Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
Posted: 14 May 2020, 15:29
by Counter-puncher
I can’t remember the timeline for Mclellan and Jones, mind you why would I, I can remember fvck-all else.
Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
Posted: 14 May 2020, 15:34
by Onetimeonly
Counter-puncher wrote: ↑14 May 2020, 15:27
I should have a better idea but literally nobody comes to mind he should have fought. Calzaghe came to world level too late at 168 I think (and I doubt Calzaghe would have come up to 175 for Roy much earlier than he did come up). Otherwise I’m fucken stumped.
I'm not even saying he ducked any of them, just so many fighters when he fought good fighters anyway. You mentioned dm and Joe, liles, Nunn, Collins, benn, eubanks, hops rematch, etc...
Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
Posted: 14 May 2020, 15:40
by goose 5
Jones didn't want the Nunn fight; I remember reading him say "why should I fight a tall southpaw who can box?" Freddie Roach claims Jones told him Steve Collins is "too tough" to fight."
Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
Counter-puncher wrote: ↑14 May 2020, 15:27
I should have a better idea but literally nobody comes to mind he should have fought. Calzaghe came to world level too late at 168 I think (and I doubt Calzaghe would have come up to 175 for Roy much earlier than he did come up). Otherwise I’m fucken stumped.
I'm not even saying he ducked any of them, just so many fighters when he fought good fighters anyway. You mentioned dm and Joe, liles, Nunn, Collins, benn, eubanks, hops rematch, etc...
Ah ok, a lot of them were during his time at 168 too which was when the worst mismatches I remember occurred. I mean those names below the top two aren’t even near ATG’s but even two of them would totally improve his opposition at 168. He was much better at 175 IIRC Griffin Tarver Johnson Hill strikes me as a good start compared his comp at 168 (was Merqui Sosa his second best scalp there?)Then some solid enough dudes like Woods and Gonzalez.
Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
I'm not even saying he ducked any of them, just so many fighters when he fought good fighters anyway. You mentioned dm and Joe, liles, Nunn, Collins, benn, eubanks, hops rematch, etc...
Ah ok, a lot of them were during his time at 168 too which was when the worst mismatches I remember occurred. I mean those names below the top two aren’t even near ATG’s but even two of them would totally improve his opposition at 168. He was much better at 175 IIRC Griffin Tarver Johnson Hill strikes me as a good start compared his comp at 168 (was Merqui Sosa his second best scalp there?)Then some solid enough dudes like Woods and Gonzalez.
Woods and Gonzalez were 75.
Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
Posted: 14 May 2020, 18:01
by margaret thatcher
Scurred of Dariusz
Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
Ah ok, a lot of them were during his time at 168 too which was when the worst mismatches I remember occurred. I mean those names below the top two aren’t even near ATG’s but even two of them would totally improve his opposition at 168. He was much better at 175 IIRC Griffin Tarver Johnson Hill strikes me as a good start compared his comp at 168 (was Merqui Sosa his second best scalp there?)Then some solid enough dudes like Woods and Gonzalez.
Woods and Gonzalez were 75.
Yeah that’s what I meant that he had a little bit of solid comp at 175 even beyond the best four whereas at 168 I just recall putrid fat Toney and putrid everyone else
Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
Yeah that’s what I meant that he had a little bit of solid comp at 175 even beyond the best four whereas at 168 I just recall putrid fat Toney and putrid everyone else
Not sure if Tate was 60 or 68. Destroying him is a bit underrated. Malinga is underappreciated. Again at 75, bug I don't think Roy ever looked better than the Reggie Johnson fight.
Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
Yeah that’s what I meant that he had a little bit of solid comp at 175 even beyond the best four whereas at 168 I just recall putrid fat Toney and putrid everyone else
Not sure if Tate was 60 or 68. Destroying him is a bit underrated. Malinga is underappreciated. Again at 75, bug I don't think Roy ever looked better than the Reggie Johnson fight.
aaaaah now that's a pretty good name I'd forgotten
Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
Posted: 15 May 2020, 04:05
by Counter-puncher
Littles Liles and Little. i always get those dudes mixed up.
Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
Posted: 15 May 2020, 04:36
by Onetimeonly
Counter-puncher wrote: ↑15 May 2020, 04:05
Littles Liles and Little. i always get those dudes mixed up.
Liles was the best of the lot.
Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
Posted: 15 May 2020, 05:02
by Counter-puncher
any particular fights worth a watch? i have half a memory i saw at least part of the Nunn fight which was drab although IIRC Nunn's fights above 160 tended to be pretty nondescript. but then mostly i don't RC. lol.
Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
Posted: 15 May 2020, 05:13
by Ruthless-RKO
P4P Roy Jones Jr. has the best highlights..
Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
Posted: 15 May 2020, 06:26
by Onetimeonly
Counter-puncher wrote: ↑15 May 2020, 05:02
any particular fights worth a watch? i have half a memory i saw at least part of the Nunn fight which was drab although IIRC Nunn's fights above 160 tended to be pretty nondescript. but then mostly i don't RC. lole.
Ironically, liiles/littles is a barn burner.
Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
Posted: 15 May 2020, 12:05
by SwayzeWithNoShirtOn
In terms of athelticism and timing he was remarkble. In terms of skill, he was above average. In terms of technical acumen he was below average. In terms of durability and heart, he was terrible. Soooo I guess the levels out around average.
He grew up in a terribe era for Boxing. In the kingdom of the blind, the man with one eye is king.
I suppose without PEDs, or with VADA he would look far more average. But I wouldn't even go that far; with reasonable competition Jones would look average. Consider how that horrible hack Ruiz stunned him, or how he struggled with Tarver.
In any other era he would have been a spoiler, or an almost champion. Look at Judah against Floyd, or Levine against Robinson - being fast and explosive is great for parity, not for greatness.
goose 5 wrote: ↑14 May 2020, 15:40
Jones didn't want the Nunn fight; I remember reading him say "why should I fight a tall southpaw who can box?" Freddie Roach claims Jones told him Steve Collins is "too tough" to fight."
No offense. But without real evidence, I take that with a grain of salt. Still, it FITS what one would expect of Jones.
Not that i would pick them to beat Jones. But Jones was all about making money looking good. Kinda like his generation's version of Gerry Cooney.
Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
Maybe. Seriously, he'd be a HUGE favorite in that fight. And it could have generated a lot of money. So why didn't he take it? The bit about the scarring of the Olympics doesn't real play in Peoria.
I really think Jones was his generation's Cooney (whom I hold in comparatively high esteem). He only liked Boxing when he was winning, and catching his face on the front page. Not that he wasn't blessed with talent. But it was mostly about a love of winning. Cooney, of course, wasn't as LUCKY as Jones.
Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
Yeah that’s what I meant that he had a little bit of solid comp at 175 even beyond the best four whereas at 168 I just recall putrid fat Toney and putrid everyone else
I wonder how much Toney might have been without the weight cut difficulties. I really think McCallum was only compettive with Toney because he was faster. Sure, Mac was skilled. But Toney is so much better. Really, look at ALL the film. Toney was slow, though. Comparatively speaking he's very slow. Jones definitely benefited from Toney suffering to make weight, but I dunno if Toney could ever beat Jones. Horrible, horrible style match-up.
Kinda like Spinks-Brazton, if you ask me. I think the fight would've been better ABOVE Light Heavyweight. But at 190 and above I STILL see Spinks winning. More competitive, but same out-come.
Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
Posted: 15 May 2020, 13:17
by goose 5
You are spot on with the one eyed man comment and also your take on Jones' era .
Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
Posted: 15 May 2020, 21:35
by Ambling Alp II
He was obviously a great fighter and fint to watch. seemed like a decent guy.
I just hated it when he was the champ at light heavy and he fought so many guys that seemed awful in comparison. I guess I always want to see the number guy go up against the number 2. I am almost positive that he would have beaten DM, but it would have been great to see it actually happen. For several years it was the obvious fight at 175, and nobody on HBO wouldn't even mention it.
Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
Posted: 16 May 2020, 14:25
by elmersalsa
SwayzeWithNoShirtOn wrote: ↑15 May 2020, 12:05
In terms of athelticism and timing he was remarkble. In terms of skill, he was above average. In terms of technical acumen he was below average. In terms of durability and heart, he was terrible. Soooo I guess the levels out around average.
He grew up in a terribe era for Boxing. In the kingdom of the blind, the man with one eye is king.
I suppose without PEDs, or with VADA he would look far more average. But I wouldn't even go that far; with reasonable competition Jones would look average. Consider how that horrible hack Ruiz stunned him, or how he struggled with Tarver.
In any other era he would have been a spoiler, or an almost champion. Look at Judah against Floyd, or Levine against Robinson - being fast and explosive is great for parity, not for greatness.
goose 5 wrote: ↑14 May 2020, 15:40
Jones didn't want the Nunn fight; I remember reading him say "why should I fight a tall southpaw who can box?" Freddie Roach claims Jones told him Steve Collins is "too tough" to fight."
No offense. But without real evidence, I take that with a grain of salt. Still, it FITS what one would expect of Jones.
Not that i would pick them to beat Jones. But Jones was all about making money looking good. Kinda like his generation's version of Gerry Cooney.
I agree. That's why he is not a top 50 pound per pound fighter of all time in my view.
Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
Posted: 16 May 2020, 16:32
by Ezzard
Not a fan. He made me stop watching boxing for a few years. Showed himself to be a warrior in his later years when past his best. Shame he didn't have that attitude in his prime.
Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
Posted: 16 May 2020, 16:45
by dr_devious
Liked a bit of showboating didn't he
Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
Posted: 16 May 2020, 21:03
by goose 5
Jones jr. blamed his loss to Tarver on having to drop back to 175 but he continued making 175 for 6 years after that defeat. I don't buy the weight excuse. Before the second bout, his trainer said Jones' legs had slowed down due to age but his hands were still as fast as ever. Age would be a better excuse, though I think Tarver is a major problem for Jones at any point in Jones' career.
Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
Posted: 16 May 2020, 21:14
by Onetimeonly
goose 5 wrote: ↑16 May 2020, 21:03
Jones jr. blamed his loss to Tarver on having to drop back to 175 but he continued making 175 for 6 years after that defeat. I don't buy the weight excuse. Before the second bout, his trainer said Jones' legs had slowed down due to age but his hands were still as fast as ever. Age would be a better excuse, though I think Tarver is a major problem for Jones at any point in Jones' career.
Agreed, Jones looked spectacular in RDS 4 and 5 of the third rather fight but tarver was way in his head.
Re: Roy Jones Jr.: Just how good was the former pound-for-pound king?
Posted: 25 Sep 2020, 12:06
by detamour
goose 5 wrote: ↑12 May 2020, 18:43
In his prime he was called the G.O.A.T. by some and that was ridiculous.
That was Bert Sugar in boxing digest after the Hill Fight, or was it Herbert G Goldman?
