GGG vs James Toney, Bernard Hopkins, and Roy Jones at MW

[loudon]

keithmoonhangover,

Great post Loudon.

Thanks mate.

I love your username.

That would be some hangover. Ha!

[Kalan]

Roy Jones would have trouble with any pressure fighter with tremendous power... Toney and Hopkins were counterpunchers who Roy could pick off from distance because they waited... Tarver didn't wait.. That's why he knocked Roy out. "Are you gonna have any excuses tonight Roy??" ... Glen Johnson was also a strong pressure fighter although he was missing a jab... He stayed on Roy and kept working for 3 minutes a round -- until Roy was knocked cold for 1000... Gennady Golovkin would be on Roy even more than that... He might be the greatest attacker ever at Middleweight.

Still using the same poor logic, huh?


Again:

1. There was a world of difference between Roy at 25, and Roy at 35, coming off of a loss to Tarver.

2. GG hasn't got Glen's physical attributes.


Roy was bigger than GG at MW, he had a huge advantage in speed, and he was much harder to hit.

Seriously, did you not see Brook hit him over and over? Now imagine that'd have been the version of Roy who iced Thomas Tate. Roy would have made a mess of him.

You're an idiot... Golovkin is almost 35... Roy got knocked stiff at 35... Brook didn't hit GGG over and over you idiot.. He hit him with 1 really good uppercut in the 2nd round...for the rest of the fight Brook was getting outboxed and hammered all over the ring... And Brook was 36-0 and a great fighter... He just couldn't hang with GGG... Roy was not faster than GGG.. His stance was wider and he was easier to hit.. That's why Del Valle decked him...GGG has never been decked.. and Golovkin's physique is better than Glen Johnson's ever was... Johnson lost a ton of fights and was beat half to death.

[loudon]

Kalan,

You're an idiot... Golovkin is almost 35... Roy got knocked stiff at 35... Brook didn't hit GGG over and over you idiot.. He hit him with 1 really good uppercut in the 2nd round...for the rest of the fight Brook was getting outboxed and hammered all over the ring... And Brook was 36-0 and a great fighter... He just couldn't hang with GGG... Roy was not faster than GGG.. His stance was wider and he was easier to hit.. That's why Del Valle decked him...GGG has never been decked.. and Golovkin's physique is better than Glen Johnson's ever was... Johnson lost a ton of fights and was beat half to death.

I don't know whether you're trolling for a joke, or if you're being serious. I don't come on here often enough to know. But this is the worst post I've ever seen you make.

Yes, Roy was taken out at 35, and GG hasn't been.

So?

Are we just comparing age alone?

By the age of 35, Roy had fought significantly more fights, against better opposition, and he'd fought in 4 weight classes which included going up to HW and back.

GG has just had a competitive fight against Danny Jacobs, and he hasn't moved up to SMW yet.

Roy wasn't as fast as GG?

Roy was easier to hit?

Haha!

Come back to me after the LSD has worn off.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Get him buzz!

[jas80s]

Interesting that there isn't any mention of Daniel Jacobs here. As it happens, Jacobs is around the same size as the three guys we are talking about. He is a little taller, but he actually has a shorter reach than Hopkins and Jones and the same reach as Toney. By all accounts, he gave as good as he got in his recent fight with GGG, is he as good as the guys we are discussing? Is GGG passed his best? I'm just asking.

Personally, I think these are tough match ups for GGG because the three fighters are definitely bigger and that is a lot to give away especially when you factor in that these are hall of fame fighters we are discussing. I know that GGG has never lost, but how often did these guys get beat by someone smaller than them? I know Toney has losses to Griffin, but the others never struggled so badly as to lose to someone who gave away so much physically in the ring as GGG would here. So, it seems fair to say, that the idea that they would be beaten by GGG is as speculative as the idea that GGG would be beaten by them (given that he has never lost).

As I say, the first thought I had was Jacobs got some decent work done and he is not at the level of Jones, Hopkins, and Toney. Sadly, GGG might already be passed his best, but if that fight is any indication, I can't see him dictating a lot to these guys. And I certainly don't see that he would knock them out.

I generally lean toward the bigger man in match ups where I don't see a great talent disparity, so I guess you know where I stand. But, if GGG beat Toney that wouldn't shock me by any stretch given that Toney's performance could vary from time to time. He could certainly catch Jones with something, and given how rarely he seemed to get hit, I guess it's reasonable to wonder how his chin might hold up, it's a bit of an X factor. As for Hopkins? I think he is being a bit underestimated in this one. A five inch reach advantage, and he gets out boxed?? As the taller, stronger man, I think he has so many avenues to control the fight. I think he spoils with little problem and wins a 116-112 type decision. I think his speed, accuracy,, and power are underrated.

[loudon]

golden oldie,

No you don't, so why lie about it? You like to promote Jones Jr as the greatest thing that ever stepped inside a boxing ring, and throw your toys out of your pram if folks disagree with you. Or pat other like minded fanboys such as keithmoonhangover on the back when they equal the amount of Jones Jr nuthugging you are so adept at.

I don't throw my toys out of the pram at all. I've agreed with you on the other thread that he had flaws and couldn't be considered as great as someone like Duran.

I'm only arguing with you here because what you've wrote is an absolute joke.

Wrong again. I just put things in their proper perspectives. Jones Jr was a proven PED cheat. No one can say for sure how long he used PED's therefore his legacy must be tarnished. Then we come to the class of opponents who both put him the ferk to sleep, or TKO'd him.

Ha!

Of course you do.

Your posts are absolutely littered with double standards.

Exactly. Yet he still put your hero to sleep.

Yes, all credit to Glen Johnson. But that does not override everything that Roy accomplished beforehand.

Source. Which doctor, or should that be Witch doctor?

I already told you: the ringside doctor. Again: Glen wasn't a renowned puncher, the punch didn't look particular devastating, and Roy was out for a very long time. It isn't hard to decipher that there was something amiss.

Yes there was. His reflexes had deserted him, and his shite chin was exposed for all the world to see.

He took shots before. He took shots off of a 230 plus pound HW in Ruiz.

You don't THINK, this, you don't THINK that. Come back and tell me if ever you KNOW.

I'll tell you what I KNOW: I KNOW that you are being completeley unreasonable.

I am sure you do. Some folks might have thought the same if he had challenged and beaten Lewis instead of the crap Ruiz.

Ruiz wasn't a great HW. We all know that. But he was tough and durable, and he gave decent HW's a hard nights work. He wasn't crap. He was just ugly to watch.

That is not what you have said in the past. I have seen posts where you argued for days on end on other sites claiming that the ONLY reason for Jones Jr's decline was what you called dramatic weight loss after the Ruiz fight. When folks pointed out to you it was 8 months after Ruiz when Jones faced Tarver, your excuse was he had to lose this weight in a matter of a few weeks because he was in negotiations for fights with the aforementioned Lewis, Tyson, and Holyfield. Indeed it was your contention that Jones was going to stay at heavyweight but these guys didn't want to know, so he was " forced " to go back down to 175.

He never had 8 months to lose the weight. He had a few months to lose the weight. The fight was signed in September, and the fight itself was early in November. Roy was only going to stay at HW for a mega money fight at HW. When one didn't materialise, he took on his mandatory in Tarver.

Now tell me who you are known as on those other sites, and then I'll know exactly who I'm talking to.

Oh I'm telling it like it is alright. Hopkins was 49 and had no business getting in with a puncher like Kovalev, but he didn't get put to sleep did he?

That's right. And fair play to Bernard. But Roy was no longer able to operate on that level when he was fighting guys like Lebedev and Enzo.

So what, you want me to cry with you because your little hero is as thick as shite? According to you he hasn't done any road work for 7 years, because that is how long the thick prick has been fighting at Cruiser.

No, I don't want you to cry. I just want you to apply some common sense and note that losing to guys like Lebedev and Enzo whilst way past his best at a weight he shouldn't even be competing at, shouldn't automatically disqualify him from being classed an ATG. It doesn't erase his past achievements.

The only thing you have got right is he shouldn't have been fighting, where you are missing the point is it should have been the first time that china chin got checked. Simply because he didn't have the fundamental skills to protect it.

I've already agreed with you regarding his reliance of his athleticism when he was prime. That's not the argument. The argument is that you want him to be disqualified from being classed as an ATG, on the basis of his defeats to the likes of Tarver and Johnson, despite the fact that other ATG fighters also lost to guys of that calibre, even BEFORE they reached the age of 35.

In your dreams.

The Lou Del Valle punch shows that both Lebedev or Enzo could have shattered that jaw ANY time they would have hit it. Never underestimate how utterly ferking useless Ruiz was. Compared to him both Lebedev and Macca were greased lightning.

In reality.

The versions of Roy who fought Lebedev and Enzo, literally weren't even half as good as the version of Roy who fought Ruiz.

Sure, IF Enzo or Lebedev had've caught Roy like they did when they actually fought, the results would have been the same. The question is: How likely would that have been? Again: Considering that a washed up, static, 42 year old version of Roy gave Levedev a competitive fight until the very last moment, the Ruiz version of Roy would have beaten him with relative ease. The same applies to Enzo. Are you seriously suggesting that the version of Roy who fought Ruiz in 2003, wouldn't have beaten the version of Enzo he fought at the end of 2015? Ha! Please! Also: Although Ruiz was for from great, he was better than Enzo ever was, especially the version who fought Roy.

Regarding Del Valle, if you watch the replay and you'd seen the fight, you'd know that Roy's back foot slipped on the wet canvas, causing him to fall flat on his face. The referee had halted the fight on 2 earlier occasions to wipe the ring with a towel.

They are/were nothing special.

I never said Tarver and Lebedev were special. I said that they weren't scrubs, and noted that other ATG's have lost to guys of their calibre and below, even before they reached the age of Roy's decline.

Well done for endorsing their greatness by COMING BACK from adversity EARLY in their careers to achieve ATG status.

Ha!

Guess what? Roy didn't have to come back from adversity like they did. Because: He didn't lose in the first place. And are you telling me that if a guy like Tarver had iced him at 25 instead of 35 and Roy had've come back, that would have impressed you? Yeah, sure. It's just double standards.

In his 98th fight Ezzard was KO'd by Marciano, in 101st he gets TKO'd by Holman ( immediately rematches the guy and wins ) in his 109th fight is stopped on a cut lip, then in his 118th, and 120th fights he gets KO'd again.

In his 70th fight in August 49 he won the NBA World Heavy title, and it took until his 78th fight in July 51 until he lost it to Joe Walcott.

And you seriously want to compare this with Jones getting sparked back to back in his 51st and 52nd fight, then stopped by Danny Green in his 60th, hammered by Lebedev in his 62nd and obliterated by Enzo in his 71st.

Everyone's circumstances are different. However, you didn't need to type out the above, because I can put things into context and appreciate a fighters overall body of work. I know all about Charles etc. But the difference is: You give reasons for their losses, yet when I try and do the same with Roy, you class me as a fanboy who's just making excuses.

Ffs Emile Griffith was a Welter, taken out by a natural Middleweight in Carter. Jones was taken out by guys in his OWN division. Your really not too good at this are you?

Ha! I love it.

Guess what? Roy started out at MW, and was taken out by guys like Enzo, who turned pro at HW!! Sure, Roy was taken out by Tarver and Johnson in his own weight class. But that was his THIRD weight class. Was Griffith not fighting in the MW division when he was taken out by Carter? See the double standards. Was Griffith not the same size as Carter? Did he not beat Benvenuti and Tiger and win a belt at MW? Did he not take Monzon the distance? You are being ridiculous.

Similarly Foster was a Light Heavy taken out by a guy 220 + Try harder.

I don't have to try hard at all to expose your double standards. Roy was a peak SMW who got taken out by naturally bigger guys when he was past prime.

Hooray, you finally got one. Though I don't hear anyone claim Tommy was ever anything special above 154.

Tommy is an ATG by anybody's standards. He got knocked out by Barkley in his 3rd weight class, just like Roy did against the likes of Tarver. And Barkley was no better than the likes of Tarver. The only difference is: It happened to Tommy earlier, before he beat the likes of Hill.

If you can show me just one performance to equal that of Douglas in Tokyo 90 by any of the guys who sparked Jones between them i might give you that one. As for the Williams and McBride fights, only an idiot would believe they were for anything other than money. There wasn't even a mention of titles in the future, never mind the pretence of some idiotic one that Jones is STILL chasing.

There's no difference between Mike having lost to McBride, and Roy having lost to Lebedev.

Yep, and because he had the ability ( not just reflexes ) he was able to reverse those KO defeats. How is Jones doing in that department?

Again: He never had to do it. Why? Because before he faded badly, he didn't get beat by Rahman and McCall type opponents. You want to give Lennox credit for avenging the defeats, but you won't give credit for Roy for not being defeated in the first place. It's better to go undefeated in your 20's-30's than it is to lose and then go on to avenge them. Basically, you're penalising Roy for not having lost.

You really haven't got the hang of this have you kid. These are yet more examples of guys overcoming adversity and go on to greater things. Again where does Jones come into this?

Oh I've got the hang of it alright. I have completely exposed you.

Once again: Roy didn't have to avenge earlier defeats to less than stellar opposition like Wlad and Manny did. Because again: He didn't get beat. Singurat iced Manny when he was younger, yet guys of that calibre couldn't do that to Roy at the same stage of his career.

I'll leave you with what I typed previously:

A fighter should be OBJECTIVELY judged on his OVERALL BODY OF WORK. Sure, the losses can't be ignored. We can't pretend that they didn't happen. But they have to be put into CONTEXT. Some of those guys listed lost to guys of Tarver's calibre BEFORE they even reached the heights that Roy did. That's a FACT!

You are a MUG. Go and take up yoghurt knitting it would suit you far better. Seriously you know less than fuk all about this game. You have given examples of guys who were beaten early in their careers who unlike the one trick pony Jones ADAPTED using the fundamentals of boxing, and went on to achieve great things. Your muppet hero had less than fukking nothing once the reflexes went, and became a punchbag when he went up against anyone half way decent, and still is. It is sod all to do with his age, it is his lack of anything else other than reflexes that causes him to get sparked so easily.

You can't argue against what I've wrote. Again: It's a FACT that other ATG's lost to guys the calibre of Tarver and Lebedev, even before they got to the stage where Roy started to fade.

Other than that you have given pathetic examples of guys going up in weight from their natural division and getting sparked. Nothing unusual about that, but just remember shite for brains, it was YOUR boy who CHOSE to add all the weight on to convince idiots like you he could win titles in every division from Middle to Heavy, and he has paid the price for it. Unlike Ezzard Charles, and Emile Griffith or Bob Foster he hasn't been KTFO by guys naturally bigger and heavier than him.

Ha!

So there's nothing unusual about guys going up from their natural division and getting sparked??

THAT'S WHAT ROY DID!

Double standards much??

Almost all of the guys who knocked out Roy were naturally bigger than him.

He was a JMW in the Olympics and turned pro as a MW.

Again: Enzo turned pro as a HW.

So run along now and learn a lot more about the game, or start following tennis. You seem just the sort that would like to hang off Andy Murray's nuts.

Take your own advice.

[loudon]

And before you whine about Enzo being so much bigger than Roy Jones, where is the huge size disparity here?

https://youtu.be/Nro51HMNrpU

or how about here?

https://youtu.be/Ez0yeZlSme0

Ha!

Hey, ON THE NIGHT, where was the huge disparity in size between:

Griffith-Carter?

Hearns-Barkley?

Manny-Singsurat?


Oops!


I'll leave with you this:


Antonio Tarver:

Debut - 1997

Weight - 175 pounds



Danny Green:

Debut - 2001

Weight - 168 pounds


Denis Lebedev:

Debut - 2001

Weight - 176 pounds


Enzo Maccarinelli:

Debut - 1999

Weight - 194 pounds


Roy Jones:

Debut - 1989

Weight - 157 pounds


Happy Easter.

[Cojimar 1946]

I think Hearns being an ATG is certainly debatable. He consistently lost his biggest fights.

[loudon]

I think Hearns being an ATG is certainly debatable. He consistently lost his biggest fights.

He did lose big fights, but he also beat some very good-great fighters. I think he qualifies after coming up from WW.

[Ambling Alp II]

It's simply not true that he lost most of his big fights.
The two really big ones he had that he lost were to Leonard and Hagler. He also beat Benitez and Duran and had a draw with Leonard.

If you want to count Barkley as big fights, than you certainly have to count the wins over Cuevas, Hill, Medal, and Andries.

[littlepug]

Hearn was an old school fighter, none of this falling apart after a loss or spending years rebuilding, he got straight back in the saddle and took on the best challenges available, don't make em like that anymore.

[Kalan]

I was never super impressed with Hearns... I thought he was wide open for rights. I thought Leonard and Hagler would knock him out... I thought he would beat Barkley but I wasn't surprised that he got knocked down 3 times and lost both Barkley fights - because of his vulnerability to right hands.

Emmanuel Steward was the best trainer ever for the stance, footwork, jab, and right hand -- but many of his most famous students got taken out with big rights by underdogs -- Lennox Lewis.. Jermain Taylor.. Vivian Harris.. and Tommy Hearns.. I don't blame Steward for Klitschko's loss to Brewster.. He hadn't been with Wlad long enough to revamp his game -- and there seemed to be something physically wrong with Wladimir from the 2nd round on.. It seemed that Steward lost interest in boxers if they didn't get with his program right away.. Many didn't mesh with his way of doing things.. Hamid, Harris, Taylor, De La Hoya and a few others either didn't listen well, or there was something else with the relationship that was out of sync..

With Tommy Hearns, ES had a guy who had absolute faith in him through thick and thin. Still, it always looked like a good right hand counter puncher could take Tommy out because he'd load his shots at points when his opponent was still dangerous. A lot of Steward's fighter's did that. They tended to look for the KO a lot -- and that's something you don't do when you're facing a puncher. To a certain degree you're a product of your trainer.

[Ambling Alp II]

I knew these last few weeks were to good to be true.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I think Hearns being an ATG is certainly debatable. He consistently lost his biggest fights.

[BoxBuzz]

How can one not be impressed with Hearns?...I asked myself.....

Seriously....he was nothing if not impressive.....and I believe that his win over Duran was a one shot outcome....and probably his fight with Hagler as well. He was a no prisoners fighter....and some of those gambles could go either way in my opinion.

[Cojimar 1946]

I guess it depends what criteria people are using. For example plenty of people seem skeptical of De La Hoya's status as an ATG. Yet if Hearns is an ATG than why not De La Hoya? Oscar also enjoyed success over a number of weight classes and came up short in his biggest fights.

[Cojimar 1946]

Klitschko is another good example. There are countless Klitschko-bashers on this forum who obsess over his losses to Brewster and Sanders. Yet these same people have no issue with Barkley knocking out a prime Hearns and then beating him in a rematch

[elmersalsa]

I guess it depends what criteria people are using. For example plenty of people seem skeptical of De La Hoya's status as an ATG. Yet if Hearns is an ATG than why not De La Hoya? Oscar also enjoyed success over a number of weight classes and came up short in his biggest fights.

Has Oscar De La Hoya ever beaten someone like greats like Roberto Duran and Wilfred Benitez?

Who was the first fighter in history to win 4 crowns in 4 different weight classes?

Who's the only fighter to knock out the great Roberto Duran?

You can't compare Oscar De La Hoya with someone as great as Thomas Hearns. That's a blasphemy.

[Cojimar 1946]

Many people feel he deserved the decision over Felix Trinidad. His win over a past-it but still dangerous Whittaker was also impressive.

[Ambling Alp II]

Klitschko is another good example. There are countless Klitschko-bashers on this forum who obsess over his losses to Brewster and Sanders. Yet these same people have no issue with Barkley knocking out a prime Hearns and then beating him in a rematch

I am a Klitschko basher and makes no bones about it. Most people do count the Barkley losses against Hearns and would rate him higher had he won.

However, you are missing key points here:

-Klitschko also had an embarrassing loss to Ross Purrity. That is three meltdowns against fighters that were far from great. Hearns really only had one. Hearns actually could have got the decision against Barkley in the rematch.

-You have to look at their wins as well. Klitschko biggest win in his entire career was over Chris Byrd. Benitez and Duran were far better than Chris Byrd. Even Cuevas and Hill were clearly better than Byrd.

Klitschko is not remotely in Hearn's league.

[Ambling Alp II]

Many people feel he deserved the decision over Felix Trinidad. His win over a past-it but still dangerous Whittaker was also impressive.

DLH was a great fighter. elmer doesn't like him so he won't rate him highly. Yes he should have got the decision over Trinidad. However, when you compare his career against Hearns, it's obvious that Hearns was better.

Hearns should be rated somewhere in the 20-30 range all time.
DLH should probably be somewhere in the 75-100 range.

[Cojimar 1946]

Another factor people seem to be overlooking with Hearns is that some of his wins are against guys above their optimal weights. The version of Duran that Hearns beat was still among the best fighters at that weight but far more beatable than he was at 135 or 147. There are fighters regarded as good but not great who would be favored to beat the Duran Hearns faced. He had already lost to Kirkland Laing by this stage.

[elmersalsa]

Many people feel he deserved the decision over Felix Trinidad. His win over a past-it but still dangerous Whittaker was also impressive.

DLH was a great fighter. elmer doesn't like him so he won't rate him highly. Yes he should have got the decision over Trinidad. However, when you compare his career against Hearns, it's obvious that Hearns was better.

Hearns should be rated somewhere in the 20-30 range all time.
DLH should probably be somewhere in the 75-100 range.

There are many great fighters that deserve the top 100 ATG pound per pound list than Oscar De La Hoya. The Golden Boy FLUNKED against Felix "Tito" Trinidad BIG TIME. He also lost BIG Time TO three guys smaller than he in Shane Mosley, Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather, Jr. And that Oscar performance against the great Bernard Hopkins, oh boy!, he really put the icing on the cake.

[Ambling Alp II]

Mosley, Pacquiao, and Mayweather were not smaller than him. If you are going to do crap about a fighter always being at their beginning weigh thing, then you can't count the Hopkins fight because Hopkins was bigger than him. He was past it by the time he fought Pac and Mayweather anyway. He was competitive against Mosley and Mayweather. Should have got the decision in the Mosley rematch.

He got hosed against Trinidad.

If you are going to try to pretend that he wasn't past his best when he fought Mayweather and Pacquiao , then you have to count the Whitaker and Chavez wins and pretend they were at their best.

You can't have it both ways.

[Ambling Alp II]

Another factor people seem to be overlooking with Hearns is that some of his wins are against guys above their optimal weights. The version of Duran that Hearns beat was still among the best fighters at that weight but far more beatable than he was at 135 or 147. There are fighters regarded as good but not great who would be favored to beat the Duran Hearns faced. He had already lost to Kirkland Laing by this stage.

Hearns almost decapitated Duran. Duran has just given Hagler all he could over 15 rounds at 160. Pretty sure Duran could fight at 154. Duran was giving Pazienza and Camacho trouble 10 years later. Duran still had a lot left. That was major win for Hearns.

Not sure who else was supposed to be above their optimal weights that Hearns beat.