BoxRec

Senya13 wrote:

JCS wrote:Average height for boxers designated as heavyweight
Categorized using their debut date (so a boxer is only counted once)

Thank you, but could you also do it the way I described too? Not just by debut date, but by all of their bouts within that time span, because that's what an average heavyweight height will be.
Put it this way, if we have two groups A and B, which have equal number of heavyweight boxers in them, but group A contains boxers with height 5'11', and group B - only 6'1". Boxers from group A have 50 bouts on average during the timespan that is being considered, and group B - 25 bouts on average. By your algorithm, average height will be exactly 6'0", but if we used a time machine to visit heavyweight bouts from that time, we'd see fights with shorter boxers more often, so we would conclude that average height is actually below 6'0".

There aren't many boxers in the database from years past with valid heights. I could see your point if every boxer had a valid height, but if you see what I see, the data is very messy. In fact, I cleaned up a great deal to provide what I provided.

I think its a fair assessment. Instead of having short guys who fought hundreds of times like Sam Langford dragging the averages down, every boxer is being counted once.

..for those who are lonely and have way too much time in their hands, there are ways to advertise for companionship in alternative or mainstream newspapers for someone to fill these needs. they need not be for erotic purposes if one doesn't choose to have that kind of relationship, though platonic warm affection may well be considered.

Ok. Could you then count, say, 50 fighters who fought the most rounds in their career? I remember there was once a thread where some fighters were counted manually like that, would be nice to have an automatic count (especially that it shouldn't be too hard to write a SELECT like that, with the SUM function and with GROUP BY).

Senya13 wrote:Ok. Could you then count, say, 50 fighters who fought the most rounds in their career? I remember there was once a thread where some fighters were counted manually like that, would be nice to have an automatic count (especially that it shouldn't be too hard to write a SELECT like that, with the SUM function and with GROUP BY).

I'm well aware of how SQL works :).

Charles would expose RJJ weak chin in just a few rounds Charles by ko 3-4

Charles would simply have been too much for Roy. I don't think there's much more to it than that IMO.

He was bigger, stronger, hit harder, and was basically much better and more powerful than anything Roy was ever in the ring with (certainly at light-heavyweight, anyway).

Even before Roy was knocked out by Tarver and Johnson, I never quite believed that he belonged among the great light-heavyweights. He was a very good champion for a long time, make no mistake, but I never quite thought he was a true great at that weight. And given the way he lost to Tarver/Johnson (neither of whom are true greats themselves) just shortly after being at the height of his career (something people tend to overlook when they try to excuse those fights), I feel very certain now that he wasn't.

IMO, Roy never seemed to have quite the fire and spark as a light-heavy that he had at 160 and 168, except only in spurts (ie: the Griffin rematch). Something just always seemed to be missing. He generally fought much more tentatively and seemed ultra conscious of his chin. Even way back when he first moved up to light-heavy and fought McCallum (who couldn't crack an egg at 175), I was shocked by how much respect he showed for McCallum's punch. The way he fought McCallum, you'd think he was fighting Bob Foster. I thought at the time that he might just be carrying McCallum, but he fought that way through much of his reign.

Roy happened to be in one of the most indistinguished eras in light-heavyweight history. DelValle and Reggie Johnson rank among the weakest titleholders in LHW history. For most of the time, the biggest fight that was considered available to him in the division was Dariusz, and even he wasn't all that spectacular a fighter IMO. By far, the majority of Roy's light-heavyweight opponents were average at best, and some of them (ie: David Telesco) verged on being clubfighters.

Of the light-heavyweights that Roy fought, the ones who most distinguished themselves from the rest of the pack were:
-Tarver
-Virgil Hill
-Glen Johnson

Roy's record was only 2-3 against them, with two losses coming by embarassing KOs. He also showed a definite lack of heart and toughness in his losses, and he has never had any real desire to avenge them.

IMO, Roy's reign at light-heavyweight wasn't any more impressive than Calzaghe's was at super-middle, or even Virgil Hill's back when he was still in his prime. And that's without taking into account the losses Roy had along the way.

Roy's ONLY real advantage against Charles is his speed, and that doesn't get you far in a match if you don't have the mental or physical toughness, or the general class needed to back it up.

In essence, if a fighter like Tarver is simply too much for Roy to handle (both mentally and physically), there's absolutely NO WAY I can see him hanging with someone of either the class or the firepower of Charles.

If Roy genuinely tries to win this, Charles might very realistically end this within just a couple of rounds. More likely IMO, Roy would just fight defensively the whole fight and look to stay in there, while basically giving away every round. Even then, he might still get KO'd along the way.

------------------------------
Incidentally, for those who claim that Roy's style somehow would be troublesome to Charles or would be something he's never seen before, it should be noted that Charley Burley was very similar to Roy in terms of style and ability. Charles dominated him twice with ease, and that was only a couple of years into Charles' pro career, when he was just barely beginning to realize his potential.

i see some of you on here say that a prime charles takes out a prime jones easily. i don't think most of you saw jones fight in his prime. i would bet that jones would win a decision against charles if both of them are at their best. charles was an incredible fighter but jones would be too fast. just about all of you that picked charles point to jones' losses to tarver and johnson as why. those losses were not from a fighter in his prime. they were from a 35-yr old, post-heavyweight, weight-drained jones. to be fair lets look at charles losses from when he was later in his career.

if i counted correctly, charles had a 24-20 record past his thirtieth birthday. that is not very impressive. at 34 he had losses to 11-6-1, young jack johnson and 9-4-2, wayne bethea. how would he be able to cope with jones if he lost to these guys? he had 25 losses in his career, the most of any heavyweight champ.

if i point to the facts the the paragraph above, i could try and make a case that charles could be beat by just about any great fighter based on what he did later in his career. that would be ridiculous. this is the argument that many of you make against jones. ezzard charles was an all-time great. when i think of charles, i think of a heavyweight champ and all of the great opponents he defeated. when i think of jones, i think of him being the fighter of the decade and the best fighter of his era. both great.

btw, this was a dream matchup in a ring magazine special a few years back. the writer, who ever it was, picked jones to win by split decision if i remember correctly.

I think however you look at it. It is a close and very entertaining match.

Charles and Jones both at the height of their powers makes an interesting
mesh. SD either way is not hard to imagine even a draw.

I think Charles just etches in a win.


I suppose you can argue that Charles was ringworn past his 3oth
not to mention the fact that he died of lou gherings diesease some
years later. It is not unlikely that the illness was affecting him..
possibly at such a young age.

That aside, many have argued that Charles was past his best when he
met Marciano. As a HW champion, as brief as his career was, he did
stay very active. And had some serious wars with top men.

RJJ is an ATG for sure. I'd prefer to have seen him stay at middleweight his entire career and not go up the way he did. As a middleweight, had he stayed, all BHOP would have ever been was a top contender his entire career. BHOP should thank RJJ for moving up. Same with Joe Calzaghe. If RJJ stayed at supermiddleweight he would have dominated that division too. As a LHW though, I think Charles was better. He was bigger and hit harder, plus he fought much bigger punchers than RJJ ever fought, but only at Heavyweight. Both guys were knocked out, but to say RJJ has no chin is bullshit. He got KTFO out by Tarver and Johnson, both of which hit hard even if Johnson KO's people more from wearing them down than anything else. I also think that RJJ dropping weight to fight had him drained to such a degree that he just didn't have his legs under him. Of course that big punch Tarver hit him with might have done the trick anyway.

I think prime for prime it is a very close fight that could end in a close decision, draw, or KO for either fighter. So many other factors come in to play when people fight other than their ability.

However, P4P, in their primes, I think RJJ was better.

As far as someone having similar ability as RJJ.................I'd say less than 10, maybe fewer than 5 fighters, above middleweigt have ever had that combination of power, speed, and reflexes.

bjermaine wrote: they were from a 35-yr old, post-heavyweight, weight-drained jones.

That so-called "35-yr old, post-heavyweight, weight-drained" fighter you speak of happened to be rated at the top of every P4P list in the world and was being discussed as a big fight opponent for guys like Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson. Not to mention he was a heavy favorite to beat Tarver and Johnson easily.

Hardly an "old" or "used up" fighter by any means.

The claim that he was "weight drained" for all those fights is particularly bogus, because he just fought his last fight (several years afterward) practically at super middleweight.

It would've been different if Roy had lost, say, by a close split decision (the way Hopkins did to Taylor) and by late stoppage after running out of gas (like Morales in the 2nd Pacquiao fight). There simply is no excuses for getting flat out OWNED by those fighters when he still was so close to his prime. For example, Hopkins was considerably older than Roy and was jumping straight up two weight classes, and he didn't get brutally KO'd by Tarver. In fact, he beat him far more decisively than Roy did. Johnson has been in with a genuinely used up Merqui Sosa, and a weight drained Omar Sheika, and he didn't simply blow through either of them either. In fact, he lost to them both too.

At the same stage in Charles' career, he was still gutting out tough wins against dangerous contenders, and generally was competitive (and not being totally embarassed) in his losses.

There's obviously some kind of stylistic problem those fighters pose for Roy. And there obviously was always something lacking about Roy's heart and chin, for him to have kept losing to those fighters the way he did.

My2Sense wrote:

bjermaine wrote: they were from a 35-yr old, post-heavyweight, weight-drained jones.

That so-called "35-yr old, post-heavyweight, weight-drained" fighter you speak of happened to be rated at the top of every P4P list in the world and was being discussed as a big fight opponent for guys like Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson. Not to mention he was a heavy favorite to beat Tarver and Johnson easily.

Hardly an "old" or "used up" fighter by any means.

The claim that he was "weight drained" for all those fights is particularly bogus, because he just fought his last fight (several years afterward) practically at super middleweight.

It would've been different if Roy had lost, say, by a close split decision (the way Hopkins did to Taylor) and by late stoppage after running out of gas (like Morales in the 2nd Pacquiao fight). There simply is no excuses for getting flat out OWNED by those fighters when he still was so close to his prime. For example, Hopkins was considerably older than Roy and was jumping straight up two weight classes, and he didn't get brutally KO'd by Tarver. In fact, he beat him far more decisively than Roy did. Johnson has been in with a genuinely used up Merqui Sosa, and a weight drained Omar Sheika, and he didn't simply blow through either of them either. In fact, he lost to them both too.

At the same stage in Charles' career, he was still gutting out tough wins against dangerous contenders, and generally was competitive (and not being totally embarassed) in his losses.

There's obviously some kind of stylistic problem those fighters pose for Roy. And there obviously was always something lacking about Roy's heart and chin, for him to have kept losing to those fighters the way he did.

did you see him in the tarver and johnson fights?? i think common sense would tell you something was wrong. jesus, the dude looked pathetic. even then, jones still won the first tarver fight because tarver wouldn't move his hands. the johnson fight was one of the saddest things i've ever seen in sports. jones looked sick and shouldn't have even got in the ring that night. he destroyed his body when he came back down from heavy. it has taken him some time to recover physically and mentally from the losses. he looks better now but far from what he was.

when charles was at the same stage in his career he was getting beat by toxie hall and john holman. if you want to point to losses to pick who would win, i have a lot more to choose from. ok, i'm through trying to tear down someone as awesome as charles.

I was always a big Jones fan.He was a phenom,his speed,power,and unorthodox style.His reluctance to face some fighters was maddening however.Whenever he did face someone who seemed to pose a threat(Hopkins,Toney,Ruiz) he beat them easily,that's why I never understood why he didn't make plenty of other fights happen.
I think it's interesting that the first time he got hit hard he got stopped.Yes he was older but still.I think it was a good read on why he spent his entire career not wanting to get hit.Without his otherlyworld speed it finally happened.Sooner or later in these mythical fights,especially against guys like Foster,Moore,Spinks,and yes Charles,guys with speed and power,Jones would get hit and hit hard.

bjermaine wrote: did you see him in the tarver and johnson fights?? i think common sense would tell you something was wrong. jesus, the dude looked pathetic.

What was "wrong" was that he was fighting two of the better fighters he's fought at light-heavy. If it was so obvious that he was soooo far removed from his best in those fights, why he was made a heavy favorite to win the first THREE fights he had against them? Why was it such a total surprise each time he got KO'd?

jones looked sick and shouldn't have even got in the ring that night. he destroyed his body when he came back down from heavy. it has taken him some time to recover physically and mentally from the losses. he looks better now but far from what he was.

Jones only went up to around cruiserweight for his ONE and only fight at heavyweight, and he never even stayed there long enough to settle into the weight. Other fighters that were even naturally bigger than Roy have gone up around there for even longer and then come back down with little or no problem. Heck, look at how long Fabrice Tiozzo was up around there... he came back down at around the same age as Roy, and it didn't "destroy" his body forever. The notion that that's a career ending jump is laughable. The fact that no one was making much of a fuss out of it BEFORE those fights is proof of that.

Again, Roy was the P4P #1 fighter in the world and at the height of his career immediatley before his fights with Tarver and Johnson. Then all of a sudden, he's so totally, utterly "weight drained"/"sick" for a stretch of time (which, by amazing coincidence, is exactly the same stretch in which he has every one of his fights with Tarver and Johnson) that no loss, no matter how decisive/embarassing/revealing it may be, can be held against him. But as soon as he isn't fighting Tarver or Johnson, by amazing coincidence, that's when Roy's "weight drained" streak magically ends, and he's suddenly able to make 175 and even 168 with no problem.

I certainly can believe that Roy was just starting his decline after the Ruiz fight, yes. But that still wouldn't excuse him for getting outright dominated the way he did, or for showing a distinct lack of toughness and resilience.

But that other story is just way too extreme in all different directions to be credible.

when charles was at the same stage in his career he was getting beat by toxie hall and john holman.

If you think Charles was one or two fights away from the height of his career before he fought John Holman, then you really don't know anything about him and shouldn't even be talking about him.

But even against Holman, Charles wasn't embarassed to the same degree Roy was by Tarver/Johnson. Charles was winning the first fight before getting run out of gas late and then stopped, and then actually came back to beat him in the rematch. I'm still waiting for Roy to prove that he's capable of avenging a knockout loss of his own.

if you want to point to losses to pick who would win, i have a lot more to choose from. ok, i'm through trying to tear down someone as awesome as charles.

It's funny, but I actually made numerous points as to why Charles was better than Roy and why Charles would beat him. Roy's losses were only just one aspect of that. But hey, if you want to just cherry pick that part out and focus all your attention on that, then OK... show me the losses Charles had at light-heavy that could be considered so much more damaging to his reputation than the ones Roy had.

My2Sense wrote:

bjermaine wrote: did you see him in the tarver and johnson fights?? i think common sense would tell you something was wrong. jesus, the dude looked pathetic.

What was "wrong" was that he was fighting two of the better fighters he's fought at light-heavy. If it was so obvious that he was soooo far removed from his best in those fights, why he was made a heavy favorite to win the first THREE fights he had against them? Why was it such a total surprise each time he got KO'd?

jones looked sick and shouldn't have even got in the ring that night. he destroyed his body when he came back down from heavy. it has taken him some time to recover physically and mentally from the losses. he looks better now but far from what he was.

Jones only went up to around cruiserweight for his ONE and only fight at heavyweight, and he never even stayed there long enough to settle into the weight. Other fighters that were even naturally bigger than Roy have gone up around there for even longer and then come back down with little or no problem. Heck, look at how long Fabrice Tiozzo was up around there... he came back down at around the same age as Roy, and it didn't "destroy" his body forever. The notion that that's a career ending jump is laughable. The fact that no one was making much of a fuss out of it BEFORE those fights is proof of that.

Again, Roy was the P4P #1 fighter in the world and at the height of his career immediatley before his fights with Tarver and Johnson. Then all of a sudden, he's so totally, utterly "weight drained"/"sick" for a stretch of time (which, by amazing coincidence, is exactly the same stretch in which he has every one of his fights with Tarver and Johnson) that no loss, no matter how decisive/embarassing/revealing it may be, can be held against him. But as soon as he isn't fighting Tarver or Johnson, by amazing coincidence, that's when Roy's "weight drained" streak magically ends, and he's suddenly able to make 175 and even 168 with no problem.

I certainly can believe that Roy was just starting his decline after the Ruiz fight, yes. But that still wouldn't excuse him for getting outright dominated the way he did, or for showing a distinct lack of toughness and resilience.

But that other story is just way too extreme in all different directions to be credible.

when charles was at the same stage in his career he was getting beat by toxie hall and john holman.

If you think Charles was one or two fights away from the height of his career before he fought John Holman, then you really don't know anything about him and shouldn't even be talking about him.

But even against Holman, Charles wasn't embarassed to the same degree Roy was by Tarver/Johnson. Charles was winning the first fight before getting run out of gas late and then stopped, and then actually came back to beat him in the rematch. I'm still waiting for Roy to prove that he's capable of avenging a knockout loss of his own.

if you want to point to losses to pick who would win, i have a lot more to choose from. ok, i'm through trying to tear down someone as awesome as charles.

It's funny, but I actually made numerous points as to why Charles was better than Roy and why Charles would beat him. Roy's losses were only just one aspect of that. But hey, if you want to just cherry pick that part out and focus all your attention on that, then OK... show me the losses Charles had at light-heavy that could be considered so much more damaging to his reputation than the ones Roy had.

it's hard to argue against your points seeing how your such an expert on roy jones' weight your points are comical. your in that group with the other crazies on this site. granberry-ali, elton john-leonard, and my2sense-jones. all of you will make any kind of ridiculous argument to make your point against the fighter you hate.

bjermaine wrote: it's hard to argue against your points seeing how your such an expert on roy jones' weight your points are comical. your in that group with the other crazies on this site. granberry-ali, elton john-leonard, and my2sense-jones. all of you will make any kind of ridiculous argument to make your point against the fighter you hate.

Sorry, but I didn't see what credentials you posted that make YOU any more of an "expert" on Roy's weight.

Maybe you'd care to do that, seeing as YOU (not me) were the one who brought up Roy's weight in the first place.


Sorry that I actually pointed to facts, logic, and history to support my point.

Sorry that you can't bring yourself to address them in any kind of mature fasion, yet you insist on responding to my posts anyway.

Sorry that you feel the need to resort to hiding behind absolutely childish (and unnecessary) insults.

My2Sense wrote:

bjermaine wrote: it's hard to argue against your points seeing how your such an expert on roy jones' weight your points are comical. your in that group with the other crazies on this site. granberry-ali, elton john-leonard, and my2sense-jones. all of you will make any kind of ridiculous argument to make your point against the fighter you hate.

Sorry, but I didn't see what credentials you posted that make YOU any more of an "expert" on Roy's weight.

Maybe you'd care to do that, seeing as YOU (not me) were the one who brought up Roy's weight in the first place.


Sorry that I actually pointed to facts, logic, and history to support my point.

Sorry that you can't bring yourself to address them in any kind of mature fasion, yet you insist on responding to my posts anyway.

Sorry that you feel the need to resort to hiding behind absolutely childish (and unnecessary) insults.

reports were that after the ruiz fight jones weighed 200 lbs and had 6 percent body fat after working with mackie shilstone. official fight weight was 193 for jones that night due to a commission error but right before the fight he was weighed again by the nsac and was 199. jones stayed around that weight because he was trying to get another fight at heavy. then went back down to 175, big mistake.

look if you think charles would beat jones, fine. but your argument just points to jones' three losses near the end of his career as why. you're ignoring the rest of his hall of fame, fighter of the decade career. i agree with you as far as a prime charles beats a post-heavyweight jones but we are talking about fighters in their prime here.

bjermaine wrote:
reports were that after the ruiz fight jones weighed 200 lbs and had 6 percent body fat after working with mackie shilstone. official fight weight was 193 for jones that night due to a commission error but right before the fight he was weighed again by the nsac and was 199. jones stayed around that weight because he was trying to get another fight at heavy. then went back down to 175, big mistake.

look if you think charles would beat jones, fine. but your argument just points to jones' three losses near the end of his career as why. you're ignoring the rest of his hall of fame, fighter of the decade career. i agree with you as far as a prime charles beats a post-heavyweight jones but we are talking about fighters in their prime here.

Again, that part's not true.

I laid out numerous reasons why Charles would beat Roy. I analyzed both guy's credentials and styles at this weight, and I even pointed to proof that Charles could beat someone with Roy's style/quality (while I haven't yet seen anyone point to any proof that Roy can beat someone with Charles' style/quality).

As for Roy's weight, I'm fully aware of what Roy weighed around the time he fought Ruiz. And like I said, that's simply NOT a career ruining jump. Other fighters bulk up and come back down like that with little or no problem. I wouldn't argue if you had said that he had to struggle to make weight the first time against Tarver, but to go so far as to say it "ruined" him for a four fight stretch is simply going way overboard. The simple fact that he fought his last fight around 168 with no problem is definite proof of that.

A far bigger factor in those losses is the simple fact that he was fighting two of the better fighters he's fought at light-heavy, and probably didn't realize it going in (almost certainly, he underestimated Johnson).

My2Sense wrote:

bjermaine wrote:
reports were that after the ruiz fight jones weighed 200 lbs and had 6 percent body fat after working with mackie shilstone. official fight weight was 193 for jones that night due to a commission error but right before the fight he was weighed again by the nsac and was 199. jones stayed around that weight because he was trying to get another fight at heavy. then went back down to 175, big mistake.

look if you think charles would beat jones, fine. but your argument just points to jones' three losses near the end of his career as why. you're ignoring the rest of his hall of fame, fighter of the decade career. i agree with you as far as a prime charles beats a post-heavyweight jones but we are talking about fighters in their prime here.

Again, that part's not true.

I laid out numerous reasons why Charles would beat Roy. I analyzed both guy's credentials and styles at this weight, and I even pointed to proof that Charles could beat someone with Roy's style/quality (while I haven't yet seen anyone point to any proof that Roy can beat someone with Charles' style/quality).

As for Roy's weight, I'm fully aware of what Roy weighed around the time he fought Ruiz. And like I said, that's simply NOT a career ruining jump. Other fighters bulk up and come back down like that with little or no problem. I wouldn't argue if you had said that he had to struggle to make weight the first time against Tarver, but to go so far as to say it "ruined" him for a four fight stretch is simply going way overboard. The simple fact that he fought his last fight around 168 with no problem is definite proof of that.

A far bigger factor in those losses is the simple fact that he was fighting two of the better fighters he's fought at light-heavy, and probably didn't realize it going in (almost certainly, he underestimated Johnson).

I mostly agree. I do feel Jones was feeling a little drained from the weight loss for the first Tarver fight. However, to use it as an excuse for any further losses just doesn't cut it. Foster went down from 188 vs Frazier to 174 vs Carroll in only 3 months, and that was during same-day weigh-ins. By contrast, Jones fought Tarver 8 months after he fought Ruiz.

Roy Jones, HOF career . . .certainly. Fighter of the 1990s . . .possibly but debatable.

dempseyfire wrote:

My2Sense wrote:

bjermaine wrote:
reports were that after the ruiz fight jones weighed 200 lbs and had 6 percent body fat after working with mackie shilstone. official fight weight was 193 for jones that night due to a commission error but right before the fight he was weighed again by the nsac and was 199. jones stayed around that weight because he was trying to get another fight at heavy. then went back down to 175, big mistake.

look if you think charles would beat jones, fine. but your argument just points to jones' three losses near the end of his career as why. you're ignoring the rest of his hall of fame, fighter of the decade career. i agree with you as far as a prime charles beats a post-heavyweight jones but we are talking about fighters in their prime here.

Again, that part's not true.

I laid out numerous reasons why Charles would beat Roy. I analyzed both guy's credentials and styles at this weight, and I even pointed to proof that Charles could beat someone with Roy's style/quality (while I haven't yet seen anyone point to any proof that Roy can beat someone with Charles' style/quality).

As for Roy's weight, I'm fully aware of what Roy weighed around the time he fought Ruiz. And like I said, that's simply NOT a career ruining jump. Other fighters bulk up and come back down like that with little or no problem. I wouldn't argue if you had said that he had to struggle to make weight the first time against Tarver, but to go so far as to say it "ruined" him for a four fight stretch is simply going way overboard. The simple fact that he fought his last fight around 168 with no problem is definite proof of that.

A far bigger factor in those losses is the simple fact that he was fighting two of the better fighters he's fought at light-heavy, and probably didn't realize it going in (almost certainly, he underestimated Johnson).

I mostly agree. I do feel Jones was feeling a little drained from the weight loss for the first Tarver fight. However, to use it as an excuse for any further losses just doesn't cut it. Foster went down from 188 vs Frazier to 174 vs Carroll in only 3 months, and that was during same-day weigh-ins. By contrast, Jones fought Tarver 8 months after he fought Ruiz.

Roy Jones, HOF career . . .certainly. Fighter of the 1990s . . .possibly but debatable.

we can compare weight numbers all day but this argument just takes eyes to see how he looked. he was taken to the hospital after the johnson fight not only for precautionary reasons after the ko but he was also severely dehydrated from trying to make weight.

if this were another fighter most people would say this is a valid reason for a poor performance. since this is jones we're talking about, a fighter that most people don't like, he gets judged differently.

jones won fighter of the decade from the boxing writers association of america. the same writers who hate him and have had mostly nothing but negative things to say about him still named him the best. whitaker and holyfield could have easily won that award as well. that is definitely debatable.

bjermaine wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

bjermaine wrote:


Again, that part's not true.

I laid out numerous reasons why Charles would beat Roy. I analyzed both guy's credentials and styles at this weight, and I even pointed to proof that Charles could beat someone with Roy's style/quality (while I haven't yet seen anyone point to any proof that Roy can beat someone with Charles' style/quality).

As for Roy's weight, I'm fully aware of what Roy weighed around the time he fought Ruiz. And like I said, that's simply NOT a career ruining jump. Other fighters bulk up and come back down like that with little or no problem. I wouldn't argue if you had said that he had to struggle to make weight the first time against Tarver, but to go so far as to say it "ruined" him for a four fight stretch is simply going way overboard. The simple fact that he fought his last fight around 168 with no problem is definite proof of that.

A far bigger factor in those losses is the simple fact that he was fighting two of the better fighters he's fought at light-heavy, and probably didn't realize it going in (almost certainly, he underestimated Johnson).

I mostly agree. I do feel Jones was feeling a little drained from the weight loss for the first Tarver fight. However, to use it as an excuse for any further losses just doesn't cut it. Foster went down from 188 vs Frazier to 174 vs Carroll in only 3 months, and that was during same-day weigh-ins. By contrast, Jones fought Tarver 8 months after he fought Ruiz.

Roy Jones, HOF career . . .certainly. Fighter of the 1990s . . .possibly but debatable.

if this were another fighter most people would say this is a valid reason for a poor performance. since this is jones we're talking about, a fighter that most people don't like, he gets judged differently.

.

This is where we disagree . . .can you think of any other fighter who's bad strectch of 4 fights over a 3 year time-span has been justified by one instance of dropping some muscle mass? I don't remember Bob Foster, Oscar De la Hoya, David Haye or a number of other fighters who've dropped down in weight and suddenly became knockout highlights.

The Johnson fight was over a YEAR AND A HALF after the Ruiz fight. You mean in that time-span his body couldn't re-adjust and he still couldn't drop down to 175? How on earth then did he, 4 years older and almost 40, get down to 169 vs Trinidad?

I think the fact that both Tarver and Johnson were better than anyone else Jones had faced at 175 makes more sense to the results than some 2 year condition from losing 20 lbs.

bjermaine wrote:

if this were another fighter most people would say this is a valid reason for a poor performance. since this is jones we're talking about, a fighter that most people don't like, he gets judged differently.

First of all, we're not talking about just "a" performance. If it was just one performance, you could probably get away with using that excuse (especially if Roy came back and beat the guy in a rematch).

But instead, we're talking about a total of FOUR fights, against the same two fighters. And a condition that somehow mysteriously vanishes as soon as he's not fighting those two guys.

Roy doesn't get judged differently than any other fighter in the universe. When another fighter gets beaten so decisively (as opposed to losing competitively) when so close to his prime, he gets it held against him. When another fighter has some glaring flaws/weaknesses revealed, people acknowledge them. And definitely no other fighter has been allowed to get away with the kind of excuse you're making for this kind of situation.

Heck, if anything, Roy gets off the hook for a lot of things that no other fighter does, because there's so many people who want to excuse him or just can't let go of their pre-conceived notions of him. The fact that people seem to think that there indeed has to be a "valid reason" for his losses (as opposed to just giving the other guy credit for being a better fighter, or at least having his number) is an indication of that. And the fact that those people inexplicably didn't provide those "valid reasons" of why he might lose BEFORE those fights (and instead bet him into incredible betting favorites) is further proof of how invalid they actually are.

And yes, Roy did perform poorly against Johnson. So does EVERY fighter in the history of the universe when he's being outclassed/overwhelmed. How many times have we seen one of Roy's opponents perform poorly when up against him? Does that mean they must have an excuse for not performing like they did, rather than giving Roy credit for doing what he did to shut them down?

"Ask Ezzard Charles whose best at Light Heavy
I'd hit him, knock him down like a levy
Y'all must've forgot!"

"I would've taken Ezzard Charles to school
With moves I stole from a pitbull
Y'all must've forgot!"

Diamond WEAPON wrote:"Ask Ezzard Charles whose best at Light Heavy
I'd hit him, knock him down like a levy
Y'all must've forgot!"

"I would've taken Ezzard Charles to school
With moves I stole from a pitbull
Y'all must've forgot!"

Just don't ever test my chin,
'Cause if you do you just might win!
Y'all must've forgot!

My2Sense wrote:it should be noted that Charley Burley was very similar to Roy in terms of style and ability

There are little if any similarities in styles between Jones and Burley, based on film or text. As for abilities, Burley was much slower (hands and reflexes), and didn't hit nearly as hard (due to early hand injuries).

My2Sense wrote:I certainly can believe that Roy was just starting his decline after the Ruiz fight, yes.

Anyone who has been watching his fights with enough attention, knows that Jones had been slowing down by Eric Harding fight already, his legs were no longer as nimble as they had been once. He started throwing one or two punches at a time, instead of combinations (at long range that is). Because his footwork (to put him into proper position, and then move out of danger, if necessary) and balance (needed to throw multi-punch power combo, as opposed to just a flurry) started detoriating.