I'd be inclined to agree with this.Ezzard wrote:I'd also add that had Briscoe been around in the 1990s he'd have probably won one of the titles.
It was just another example of proof of the rule that had worked for 15 years for Jones. McCallum looked exactly the same way as almost 50 other Jones' opponents. He wasn't known to be relying on fast reflexes or fast hands or fast feet prior to Jones' fight either, so that even if he were younger, he'd still be outsped too severely to be able to do anything, and at the things the Body Snatcher was famous for, he met his rival, who was even more exceptional at body punching than the master himself, while having a body made of iron to take anything McCallum had in reserve.Ezzard wrote:So can we say the same thing for McCallum? Does he get the same license?
Problem is he was being pummelled on the ropes when this happened. He wasn't used to that as far as I can tell from my 11 Jackson's fights.I'd agree only that Jackson made a habit of getting lucky. Remember Terry Norris? Jackson's game plan in every fight was 'knock the other guy out'. Jackson's skill was the KO punch.
I am aware, he was 2-1 favorite. But you see, I did it with these things in my mind, added the conditions about similar sizes and being ranked in the same division where the fight took place. Even a high-ranking P4P fighter can lose to another good fighter if he moves up in weight and challenges the champion there.But he was still favourite going into the fight and was still ranked in the P4P top 10. You are interested in rankings prior to fights in your system so why doesn't Curry's high standing count in this one?
So I figured, excuse my sarcasm.Apologies, I meant Valdez (Rodriguez for Rodrigo Valdez: there is some logic there, somewhere)...
I commented on what I thought about all 3 fighters' status at the time of the fight with Monzon, as well as about their status in history, compared to Jones' three fighters.But no you haven't commented on whether Monzon's 6 wins are better than Jones' 3...
Senya13 wrote:He wasn't known to be relying on fast reflexes or fast hands or fast feet prior to Jones' fight either, so that even if he were younger, he'd still be outsped too severely to be able to do anything, and at the things the Body Snatcher was famous for, he met his rival, who was even more exceptional at body punching than the master himself, while having a body made of iron to take anything McCallum had in reserve.
And I started this mostly to point out how unreasonable and biased some fighters' placement is at middleweight. Fighters like Harry Greb or Mickey Walker should be reated elsewhere, because they haven't done enough to be ranked at 160lb. Yet Greb appears in almost every rating in Top 5 at middleweight and Walker appears in almost every rating in Top 10 at middleweight. Neither of them even belongs in Top 10 based on lack of accomplishments at this weight.Ezzard wrote:Barry, I'm not here to devalue Jones I simply believe that Senya's spirited arguement devalues others' accomplishments.
These are all merely opinions. I agree that McCallum was not noted for his speed, but his reflexes and ring generalship were such that he could overcome speed. I also agree that RJJ probably would have been too fast for even a prime McCallum, but that is also my opinion, and there were some moments in the first 5 rounds of their fight when the over the hill, nearly 40 year old McCallum was able to effectively force the fight and control the action. Several of the judges gave him a few of the early rounds, and I think that was an accurate reflection of the action. Had McCallum been younger, it’s certainly not a stretch to think that he would have had better strength and stamina, and would have been able to give RJJ a very rough time.Senya13 wrote:What I'm saying is McCallum was never known as a fighter who relied on his speed more than on his skills. His speed and timing indeed had detoriated, but even if he were in his prime, the difference in speed between him and Jones would still be too much, it wouldn't make much difference from what we had seen from his old version vs Roy. He'd still be made to miss most of the time, being countered at almost every attempt of aggression. And at infighting Jones was at least as good, I'd say even better than McCallum, both in attack and in defense, he had a much harder punch too.
Same as it is speculating that McCallum would do any better had he been closer to his prime. Same as we all do all the time, when we are discussing virtual matchups, ratings, etc.Ambling Alp wrote:You can speculate that Jones would have beaten McCallum at his best, but that is all you are doing, speculating.
I really don't know how many times do I have to reiterate the fact that I rate Marvin Hagler (pre-1990 fighter) at #1, and Carlos Monzon (pre-1990 fighter) at #3 and Ray Robinson (pre-1990 fighter) at #5.Seyna13 seems to consider fighters pre 1990's fighters to be inferior, at least middleweights.
You would be very surprised to know how many fights that are considered great or significant now (in hindsight) weren't considered as such at the time they happened.Interesting since there hasn't bea great fight at 160 in 20 years).
I actually was using the Ring's policy of ranking fighters' placement in history in this or that weight division, to come to the conclusions I described above. The one where they rank Greb and Walker at middleweight, and Tunney and Charles at heavyweight. Earnie Shavers was once ranked at #10 in the 175lb division (for his victory over ranked light heavyweight 191lb Vicente Rondon), so that I now have all rights to claim Earnie Shavers was the hardest hitting light heavyweight of all time.Jones win over almost 40 year old McCallum is considered a big deal
This clearly wasn't Jones' best weight class either.This clearly wasn't McCallum's best weight class anyway.
Based on evaluating other great fighters' careers at the age around 32-34, and considering Griffith's career up to that point (he had had plenty of fights at top level), and using the same arguments everyone has been telling me whenever I start telling them B/ Leonard, Charles, Robinson, Pep, and other great fighters started to lose fights around this age, that they were ring-worn.-However, he refers to Griffith as "washed up" when Monzon beat him. Griffith was past his his best, but he surely wasn't washed up. Griffith was 33, which is huge difference from 39.
Where I pointed out that in that time span the only win over great fighter was when 30-year old Griffith beat a 41-year old Dick Tiger. Whatever other "10 last fights" there were, they were against opposition that wasn't on same level.Griffith had won his last 10 fights, and was still considered one of the top 3 middleweights in the world.
If you took time to read my posts, you'd know that I gave Monzon a win over 1 Top25 middleweight (Benvenuti), whereas I gave Hopkins 0 (zero) such wins.He trys to claim that Monzon's title defenses over Valdez,Benvenuti and Brisco were almost not that impressive.
Are we supposed to believe that any of Hopkins title defenses are more impressive?
I never made claim about his defense vs Thomas Tate having any significance.Or that Jones one title title defense (against Thomas Tate) was more impressive that Monzon beat those guys??
I simply listed those fights against clearly inferior opposition (often much-much worse than Thomas Tate), and posted comments about a couple of fights that were written in newspapers when those fights took place.-Seyna13 rips several other middleweight champions middleweight title fights.
I see no need to mention what every one knows already.However, he doesn't even mention Jones' middleweight title fights.
Jones only had 2.
This I addressed when I listed Greb's and Walker's middleweight title fights, if that list of defenses was impressive, then I must not understand something. While none of them have a win of Jones-Hopkins caliber (with Hopkins' greatness estimated in hindsight; similar to how Greb's victory over Walker was claimed to be great, whereas it was considered totally meaningless at the time the fight took place).He won the vacant IBF title, and had a grand total of one title defense. Many, many other middleweights did more in middleweight title defenses.
I totally agree that Greb and Jones should be judged the same way. That's why I say Greb's fights at other weights shouldn't count for his legacy at 160lb, no matter that the Ring magazine listed him at middleweight ratings while he was fighting above that weight. OR, if we want to count those fights for him at middleweight, then Jones' wins over James Toney, Mike McCallum and Reggie Johnson (all former middleweight champions) should count for his middleweight legacy, even though they took place at other weights.Greb and Jones should be judged the same way. If you count the fights when they were over 160, Greb's victories were more impressive; if don't count them Greb was still more impressive.
This has been addressed multiple times, I'm not gonna spend time repeating the arguments and counter-arguments yet again.What I was saying was that Hopkins wasn't nearly the fighter that he would become.
They weren't my own words, they were the words taken from newswire article printed in multiple US newspapers the next day after the fight.-On the other hand, Senya13 trys to say that Greb's win over Walker's doesn't mean anything.
Again, if you took time to read the newspapers reports about that fight, you'd be aware that McTigue chose to fight at 160lb weight limit on purpose, so that his light heavyweight title wouldn't be at stake. He was never in danger in that fight, it was clear after a couple of rounds that Walker couldn't do anything to him, couldn't hurt him and neutralize his defensive tactics. Walker won the fight on doing a lot more, of course. Had the title been on stake, McTigue would be weighing close to 175lb and fighting a completely different kind of fight.Well, Walker had just won a newspaper decision over the lightheavyweight champion 6 months previously. If there would have been judges, Walker probably would have won the lightheavyweight title.
Walker was very good welterweight at the time. At middleweight he wasn't considered anything, but another meaningless sculp in Greb's record.Walker had to be at least close to his potential at the time that Greb beat him.
With three of these four, being in my Top5 as well.Lo and behold, the top 4 consists of Greb,Monzon,Hagler, and Robinson!
I'll say it different, everyone rates Jones using different set of rules than they use for more famous (and popular) old-timers.He is obviously not rating Jones the same way as he rates others.
The scorecards, listed in boxrec database for this fight are not the official scorecards. There was a dispute between the Florida Athletic Comission and the WBC about the judges. The official judges were the ones assigned by the Florida, all 3 scored the fight 120-107, whereas the secondary set of judges (from the WBC) was sitting several rows away from the ring and scored it the way you see in boxrec database. The official verdict (and it's listed in all newspaper reports the next day) was Jones won all rounds. I'm still waiting till I learn the names of the judges (my film of the fight ends before they are announced), I'm gonna be putting them into database instead of the unofficial ones listed right now.The Great John L wrote:there were some moments in the first 5 rounds of their fight when the over the hill, nearly 40 year old McCallum was able to effectively force the fight and control the action. Several of the judges gave him a few of the early rounds, and I think that was an accurate reflection of the action.
Morrison wasn't known as a particularly fast fighter. With Jones we have a long string of fights where he outsped all of his opponents (regardless of what age they were) by much, with the only exception to this rule being the Glen Johnson fight, but there he didn't even try, except for one round.BTW, using the reasoning you’ve applied to McCallum-RJJ, could Morrison have out boxed a prime Foreman?
I didn't ask exactly that, I pointed out the argument about size multiple times. You obviously didn't consider this, thus Duran for Leonard. As well as I pointed out they must have both skill in abundance, and very good accomplishments. This eliminates most of the rest of your list.Ambling Alp wrote:seyna13 had asked that I name 3 defeated opponents of fighters who I said were as good as the "sum total" McCallum, Hopkins, and Jones.
Based on this statement it makes all of your earlier disparaging remarks about Greb’s opposition look pretty silly. He feasted on talented guys bigger than him, but you seem to focus only his MW opposition. Or did I miss something obvious again?Senya13 wrote:They have to beat genuine middleweights or bigger fighters to get credit for it, so that it is purely a matchup of skills and wits.
But surely this negates your arguement that Hopkins is boarderline top 5 MW as his biggest wins are Trinidad, De La Hoya and Tarver, none of which really achieved anything at Middleweight.Senya13 wrote:Those bigger men had to have serious achievements at middleweight (even if they fought Greb at heavier weights), for Greb's middleweight legacy to go up.
Senya13 wrote:Ezzard wrote:So can we say the same thing for McCallum? Does he get the same license?There are so many sssumptions here that are simply ungrounded. If as you say Roy is so easily going to outspeed everyone else why did he bother fighting anyone at all? McCallum at 25 might, just might, have been a darned sight quicker than a heavier McCallum at almost 40. This would have had a bearing on the fight. We might also expect him to have more stamina and endurance. To dismiss his chances is either due to poor analysis or an over zealous emotional attachment... To insist on this as a great win but dismiss Jones' defeats as being past his prime is not a coherent argument.Senya13 wrote: It was just another example of proof of the rule that had worked for 15 years for Jones. McCallum looked exactly the same way as almost 50 other Jones' opponents. He wasn't known to be relying on fast reflexes or fast hands or fast feet prior to Jones' fight either, so that even if he were younger, he'd still be outsped too severely to be able to do anything, and at the things the Body Snatcher was famous for, he met his rival, who was even more exceptional at body punching than the master himself, while having a body made of iron to take anything McCallum had in reserve.
I'd agree only that Jackson made a habit of getting lucky. Remember Terry Norris? Jackson's game plan in every fight was 'knock the other guy out'. Jackson's skill was the KO punch.You're clutching at straws here... Even when the evidence (not opinion) is recorded as a win for Jackson you still cling to an idea that Graham was better. Graham was a top fghter and on another night might have won but "might" is all we can say.Senya13 wrote: Problem is he was being pummelled on the ropes when this happened. He wasn't used to that as far as I can tell from my 11 Jackson's fights.
But he was still favourite going into the fight and was still ranked in the P4P top 10. You are interested in rankings prior to fights in your system so why doesn't Curry's high standing count in this one?So Curry was a smaller man than Mike because he held titles at 147. MCCallum was not a smaller man than Jones even though he held a title at 154? How many double standards do you think your system can get away with?Senya13 wrote: I am aware, he was 2-1 favorite. But you see, I did it with these things in my mind, added the conditions about similar sizes and being ranked in the same division where the fight took place. Even a high-ranking P4P fighter can lose to another good fighter if he moves up in weight and challenges the champion there.
Apologies, I meant Valdez (Rodriguez for Rodrigo Valdez: there is some logic there, somewhere)...Don't worry, it's appreciated...Senya13 wrote: So I figured, excuse my sarcasm.
But no you haven't commented on whether Monzon's 6 wins are better than Jones' 3...Not the same thing though... Even if I was to agree with you on the merits of Jones' opponents Monzon beat each of the foes mentioned twice. That's 6 opponents to Jones' 3.Senya13 wrote: I commented on what I thought about all 3 fighters' status at the time of the fight with Monzon, as well as about their status in history, compared to Jones' three fighters.
Even if all this is true. Even if Jones walks through him at 160 in his prime Jones didn't actually do it so you can't list it as an achievement, which is what all this is about. If I buy your line it has no bearing on what Jones achieved. I think you need to reconsider.Senya13 wrote:What I'm saying is McCallum was never known as a fighter who relied on his speed more than on his skills. His speed and timing indeed had detoriated, but even if he were in his prime, the difference in speed between him and Jones would still be too much, it wouldn't make much difference from what we had seen from his old version vs Roy. He'd still be made to miss most of the time, being countered at almost every attempt of aggression. And at infighting Jones was at least as good, I'd say even better than McCallum, both in attack and in defense, he had a much harder punch too.
*sigh*J-C wrote:I know you mention Hopkin's longevity but Monzon and Hagler can hardly be faulted on that score and you said their quality of opposition keeps them out of the top five, however both men fought better comp than Hopkins.
This is very misleading. In a non-title fight weighing 1, 2 or even 3 (?) pounds above 154 does not necessarily make it a middleweight fight.Senya13 wrote:How exactly was McCallum a smaller man than Jones?Ezzard wrote:Your test falls down on question 2 as McCallum was the naturally smaller man.
McCallum's weight statistics (rounding up):
150lb - 2 fights
151 - 1
153 - 4
154 - 8
155 - 4
156 - 3
157 - 4
158 - 3
159 - 4
160 - 3
162 - 1
163 - 1
165 - 1
167 - 2
168 - 3
170 - 1
171 - 1
174 - 2
175 - 4
180 - 1
182 - 1
grouping by weight divisions:
154lb - 15 fights
160lb - 21 fights
168lb - 8
175lb - 8
190lb - 2
What you mean? He fought AND outsped everyone he faced (although someone may question this regarding the Glen Johnson fight, but I'll say look at the round where Jones "woke up", he could hit Johnson at will, easily finding and exploiting holes in his defense.Ezzard wrote:If as you say Roy is so easily going to outspeed everyone else why did he bother fighting anyone at all?
I might have been quicker when I was younger, than I am today, but if I faced a top runner, that wouldn't matter much, he'd still run 100 meters several seconds faster than I.McCallum at 25 might, just might, have been a darned sight quicker than a heavier McCallum at almost 40.
He didn't seem to be weary and gassed at the end of that fight, from what I remember.We might also expect him to have more stamina and endurance.
I simply am remembering the 2nd Tarver fight. The fact that Tarver stopped Jones there, doesn't mean he was a better fighter. Because he was outboxed silly the previous 1.5 rounds.You're clutching at straws here... Even when the evidence (not opinion) is recorded as a win for Jackson you still cling to an idea that Graham was better. Graham was a top fghter and on another night might have won but "might" is all we can say.
McCallum had fought at 175lb for 3 years and captured (and already lost) a title there by the time Jones met him. Curry hadn't won any title. On physical attributes he is not smaller, but actually bigger than Jones, and his body frame carried that weight quite good.So Curry was a smaller man than Mike because he held titles at 147. MCCallum was not a smaller man than Jones even though he held a title at 154? How many double standards do you think your system can get away with?
Beating opposition, that is inferior to those three fighters, several times doesn't sum up arithmetically.Not the same thing though... Even if I was to agree with you on the merits of Jones' opponents Monzon beat each of the foes mentioned twice. That's 6 opponents to Jones' 3.
He was clearly reducing weight to fight for the title:Ezzard wrote:This is very misleading. In a non-title fight weighing 1, 2 or even 3 (?) pounds above 154 does not necessarily make it a middleweight fight.
