BoxRec

My2Sense wrote:

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?

i've noticed when people on here write really long responses, they usually are stretching to make their points. i'll leave it like this so i don't hurt your feelings anymore. no matter what amount of bs you and me come up with, we'll never know who would win between the two but i disagree with almost every word you've written. senya13 looks like someone who actually followed jones' career.

Senya13 wrote:

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).

I don't know what films/text you used to judge Burley, but the first time I saw him fight, I immediately thought of Roy Jones.

He was fast, hit well, was elusive, and liked to dictate fights from the outside. IMO, that's a pretty fair summary of Roy's style/traits.

Contemporary accounts that I've read depict him as being notoriously elusive, and he could both box and punch.

I wouldn't argue that he may not have been absolutely exactly as fast as Roy (although the footage I've seen of him was from when he was supposedly slightly past his prime), but he was indeed genuinely fast.

I'm not familiar with the extent of Burley's hand problems, but there's no question the guy was capable of hitting hard. He dropped Archie Moore three times, and hit hard enough to drop someone who outweighed him by around 60/70 pounds (and stop him), and generally had some good knockouts against other good fighters. Roy had hand problems too on and off in his career, and there were times when he didn't look exposlive either (particularly as a light heavyweight).

I didn't say you couldn't find disparities between the styles/talents of Roy and Burley, but I don't agree they're enough to disqualify them as being made valid comparisons to each other.

Senya13 wrote:

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.

That's a very questionable statement. His footwork and combinations looked as fluid as ever against Ruiz, and that's despite fighting for the first time with an excess 15 pounds on him (and also fighting the biggest and one of the most potentially difficult opponents of his career). He also did a better job of avoiding jabs in that fight than he had done in other fights prior to that.

It wasn't uncommon for Roy not to open up with combinations until after he had broken open his opponent's defense. He never really opened up Harding's defense, which never gave him the openings that he likes to have before really letting his hands go. Both Harding and also Harmon (in his next fight) were considered more awkward/skilled defensive fighters than he had been shining against lately (ie: Telesco, Hall). The guys he had been fighting just before that, he could simply tee off on as he pleased.

Ironically, it was the people who paid the closest attention to Roy's fights that gave him the most praise and the highest P4P rating of his career after beating Ruiz, which directly contradicts the notion that he was already well into decline by then (or at least, that they were fully aware of it).

There is only one film of Burley, that I know of, vs Billy Smith (April 1946). I also have two Burley's bios, by Otty and by Rosenfeld. On film he didn't remind me of Jones, although he uses somewhat similar approach to late Jones, with one or two punches at a time (no combinations), in and out movement, or closing in and clinching, but those are common things used by many boxers, so I see no reason to think of Jones in particular upon seeing it. I'd even say late B-Hop suits this kind of style better. Burley also was using his jab more often than Jones, although it's also a range-finder more than a punching punch (he also had a somewhat strange habbit of jumping up before every jab. Burley was fast, but not exceptionally fast, he didn't stand out that much, like Jones. Some may say Burley was past his prime for this fight, but he was only 28 years old, and reflexes and handspeed at this age don't start detoriating yet, it begins after 30 for most men.
In the 6th round Burley shows a bit of Whitaker/Locche kind of defense, but this only for a few seconds. Burley is not as good a master of parrying punches, or using upper body movement to avoid getting hit, as Jones was (this is relative comparison, I'm not saying Burley didn't have such skills, he did, just not as good as Roy). He controls the distance, stepping sideways or backward to avoid getting hit, or comes into clinch, for defense, but there he also doesn't show the things Roy uses with his rolling with punches and putting his head on opponent's shoulder to avoid getting hit to the head, and moving to the sides and up and down in accordance with opponent's attacks, and leaning away for a second to throw a few counter, none of that from Burley, he just clutches Smith as tight as he can.

Burley broke his hands several times, but his management didn't give him time to rest and heal his injuries, which made problems with his hands chronic. Jones didn't have troubles as serious as that.

Against Ruiz, Roy was standing right in front of the opponent, he wasn't moving around the ring much, except a couple of episodes in the 1st round, and a short jogging session in the 12th round. And he wasn't throwing combinations, only one or two punches at a time. In the Harding fight, I don't recall which round it was exactly, but there was a moment similar to one where Tarver stopped Jones, Roy finished his attack and stood still, in front of the opponent, in no position to sidestep or step back. Or recall how Hopkins dropped Tarver, Roy was in similar position, and this was the first time in the Harding fight that I've seen him make such mistake. Roy started fighting in spurts and throwing one or two punches at a time more and more from around 2000, he was throwing combinations more often before that.

I don't know what other fights before Ruiz you mean where Jones was worse at avoiding jabs, he was a master of that from the beginning, rarely if ever hit by jabs cleanly/flush, where his head would twitch from the impact of a punch. Reggie Johnson fight was slightly over a year prior to Harding fight, and Reggie had good defense also, although not as awkward as Harding, but you can clearly see the difference in footwork when moving in for attack and moving out of danger, against Harding and from then on, Roy was fighting flat-footed more and more often.

What other people were saying, I have little idea, but that he was slowing down was pretty clear on film. One has to consider that Roy already was fighting above his natural weight at 175lb, where opponents are slower on average than he'd be facing at 168lb. This somewhat veiled his slowing down with age. When he stepped up to heavyweight, that meant his opponents would be even slower, than he was facing at light heavyweight. See Chris Byrd, how he looked fast at heavyweight division, but he was really slow at light heavyweight (and this was not just a matter of weight, in 1995 Byrd met with Arthur Williams at heavyweight limit, whereas Williams was really only a cruiserweight, with good speed, and Chris didn't look that impressive against him, because he didn't have as big an edge in speed as he got used to afterwards vs natural heavyweights.

Senya13 wrote:There is only one film of Burley, that I know of, vs Billy Smith (April 1946). I also have two Burley's bios, by Otty and by Rosenfeld. On film he didn't remind me of Jones, although he uses somewhat similar approach to late Jones, with one or two punches at a time (no combinations), in and out movement, or closing in and clinching, but those are common things used by many boxers, so I see no reason to think of Jones in particular upon seeing it. I'd even say late B-Hop suits this kind of style better. Burley also was using his jab more often than Jones, although it's also a range-finder more than a punching punch (he also had a somewhat strange habbit of jumping up before every jab. Burley was fast, but not exceptionally fast, he didn't stand out that much, like Jones. Some may say Burley was past his prime for this fight, but he was only 28 years old, and reflexes and handspeed at this age don't start detoriating yet, it begins after 30 for most men.
In the 6th round Burley shows a bit of Whitaker/Locche kind of defense, but this only for a few seconds. Burley is not as good a master of parrying punches, or using upper body movement to avoid getting hit, as Jones was (this is relative comparison, I'm not saying Burley didn't have such skills, he did, just not as good as Roy). He controls the distance, stepping sideways or backward to avoid getting hit, or comes into clinch, for defense, but there he also doesn't show the things Roy uses with his rolling with punches and putting his head on opponent's shoulder to avoid getting hit to the head, and moving to the sides and up and down in accordance with opponent's attacks, and leaning away for a second to throw a few counter, none of that from Burley, he just clutches Smith as tight as he can.

Burley broke his hands several times, but his management didn't give him time to rest and heal his injuries, which made problems with his hands chronic. Jones didn't have troubles as serious as that.

Against Ruiz, Roy was standing right in front of the opponent, he wasn't moving around the ring much, except a couple of episodes in the 1st round, and a short jogging session in the 12th round. And he wasn't throwing combinations, only one or two punches at a time. In the Harding fight, I don't recall which round it was exactly, but there was a moment similar to one where Tarver stopped Jones, Roy finished his attack and stood still, in front of the opponent, in no position to sidestep or step back. Or recall how Hopkins dropped Tarver, Roy was in similar position, and this was the first time in the Harding fight that I've seen him make such mistake. Roy started fighting in spurts and throwing one or two punches at a time more and more from around 2000, he was throwing combinations more often before that.

I don't know what other fights before Ruiz you mean where Jones was worse at avoiding jabs, he was a master of that from the beginning, rarely if ever hit by jabs cleanly/flush, where his head would twitch from the impact of a punch. Reggie Johnson fight was slightly over a year prior to Harding fight, and Reggie had good defense also, although not as awkward as Harding, but you can clearly see the difference in footwork when moving in for attack and moving out of danger, against Harding and from then on, Roy was fighting flat-footed more and more often.

What other people were saying, I have little idea, but that he was slowing down was pretty clear on film. One has to consider that Roy already was fighting above his natural weight at 175lb, where opponents are slower on average than he'd be facing at 168lb. This somewhat veiled his slowing down with age. When he stepped up to heavyweight, that meant his opponents would be even slower, than he was facing at light heavyweight. See Chris Byrd, how he looked fast at heavyweight division, but he was really slow at light heavyweight (and this was not just a matter of weight, in 1995 Byrd met with Arthur Williams at heavyweight limit, whereas Williams was really only a cruiserweight, with good speed, and Chris didn't look that impressive against him, because he didn't have as big an edge in speed as he got used to afterwards vs natural heavyweights.

Although this seems to be a pretty well developed and detailed argument, it's based a lot on inferences rather than what actually is.

For example, you inferred that Burley could not have been that big of a puncher because of his reported hand injuries. Whether or not Burley lived up to his fullest potential as a puncher, no one could ever truly know except himself. Yet the fact remains that whatever potential hinderences he might have had, he was always known/feared as a big puncher throughout his career. And at the time he fought Charles, he was hitting the hardest of his career, with 15 stoppages in his last 18 wins. Only about a month before fighting Charles, he had dropped a heavyweight (JD Turner) who outweighed him by about 70 poinds, and with a single punch.


Likewise, you inferred that Roy must have been declining because he wasn't using his footwork/combos in certain fights as much as in other fights in his career. But in the times when Roy laid off on his combos/footwork, he was sitting down on his punches and getting better placement and power on them. He also made more deliberate efforts to work the body as his career progressed. That's more indicative of adjustments or improvements rather than a decline.

Roy was always inconsistent with the extent to which he used his combos/footwork at light-heavy. It varied depending on the style of opponent, and simply how much Roy cared in a particular fight. Yes, he used them a lot against Reggie Johnson, but in other instances before that, not so much.

He used combos a lot against McCallum and in the 1st Griffin fight, but used largely single shots to beat Griffin (in the rematch) and Hill. But which were his better performances? The 1st Griffin fight was probably his worst pre-Tarver performance ever, and the McCallum fight was one of his less exceptional performances at light-heavy. Conversely, the Griffin and Hill KOs were probably his two best performances at the weight. In both fights, he limited his movement and use of combos, and sat down more on his single punches. Both KOs came from single punches. Roy himself admitted that he fell in love with bodypunching after the Hill KO, and he deliberately increased his use of it as his career went on. His wins over Woods and Ruiz showed some of his best body work of his career.

The jab was a punch that Roy always showed some vulnerability to, at least at light-heavy. See his fights with McCallum, Griffin, Woods, and Glen Johnson, and to a lesser extent, Hill. Normally when pressured by jabs, he stood straight up and backed straight up, and was often forced to the ropes just by jabs. The Ruiz fight was the first time I've ever really seen him excell at getting under and around jabs rather than have his game disrupted by them.

Also, contrary to what your post says, Roy's head movement and upper body movement was not always that good for much of his career. That was made apparent in the 1st Griffin fight, when Roy stood straight up and was a sitting duck for a lot of looping punches that Griffin threw. Roy's head movement actually was better later in his light-heavy reign and was probably at its peak against Ruiz. Even in his loss to Glen Johnson, Roy did a better job of slipping and swaying on the ropes to get away from punches than he had back in his prime against Griffin.

As for Roy's technical flaws/mistakes, he always had some. He may not have always made the one particular mistake you saw him make against Tarver and Harding, but he had others that were just as obvious and made him look just as vulnerable. The "mistake" that got him tagged against Tarver never stood out as being much worse/different than others he made throughout his career.


A lot of the differences you're pointing to in regard to Burley's and Roy's techniques are really minor technical differences. It would be like saying Jake LaMotta and Carmen Basilio have totally incomparable styles based on some technical differences between their styles. If Charles had only beat Burley closely, say, then differences like that could become decisive factors. But he didn't, Charles dominated Burley with ease twice.

my2sense aren't you saying that the reason charles would beat jones is because his style was like burley's? isn't that an inference? the whole argument for either fighter in this mythical match-up is made from inferences. the only facts that would come from this is if they actually fought. doesn't it matter that charles was a bigger fighter than burley? that wouldn't be the case with jones.

the worst thing you wrote is that jones was better at slipping punches against glen johnson than he was against griffin. the johnson performance was equivalent to ali's performance against holmes. it was pitiful and sad to watch. we're talking about prime vs prime here for both fighters.

bjermaine wrote:my2sense aren't you saying that the reason charles would beat jones is because his style was like burley's? isn't that an inference? the whole argument for either fighter in this mythical match-up is made from inferences. the only facts that would come from this is if they actually fought. doesn't it matter that charles was a bigger fighter than burley? that wouldn't be the case with jones.

Actually, it was several posters who were favoring Roy that wanted to see a fight where Charles fought (and handled) someone similar to Roy. So I gave them one (two, actually)

If you go back to my orginal post, I probably mentioned about 10 or so reasons why Charles would have to be favored over Roy. Roy's likeness to Burley was just one, and not even one of the biggest ones. I only mentioned it at the end, almost as an aside.

Either way, there's a difference between predicting a hypothetical matchup (as I was doing) and making a factual statement on a fighter's real life career (as Senya did).

bjermaine wrote:the worst thing you wrote is that jones was better at slipping punches against glen johnson than he was against griffin. the johnson performance was equivalent to ali's performance against holmes. it was pitiful and sad to watch. we're talking about prime vs prime here for both fighters.

Really? Go back to page 4 on this thread. Senya himself (who YOU applauded as being very familiar with Roy) pointed out Roy's defense against Johnson, and even argued that it wasn't an out and out beating (unlike Ali-Holmes).

But when I refer to the same thing, you criticize me for it?

he just said that johnson was not landing all of his punches. the idea of someone using that fight as a reason on why anyone would beat jones in his prime is comical.

i went back on page 4 and saw some of the morons who posted there saying marcel cerdan would beat jones. that is some of the funniest crap i've ever read. my2sense, i don't agree with much you write but at least you try to put up a decent and reasonable argument. i'd like to see how much these clowns would wager on that fight if it ever took place, since they're so sure cerdan would win.

bjermaine wrote:i went back on page 4 and saw some of the morons who posted there saying marcel cerdan would beat jones. that is some of the funniest crap i've ever read. my2sense, i don't agree with much you write but at least you try to put up a decent and reasonable argument. i'd like to see how much these clowns would wager on that fight if it ever took place, since they're so sure cerdan would win.

Don't forget Marcel beat Bert which is a better result than anything Jones came up with!

bjermaine wrote:he just said that johnson was not landing all of his punches.

He did more than just that. He was very vehemently insisting that the fight was not a one-sided beating and that Jones was still in it prior to the knockout (which I personally don't agree with), and that Jones was doing a good job of keeping Johnson from landing cleanly with the majority of his punches (which I believe was somewhat true, but to a lesser extent). He even pointed to punch stats and scorecards to illustrate his point.

the idea of someone using that fight as a reason on why anyone would beat jones in his prime is comical.

Even if it was Johnson fighting him in his prime?

It just isn't normal that a fighter gets beaten so soundly by a fighter he could've beaten a year or two earlier. There has to be some kind of stylistic problem a fighter like Johnson poses for him too.

The only possible excuse Jones could have, is that the KO by Tarver just so completely, utterly ruined him. But even there, the possibility that he was ruined by just a single punch has to raise questions about his mental and physical toughness.

You make it sound as if the more decisively a fighter loses, the less it should be held against him because there has to be a reason/excuse. That isn't a fair way of judging fights at all, for both the winner or the loser.

1. It is all relative, who's a harder hitter. Burley was a lesser hitter than Jones. I didn't say "Burley could not have been that big of a puncher". You have to look for particular of who scored how many knockouts in last how many bouts. That Charles was dropped multiple times by several of his opponents. Did Burley repeat that? Holman Williams lasted the distance both times. Only the KO10 over Shorty Hogue means something among his fights during that period, but Hogue was stopped in almost all his losses. I've always been saying that KO wins by smaller world-class fighters over heavyweight tomato-cans mean little. When the difference in class is that immense, it loses any significance. When a smaller man is able to KO another world-class fighter, with solid chin, then we can say he's must be really a puncher. Even Cory Spinks could score a stoppage against somebody of as low class as that.

2. Jones did adjust to fighting at heavier weight, than was his best. But there was more than just adjustment, there was natural gradual loss of speed, and detoriating body coordination, also natural, due to aging. You often hear fighters or other sportsmen tell that they knew what they were supposed to do, but their body didn't react to commands from brain fast enough or at all. And the combinations Roy was putting together in his best years were such that required ultra-precise coordination. But at some point he must have realized it himself, that he was slipping, that's when he concentrated on body and single punches (or a one-two) more and more. Foot-work was essential also, and you can clearly see the difference between the way he was moving around against Del Valle, Johnson, even Hall, but after that - stationary and flat-footed more and more time. He adjusted to the fact that he was no longer as light on his feet the same way how he adjusted to his punches having lesser effect at 175lb or his hands being no longer as fast (it's relative, again, he was still ultra-fast, but he was slower than a younger version of himself). That doesn't deny the fact that he did start to move downhill, and the first signs of that which I have seen particularly alarming, began in Harding fight, not against Griffin, not the KD against Del Valle, but in Harding fight, even if they appeared only in episodes.

3. Lets separate two kinds of vulnerability to jab.
First - getting hit by jab. In this department, based on all I've seen on film, Jones was the best boxer in history bar none. Even at 36 years, the way he was making Tarver miss a dozen jabs in a row, while standing flat-footed in front of him or by the ropes, was quite impressive. Despite what the compubox stats say, Tarver was able to land cleanly with a jab only a few times during 12 rounds, you can count them on the fingers of your hands. The same story applies to the rest of his career, at times you'll have a hard time to recall a single clean flush jab from his opponent during the whole fight.
Second - allowing the opponent to dictate the pace and generally control the fight with a jab. Here normal rules don't quite apply to Jones, because he liked to go to the ropes, ever since his amateur days, he often willingly went there or didn't avoid going there. If you compare 1st Tarver fight with 1.5 rounds of the 2nd, no matter how Tarver tried to put Jones to the ropes during those one and a half rounds, he couldn't do it even once. If Roy doesn't want to go there, you will have a very hard time to make him retreat there. In his next fight, against Glen Johnson, Roy didn't even attempt to get away from the ropes during the whole fight. Even when Johnson was standing several feet away from him and just staring at him, undesided what to do, Roy just stood there and didn't try to go around and to the center of the ring. When Griffin tried to repeat in the rematch what he did in their original meeting, Jones didn't step back from jabs, but stood behind the block and walked forward, pushing Griffin back.

4. First Griffin fight, Montell almost didn't land any clean punches to the head, he had his most success with flurries to the body instead. I watched several rounds of that fight in slow-motion, because Jones' head defense can be very subtle at times. Most of those "looping" punches either missed or very partially blocked, slipped, rolled with. Roy often allowed you to go to the body, but to the head few if any punches land with any damage.

5. The issue of his flaws/mistakes is way overrated, people like to concentrate on this or that, but totally ignore: a) Jones stylistic habits; b) effectiveness and versatility of his defensive arsenal. The same thing is with Tarver's punch, the only "mistake" Jones did there was not very careful placement of his feet (same as in Harding fight, or examples from Tarver against Hopkins and Reggie Johnson fights, when Antonio was knocked down). The rest Roy did the right thing - with his right hand covered his head and part of the body against left cross or left hook. Had Tarver not instinctively made a wide diagonal step forward and to the right, his punch would land on Jones' glove without any damage.

6. As I said, it is on film that there are few similarities between Burley and Jones. The differences are not minor. It's like saying Jones is fighting the same way as Zab Judah or Naseem Hamed, because all of them used speed and reflexes a lot. There are way too many differences between Jones' set of styles (he could fight in several different ways) and Burley's style.

My2Sense wrote:There has to be some kind of stylistic problem a fighter like Johnson poses for him too.

There were two fights after that, against even older Jones, where his opponents chose similar tactics to that of Glen Johnson. The only difference between the fights was against Glen Roy was almost not throwing anything in return, whereas against Ajamu and Hanshaw he was throwing a lot more punches. Stylistically both fights were carbon copies of Glen Johnson fight. Not to forget Merqui Sosa fight, who tried to work even rawer than Glen Johnson did later, but got manhandled himself. In his prime Roy ate such fighters for breakfast.

For anyone who doubts Roy Jones Jr.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW_Licy9Tj8

My2Sense wrote:

bjermaine wrote:he just said that johnson was not landing all of his punches.

He did more than just that. He was very vehemently insisting that the fight was not a one-sided beating and that Jones was still in it prior to the knockout (which I personally don't agree with), and that Jones was doing a good job of keeping Johnson from landing cleanly with the majority of his punches (which I believe was somewhat true, but to a lesser extent). He even pointed to punch stats and scorecards to illustrate his point.

the idea of someone using that fight as a reason on why anyone would beat jones in his prime is comical.

Even if it was Johnson fighting him in his prime?

It just isn't normal that a fighter gets beaten so soundly by a fighter he could've beaten a year or two earlier. There has to be some kind of stylistic problem a fighter like Johnson poses for him too.

The only possible excuse Jones could have, is that the KO by Tarver just so completely, utterly ruined him. But even there, the possibility that he was ruined by just a single punch has to raise questions about his mental and physical toughness.

You make it sound as if the more decisively a fighter loses, the less it should be held against him because there has to be a reason/excuse. That isn't a fair way of judging fights at all, for both the winner or the loser.

This is what stands against Jones IMO. He folded so badly against Johnson. He looked scared and just had no answers. Yes, he was past his prime... I'm not holding it against him in terms of his resume but I do think it's salient in terms of an obvious flaw in his character. This is why I can't pick him in those fantasy 175 match ups against the cream of the division.

Great ability but not top of the pyramid...

Ezzard wrote:This is what stands against Jones IMO. He folded so badly against Johnson. He looked scared and just had no answers. Yes, he was past his prime... I'm not holding it against him in terms of his resume but I do think it's salient in terms of an obvious flaw in his character. This is why I can't pick him in those fantasy 175 match ups against the cream of the division.

Great ability but not top of the pyramid...

it's an obvious flaw in character because you think jones looked scared that night? the guy looked like he was going to die in his corner before the 9th round and still came out to try and fight. he was taken to the hospital after the fight for severe dehydration (as well as the severe ko). this is boxing, the toughest sport in the world. that's like saying ali didn't have any heart because he covered up in fear from holmes.

jones at his best was just too good. there's a reason he was named fighter of the decade and was pound for pound the best fighter for the better part of a decade. his career is still not over. he could do what i thought would be impossible after the johnson fight and actually get his title back. he will be 2 months short of his 40 if he fights calzaghe but he's looked better as of late. he'll have a shot because of his speed and the fact that he's fighting a very weak champion who is later in his career as well. it would be something if he could regain the title after all that's happened in the past 5 years.

bjermaine wrote:

Ezzard wrote:This is what stands against Jones IMO. He folded so badly against Johnson. He looked scared and just had no answers. Yes, he was past his prime... I'm not holding it against him in terms of his resume but I do think it's salient in terms of an obvious flaw in his character. This is why I can't pick him in those fantasy 175 match ups against the cream of the division.

Great ability but not top of the pyramid...

it's an obvious flaw in character because you think jones looked scared that night? the guy looked like he was going to die in his corner before the 9th round and still came out to try and fight. he was taken to the hospital after the fight for severe dehydration (as well as the severe ko). this is boxing, the toughest sport in the world. that's like saying ali didn't have any heart because he covered up in fear from holmes.

jones at his best was just too good. there's a reason he was named fighter of the decade and was pound for pound the best fighter for the better part of a decade. his career is still not over. he could do what i thought would be impossible after the johnson fight and actually get his title back. he will be 2 months short of his 40 if he fights calzaghe but he's looked better as of late. he'll have a shot because of his speed and the fact that he's fighting a very weak champion who is later in his career as well. it would be something if he could regain the title after all that's happened in the past 5 years.

We interpret it different and I won't continue to beat the same drum... IMO Jones was a great fighter but untested. I always wait to pass judegment until i've seen a fighter put into a losing situation. This is becasue guys like Whittaker, Jones, Ray Leonard etc... hardly lose a round in many of their fights. But when you put them in with greats in any fantasy match up nobody will have it their own way to the same extent. Pernell and Ray lasted the furnace and the anvil... Few tested Jones in his prime but the quality was not high. Ezzard Charles was tested against possibly the greatest set of fighters ever on one record. We know how he responds... When we finally saw Roy respond it told me he was a front runner... A rabbit staring into the headlights... A great fighter, loads of ability, but everyone has their weaknesses.

Jones was in very bad shape and taking some beating on the ropes in 1st Tarver fight, but gathered all his strength and went to win the last two championship rounds. He was almost knocked down and badly hurt in the 3rd Tarver fight, but came back and chased Tarver around the ring until the final bell (that is, in the last, 12th round he was walking forward about 2 minutes, taking some break the other minute).

Senya13 wrote:1. It is all relative, who's a harder hitter. Burley was a lesser hitter than Jones. I didn't say "Burley could not have been that big of a puncher". You have to look for particular of who scored how many knockouts in last how many bouts. That Charles was dropped multiple times by several of his opponents. Did Burley repeat that? Holman Williams lasted the distance both times. Only the KO10 over Shorty Hogue means something among his fights during that period, but Hogue was stopped in almost all his losses. I've always been saying that KO wins by smaller world-class fighters over heavyweight tomato-cans mean little. When the difference in class is that immense, it loses any significance. When a smaller man is able to KO another world-class fighter, with solid chin, then we can say he's must be really a puncher. Even Cory Spinks could score a stoppage against somebody of as low class as that.

2. Jones did adjust to fighting at heavier weight, than was his best. But there was more than just adjustment, there was natural gradual loss of speed, and detoriating body coordination, also natural, due to aging. You often hear fighters or other sportsmen tell that they knew what they were supposed to do, but their body didn't react to commands from brain fast enough or at all. And the combinations Roy was putting together in his best years were such that required ultra-precise coordination. But at some point he must have realized it himself, that he was slipping, that's when he concentrated on body and single punches (or a one-two) more and more. Foot-work was essential also, and you can clearly see the difference between the way he was moving around against Del Valle, Johnson, even Hall, but after that - stationary and flat-footed more and more time. He adjusted to the fact that he was no longer as light on his feet the same way how he adjusted to his punches having lesser effect at 175lb or his hands being no longer as fast (it's relative, again, he was still ultra-fast, but he was slower than a younger version of himself). That doesn't deny the fact that he did start to move downhill, and the first signs of that which I have seen particularly alarming, began in Harding fight, not against Griffin, not the KD against Del Valle, but in Harding fight, even if they appeared only in episodes.

3. Lets separate two kinds of vulnerability to jab.
First - getting hit by jab. In this department, based on all I've seen on film, Jones was the best boxer in history bar none. Even at 36 years, the way he was making Tarver miss a dozen jabs in a row, while standing flat-footed in front of him or by the ropes, was quite impressive. Despite what the compubox stats say, Tarver was able to land cleanly with a jab only a few times during 12 rounds, you can count them on the fingers of your hands. The same story applies to the rest of his career, at times you'll have a hard time to recall a single clean flush jab from his opponent during the whole fight.
Second - allowing the opponent to dictate the pace and generally control the fight with a jab. Here normal rules don't quite apply to Jones, because he liked to go to the ropes, ever since his amateur days, he often willingly went there or didn't avoid going there. If you compare 1st Tarver fight with 1.5 rounds of the 2nd, no matter how Tarver tried to put Jones to the ropes during those one and a half rounds, he couldn't do it even once. If Roy doesn't want to go there, you will have a very hard time to make him retreat there. In his next fight, against Glen Johnson, Roy didn't even attempt to get away from the ropes during the whole fight. Even when Johnson was standing several feet away from him and just staring at him, undesided what to do, Roy just stood there and didn't try to go around and to the center of the ring. When Griffin tried to repeat in the rematch what he did in their original meeting, Jones didn't step back from jabs, but stood behind the block and walked forward, pushing Griffin back.

4. First Griffin fight, Montell almost didn't land any clean punches to the head, he had his most success with flurries to the body instead. I watched several rounds of that fight in slow-motion, because Jones' head defense can be very subtle at times. Most of those "looping" punches either missed or very partially blocked, slipped, rolled with. Roy often allowed you to go to the body, but to the head few if any punches land with any damage.

5. The issue of his flaws/mistakes is way overrated, people like to concentrate on this or that, but totally ignore: a) Jones stylistic habits; b) effectiveness and versatility of his defensive arsenal. The same thing is with Tarver's punch, the only "mistake" Jones did there was not very careful placement of his feet (same as in Harding fight, or examples from Tarver against Hopkins and Reggie Johnson fights, when Antonio was knocked down). The rest Roy did the right thing - with his right hand covered his head and part of the body against left cross or left hook. Had Tarver not instinctively made a wide diagonal step forward and to the right, his punch would land on Jones' glove without any damage.

6. As I said, it is on film that there are few similarities between Burley and Jones. The differences are not minor. It's like saying Jones is fighting the same way as Zab Judah or Naseem Hamed, because all of them used speed and reflexes a lot. There are way too many differences between Jones' set of styles (he could fight in several different ways) and Burley's style.

Many of your points contradict each other.

For example, you claim Roy's style as being so absolutely unique, as if otherwordly, that you can't hold it to the same expectations/criticisms as those of most others fighters (and there probably is some truth in that, though I don't believe to the degree that you're saying). But if that's the case, then how can you attempt to differentiate between what among his moves are deliberate and what are really unintended "mistakes"? By and large, almost everything he did at light-heavyweight pre-Tarver was effective, so if you consider being effective as a legitimate reason for an unorthadox move, then you can pretty much justify any of his moves.

The same goes for what you're saying should be read as sings of decline. How can you differentiate between what is a deliberate style adjustment by Roy and what is a result from natural speed loss, when he's still just as effective either way? When Roy KO'd Griffin, he fought probably the most immobile fight of his career (even moreso than in his later fights with Harding, Harmon, etc.), and he threw little or no combos whatsover. He also was more wide open than he's ever been, and Griffin even managed to catch him coming straight in with 3 or 4 clean, solid punches just in that brief span of time between the two knockdowns (and if Griffin had been a puncher on Tarver's or even Glen Johnson's level, it's very possibly it would've been Roy who ended up on the canvas in the first round). This fight is generally considered probably Roy's best performance at light-heavy. And yet, if the fight had happened five or so years later, you could point to everything I mentioned above and offer it as proof that Roy was on the decline.

In order to say a fighter is in decline, there has to be a clear drop off in his performance or effectiveness. But as wins over Griffin and others proved, there was something to be gained for Roy when he sat down and put more power into single punches.

It seems to me that Roy was always eyeing an eventual move up to heavyweight (which he often said was a goal of his), and tailored his style and performances to prepare for that. That would seem to coincide with the fact that he turned down opportunities to move up to heavy much sooner, plus he appeared to get bigger and stronger at light-heavy as his career went on. When he did finally move up, he did everything he was supposed to do to dominate a much bigger fighter who was considered a legitimate threat. I don't see how anyone could seriously find fault with his performance. His effectiveness in that fight shocked many people, even some who picked him to win. The very things that you point to as signs of decline were his keys to victory in this fight. He didn't back straight up from Ruiz's jab, he ducked and weaved around it. Then he planted his feet and smashed his face in, which got Ruiz's respect and made him tentative about going forward (conversely, the flashy flurries he threw against McCallum and Griffin failed to get either one's respect). Whether or not you think Roy really had very subtle, nearly invisible defensive moves all along, the fact remains that his head movement was markedly quicker and better than it was a few years earlier, and his movements overall (however he used them) were still as fluid as ever. And that's despite the fact that he was fighting with an extra 15 or so pounds on him that he's never fought with before. Aging/declining fighters generally adjust (let along improve) so readily to a move up to a new weight like that.

There's a reason Roy was given his most solid ever rating at the top of the P4P charts (and an endless amount of praise on top of it) following the Ruiz fight. Almost everyone generally agreed that it was one of his very best performances ever in arguably his biggest fight ever. How is it a fighter who is steep into a "particularly alarming" decline as you put it, gets rated higher than ever before like that? How is it that he's suddenly being discussed for a possible big fight with Lennox Lewis, something that no one had ever seriously considered him in before that? Nor does it make sense that he would then be considered such a surefire favorite to beat Tarver easily in his next fight (and a big favorite in his next two fights after that). That Tarver even gave Roy such a good fight was considered a big upset in itself. None of these facts support what you're saying about an "alarming" decline from Roy.

Furthermore, Roy was not one of the best fighters ever at avoiding jabs. The best fighters are the ones whose ability is so plainly obvious, compubox would never be "fooled" (as you're apprently claiming) into thinking he was being hit by jabs in the first place. Likewise, there are fighters that simply would never have been hit by any jabs from someone as physically outreached as Griffin was against Roy.

Dealing with jabs was always considered one of Roy's weaker points, ever since the McCallum fight. McCallum gave him one of his toughest pre-Griffin fights (perhaps second only to Hopkins) almost entirely off the jab. Roy was not able to control the fight in the center of the ring as he initially set out to do, and because he was backed straight up by the jab, he was made to miss wildly at times over the first half of the fight (going out on a limb, I would guess he probably missed more often in that fight than in any previous fight, except maybe Hopkins). You’re not seriously going to claim that he was deliberately being inaccurate as part of some grand unorthodox plan, are you? And if that’s not true, there's no denying that Roy’s game was disrupted by McCallum's jab.

It's interesting that you scoffed at using compubox to prove the accuracy of Roy's opponents, yet earlier in this thread you offered up compubox several times as proof of the inaccuracy of Roy's opponents, and used it to make several other points as well.

Also, whenever the matter of Roy's skills is debated, you've insisted on watching his moves in slow motion and giving them ultra careful analysis, and you try to point out tiny, barely visible moves that you say are actually defensively brilliant. Yet when Charles' skills were discussed earlier in the thread, you merely dismissed them as being nothing special, without any of the in depth, ultra careful analysis you gave to Roy's skills. Surely if you can uncover things Roy did in his just so-so performances against McCallum and Griffin to be impressed with, you can certainly find no shortage of the same sort of things that Charles used to shut down and control fighters like Lloyd Marshall and Jimmy Bivins.

Moreover, you could basically over-analyze just about any fighter's moves the way you've done with Roy's and exaggerate the importance/effectiveness of what he's doing. When Griffin landed on Roy's head and chin, his head clearly was snapped back by the punches, and even the sweat went spraying off his head a couple of times. In any other situation, Griffin would be given credit for landing clean, solid punches. If a guy's efforts to deflect punches like those aren't just plainly obvious, then they almost certainly aren't enough to diminish the force of the blows.

Also, I don't agree that Roy had a "set of styles" as you claim. That's also an exaggeration. Roy had one fundamental style and varied that depending on the situation and the opponent, but varying your style and having a totally different style are not the same thing. Roy almost always looked to box his opponent from the outside and avoid inside exchanges. Sometimes he would go to the ropes, but he would usually cover up and wait for the opponent to stop punching before he would throw punches himself. If he sensed weakness in the opponent, he would go the for KO, but he usually waited for that opportunity to come rather than push for it. He was not the kind of fighter like, say, Kid Gavilan, who could bob-and-weave, go forward and work the inside, just as well as he could box from the outside, if the situation called for it. That's why he was so impotent against Glen Johnson, despite the fact that other fighters who weren't at their best (ie: Merqui Sosa, Omar Sheika) were able to beat him simply by going on the attack and pressuring him on the inside.


As far as Burley goes, I won't argue that Roy may well have had an edge in power. But again, there isn't any concrete evidence to show any great disparity in their powers. It's true that Burley didn't stop Williams in the two times they fought just prior to Charles, but he did stop him immediately after the fights with Charles, and Williams was notoriously difficult to stop, despite having a long career against a lot of big punchers. Burley went on to stop Jack Chase twice, another top fighter who was notoriously difficult to stop, and then there was his multiple knockdowns against Archie Moore, who Marciano had to hit with everything but the kitchen sink before finally putting him away. You pointed to Burley's failure to drop Charles as an argument against his power, but that could just as well be an indication of how well Charles shut him down, which most accounts agree was the case.

Also, I wasn't claiming that Burley stopping heavyweights in itself offered proof that he had power on Roy's level, but the fact that he could drop one that outweighed him by about 70 pounds does suggest that. That's not something that Corey Spinks or a ton of other fighters could be expected to do.

Senya13 wrote:

My2Sense wrote:There has to be some kind of stylistic problem a fighter like Johnson poses for him too.

There were two fights after that, against even older Jones, where his opponents chose similar tactics to that of Glen Johnson. The only difference between the fights was against Glen Roy was almost not throwing anything in return, whereas against Ajamu and Hanshaw he was throwing a lot more punches. Stylistically both fights were carbon copies of Glen Johnson fight. Not to forget Merqui Sosa fight, who tried to work even rawer than Glen Johnson did later, but got manhandled himself. In his prime Roy ate such fighters for breakfast.

Choosing similar tactics as another fighter and actually being that kind of fighter are two different things.

Johnson was almost certainly the best pressure fighter and infighter that Roy ever fought at light-heavy. Almost every light-heavy that tried to match Johnson on the inside got outfought there (including Julio Gonzales, despite the fact that he was given a bullsh*t decision). Many of the other fighters who tried to pressure Roy were either departing from their usual styles, or simply had no clear cut style to speak of in the first place.

It's true that Sosa (a genuine pressure fighter) worked Roy "rawer" than Johnson did, but that was arguably a detriment to him rather than a plus. Johnson kept his hands up and made a concentrated effort to pick off punches on his way in, and he used his jab to stop Roy from getting off. Sosa came in wide open and although he was able to get to Roy, he left far more openings than Johnson did for Roy to fire back. More importantly, Roy was still a super-middleweight then, and as I pointed out earlier, he was markedly better and more explosive at that weight than he was above it (conversely, Charles got better when he moved up to light-heavy and was at his peak there). Below light-heavy, Roy did "eat up" fighters who tried to pressure him (ie: Tate, Sosa, Brannon), but at light-heavy it was more common to see him pot shot his way through largely lackluster fights, and occasionally even struggle (as he did in the first Griffin fight).

Senya13 wrote:Jones was in very bad shape and taking some beating on the ropes in 1st Tarver fight, but gathered all his strength and went to win the last two championship rounds. He was almost knocked down and badly hurt in the 3rd Tarver fight, but came back and chased Tarver around the ring until the final bell (that is, in the last, 12th round he was walking forward about 2 minutes, taking some break the other minute).

I agree that Jones showed some heart in the first Tarver fight, against an opponent who basically dogged it at key moments in the fight.

But trying to portray his effort in the 3rd as anything better than shameful is one helluva stretch. He showed about as much determination (or lack thereof, I should say) as Barrera did in the Pacquiao rematch.

The 3rd Tarver fight was essentially a replay of the first, except this time it was Tarver who was weight drained but still showed heart, and Roy who dogged it. And in fact, Roy dogged it far worse in that fight than Tarver did in the first (Tarver at least left the first fight close enough to be a draw, or perhaps go either way).

And Roy hardly "chased Tarver around the ring" in the last round. That's quite an exaggeration, to say the least. He carefully pressed the fight and was content to do just enough to win the round, against an opponent who was totally exhausted. He was actually in good position to pull that fight out, and a fighter with exceptional mettle probably could've done it (or at least, would've tried his darndest). Roy fought like a guy who had the fight well in the bag, when in fact he had won no more than 3 rounds up to that point.

coming soon...another dissertation from my2sense on why roy jones sucked.

It still makes better reading than yet another thinly-veiled racist rant from everybody's favourite lunatic granberry.

Someone make this fight happen already !