Roy Jones in better times?

[Robinson]

wow....bxing talent is down because it is less popular in the USA.

Oh my goodness, since when was boxing strictly an American sport.

I didn't say it was Einstein. Total global participation in boxing is down dramatically from 30+ years ago. There are a few countries where participation has increased in the past few decades, but the sport as a whole has basically fallen off the map of major sports. It's great that you are a boxing fan, because we need everyone we can get, but your limited understanding of the sports history clearly shows in your posts.

And your arrogance towards anything post Ali shows in yours.

[Robinson]

So Professional boxing is less popular now in the former Soviet Union
and Eastern Europe than it was 20 years ago ?

[bjermaine]

"Put him in that era and he wins more than he loses but he doesn't dominate and he doesn't come top of the heap." - Ezzard

Is it just me, or does this opinion seem to be directly proportional to the knowledge of the sport's history? Seems on most boards, the less familiar someone is with the past, the more invincible they believe Jones is.

i'm of the opinion that a lot of people are full of crap. i personally own a boxing library with hundreds of fights starting from the fitzsimmons-corbett fight through today. does this make my opinion more important or respected than others?, of course not. but i don't lie to myself when i see a great fighter, even if i don't like the guy. one of jones' main problems historically is that he never really had a "super" fight to point to. his biggest fight was the ruiz fight and he won easy.

another problem that he faces is that a lot of people did not like how arrogant he was when he was on top. the old school fans usually like to say that jones wouldn't have stood a chance back then because it's something that doesn't have to be backed up. you get people saying that jones couldn't have competed with dick tiger.

[dempseyfire]

"Put him in that era and he wins more than he loses but he doesn't dominate and he doesn't come top of the heap." - Ezzard

Is it just me, or does this opinion seem to be directly proportional to the knowledge of the sport's history? Seems on most boards, the less familiar someone is with the past, the more invincible they believe Jones is.

i'm of the opinion that a lot of people are full of crap. i personally own a boxing library with hundreds of fights starting from the fitzsimmons-corbett fight through today. does this make my opinion more important or respected than others?, of course not. but i don't lie to myself when i see a great fighter, even if i don't like the guy. one of jones' main problems historically is that he never really had a "super" fight to point to. his biggest fight was the ruiz fight and he won easy.

another problem that he faces is that a lot of people did not like how arrogant he was when he was on top. the old school fans usually like to say that jones wouldn't have stood a chance back then because it's something that doesn't have to be backed up. you get people saying that jones couldn't have competed with dick tiger.

Competed with Tiger . . .sure.

Beaten him over 15 rounds, I say no.

Roy's biggest fight historically was the Toney fight. The Ruiz fight is a mirage, none more impressive than Micky Walker beating a Bearcat Wright. Ruiz was NOT a real champion (Roy did NOT do what Fitz had done 100 years earlier despite what HBO would tell you), and was a mediorce fighter who rose to be a top player in the HW division b/c of the mediocrity of his competitors. The whole hype leading up to that fight was a joke. I predicted Jones Jr would win the fight easy and it's exactly what happened b/c that's what happens when an A class fighter faces a C class fighter. Ruiz's big 'size advantage' wasn't even significant, Chris Byrd is only naturally slightly bigger than Jones and he was facing McCline-size guys throughout his career.

[bjermaine]

Competed with Tiger . . .sure.

Beaten him over 15 rounds, I say no.

Roy's biggest fight historically was the Toney fight. The Ruiz fight is a mirage, none more impressive than Micky Walker beating a Bearcat Wright. Ruiz was NOT a real champion (Roy did NOT do what Fitz had done 100 years earlier despite what HBO would tell you), and was a mediorce fighter who rose to be a top player in the HW division b/c of the mediocrity of his competitors. The whole hype leading up to that fight was a joke. I predicted Jones Jr would win the fight easy and it's exactly what happened b/c that's what happens when an A class fighter faces a C class fighter. Ruiz's big 'size advantage' wasn't even significant, Chris Byrd is only naturally slightly bigger than Jones and he was facing McCline-size guys throughout his career.

fitz was not even close to being "THE" heavyweight champ when he beat corbett. black guys weren't even aloud to fight for the title. how do you not let a race of people fight for a title and be called world champ. fitz was great but his feat of winning titles at heavy, lh and middle are on par with jones.

[Robinson]

Drawing any colour line, or even going along with the notion
of it is far worse than 'hiding' amongst the ABC's and their
mandatories.

Burns for all his faults was man enough to allow Johnson a
shot at the title...he made money from it sure, but he could
have easily fought Squire, Flynn etc again and again or simply
sat on the title for 3 years with no defences.

[dempseyfire]

Competed with Tiger . . .sure.

Beaten him over 15 rounds, I say no.

Roy's biggest fight historically was the Toney fight. The Ruiz fight is a mirage, none more impressive than Micky Walker beating a Bearcat Wright. Ruiz was NOT a real champion (Roy did NOT do what Fitz had done 100 years earlier despite what HBO would tell you), and was a mediorce fighter who rose to be a top player in the HW division b/c of the mediocrity of his competitors. The whole hype leading up to that fight was a joke. I predicted Jones Jr would win the fight easy and it's exactly what happened b/c that's what happens when an A class fighter faces a C class fighter. Ruiz's big 'size advantage' wasn't even significant, Chris Byrd is only naturally slightly bigger than Jones and he was facing McCline-size guys throughout his career.

fitz was not even close to being "THE" heavyweight champ when he beat corbett. black guys weren't even aloud to fight for the title. how do you not let a race of people fight for a title and be called world champ. fitz was great but his feat of winning titles at heavy, lh and middle are on par with jones.

He was the undisputed HW champion. The top HWs in 1897 were white. Jackson (who the champ Corbett had drawn with) had been in retirement since 1892 (only to come out of it the year after Fitz won the title and get knocked out by Jefferies) The only other black HW who you could possobly argue for a title shot was Griffin and Jefferies knocked him out the year before Fitz beat Corbett. He was the lone HW champion, not even revisionists historians can argue that there was some deserving black challenger who was being ducked. The 'colored' HW champion at that time was middleweight Frank Childs who had been knocked out by Joe Choynski (who Fitz battered)

There was no 'rule' saying black people couldn't fight for the HW title. Sullivan and Jefferies both made statements that they wouldn't defend the title vs black fighters, but to my knowledge neither Corbett nor Fitz ever did. And it didn't really matter b/c unlike with Sullivan (who had Jackson) and latter career Jefferies (who arguably had Johnson) you can't excuse them of ducking a deserving black challenger.

[bjermaine]

He was the undisputed HW champion. The top HWs in 1897 were white. Jackson (who the champ Corbett had drawn with) had been in retirement since 1892 (only to come out of it the year after Fitz won the title and get knocked out by Jefferies) The only other black HW who you could possobly argue for a title shot was Griffin and Jefferies knocked him out the year before Fitz beat Corbett. He was the lone HW champion, not even revisionists historians can argue that there was some deserving black challenger who was being ducked. The 'colored' HW champion at that time was middleweight Frank Childs who had been knocked out by Joe Choynski (who Fitz battered)

you got me there. i'm sure all blacks at that time were given an equal chance to do anything they wanted to do in society. fitz was likely a champ because of the time he lived in. tunney and dempsey are two others who benefited by drawing the color line. i consider jack johnson the first undisputed heavyweight champ.

getting back on topic, i'm waiting for some moron to write and say how in their primes fitz would have beaten jones. never fails in these past fighter forums.

[dempseyfire]

He was the undisputed HW champion. The top HWs in 1897 were white. Jackson (who the champ Corbett had drawn with) had been in retirement since 1892 (only to come out of it the year after Fitz won the title and get knocked out by Jefferies) The only other black HW who you could possobly argue for a title shot was Griffin and Jefferies knocked him out the year before Fitz beat Corbett. He was the lone HW champion, not even revisionists historians can argue that there was some deserving black challenger who was being ducked. The 'colored' HW champion at that time was middleweight Frank Childs who had been knocked out by Joe Choynski (who Fitz battered)

you got me there. i'm sure all blacks at that time were given an equal chance to do anything they wanted to do in society. fitz was likely a champ because of the time he lived in. tunney and dempsey are two others who benefited by drawing the color line. i consider jack johnson the first undisputed heavyweight champ.

getting back on topic, i'm waiting for some moron to write and say how in their primes fitz would have beaten jones. never fails in these past fighter forums.

I'm just telling you the facts jack. Interacial fights happened all the time during this period and . . would you believe it . . .the white guys actually won more often than not. Nothing to do with 'race' . . has to do with there being a large pool of poor men across America wanting to make a better life for themselves and boxing was one way to do it. Around 90% of the United States were people of white pigmentatation, but it seems to amaze you that white guys could win a world HW championship.

Not a surprise that the last white American HW champ was in the 1950s, post World War II when much of the white population moved into the middle class. Had such a major socio-economic shift not occured, you'd still be having your Holyfields and Lennoxs, but also your Dempseys, Baers, and Marcianos. No single 'race/skin color' dominates boxing nor ever has.

[John Galt]

Yes, in the old days, it took a special talent and persisitence to be a champion. Take Jess Willard. The man first put on boxing gloves at the age of 29 and it though it wasn't easy he made it to the top. He quit against one opponent in his first year, but he just came back tougher. He perservered for 3 more years. Because of the intense competition, it took him that long to be a champion. Four full years from the first time he laced them up. The competition in those days must have been fierce.

It was much tougher than today. There were gyms on every corner, golden glove competitions were everywhere, hungry, tough men fighting anyone and everyone to get to the top. Don't take my word for this, there are a lot of people who post on this board who believe that. RJJ looks good to us but we don't understand the old film. We believe what we see, but the true old time fan can see what he wants to see when he watches the old timers. He doesn't let the evidence get in his way, he knows that Willard, Moran, and other old timers are more skilled than Holyfield or Bowe.

Sure Bowe and Holyfield had been boxing for close to 20 years when they were the age that Willard was the first time he put the gloves on, but that means nothing. Willard was strong according to writers of his era and he used to "break" horses for a living. According to the wise old sages on this board, that means he was tougher than any modern day fighter.

I feel honored to learn from those posters who truly understand the old film. The wise men who can see Gentlemen Jim beating Lennox Lewis, or Philadelphia Jack O'Brian beating Dwight Qawi. These boxing sages are not limited to what they see on film, What is important to them is what is in their minds. The film is secondary. I wonder when we will have another "talent" come along who will put on the gloves for the first time at age 29, and be champion at 33? I guess that could only happen in the days of deep talent like the 1910s...

It surprises me that with the lack of talent in boxing that some of these posters have observed, that the posters themselves don't go into training and take advantage of all of these "fat, out of condition" fighters who are making the big money today. Surely in the weak environment of modern boxing, some of the guys who post here, who understand old time conditioning and training could become champions. I bet some of them could show Sam Peter what it would be like to face Bob Fitzsimmons, or Hasim Rahman what it would be like to step through the ropes and face Frank Moran. Come on guys, for the good of the sport teach these modern day fake fighters what you know.

[dempseyfire]

Yes, in the old days, it took a special talent and persisitence to be a champion. Take Jess Willard. The man first put on boxing gloves at the age of 29 and it though it wasn't easy he made it to the top. He quit against one opponent in his first year, but he just came back tougher. He perservered for 3 more years. Because of the intense competition, it took him that long to be a champion. Four full years from the first time he laced them up. The competition in those days must have been fierce.

It was much tougher than today. There were gyms on every corner, golden glove competitions were everywhere, hungry, tough men fighting anyone and everyone to get to the top. Don't take my word for this, there are a lot of people who post on this board who believe that. RJJ looks good to us but we don't understand the old film. We believe what we see, but the true old time fan can see what he wants to see when he watches the old timers. He doesn't let the evidence get in his way, he knows that Willard, Moran, and other old timers are more skilled than Holyfield or Bowe.

Sure Bowe and Holyfield had been boxing for close to 20 years when they were the age that Willard was the first time he put the gloves on, but that means nothing. Willard was strong according to writers of his era and he used to "break" horses for a living. According to the wise old sages on this board, that means he was tougher than any modern day fighter.

I feel honored to learn from those posters who truly understand the old film. The wise men who can see Gentlemen Jim beating Lennox Lewis, or Philadelphia Jack O'Brian beating Dwight Qawi. These boxing sages are not limited to what they see on film, What is important to them is what is in their minds. The film is secondary. I wonder when we will have another "talent" come along who will put on the gloves for the first time at age 29, and be champion at 33? I guess that could only happen in the days of deep talent like the 1910s...

It surprises me that with the lack of talent in boxing that some of these posters have observed, that the posters themselves don't go into training and take advantage of all of these "fat, out of condition" fighters who are making the big money today. Surely in the weak environment of modern boxing, some of the guys who post here, who understand old time conditioning and training could become champions. I bet some of them could show Sam Peter what it would be like to face Bob Fitzsimmons, or Hasim Rahman what it would be like to step through the ropes and face Frank Moran. Come on guys, for the good of the sport teach these modern day fake fighters what you know.

John, your act is tired. Do you have anything to contribute here at BOTP forum besides your usual diatribes that the old timers sucked and Ali was over-rated?

Bjermaine and I were having a debate regarding Fitz's legitimate claim to the HW championship, and the rest of the thread had to do with Roy Jones fighting 40s-60s middleweights and light HWs.

But you just wrote a useless post about Jess Willard.

Did anyone on this thread claim that Frank Moran was more skilled than Evander Holyfield? All eras have champs who are more skilled and others who are brawlers. Are you going to argue now that Ricardo Mayorga is more skilled than Emile Griffith?

If you can point out with your incredible acumen how Roy would bedazzle the likes of Burley, Moore, Robinson etc. please state it.

If not, go troll somewhere else.

[bjermaine]

I'm just telling you the facts jack. Interacial fights happened all the time during this period and . . would you believe it . . .the white guys actually won more often than not. Nothing to do with 'race' . . has to do with there being a large pool of poor men across America wanting to make a better life for themselves and boxing was one way to do it. Around 90% of the United States were people of white pigmentatation, but it seems to amaze you that white guys could win a world HW championship.

Not a surprise that the last white American HW champ was in the 1950s, post World War II when much of the white population moved into the middle class. Had such a major socio-economic shift not occured, you'd still be having your Holyfields and Lennoxs, but also your Dempseys, Baers, and Marcianos. No single 'race/skin color' dominates boxing nor ever has.

i agree with most of what you wrote here. my point being that when a fighter draws the color line or is champ in an era when black fighters did not fight for a title, they have to be looked at differently. that doesn't mean they're not great, it just brings up the debate on how they would have fared against everybody.

[Goodnight, Irene]

"...i consider jack johnson the first undisputed heavyweight champ..." - BJerm

C'mon, BJerm, I don't disagree with everything you're saying --- or where you're coming from, for that matter --- but that's just silly. It implies every white champion preceding Johnson was either clearly second to a black contemporary, or weren't, themselves, clearly the best Heavyweight around.

You've really done the research for this one? Every single champion, pre-Johnson, fits that bill? All of them?

[Goodnight, Irene]

Yes, in the old days, it took a special talent and persisitence to be a champion. Take Jess Willard. The man first put on boxing gloves at the age of 29 and it though it wasn't easy he made it to the top. He quit against one opponent in his first year, but he just came back tougher. He perservered for 3 more years. Because of the intense competition, it took him that long to be a champion. Four full years from the first time he laced them up. The competition in those days must have been fierce.

It was much tougher than today. There were gyms on every corner, golden glove competitions were everywhere, hungry, tough men fighting anyone and everyone to get to the top. Don't take my word for this, there are a lot of people who post on this board who believe that. RJJ looks good to us but we don't understand the old film. We believe what we see, but the true old time fan can see what he wants to see when he watches the old timers. He doesn't let the evidence get in his way, he knows that Willard, Moran, and other old timers are more skilled than Holyfield or Bowe.

Sure Bowe and Holyfield had been boxing for close to 20 years when they were the age that Willard was the first time he put the gloves on, but that means nothing. Willard was strong according to writers of his era and he used to "break" horses for a living. According to the wise old sages on this board, that means he was tougher than any modern day fighter.

I feel honored to learn from those posters who truly understand the old film. The wise men who can see Gentlemen Jim beating Lennox Lewis, or Philadelphia Jack O'Brian beating Dwight Qawi. These boxing sages are not limited to what they see on film, What is important to them is what is in their minds. The film is secondary. I wonder when we will have another "talent" come along who will put on the gloves for the first time at age 29, and be champion at 33? I guess that could only happen in the days of deep talent like the 1910s...

It surprises me that with the lack of talent in boxing that some of these posters have observed, that the posters themselves don't go into training and take advantage of all of these "fat, out of condition" fighters who are making the big money today. Surely in the weak environment of modern boxing, some of the guys who post here, who understand old time conditioning and training could become champions. I bet some of them could show Sam Peter what it would be like to face Bob Fitzsimmons, or Hasim Rahman what it would be like to step through the ropes and face Frank Moran. Come on guys, for the good of the sport teach these modern day fake fighters what you know.

No one does glib like John Galt, whose analysis of mythical match-ups begins & ends at each fighter's birthday on the calendar.

[Robinson]

I like Galt's rants.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

i'm sure all blacks at that time were given an equal chance to do anything they wanted to do in society. fitz was likely a champ because of the time he lived in. tunney and dempsey are two others who benefited by drawing the color line. i consider jack johnson the first undisputed heavyweight champ.

--- That's great, the world according to the colour line you draw.

Mighty fine stuff. Wonder how many American Whites, Latinos, and Asians could afford to travel to France and England for months at a time as did Johnson. Jeannette, McVea, and Langford, hell, even Battling Jim Johnson!

JJ drew the largest colour line in history as "alleged" champ after beating disputed champ Burns.

What's slung around gets slung back as incoming.

[PPLLUVTHIS]

That's a good question, ok now, lets look at who was some of the top mw in the 40's & 50's;
ok you got Robinson, Tiger, Olson, Lamotta, Mims, there maybe a few more I left out, with that being said; Roy would be very dominant in that era, with just a hand few that I would say make Roy think. Just like Sugar Ray, Roy had too much speed for most of them guys, they would have never knew what it them.

You are treating Roy like some sort of superman. If he was such in a class by himself, he would've never struggled with the pretty ordinary Montell Griffith.

For starters, this era had many VERY VERY fast handed guys. Roy's speed would not look special vs a Robinson, Burley, or even a George Benton. Also, correct pacing over 15 rounds and timing punches beat out natural speed all day, things that the fighters of that era were masters at. Guys like Tiger (who, and I love Glen Johnson, was twice the fighter Johnson ever was) beat faster opponents all the time via good timing and constant pressure. Roy would be in over his head. The likes of Glen Kelly would've never been headlining fight cards let alone championship contenders in the 40s-60s.

Can he compete? Sure, Roy could beat the likes of Olson, Graziano, and Turpin (but it'd be a very tough fight) . .maybe even Giardello due to the style matchup.

Cerdan, Burley, Robinson, Fullmer, Tiger . . .they run him down over 15 rounds. I think a very interesting fight would actually be Jones Jr vs Rubin Carter.

Yes, he was "Superman".......In his prime he was unstoppable, Johnson and Tarver would have never edged Roy in the early 2000 late 90's time frame like they have. Honestly, I think Roys hand speed was faster than Benton, Burley, and a middleweight Robinson. Roy wouldnt have breezed through the division back then of course not, Roy would rank in that era how Wladmir Klitchko rank in the hw division, behind Vitali of course (Ray Robinson).

[PPLLUVTHIS]

Maybe the fact that Roy would've NEVER had the stones to face Evander tells you something of his chances in that bout. My God he backed down from a proposed fight against an old fat Buster Douglas during that same time period!
-Dempseyfire

Who the hell WOULD have wanted to fight Buster Douglas in the late 90's....and WHY????? :??

[Robinson]

Because greats like Benjamin Brain, Jim Flynn and Marvin Hart would have
KO'd Douglas in one...thats why.

[Ezzard]

He wasn't the finished article at 160. And he doesn't make a 175 top 10.

--- Compare to SR Leonard who had his buttocks well battered by finished article Duran and his face carved up like a pumpkin by unfinished article Hearns at the start of his prime. SRL touted as an alltime p4p boxer/puncher on the strength of a much more modest career.

Leonard had a far superior career to Jones. And that's with the layoff. I'm surprised anyone would try to make such a claim.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Leonard had a far superior career to Jones. And that's with the layoff. I'm surprised anyone would try to make such a claim.

--- Take the math challenge:

Which fighter is 23-2, 14 KO in title fights.

Which fighter is 10-2-1, 8 KO in title fights.

Which is the better HOF fight record, 5-3-1 vs 6-1?

Roy spent 2/3rd of Leonard's entire career in title fights alone.

Go ahead, take the challenge.

[dempseyfire]

Leonard had a far superior career to Jones. And that's with the layoff. I'm surprised anyone would try to make such a claim.

--- Take the math challenge:

Which fighter is 23-2, 14 KO in title fights.

Which fighter is 10-2-1, 8 KO in title fights.

Which is the better HOF fight record, 5-3-1 vs 6-1?

Roy spent 2/3rd of Leonard's entire career in title fights alone.

Go ahead, take the challenge.

Your math doesn't work. 'Title' fights in this era means diddly jack.

Hearns, Duran, and Hagler are wins on Ray's resume that surpass anything Roy ever did.

And to answer PPV's question, Douglas made a comeback in the 90s which got a fair amount of media coverage . . having been the man to whip the 'monster' Tyson was still seen as a very big thing. Roy was in talks to face Douglas for his first fight at HW but then backed out. Later, Buster's comeback would be completly derailed in an embarassing one round loss to Lou Saverese.

[Ezzard]

Leonard had a far superior career to Jones. And that's with the layoff. I'm surprised anyone would try to make such a claim.

--- Take the math challenge:

Which fighter is 23-2, 14 KO in title fights.

Which fighter is 10-2-1, 8 KO in title fights.

Which is the better HOF fight record, 5-3-1 vs 6-1?

Roy spent 2/3rd of Leonard's entire career in title fights alone.

Go ahead, take the challenge.

Maths and boxing is for video games. It means nothing in the context of the sport. A young Hearns starting out at 160 would have pole-axed Jones.

Duran, Hearns and Hagler were better than any of Jones' wins.

[Ezzard]

In terms of the real champion in old HW history. I don't think you can push aside Fitz and corbett etc... but maybe more weight needs to be given to the so-called 'coloured championship'.

Also, let's not forget when Ali was champ (just as an example) Eastern Europe didn't compete, so was he the real champion?

And today one of the greatest boxing nations in Cuba does not particip[ate in pro boxing...

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Maths and boxing is for video games. It means nothing in the context of the sport. A young Hearns starting out at 160 would have pole-axed Jones.

Duran, Hearns and Hagler were better than any of Jones' wins.

--- Math is what separates winners from losers.

Leonard never "beats" Duran. Duran dismisses him and then Leonard ducks him until he's nearing his 100th fight coming up to 40 yrs of age. Hagler was a hotly contested split and Leonard ducked the biggest money fight of his career, the rematch.

Hearns didn't start out at 160, it was 147, that's basic math 101. If Hearns started off at 215, he would've poleaxed Ali too, and Godzilla on the side.

Fact: Roy not only has more of everything than Leonard, but he also held a larger share of the titles available than did Ray by a large margin.

Hey, I don't begrudge you Ray, but don't tell me about math when you clearly don't understand math. Just as sure as it's math that separates Joe Grimm from Fitz and JJohnson, it's math that separates Bruce Finch from Leonard and math that separates Leonard from Roy.

Roy gets penalized for completely outclassing all of his opposition until his mid 30s his fights were so onesided. He wins most every round and only Griffin holds him close in the first fight. He wasn't outclassed or outgunned by his Duran/Hearns, and didn't ever have to wear track shoes against his ol' man Haglers and didn't need to have the histrionic retirements and surgeries because of all the punishment he took. He didn't even need the Olympic gold medal he was robbed of that paved the way for Ray.

No, Roy did it the old fashioned way, mainly by KO until his hands started going brittle after too much time in the LH division which he fairly well cleans out. Leonard only has two defenses of any title above welter. Roy has more than a dozen successful defenses against better comp than a past it Duran and well ragged out Hearns tight at the weight.

We could go on, but we're already too far above your understanding as it is.