BoxRec

Chepppaaa wrote:everbódy talking about roy not having technic, than i ask you:

what is technic?

i know what the result is of good technic and that is going into a fight and getting punched as rare as possible, than prime jones must be the best technician ever, cause when he was at his peak, even against top opponents like griffin, toney or hopkins, he very rarely got touched.

Do you mean technique?

Like Ali, Roy Jones lacked some fundamentals, which didn't matter while he was in his prime and so fast and slick that he rarely got hit flush. Like Ali, that reliance on his speed and reflexes hasn't worked out well for him in his later career, though Ali got away with it more due to his concrete jaw.

He's the best I've seen in my lifetime. Re-watched 'The Gloves Are Off: The Super Middleweights" on Sky recently and it killed me to see Roy say he should probably have stopped after the first Tarver fight.

Sad how underrated Whitaker has become. Clowns like Rafael give Roy a p4p decade when pea was the clear king for years.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Sad how underrated Whitaker has become. .

i know you love Pea and I'm a fan too, but he seems a bit light on great wins compared to your usual prioritising of a fighter's roster over how he passes the eye-test, if you know what i mean

non-prime/one-armed McGirt, out-of-weight Nelson, Ramirez, maybe even going up in weight for Vasquez, being the best wins?

then you've got the solid wins like Pendleton or Haugen, I guess, or schooling overweight Chavez, but...

don't get me wrong I'm pretty sure given (say) Floyd's opposition he beats them all, its just you don't normally seem to pay much heed to a solid roster without great wins... but i probably said this to you before sometime. meh.

Chavez was the p4p king when he schooled him. I was one of the only people I know or read giving pea a shot. Easy to say now. Toney was more compromised than Chavez. Clear win over Oscar, Mcgirt twice. The sick gut check against hurtado, Vazquez definitely Trump's Ruiz.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Chavez was the p4p king when he schooled him..

Really, shit, my memory. As an admirer of Chavez I thought he'd struggle with whitakers quickness.

SSR no doubt.

If God were to create the perfect fighter, all he'd need to do is to unbreak the mold he used to make Ray Robinson.

Ali couldn't praise Ray enough.
Mike McCallum said he would watch video footage of Ray while preparing for a bout.

You can admire Roy Jones but you couldn't learn from him. Either you have his gifts or you don't.

ha ha , Roy would have gotten his ass handed to him by any great fighter in just about any era. He mainly fought bums all his life and when he fought other good fighters (e.g. Hopkins) he basically biatched out, ran around and crossed his fingers in hopes of the decision. A great fighter with balls like Bob Foster would have wrecked at any point during his career. His fight against james toney is garbage because toney came in out of shape. Anyways, toney was an average fighter UNLESS you tried to put pressure on him (which naturally roy would never do). Then he was a brilliant boxer.

Luckybattles wrote:ha ha , Roy would have gotten his ass handed to him by any great fighter in just about any era. He mainly fought bums all his life and when he fought other good fighters (e.g. Hopkins) he basically biatched out, ran around and crossed his fingers in hopes of the decision. A great fighter with balls like Bob Foster would have wrecked at any point during his career. His fight against james toney is garbage because toney came in out of shape. Anyways, toney was an average fighter UNLESS you tried to put pressure on him (which naturally roy would never do). Then he was a brilliant boxer.

If they would've rematched in 2002 or 2003 like Toney was always clamoring for he would've beaten Roy in a rematch. Roy was definitely a naturally gifted fighter though. Everything he did was wrong, but he got away with it because he was fantastic.

PsychoGamerTwo wrote:Where are KOvalev? And Gennady God Golovkin?

Gennady is in Big Bear California and I heard Sergei was back in Russia visiting friends and family........

Oh you mean on the list?


You jest surely?

No?

Come on man!

Really?

Jones was everything wrong with boxing. Best moment ever was when Tarver sparked him...

jezzamundo wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:everbódy talking about roy not having technic, than i ask you:

what is technic?

i know what the result is of good technic and that is going into a fight and getting punched as rare as possible, than prime jones must be the best technician ever, cause when he was at his peak, even against top opponents like griffin, toney or hopkins, he very rarely got touched.

Do you mean technique?

Like Ali, Roy Jones lacked some fundamentals, which didn't matter while he was in his prime and so fast and slick that he rarely got hit flush. Like Ali, that reliance on his speed and reflexes hasn't worked out well for him in his later career, though Ali got away with it more due to his concrete jaw.

tell me, what is technique? is it also footwork or upper body movemant, roys upper movemant and footwork were elite. so what is also part of technique? counterpunching, as i remember prime roy was a master in cunterpunching. so where is the technique that roy couldnt do so well, tell me?

Chepppaaa wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:everbódy talking about roy not having technic, than i ask you:

what is technic?

i know what the result is of good technic and that is going into a fight and getting punched as rare as possible, than prime jones must be the best technician ever, cause when he was at his peak, even against top opponents like griffin, toney or hopkins, he very rarely got touched.

Do you mean technique?

Like Ali, Roy Jones lacked some fundamentals, which didn't matter while he was in his prime and so fast and slick that he rarely got hit flush. Like Ali, that reliance on his speed and reflexes hasn't worked out well for him in his later career, though Ali got away with it more due to his concrete jaw.

tell me, what is technique? is it also footwork or upper body movemant, roys upper movemant and footwork were elite. so what is also part of technique? counterpunching, as i remember prime roy was a master in cunterpunching. so where is the technique that roy couldnt do so well, tell me?

Personally I wouldn't use the word technique in this instance - more skills. Roy's technique for the natural abilities he had and style of fighting he used, was excellent, no question. What I'm saying is that his technique was dependent on his freakish speed and reflexes, which, as with all fighters, dim with age. Fighters like Toney and BHop and even Floyd were less gifted than Roy, but more skilled, in that they had defensive structures that don't depend on lightning reflexes.

My real question with Roy, is how would he have handled a great light heavyweight who could take his punch, had a good punch of their own and had the ability to cut off the ring. Griffin was a good light heavyweight, but small for the division and didn't have the best chin - though he actually outlanded Roy in their first fight. Hopkins was pre-prime but formidable, though he never had the kind of power to give Roy serious problems and Roy beats him every time in a prime for prime matchup. Toney has weight drained and gave a poor performance, but Roy had far too much speed and athleticism for any version of him.

Chepppaaa wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:everbódy talking about roy not having technic, than i ask you:

what is technic?

i know what the result is of good technic and that is going into a fight and getting punched as rare as possible, than prime jones must be the best technician ever, cause when he was at his peak, even against top opponents like griffin, toney or hopkins, he very rarely got touched.

Do you mean technique?

Like Ali, Roy Jones lacked some fundamentals, which didn't matter while he was in his prime and so fast and slick that he rarely got hit flush. Like Ali, that reliance on his speed and reflexes hasn't worked out well for him in his later career, though Ali got away with it more due to his concrete jaw.

tell me, what is technique? is it also footwork or upper body movemant, roys upper movemant and footwork were elite. so what is also part of technique? counterpunching, as i remember prime roy was a master in cunterpunching. so where is the technique that roy couldnt do so well, tell me?

The term for a low blow in women's boxing?

That's gotta be the funniest typo I've seen in a while

Roy is genuinely one of the very best i ve ever seen. Was actually too good for his own good.

Its a crying shame that he doesnt really get the credit he deserves today. Thats what sometimes happens when you make it look too easy tho.

I know mayweathers technically better in supposed boxing terms but if you blew mayweather up to roys size. Roy would lose him. Mayweathers very technical boxing would be lost against roy for me...he could hit you from anywhere. Opponents seemed to be bemused because there didnt really seem a blueprint to beating him at one point. With mayweather you could try sending your boxer out to outwork him. But with roy you d be left scratching your head. I know griffiths was maybe up on the scorecards gave roy a tough fight the first time rounf but think the second fight showed roy had a bit of an off nite more than anything else.

while undoubtably talented jones skill set seemed to be defence based while leonards skills were centred around an attacking style and wouldnt back off when pressured, instead he could stand in a shitstorm and still focus on what he was doing which elavates him above jones in my mind

Roy Jones was one of the best ATHLETES to step in the ring. He was a tremendous physical specimen. Speed, Endurance, Power.
Someone a while back pointed out something to me that was interesting. RJJ displayed HORRIBLE fundamentals, but he got away with it because he was so damn fast.
Still that combination of atheleticism and the ability to know what he could get away with made him an ATG.

bbjc wrote:Roy is genuinely one of the very best i ve ever seen. Was actually too good for his own good.

Its a crying shame that he doesnt really get the credit he deserves today. Thats what sometimes happens when you make it look too easy tho.

I know mayweathers technically better in supposed boxing terms but if you blew mayweather up to roys size. Roy would lose him. Mayweathers very technical boxing would be lost against roy for me...he could hit you from anywhere. Opponents seemed to be bemused because there didnt really seem a blueprint to beating him at one point. With mayweather you could try sending your boxer out to outwork him. But with roy you d be left scratching your head. I know griffiths was maybe up on the scorecards gave roy a tough fight the first time rounf but think the second fight showed roy had a bit of an off nite more than anything else.

Roy was WAY too easy to hit... 2nd rater Lou Del Valle knocked prime Roy right on his butt with a straight left (never happened to Floyd)... Hot headed prime Roy was also DQ'd against Montel Griffin for hitting him twice when he was obviously down... And at 35 an older Antonio Tarver (who Roy had been ducking for years) beat the living crap out of Roy in one fight and was ROBBED BLIND. Roy even admitted AT won that fight after he reviewed it. Hed vowed to get Tarver in a rematch.. This time Tarver brought his own judges - and knocked Roy FLAT!!!! ... And in his next fight Roy was knocked stiff by 40-9-2 Glen Johnson. Roy was out for 10 minutes and was very close to being carried out on a stretcher, which they actually should have done to minimize the damage. These things never happened to Mayweather, Tunney, McCallum, Toney, etc.

gilgamesh wrote:

Luckybattles wrote:ha ha , Roy would have gotten his ass handed to him by any great fighter in just about any era. He mainly fought bums all his life and when he fought other good fighters (e.g. Hopkins) he basically biatched out, ran around and crossed his fingers in hopes of the decision. A great fighter with balls like Bob Foster would have wrecked at any point during his career. His fight against james toney is garbage because toney came in out of shape. Anyways, toney was an average fighter UNLESS you tried to put pressure on him (which naturally roy would never do). Then he was a brilliant boxer.

If they would've rematched in 2002 or 2003 like Toney was always clamoring for he would've beaten Roy in a rematch. Roy was definitely a naturally gifted fighter though. Everything he did was wrong, but he got away with it because he was fantastic.

I don't see Jones vs Toney in 2002 being much different than in 1994. Toney just didn't have the style to cause Roy any problems, his feet were too slow to find his range against someone who moved as well as Roy. As long as it was before Roy went up and then came all the way back down, he would have won a wide decision again.

Kalan wrote:

bbjc wrote:Roy is genuinely one of the very best i ve ever seen. Was actually too good for his own good.

Its a crying shame that he doesnt really get the credit he deserves today. Thats what sometimes happens when you make it look too easy tho.

I know mayweathers technically better in supposed boxing terms but if you blew mayweather up to roys size. Roy would lose him. Mayweathers very technical boxing would be lost against roy for me...he could hit you from anywhere. Opponents seemed to be bemused because there didnt really seem a blueprint to beating him at one point. With mayweather you could try sending your boxer out to outwork him. But with roy you d be left scratching your head. I know griffiths was maybe up on the scorecards gave roy a tough fight the first time rounf but think the second fight showed roy had a bit of an off nite more than anything else.

Roy was WAY too easy to hit... 2nd rater Lou Del Valle knocked prime Roy right on his butt with a straight left (never happened to Floyd)... Hot headed prime Roy was also DQ'd against Montel Griffin for hitting him twice when he was obviously down... And at 35 an older Antonio Tarver (who Roy had been ducking for years) beat the living crap out of Roy in one fight and was ROBBED BLIND. Roy even admitted AT won that fight after he reviewed it. Hed vowed to get Tarver in a rematch.. This time Tarver brought his own judges - and knocked Roy FLAT!!!! ... And in his next fight Roy was knocked stiff by 40-9-2 Glen Johnson. Roy was out for 10 minutes and was very close to being carried out on a stretcher, which they actually should have done to minimize the damage. These things never happened to Mayweather, Tunney, McCallum, Toney, etc.

Roy Jones was too easy to hit? Just when you think you've heard it all from boxing fans.

ElJefe wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

Luckybattles wrote:ha ha , Roy would have gotten his ass handed to him by any great fighter in just about any era. He mainly fought bums all his life and when he fought other good fighters (e.g. Hopkins) he basically biatched out, ran around and crossed his fingers in hopes of the decision. A great fighter with balls like Bob Foster would have wrecked at any point during his career. His fight against james toney is garbage because toney came in out of shape. Anyways, toney was an average fighter UNLESS you tried to put pressure on him (which naturally roy would never do). Then he was a brilliant boxer.

If they would've rematched in 2002 or 2003 like Toney was always clamoring for he would've beaten Roy in a rematch. Roy was definitely a naturally gifted fighter though. Everything he did was wrong, but he got away with it because he was fantastic.

I don't see Jones vs Toney in 2002 being much different than in 1994. Toney just didn't have the style to cause Roy any problems, his feet were too slow to find his range against someone who moved as well as Roy. As long as it was before Roy went up and then came all the way back down, he would have won a wide decision again.

Kalan wrote:

bbjc wrote:Roy is genuinely one of the very best i ve ever seen. Was actually too good for his own good.

Its a crying shame that he doesnt really get the credit he deserves today. Thats what sometimes happens when you make it look too easy tho.

I know mayweathers technically better in supposed boxing terms but if you blew mayweather up to roys size. Roy would lose him. Mayweathers very technical boxing would be lost against roy for me...he could hit you from anywhere. Opponents seemed to be bemused because there didnt really seem a blueprint to beating him at one point. With mayweather you could try sending your boxer out to outwork him. But with roy you d be left scratching your head. I know griffiths was maybe up on the scorecards gave roy a tough fight the first time rounf but think the second fight showed roy had a bit of an off nite more than anything else.

Roy was WAY too easy to hit... 2nd rater Lou Del Valle knocked prime Roy right on his butt with a straight left (never happened to Floyd)... Hot headed prime Roy was also DQ'd against Montel Griffin for hitting him twice when he was obviously down... And at 35 an older Antonio Tarver (who Roy had been ducking for years) beat the living crap out of Roy in one fight and was ROBBED BLIND. Roy even admitted AT won that fight after he reviewed it. Hed vowed to get Tarver in a rematch.. This time Tarver brought his own judges - and knocked Roy FLAT!!!! ... And in his next fight Roy was knocked stiff by 40-9-2 Glen Johnson. Roy was out for 10 minutes and was very close to being carried out on a stretcher, which they actually should have done to minimize the damage. These things never happened to Mayweather, Tunney, McCallum, Toney, etc.

Roy Jones was too easy to hit? Just when you think you've heard it all from boxing fans.

Right... Don't dispute the facts. Don't present an argument. Just flap your gums.

Most of us are not old enouht to watch Ali or Sugar Ray "online". Footage on youtube are almost always highlites...so it's hard to judge.

If I could go back in time, the one thing I would do is go & watch all of SRR's weltwerweight championship fights.

Anyone who isn't old enough to have watched him then must have missed something beyond special.

Kalan wrote:

ElJefe wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
If they would've rematched in 2002 or 2003 like Toney was always clamoring for he would've beaten Roy in a rematch. Roy was definitely a naturally gifted fighter though. Everything he did was wrong, but he got away with it because he was fantastic.

I don't see Jones vs Toney in 2002 being much different than in 1994. Toney just didn't have the style to cause Roy any problems, his feet were too slow to find his range against someone who moved as well as Roy. As long as it was before Roy went up and then came all the way back down, he would have won a wide decision again.

Kalan wrote:
Roy was WAY too easy to hit... 2nd rater Lou Del Valle knocked prime Roy right on his butt with a straight left (never happened to Floyd)... Hot headed prime Roy was also DQ'd against Montel Griffin for hitting him twice when he was obviously down... And at 35 an older Antonio Tarver (who Roy had been ducking for years) beat the living crap out of Roy in one fight and was ROBBED BLIND. Roy even admitted AT won that fight after he reviewed it. Hed vowed to get Tarver in a rematch.. This time Tarver brought his own judges - and knocked Roy FLAT!!!! ... And in his next fight Roy was knocked stiff by 40-9-2 Glen Johnson. Roy was out for 10 minutes and was very close to being carried out on a stretcher, which they actually should have done to minimize the damage. These things never happened to Mayweather, Tunney, McCallum, Toney, etc.

Roy Jones was too easy to hit? Just when you think you've heard it all from boxing fans.

Right... Don't dispute the facts. Don't present an argument. Just flap your gums.

Do I really need to? You're literally the only person I've ever seen say that Roy Jones was easy to hit. I could probably count the amount of rounds he lost in the 90s on my hands. I don't know anyone else who was apparently easy to hit who I could say that about. And if he was so easy to hit why did it take until 2004, until his 51st fight and until he'd been to heavyweight and back for someone to knock him out? He's no Marvin Hagler in the chin department.

Yet another boxers of the past thread, wasting space on CS.

Chepppaaa wrote:please vote based on who was the best at his best time, this thread has nothing to do with resume or who fought who, only quality of a boxer.

all this he fought him and him and who did he fought aside. who was the best at his peak.

How about wether you are PED'S free or do we just pretend that no-one was ever caught.