Page 3 of 3
Posted: 15 Nov 2007, 14:25
by jimmy the gent
come on terry. you know jones was a well spent force by the time he got in the ring with tarver. that's like saying tyson murdered berbick who beat ali.
I suppose the rounds (12 or 15) would make a difference, but pre tarver have you ever seen jones look tired in the ring. I haven't.
so I suppose Hopkins and Toney weren't in their primes when jones fought them. Jones was as close i have seen to super human in a boxing ring and i would argue that jones of '97-'98 would beat or have a fantastic chance of beating any super middle-light heavy in history.
by the way, why do you call him a cock?
I do agree that Tarver is not the best but i've made my point about that already.
Posted: 15 Nov 2007, 14:27
by The Blade
jimmy the gent wrote:come on terry. you know jones was a well spent force by the time he got in the ring with tarver. that's like saying tyson murdered berbick who beat ali.
I suppose the rounds (12 or 15) would make a difference, but pre tarver have you ever seen jones look tired in the ring. I haven't.
so I suppose Hopkins and Toney weren't in their primes when jones fought them. Jones was as close i have seen to super human in a boxing ring and i would argue that jones of '97-'98 would beat or have a fantastic chance of beating any super middle-light heavy in history.
by the way, why do you call him a cock?
I do agree that Tarver is not the best but i've made my point about that already.
He was a drug cheat
Posted: 15 Nov 2007, 15:10
by Matt W
Even worse was his assertion that he lost deliberately in Tarver 3 because he didn't want his old man to get the credit
Posted: 15 Nov 2007, 15:19
by jimmy the gent
Terry D wrote:jimmy the gent wrote:come on terry. you know jones was a well spent force by the time he got in the ring with tarver. that's like saying tyson murdered berbick who beat ali.
I suppose the rounds (12 or 15) would make a difference, but pre tarver have you ever seen jones look tired in the ring. I haven't.
so I suppose Hopkins and Toney weren't in their primes when jones fought them. Jones was as close i have seen to super human in a boxing ring and i would argue that jones of '97-'98 would beat or have a fantastic chance of beating any super middle-light heavy in history.
by the way, why do you call him a cock?
I do agree that Tarver is not the best but i've made my point about that already.
Well if you've got prime Youtube footage of Charles and Moore I insist that you share it. Post-prime amounts to most of the footage and, which is why I bring Tarver in, they were better beyond prime than Jones in my opinion. I have some great footage of them and they were better boxers than Jones.
Jones did not function as well as those guys in his former years, those guys also had better earlier records, they won some awesome fights. Johnson is a styles thing, he was a serious hombre in there.
Hopkins was not in his prime, nor was he a novice, he faced the thing that will always beat him, natural speed and athletic movement. Jones and Taylor had the styles to beat him but that performance by Jones was not great that night.
Toney put on 13lb or so after the weigh-in. Was bloated but again faced his nightmare style. A guy who, unusual for an orthodox mover, went naturally to his own right whilst leading with left hooks? That is always going to beat Toney's defence.
When Toney did get a little timing in round 11(?) he did steady Jones a little.
As for cock, it was a pun based on his Kelly move. Saying that post-Tarver II he was a right tit. He basically said he could not, this without any irony, get up for the fight. He certainly could not get up.
Jones was as close as you will ever get to untouchable for near 15 years (we all know about griffin 1). These guys were never better boxers than jones. They may have been fighting in a tougher era, no one disputes that. but that does not automatically make you a better boxer. Jones was a fighter who knew how to win as easy as possible, and that is what makes him great for me. He could knock you out or go the distance, but he would always make it look easy. That imo has got to count for something. he was blessed with athletic ability that is just not normal. he is the only world champion i can remember that had other world champs at the time ( eubank and benn) admitting that they couldn't beat him. This man stepped straight from light heavy into a world heavyweight title fight and won. Easily. Now i don't care who the champ was, i didn't see any other light heavy rushing to take the challenge, and i haven't seen any since.
The same thing that people now say about jones is the same things that people will and are saying now about mayweather. There is a reason for this and that is that these guys would have been exceptional in any era.
Re: Is Roy Jr going senile?
Posted: 15 Nov 2007, 15:31
by pundit
The answer is yes.
Posted: 16 Nov 2007, 08:15
by Ezzard
Jones would not have been a superman in that era. He was unbeatable in an era in which he managed to miss many of the top fights available to him. He would not have got away with that back then.
Posted: 16 Nov 2007, 08:18
by Ezzard
I'd also argue that fighting and winning ina tough era does make you better.
It's essentially about psychology and ego. Coe and Ovett pushed one another on to greater and greater things. You can say the same thing for Lennon and Mcartney. A great rivalry makes an individual raise their game.
Posted: 16 Nov 2007, 08:24
by KO Artist
The Blade wrote:KO Artist wrote:The Blade wrote:
Bang on the money
I've been sent a valuation, copy deeds, cash flow for mortages etc, in repspect of his big place.
The guy is skint.
So I assume it will be KO Artist of Neverland soon?
Wouldnt surprise me if someone over here got it cheap with the weak dollar, but I prefer commercial buildings in the UK only.