so what? He barely threw the right all night, clearly weary of throwing too many due to his prior hand injuries. I can definitely see a peak Conteh from 4 years earlier not getting knocked down late and winning a decision from Muhammad.

Hill (who I agree was not that great) was past his best when he fought Jones.

I could see Jones getting well ahead and hanging on for the decision. It might make a difference if the fight was for 15 rounds. Saad would have a better chance if that was the case.
Not that Jones would have taken this fight.

Alp wins this one.

[SamWise72]

Naff off! I've watched him too. I remember in particular watching a rerun of the 1979 Marvin Johnson fight. Roy has handled better light heavies.

Steady on! Your response to "you've never heard of him" didn't include any indication that you'd watched him, and you do have a reputation for pronouncing on fighters, and then revealing that you actually know diddly squat about them beyond their Boxrec record and a few articles.

[Giancarlo]

Naff off! I've watched him too. I remember in particular watching a rerun of the 1979 Marvin Johnson fight. Roy has handled better light heavies.

Steady on! Your response to "you've never heard of him" didn't include any indication that you'd watched him, and you do have a reputation for pronouncing on fighters, and then revealing that you actually know diddly squat about them beyond their Boxrec record and a few articles.

[polecateddy]

Naff off! I've watched him too. I remember in particular watching a rerun of the 1979 Marvin Johnson fight. Roy has handled better light heavies.

Steady on! Your response to "you've never heard of him" didn't include any indication that you'd watched him, and you do have a reputation for pronouncing on fighters, and then revealing that you actually know diddly squat about them beyond their Boxrec record and a few articles.

Actually a great deal of my boxing knowledge pre-dates Boxrec and Fightnews. From reading mags, books and watching the fights over the last 25 years. And for my money Virgil Hill would have also outpointed Matthew. As would have other Roy shut-out victims.

[Rover]

Hill couldn't even outpoint past prime Hearns.
I'd confidently pick Saad over both Hill and Hearns--of course in Hearns's case not speaking in terms of P4P but at light heavy.

[polecateddy]

Hill couldn't even outpoint past prime Hearns.
I'd confidently pick Saad over both Hill and Hearns--of course in Hearns's case not speaking in terms of P4P but at light heavy.

Hearns was also a master boxer though wasn't he. I think Virgil let himself down mentally a little in that fight, and was overly respectful of Hearn's power ...even though at light heavy Thomas was much less of a devastating puncher. (Although don't tell Dennis Andries.)

[Rover]

Hill couldn't even outpoint past prime Hearns.
I'd confidently pick Saad over both Hill and Hearns--of course in Hearns's case not speaking in terms of P4P but at light heavy.

Hearns was also a master boxer though wasn't he. I think Virgil let himself down mentally a little in that fight, and was overly respectful of Hearn's power ...even though at light heavy Thomas was much less of a devastating puncher. (Although don't tell Dennis Andries.)

Then he'd be overly respectful of Saad's power, and Saad could box very well. He became a famous slugger but he was no slouch as a boxer.

[polecateddy]

I think there's a paradoxical problem in suggesting Roy hasn't already beaten better opponents. Matthew obviously gets kudos for being a relatively long-standing champion with multiple title defences. Roy Jones opponents, such as say Montel Griffith, did not and therefore get frowned upon. The paradox is the reason why these good calibre opponents never got to win a world title was because Roy Jones was in the way. There also seems a line of thinking, because the faded version of Jones has been stopped a number of times, that any hard-hitting opponent who kept the pressure on properly during his peak would have got to him eventually. Whereas in truth opponents who did that tended to get blitzed.

[Rover]

I think there's a paradoxical problem in suggesting Roy hasn't already beaten better opponents. Matthew obviously gets kudos for being a relatively long-standing champion with multiple title defences. Roy Jones opponents, such as say Montel Griffith, did not and therefore get frowned upon. The paradox is the reason why these good calibre opponents never got to win a world title was because Roy Jones was in the way. There also seems a line of thinking, because the faded version of Jones has been stopped a number of times, that any hard-hitting opponent who kept the pressure on properly during his peak would have got to him eventually. Whereas in truth opponents who did that tended to get blitzed.

The reason Saad's comp is viewed as better isn't due to lack of title defenses. It's because they were better fighters than what Jones fought at LHW.

[polecateddy]

I think there's a paradoxical problem in suggesting Roy hasn't already beaten better opponents. Matthew obviously gets kudos for being a relatively long-standing champion with multiple title defences. Roy Jones opponents, such as say Montel Griffith, did not and therefore get frowned upon. The paradox is the reason why these good calibre opponents never got to win a world title was because Roy Jones was in the way. There also seems a line of thinking, because the faded version of Jones has been stopped a number of times, that any hard-hitting opponent who kept the pressure on properly during his peak would have got to him eventually. Whereas in truth opponents who did that tended to get blitzed.

The reason Saad's comp is viewed as better isn't due to lack of title defenses. It's because they were better fighters than what Jones fought at LHW.

It's just your opinion they are better. There is no imperial evidence say Montell Griffith wouldn't have outpointed say Marvin Johnson.

[Rover]

I think there's a paradoxical problem in suggesting Roy hasn't already beaten better opponents. Matthew obviously gets kudos for being a relatively long-standing champion with multiple title defences. Roy Jones opponents, such as say Montel Griffith, did not and therefore get frowned upon. The paradox is the reason why these good calibre opponents never got to win a world title was because Roy Jones was in the way. There also seems a line of thinking, because the faded version of Jones has been stopped a number of times, that any hard-hitting opponent who kept the pressure on properly during his peak would have got to him eventually. Whereas in truth opponents who did that tended to get blitzed.

The reason Saad's comp is viewed as better isn't due to lack of title defenses. It's because they were better fighters than what Jones fought at LHW.

It's just your opinion they are better. There is no imperial evidence say Montell Griffith wouldn't have outpointed say Marvin Johnson.

Good Lord, It's Griffin. Yes, it's my opinion--and apparently everyone else's around here (except yours) that Saad's LHW comp was better than Jones's.

[polecateddy]

The difference being Roy was completely dominant. With Matthew it was all life and death. For my money John Conteh against Clinton Woods would be relatively even. Look what Roy did to Clinton. He would have dominated any light heavy era.

[Rover]

The difference being Roy was completely dominant. With Matthew it was all life and death. For my money John Conteh against Clinton Woods would be relatively even. Look what Roy did to Clinton. He would have dominated any light heavy era.

I don't see Conteh/Woods as even, and I doubt he'd have dominated any light heavy era.

[polecateddy]

The difference being Roy was completely dominant. With Matthew it was all life and death. For my money John Conteh against Clinton Woods would be relatively even. Look what Roy did to Clinton. He would have dominated any light heavy era.

I don't see Conteh/Woods as even, and I doubt he'd have dominated any light heavy era.

Quelle surprise!

[Rover]

Let's see who else considers Conteh/Woods an even match-up.

[Counter-puncher]

The difference being Roy was completely dominant. With Matthew it was all life and death. For my money John Conteh against Clinton Woods would be relatively even. Look what Roy did to Clinton. He would have dominated any light heavy era.

terrible point of comparison, give it up.

[Rover]

The difference being Roy was completely dominant. With Matthew it was all life and death. For my money John Conteh against Clinton Woods would be relatively even. Look what Roy did to Clinton. He would have dominated any light heavy era.

terrible point of comparison, give it up.

Doubt he will.

[polecateddy]

The difference being Roy was completely dominant. With Matthew it was all life and death. For my money John Conteh against Clinton Woods would be relatively even. Look what Roy did to Clinton. He would have dominated any light heavy era.

terrible point of comparison, give it up.

Doubt he will.

I'm not that bothered honestly. I certainly remember Boxing News rating Roy Jones higher than Matthew, and being too good for him in fantasy match ups. I think most decent pundits would be able to look past 'old' Roy and still do that. As for Clinton Woods, his form, particularly in his win against Johnson was ever improving. Granted people may go for Conteh in a 15 rounder, but only by a hard fought and relatively close decision.