BoxRec

Posted: **05 Oct 2006, 04:50**

Eric the Viking wrote:
Terence wrote:As for the Hill scenario - predictably brought up - well Hearns is tall and Jones slightly smaller. The rub? Hill was doing well with the jab and Jones dipped his knees and landed a body shot to finish the fight. He did not crack the chin of Hill, only his aged body.
C'mon, Terence, turn off the bias just for a little while, willya? Hill wasn't landing shit with the jab - Jones was making him miss nearly everything, and at one point even smacked him with a couple hard jabs of his own (after having thrown none in the fight up to that point) and taunted him with what amounted to an "anything you can do, I can do better" (sorry, Ethel Merman does it better than I can ;)) gesture. Jones basically toyed with him the entire fight and then took him out. Now, the body shot was atypically ferocious even for Jones - but c'mon, to deny that that was one of the hardest single shots in recent memory is just delusional - it was freakish, just *listen* to the sound of it landing, the soundless slo-mo doesn't capture that. And, "aged" Hill? Sure, he was 34, probably a couple years past his LHW prime, and of course coming off a not-all-that-close loss to Michalczewski (but one in which he was out*boxed*, not stopped), but to imply that he was long in the tooth and somehow magically lost all his punch resistance within the space of a year or two in silly. This is a guy who wasn't sliding particularly fast - Virgil was actively fighting for legitimate world titles as early as this past year, ferchrissake.

On the flip side, I don't think anyone who's seen them both in their prime could reasonably argue that Jones was pound-for-pound a harder puncher than Hearns... no shame there, in his prime Hearns was pound-for-pound probably as hard a puncher as anyone in boxing history. But Hearns' best was at welterweight - at MW he hit still damn hard, but the guys he was fighting hit back a lot harder than the welters did, too. I'd say Jones at MW could hit every bit as hard as Hearns, if he set himself - most of the time, however, he didn't need to, and we all know that getting in brawls was not Jones' style. If he could win with speed and minimize the risk of getting nailed, he did. "Hit and don't get hit" - it might not be macho, but it's a pretty damn good recipe for success. And until very recently, I'd say it worked for him pretty well - who got KO'd more at middleweight, Hearns or Jones?

As for Hagler, damn, that's a tough one. I agree with the arguments that Jones was all wrong for the Marvelous one, basically slick and fast like Leonard but harder-punching (OTOH you have to give the edge in all-around ring savvy to Leonard), but I also agree that Hagler - though no speedster - was no plodder, was a very accurate puncher and like all great champions, nearly always found a way to win.

I'd say that, after removing the extreme outlying data points (Senya on the one side and Terence on the other) from our "statistical sample" here, the general consensus is that it would have been a very interesting matchup, though it's not clear whether it would have turned out to be a great *fight*. If Jones had turned out to have a sufficient speed edge (hand and foot speed) he would likely have stayed out of range and smacked Hagler from every weird angle known to man, on his way to a wide decision. On the other hand, if he ever got caught on (or deliberately backed himself into, as he sometimes did - but usually against the lesser fighters) the ropes or if Hagler managed to turn it into more of a brawl (Pazienza-style), that would've been a whole different kettle of fish. To say Hagler KOs Jones in that secnario is too simple - we don't really know what kind of punch resistance Jones had at MW, since his chin was so rarely tested until late in his career, against bigger men. But in that scenario I'd have to give the edge to his Marvelousness.

You are the only one with a sober view here and I concur 100% with you. And I love them both.

Posted: **05 Oct 2006, 07:18**

I just beleive that Jones would do a similar but more effective job on Marvin than Ray did, because Roy is naturally bigger than Ray and hits harder, is just as fast and is tricky at his peak to nail. If the Hagler that Minter faced shows up, Roy will need to be at his absolute fastest and cutest. I personally guys were overrated. But Hagler maybe more so. Marvi was easily bemused by slick fighters, even Leonard said hat he fight was easy. Granted Hagler was past his best, but Duran was no amazing display nor was Mugabi.

Posted: **05 Oct 2006, 09:34**

Terence wrote:I also do not deny it was one hard shot. What I did say is that it would be brought up in favour of Jones hitting harder than Hearns as Hill was a mutual foe who Hearns did not stop (sadly some thinking is so non-lateral this was brought up as predicted).

Sorry mate, but your impeccable, unbiased logic certainly doesn’t help with your reading ability. I brought up the Hill KO as evidence that Jones could indeed punch hard at LH. If you would please reread my posts you will see that I did NOT claim that Jones hit harder than Hearns, simply that Jones must have punched pretty hard in order to have stopped Hill. So please refrain from the pontificating and simply stick with the discussion – whatever the hell it was.

And yes, Jones KO’d Hill by landing a perfectly placed body shot. THAT’s HOW KOs HAPPEN!!! Hearn’s spectacular KO’s were also the results of perfectly timed shots that landed dead on target. That doesn’t diminish my opinion of his punching ability; it gives me more respect for it, as it should with Jones.

Posted: **05 Oct 2006, 09:34**

Just to say that I don't think Terence is being anything but reasonable. I certainly don't think he's biased. He's put up the best argument so far.

Posted: **05 Oct 2006, 10:36**

Terence wrote:Jones hit decently. He did not hit nowhere near as hard as Hearns. Some of Jones' best stoppage wins were of the hit them often variety. Jones' hitting at LH was pretty much like his dominance of the division, a misconception.

I’m sorry, but I’m still not seeing your comments as particularly insightful. I agree that RJJ was hardly an ATG puncher at LH, but I don’t recall many displays of Hearns devastating power at LH. Of course, I may have simply forgotten some of Hearns bone crushing KO’s of ranked light heavies. Care to list a few? We are talking about their respective punching power at LH, right? Hearns was one of the hardest punchers ever at WW, but I don’t recall him being the second coming of Bob Foster at LH.

Damn, and I was trying not to compare Jones power to Hearns power, but your comment -- “Jones hit decently” -- just struck a nerve.

Posted: **05 Oct 2006, 13:28**

Terence wrote:Yes, I knew it would, as I also knew you would bring in Virgil Hill.

You took the conversation to LH and I indulged you. Jones did not crack as hard as Hearns period. You are talking their power at LH in the hope that I will get stuck there and you can reel off Jones' LH punch stats. I said Hearns hit harder fdull-stop, and he did. The whole thing is just an excuse to get the debate to LH and twist a few stats to suit your erroneous 'argument', Hearns hit harder than Jones, it is not a opnening for a debate, for most rational people, it is a statement I am making.

You could throw up the argument that Tate had a tougher chin than Duran or Roldan of course. I would not as that other guy is getting that claim thrown back in his face very shortly.

I suggest you re-read my posts. Without your nerves being struck. From a style match-up to the usual 'net stats nonsense my claim has been that people see Hagler-Leonard and think Roy would beat him. Roy is no Leonard and he does not have the beating of Hagler.

Mate, you are either a bit delusional or truly psychic if you “knew I would bring in Virgil Hill”, because I hadn’t even been active with this thread for a number of days prior to mentioning the Hill KO, and had no exchanges with you on this thread. I was simply reading the thread and felt a bit obliged to jump in and point out a simple fact that Jones could indeed punch pretty hard. I think you’ve become a bit confused, because you’re discussing this as if I have posted something other than a simple comment that Jones could obviously punch pretty hard if he could KO Hill. Take a deep breath and you might realize that you might be crediting posts to me that were made by others.

And what do you mean by “usual 'net stats nonsense”?? I simply was looking for an intelligent discussion of accomplishments, not baseless opinions. Neither Hearns nor Jones were favorites of mine, but your incessant arrogant claims of superior logic are rather annoying even when directed at Senya.

While I think Hearns was a harder puncher P4P, he started as a WW and his KO’s diminished as he moved up, just like Jones and most other fighters as they progress up the weight classes. I don’t know who punched harder at MW, or LH, and neither do you, although I’m sure in your superior brain, with your superior logic, you truly believe that you know it as a fact.

And why would I bring up Tate? Where did that come from? I’m not arguing Hearns punching power, just trying to point out that you aren’t giving Jones credit for being able to punch when he clearly could punch pretty hard. Again, you seem to be rather confused.

Hagler and Jones were both great fighters. Many seem to discredit Jones, but the arguments are usually rather thin, because he did win convincingly for many years and did beat a few top notch fighters and many decent contenders. Of course the simple minded will use the usual “Hopkins was green” and “Toney was weight drained” argument, but he did beat both of them. Whether or not he could have beaten a prime Hagler is also nothing but opinion, but fighters with very good movement are usually much more difficult to beat unless their opponent is a high pressure, high volume puncher. Haggler was a greater MW, but anyone with the movement of Jones would have been difficult for him, or just about any other great MW.

Posted: **05 Oct 2006, 14:24**

Terence wrote: Feel free to throw up a strand about how Jones hit harder than Hearns if you wish, I will be happy to post on it.

I don’t think I would bother. Not really worth discussing, and really seems to be more your concern. I’ve made no statement that one could punch harder than the other.

Terence wrote:I do know who punched harder, it was Hearns, hence my comments about Hearns being the harder hitter.

Of course you do. We all know your superior intellect and perfect logic and reasoning allows you to know these things as facts, while the rest of us are left to look at things objectively.

Terence wrote:As for Jones-Hagler, it is a matter of opinion, so is the weather only some people can have more reasoned opinions.

You might want to look up the meaning of the word humility.

Terence wrote:I have said how and why Hagler would beat Jones, I am not basing it on a fight right at the end of a mans career and the fact Jones could move.

And neither am I or most of the others who have stated they thought Jones would be a very tough fight for Hagler. You have a habit of becoming obsessed with one persons post and then applying it to all others who may disagree with your superior intellect.

Terence wrote:Conversely the subject should realy be whether Jones could have taken the shots Hearns hit Hagler with. It is very good for Jones' fans to say he would never have been hit by them. It is a argument somewhat similar to the one that Tyson was indestructable for 90+ seconds, the real truth is that Hopkins and Toney were at points where they could not test this theory.

And as I mentioned, the simple minded, or in this case the arrogant and closed minded, always find ways to ignore facts that don’t fit with their views of reality. You could qualify for a job at the White House mate.

Terence wrote:People talk about the achievements of Jones, he won a lot of titles sure, what division was he ever Champion of? Surely there was one.

I thought at one point you said you liked Jones. Hmmm… maybe you were being a little dishonest.

Terence wrote:My point with the Hill comments is that it is predictable, once the conversation had turned to this topic, that Hill would be proudly brought up by someone, again it happened to be you. Like I said the logic is that A KO'd B and C could not do so, therefore A hits harder than C.

Where did that come from? You really don’t read well, because I stated it several times. I mentioned the Hill KO because I thought a reasonable person might be able to recognize that KOing Hill with a single body shot just might mean that Jones was a pretty good puncher. Had nothing to do with comparing his power to Hearns until you brought it up. But with your superior intellect and perfect logic, you explained that it really didn’t mean that he hit that hard because he caught Hill in the right spot. Or something feeble like that.

Posted: **05 Oct 2006, 14:42**

Terence wrote:Look away John L. I am about to very rude to this chap:

Rude is OK. It’s the pompous arrogance that gets pretty tiring.

Posted: **05 Oct 2006, 16:36**

Decagon wrote:I like Roy Jones so much that I downloaded one of his rap videos.. .

That almost sounds sick.

Posted: **06 Oct 2006, 01:07**

Terence wrote:Yes there is, it is called Jones-Toney where he had to move constantly to off-set Toney's balance.

When was the last time you watched that fight? There's no chance you confused it with Toney-Nunn somehow?

No because his legs were gone, so what happened?

How were his legs gone in Glen Johnson fight, and not in Tarver-3 and Ajamu fights? You will not find example where Jones attempted to dance on his toes longer than a couple of seconds, even this short dancing happened just once or twice the whole fight.

He was defensively inept

It's nothing but your opinion, not backed up by facts (the fight itself).

No he did not. When Tarver got him on the ropes Jones tucked-up and got hit with shots because his guard was static. Jones could not block a pop-up when his natural gifts left him.

Are you able to read? First, my arguments were based on Glen Johnson fight alone. Second, if you scroll back a page or two, you might notice this:

Senya13 wrote:Any claim about Jones blocking his line of fight on the ropes, is not backed up by evidence (other than 1st Tarver fight)

Johnson never hit him flush. Right, a light breeze KO'd him. So his chin really is awful then mate.

A usual attempt to move away from points that are contradicted by facts and where you have absolutely nothing to back up your point. Good try. Ignoratio elenchi in it's full force.

No. Jones stood right inside and warred with Ruiz the whole fight. I stand corrected.

Ditto. Had you actually watched the fight, you'd know that most of the time Jones was standing right in front of Ruiz, either countering Ruiz at every attempt to lead, or taking a lead himself, and then either side-stepping, or taking a step or two backwards.

I am not sure I understand your point here, I just know it is wrong.

When was the last time you had exams at university or high school? You approached your teachers with same things? "I have no idea what this philosopher/mathematician/whoever means, but I just subconsciously know he was flat wrong."

This is pure nonsense.

Anybody who actually took time to watch Jones at 160-168lb or watch several fights of the aforementioned fighters, or at least knows how old was Duran and what was his best weight, would know these are facts and theories backed up by facts.

Hill jabbed Jones, to the head and body as Jones made the mistake of turning his body from the jab and opening up space for a jab to the body.

How many clean jabs did Hill land to the body or head? Take his best round, if you don't have time to watch all 4.

Maybe Hearns was not sitting on his shots as an amateur.

You actually watched his fight against Pryor or not? He never attempted to put his weight behind his punches in that fight? When you have a very hard punch by nature, not something that is based mostly on your timing and technique, it will show off at the amateurs.

Tyrell Biggs. Audley Harrison.

What about them? Failing as a pro?

Posted: **06 Oct 2006, 05:06**

I got "RJJ counter punches" + BHB album as a bonus for US$5. And it wasn't pirated version or anything, official licensed dvd+cd.

Posted: **06 Oct 2006, 05:46**

Terence wrote:
Senya13 wrote:I got "RJJ counter punches" + BHB album as a bonus for US$5. And it wasn't pirated version or anything, official licensed dvd+cd.
His first album was truly awful. Ok, the first few songs were pretty funny as he talked about his career but the entire lyrical theme of the album was:

I am Roy Jones,
I have kicked some arse,
I am going to kick some more arse,
Roy knows best though,
you silly fans have forgotton how good I am,
I probably should fight a live body to prove it,
but I won't,
I am Roy Jones and Roy Jones knows what is best for Roy Jones doesn't he Roy,
that was a rhetorical question,
where them 'Roids at,
I'll fight Telesco instead,
Y'all must have forgot!

Ad Nauseum.

Sorry, mate, but can't let you get away with this. People are always having a go at modern fighters and saying the old greats were best, it's pure nostalgia. Jones could only sing about what was out there at the time he was in his prime and he did so in a fashion never seen before. By the time the karaokee warriors got to him he was alredy way past his prime.

On a head-to-head basis Jones takes them all, Sinatra, Bacharach, Buddy Holly, Elvis, Lennon & McCartney, Stevie Wonder wouldn't get past the second line of the chorus when put up against Roy. Sly Stone doesn't sound so great on MP3 and Roy would take the whole of The Jackson 5 on the same night. And he never avoided Diana Ross the truth she wanted no part of Roy. Don't even bother to bring up Bob Marley. He couldn't even rap!

Posted: **06 Oct 2006, 05:55**

Terence wrote:Nope.

Too bad, because Jones wasn't running at all in Toney fight. In-and-out-and-side-step with flurries from both hands is not running.

Actually you have cut the answer adrift.
As I pointed out Glen pressured Jones whereas Tarver is not a pressuring fighter and Ajamu is plain poor. For Tarver III he trained hard and brought his running shoes. In that fight going 12 rounds and losing was a victory for Jones.

He wasn't even trying to dance around the ring, that's the whole point. Had he attempted at least once, and figured Johnson was too fast to run away, that'd be totally different matter. Look up beyond the first round, in particular, rounds 2-4, 6-7 where Johnson threw between 40 and 50 punches per round, which is lower than compubox average punchstat for light-heavyweights (54-55 punches/round).

You are not realy putting up a decent defence of Jones on any level and at times trail into banality. I was trying to drag you into line, your credibility is also in minus figures. As shown by your ditching that silly 1a) 1b) nonsense.

You are not putting up any credible argumentation at all, that's why it's so easy to prove you wrong at almost every claim of yours.

He was landing them right up to the KO in round four. The US-feed was Jones love-in yet he did get tagged with jabs. I am now supoosed to count them? When I am in work? this may deflate you but I am not about to rush home to negate one of your 'points'.

I never heard what US commentators said, because my copy of it has Russian commentary. But regardless, you retreat yet again when asked to present any evidence at all to support your case.

Hard punchers are just not born, the fact Hearns was not a KO artist as an amatuer, for me, shows this. I watched the Pryor fight. He did not do some of things he did as a pro. For me the Schuler KO shows how Hearns worked so many KO's.

The thing is, speed, timing, precision and trajectory are what make one a devastating KO-artist in most cases. Earnie Shavers interview:

E.S - Yeah. Archie. He taught me where to place my punches. He was very wise.

Jones had all these qualities in abundance. As shows in Percy Harris, Glenn Wolfe, Thulane Malinga, Thomas Tate, Vinny Pazienza, Tony Thornton, Merqui Sosa, Mike McCallum (the KD), Montell Griffin-2, Virgil Hill, Reggie Johnson (the KD's), Richard Hall (first two rounds in particular), Julio César González (the KD's), John Ruíz (episode where Jones hurt Ruiz in 3rd or 4th round).

Yes and in the process showing that throwing up amateur names to prove a point about a pro fighter means absolutely nothing.

This is not about success or failure, this is about difference between natural punching power and taught punching technique+some innate predisposition/qualities.

William Page.
Eduardo Ayala.
Plus the other guys who took Jackson the distance. I suppose they had better chins than Duran.

Have you actually seen the Tate vs Jackson, Kiwanuka or Gannon fights? Or you are just going by boxrec?

Posted: **06 Oct 2006, 05:57**

I didn't listen to that CD. I don't listen rap anyway, not my kind of music.

Posted: **06 Oct 2006, 05:59**

Decagon wrote:So does spending eight hours a day on a message board, debating boxing with people we ostensively don't even like, but we all do it. I'm on disability. What's your excuse?

Nothing better to do...

Posted: **06 Oct 2006, 06:01**

Terence wrote:You are making some personal asssumptions about me based on lines of text concerning a specialist subject within a specialist subject.

Touche. Clearly beyond the comprehension of us mere mortals.

Posted: **06 Oct 2006, 06:20**

Terence wrote: Diana would leave him upside down

That's got to deserve a DQ

Posted: **06 Oct 2006, 13:16**

Terence wrote:It is a very good point irregardless.

"Irregardless??"

Oh, dear ... Terence, Terence, we expect rather better linguistic standards from that incisive, oh-so-superior British intellect of yours. Imagine the potential embarrassment of having your fellow Oxford dons find out that you're having to have your english corrected by a lowly colonial. :P

Posted: **14 Dec 2010, 13:26**

Hagler ends Jones career.

Posted: **14 Dec 2010, 18:20**

Monzon ends both their careers.

Posted: **15 Dec 2010, 09:05**

Nigel Benn moiders the whole bloody lot of them.

Posted: **15 Dec 2010, 09:52**

As someone said before, this essentially is speed vs power.
aoan this occasion, I am going to go with Power!

I can see Hagler stopping him in the 8th or 9th.

Posted: **15 Dec 2010, 10:51**

Wow, this thread has some truly awful posts in it. Marvin was most certainly a boxer/puncher and his jab would be hell on Roy. As for Jones knocking him out,

Roy would be on his bike nonstop in this one and that would cause Marvin some trouble. But I'll say Marvin would be on better terms in a boxing match than Jones would be when it was inside.

I'd say Jones had more one shot power, Hagler had the greatest chin I've ever seen. So the edge on who could take the others heavy stuff better would be Marvin's imo.

The jab and the pressure win Hagler a close decision.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZHIo5ylQA8

Check 2:08 on this clip for an example of hagler's 'plodding' footwork. That's as impressive as anything Roy has ever done.

Posted: **15 Dec 2010, 13:44**

ringsider wrote the book on "the virtues and benefits of being a southpaw".

Posted: **15 Dec 2010, 20:24**

BoxBuzz wrote:Monzon ends both their careers.

BoxBuzz you know better than that. Hagler would KO both Jones and Monzon on the same night in a handicap match.

Only Greb could do better than Hagler.

BoxRec

Middleweights: Roy Jones Jr vs Marvin Hagler

Re: Middleweights: Roy Jones Jr vs Marvin Hagler

Re: Middleweights: Roy Jones Jr vs Marvin Hagler

Re: Middleweights: Roy Jones Jr vs Marvin Hagler

Re: Middleweights: Roy Jones Jr vs Marvin Hagler

Re: Middleweights: Roy Jones Jr vs Marvin Hagler

Re: Middleweights: Roy Jones Jr vs Marvin Hagler

Re: Middleweights: Roy Jones Jr vs Marvin Hagler