At their best were RJJ and Mike Tyson true Phenoms?

[BoxBuzz]

In the mode of SRR, SRL,FMJ, and Sweet Pea?

RJJ's peak was shorter no doubt, but was he as good as some imagined while he was on top?

Did his weight gain spell the end for him? Or when he was first KO'd? Something that "zapped his confidence, which never returned to him?

Are the questions we ask about him similar to the questions we ask about Mike Tyson?

In other words were these two guys mesmerizing us because we had no one to compare them with?

Or were they indeed sterling greats, who just ran out of gas in terms of their own psyche problems?

Does Liston fit this mode as well? Liston and Tyson are of course the slugger/puncher version.

While Roy might be considered a "hybrid" of sorts I suppose.


Ok please forgive my "stream of consciousness" rambling on this one. Maybe I "flew past the cuckoo's nest on this question. Hey if nothing else feel free to take pot shots at this flight of fancy of mine.

Something to whittle a bit of time before my next appnt. lol.

[King Carlos]

Roy was the best in the world for almost a decade.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

No he wasn't, Whitaker was #1 for many of those years people credit Roy with. He was definitely a great fighter though. Much better than Tyson.

[gilgamesh]

I think they were truly naturally gifted athletes and fighters who just didn't have the best fighter's mentalities. Especially Tyson and Liston.

At their best, yes I'd say Tyson and Roy were phenoms with an extremely rare wealth of natural talent that is not often seen.

[BoxBuzz]

That "mental edge" is an interesting thing to quantify. But to me it separates out the truly outstanding few dozen fighters in history from the "several" best of the best.

As long as Whitaker was not partaking in things that took his eye off the ball, he probably belongs in that elite group IMHO. Tyson, Liston, and Jones, are just short of that. In my estimation.

Jones for me is the hardest one to figure. Whether "something happened" to him...or if he was never what many imagined is for me one of the more difficult questions to answer. He never had pure sound fundamentals. But for a while it did not seem to matter in his case, because of his sheer talent and speed. In some ways he reminds me of a more successful version of Hamed.

[gilgamesh]

That "mental edge" is an interesting thing to quantify. But to me it separates out the truly outstanding few dozen fighters in history from the "several" best of the best.

As long as Whitaker was not partaking in things that took his eye off the ball, he probably belongs in that elite group IMHO. Tyson, Liston, and Jones, are just short of that. In my estimation.

Jones for me is the hardest one to figure. Whether "something happened" to him...or if he was never what many imagined is for me one of the more difficult questions to answer. He never had pure sound fundamentals. But for a while it did not seem to matter in his case, because of his sheer talent and speed. In some ways he reminds me of a more successful version of Hamed.

I agree with this, though Roy obviously had a much longer and more lucrative run at the top. I think Roy did have a real fighting will, but like you said he was naturally gifted with speed and reflexes he never learned the finer points of the game, and it costs him when his reflexes started to fail him as he got older.

I'll always see Tyson as a classic bully. Talented as all hell, legitimately tough, powerful enough to KO most Heavyweights, fast as hell. He had it all really....accept the mentality.

He was the man if you were intimidated of him, and weren't prepared to answer back with much substantial firepower.

Look at someone like Holyfield though, who had heart for days and a chin to match, he wasn't as blessed with the physical tools of Tyson. He wasn't as powerful, wasn't as fast, but he'd beat him everytime they fought in my opinion because he's just too much of a fighter for Mike. No matter what Mike hits him with, Holyfield's always still gonna be standing, and still fighting back. Mike just never had the mental makeup to deal with that.

[Senya13]

it costs him when his reflexes started to fail him as he got older.

His legs were the main cause of his downfall much more than reflexes or speed. He's dependent to a large degree on getting in and out and moving around for both defense and offense. His footwork started to deteriorate around 2000 or 2001 and by Glen Johnson fight he was completely flat-footed.

[SamWise72]

I feel like Jones was a real phenomenon, because he was such an extraordinary physical talent. At 160 and 168, he really was the man, and beat genuine competition; Hopkins (a win that looks better and better), Toney, and rather too late for the excitement, McCallum. I'd have liked to see him face Barkley, McClellan, Benn and Eubank too, but I think he'd have won all of those, and whilst I think he would have lost to both, I think he would have given Hagler and Monzon massive headaches. What I'd have loved would be Jones vs Robinson, that would have been one hell of a fight.

Tyson won in an extraordinarly violent way, but I feel like he got lucky not being found out sooner. I think Tucker would have beaten him if he had both hands for the whole fight, and given the way pretty mild heavyweights like Thomas or Biggs were able to land against him, I can't help thinking the likes of a peak Witherspoon or Holmes would have given him hell, and discovered what Douglas did. I think almost everyone he faced thought he was indestructible, and so did he. Berbick, perhaps, is an exception; he really looked like he thought he was going to win, right til he was counted out. I think in either the 70's or the 90's, Tyson would have got his first defeat sooner, and would be seen as a legitimate champ and one hell of an exciting fighter, but nobody would be suggesting he was an ATG.

[elmersalsa]

Yes, they were phenoms at their own right. The problem with the great Roy Jones, Jr was the he really did not push himself to fight The very best. And in the case of the great Mike Tyson, I honestly think that I did not see his very best. I mean, I do not think that he hit his peak like Ali or Louis. By 1990, he was in his prime when he lost to Buster Douglas, but, I think he was not prepared nor hungry like in the 80s. Also the loss of Kevin Rooney cost him. I don't think that I saw in him at his real peak. He still had some things to learn in my view.

Jones was a rare case of speed and power even while going up in weight class. Tyson's ferocity and punching power was something not seen in a long time, especially at that early age of 20.

[King Carlos]

No he wasn't, Whitaker was #1 for many of those years people credit Roy with. He was definitely a great fighter though. Much better than Tyson.

Wasn't Whitaker still officially considered pound for pound #1 in 1995? If so that oughta explain why I don't take those rankings seriously. Also, I said "almost a decade".

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You stated it as a matter of fact. That certainly is a valid opinion, just not a consensus one if you're looking at stuff in print. Chavez was the consensus guy at the start of the decade, then Whitaker and then Roy & Oscar split a few years. So if by almost a decade you meant less than half of it?

[King Carlos]

You stated it as a matter of fact. That certainly is a valid opinion, just not a consensus one if you're looking at stuff in print. Chavez was the consensus guy at the start of the decade, then Whitaker and then Roy & Oscar split a few years. So if by almost a decade you meant less than half of it?

I stated my opinion. I'm not gonna argue SEBLANTICS with you! Do you genuinely believe Oscar or Shane were better fighters than Roy at the time?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You stated it as a matter of fact. That certainly is a valid opinion, just not a consensus one if you're looking at stuff in print. Chavez was the consensus guy at the start of the decade, then Whitaker and then Roy & Oscar split a few years. So if by almost a decade you meant less than half of it?

I stated my opinion. I'm not gonna argue SEBLANTICS with you! Do you genuinely believe Oscar or Shane were better fighters than Roy at the time?

No I don't. I think Whitaker was/is and will always be the greater fighter. As far as the 90's go, he's my top guy.

Edit: I don't take P4P seriously enough for an argument. Just soooooooo many people act like Roy ran shit for the whole decade and most of them are trying to quote their beloved Ring magazine when that wasn't nearly the case.