Roy Jones in better times?

[Grimm]

in the 40s and 50s, roy jones would have been champion anywhere from middleweight to heavyweight. tony zale could have beat jones??? gene fullmer?? we all have our opinions but his skill level was too much for any of the fighters listed above. he did things in the ring that no other fighter has. at his best, jones was the best i've seen. jones in his prime is the champ in any era.

I would give anything to have Roy Jones face Archie Moore at their primes. Just to show you how flimsy your statement is. The Moore that takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin' would just completely deflate Jones. A smart and tough fighter like Archie would just be too much for Roy. Why? Because he WOULD hit him and NOT be paralyzed by a reputation. Archie might hit the canvas at time or two but Roy could not keep him down....and that would spell the end of Roy's confidence. Roy could simply not take the incoming and believe me Archie would offer up incoming the likes Roy has never seen. Early on Roy would have Archie missing....and then the mongoose would simply take in the lessons, develop his counter attack in real time, and eventually grind the heart out of Roy. He would recognize right away that Roy don't like gettin hit....and that would work out pretty well for Archie.

I agree that Monzon would dominate Roy as well. I don't see Roy doing well against skilled and steady, steamrollers.

See Patterson vs. Moore.

[dempseyfire]

Stylewise Patterson and Roy are completly different fighters. Both had quick hands but the comparison ends there. The D'Amato peek a boo is NOT Roy Jones Jr.

[Grimm]

Stylewise Patterson and Roy are completly different fighters. Both had quick hands but the comparison ends there. The D'Amato peek a boo is NOT Roy Jones Jr.

I never said anything of the sort.

This is just the same result you would get.

[Ezzard]

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.

Whilst I've always been quick to interrogate Leonard's outside the ring manipulation he appears like a saint comapred to Roy. At least he fought them all.

Roycott? Remember that? The shame of the sport's biggest star being called out by fans and pundits. can you imagine that happening in the 40s and 50s.

I put Hearns at 160 to try and make a comparison. maybe he would have pole-axed Ali but he didn't pole-axe Leonard, did he...

Jones wouldn't have trained in the same gym as his Hagler let alone fought him.

I'm not telling you anything about maths. I'm trying to make you appreciate that skill and ability are the difference between Grim and Johnson. In this instance Maths is just a lazy tool of analysis for the hard of thinking.

[theone]

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.

Great post.

[p4p1]

i have to agree with parts of this post

[Ambling Alp]

It is true that some people are biased towards the old timers; just like some people are biased in favor of more recent fighters.

However, it's easy to pick on Jess Willard. Virtually everyone considers him one of the worst heavyweight champion. Is anyone saying that he some sort of legend? He got lucky in the sense that to win the title he just had to beat a fading Jack Johnson. Would have beaten a great fighter anywhere near his prime? Of course not. No is claiming he would have. However, Willard should get a little respect for making the most out of opportunity. To win the title he had to go 26 rounds in the hot sun. At the very least, he had to have some good stamina. Can anyone imagine Rahman Peter waddling around that long?

As for the recent/current fighter vs fighters from yesteryear debate- You have to take some factors into consideration. The United States dominated boxing for almost 100 years; especially in the higher weight classes.
It is a fact and not just an opinion that there isn't as many boxers in the United States as there used to be.
Simple common sense tells you that the overall talent level will drop off big time; especially in the heavyweight division, and it has.

Of course there have been great fighters recently; Pac Man, Morales, Barrera, De La Hoya, etc. would have been at or near the top in any era.
However, you shouldn't just assume that they would walk through great fighters from previous eras because of their "great talent". The world didn't start when we born.

[Goodnight, Irene]

It is true that some people are biased towards the old timers; just like some people are biased in favor of more recent fighters.

However, it's easy to pick on Jess Willard. Virtually everyone considers him one of the worst heavyweight champion. Is anyone saying that he some sort of legend? He got lucky in the sense that to win the title he just had to beat a fading Jack Johnson. Would have beaten a great fighter anywhere near his prime? Of course not. No is claiming he would have. However, Willard should get a little respect for making the most out of opportunity. To win the title he had to go 26 rounds in the hot sun. At the very least, he had to have some good stamina. Can anyone imagine Rahman Peter waddling around that long?

As for the recent/current fighter vs fighters from yesteryear debate- You have to take some factors into consideration. The United States dominated boxing for almost 100 years; especially in the higher weight classes.
It is a fact and not just an opinion that there isn't as many boxers in the United States as there used to be.
Simple common sense tells you that the overall talent level will drop off big time; especially in the heavyweight division, and it has.

Of course there have been great fighters recently; Pac Man, Morales, Barrera, De La Hoya, etc. would have been at or near the top in any era.
However, you shouldn't just assume that they would walk through great fighters from previous eras because of their "great talent". The world didn't start when we born.