BoxRec

How much credit should Roy get for winning a HW title? Yes, he was the first fighter in a century to win titles from MW to HW, but he won a trinket belt by beating a slow, light-punching, undersized HW in Ruiz.

Not much. He won a cracker jack box belt. He didn't beat the Heavyweight Champion.

The other fighters to have done what he did actually beat THE Heavyweight Champion.

Roy had a fantastic career, and deserves a lot of credit for it. His Heavyweight "Title" win doesn't rank among his Top 5 career victories in my opinion.

Roy deserves a lot of credit for capturing one of the big four heavyweight world titles, because if this accomplishment was deemed so "easy", then lots of 175lb-ers would have attempted and also emulated this feat, but none of them have done so since.

I've been in a lot of boxing gyms and many LHW's can beat mediocre Heavyweights all day... It's pretty amazing because size DOES matter a lot... However size has to be matched with quickness and athleticism for you to boss top Light Heavyweights... They'll punch a fat, punky Heavyweight around like they own him.

But if you can jab and hook sharply... If you've got real good balance, foot speed, and great conditioning... and you've got real good size, height, and reach on them, 4 to 6 inches everywhere... plus you're real strong and can hit real good and you've got 40 or 50 pounds on them... There is no way any Light Heavyweight is even going to spar with you unless you take it super easy on them.. You hit them real good and they'll never get in there again.

It was garbage so lets be honest here. Roy just did some cherrypicking with one of the weakest champions in perhaps boxing history in John Ruiz. He will be the first one to tell you how great he was and even he doesn't talk about it much these days.

He deserves credit for the reason EO put, but at the same time we have to consider the facts.

- more recognised belts than ever to achieve this

- Ruiz was ordinary at best when considering the level of a champion

- Ruiz was toward the smaller end of the scale re size, so the physical advantages weren't as mental as they could be.

Saying that it is very very rare. Wards been mooted to fight at heavy, but I can only imagine the current 175ers getting beat up vs the heavies

He still beat a legitimate champion. While Ruiz was ugly, he was very effective at that point. I feel that Roy had some officiating help in not letting Ruiz execute his normal style of fighting, but that's fine with me.

Enlightened-One wrote:Roy deserves a lot of credit for capturing one of the big four heavyweight world titles, because if this accomplishment was deemed so "easy", then lots of 175lb-ers would have attempted and also emulated this feat, but none of them have done so since.

We see a lot of talk about Wilder being an awful heavyweight title holder.
If it was so easy for a 175lber to beat a heavyweight..........even a mediocre one.........why haven't we seen Kovalev or Ward run up the scale and take that belt from him?

In a hypothetical match up how many people would favor Ruiz over Wilder?
Prior to this particular thread probably an overwhelming majority would have chosen Ruiz.

Nobody was confusing John Ruiz for a future hall of famer but he was a legitimate top five heavyweight of that time frame and in his prime at the time of the fight.

To me it means about the same as Sugar Ray Leonard winning a light heavyweight title, or Manny Pacquiao winning a junior middleweight title. In other words, not much.

...it might look differently today but at the time it happened it was quite an accomplishment..

VG_Addict wrote:How much credit should Roy get for winning a HW title? Yes, he was the first fighter in a century to win titles from MW to HW, but he won a trinket belt by beating a slow, light-punching, undersized HW in Ruiz.

As boring ruiz was. He was a good hw who beat holyfield. It is not that beat ruiz, it is the way he did it wininning 12 out of 12 rds. Tyson & holyfield would had mayor problems with jones. Rjj should fought both of them. I dont care who wouldve win or lost, just good match ups. Roy wouldve have had a good chance defeating both.

Jip wrote: Tyson & holyfield would had mayor problems with jones. Rjj should fought both of them. I dont care who wouldve win or lost, just good match ups. Roy wouldve have had a good chance defeating both.

that's what your expert eye tells you?

Counter-puncher wrote:

Jip wrote: Tyson & holyfield would had mayor problems with jones. Rjj should fought both of them. I dont care who wouldve win or lost, just good match ups. Roy wouldve have had a good chance defeating both.

that's what your expert eye tells you?

It is so ludacris to think that the p4p #1 ever boxer would have a chance against tyson & holyfield.

Jip wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

Jip wrote: Tyson & holyfield would had mayor problems with jones. Rjj should fought both of them. I dont care who wouldve win or lost, just good match ups. Roy wouldve have had a good chance defeating both.

that's what your expert eye tells you?

It is so ludacris to think that the p4p #1 ever boxer would have a chance against tyson & holyfield.

Yes, it is.

Counter-puncher wrote:

Jip wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:
that's what your expert eye tells you?

It is so ludacris to think that the p4p #1 ever boxer would have a chance against tyson & holyfield.

Yes, it is.

Yeah...chubby toney defeated eh, but roy would have 0 chances.

He deserves loads of credit. He basically did it because he felt like having an HW title. He was an extreme talent.

A bit for doing it at all, but it's not exactly his crowning achievement.

He still showed he could beat a much bigger man.

Ossyrules wrote:He deserves credit for the reason EO put, but at the same time we have to consider the facts.

- more recognised belts than ever to achieve this

- Ruiz was ordinary at best when considering the level of a champion

- Ruiz was toward the smaller end of the scale re size, so the physical advantages weren't as mental as they could be.

Saying that it is very very rare. Wards been mooted to fight at heavy, but I can only imagine the current 175ers getting beat up vs the heavies

Very true, about the only way I could imagine it is Hughie Fury beats Parker, then Ward gets a fight against Hughie.

Even then I think Hughie would likely win, I'd be rooting for Ward though.

Jip wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

Jip wrote: Tyson & holyfield would had mayor problems with jones. Rjj should fought both of them. I dont care who wouldve win or lost, just good match ups. Roy wouldve have had a good chance defeating both.

that's what your expert eye tells you?

It is so ludacris to think that the p4p #1 ever boxer would have a chance against tyson & holyfield.

No, Langford would be giving up a good bit of size but he would have a chance.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Jip wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:
that's what your expert eye tells you?

It is so ludacris to think that the p4p #1 ever boxer would have a chance against tyson & holyfield.

No, Langford would be giving up a good bit of size but he would have a chance.

In a way he deserves credit, but then again, he doesn't. He probably peed in his pants when someone mentioned Lennox Lewis to him.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Jip wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:
that's what your expert eye tells you?

It is so ludacris to think that the p4p #1 ever boxer would have a chance against tyson & holyfield.

No, Langford would be giving up a good bit of size but he would have a chance.

There is not much footage of sam langford on yutub. Go watch yourself langford vs flynn III. Slow footwork & slluggish. Boxing was at its beginning and it wasnt very good. Boxing like every sport evolved, became better. If that is your p4p 1 ever, a slow, sluggish guy who wrestle more than he box than you realy have 0 business judging a boxers quality.

Anytime you disagree with me, I know I'm right. All the live fights and modern film lead you to the conclusion that Davies was better than Crawford.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Anytime you disagree with me, I know I'm right. All the live fights and modern film lead you to the conclusion that Davies was better than Crawford.

Hehe.....that is all you got. One bad example from me that you will repeat 1000 times because aside from that you dont have nothing on me?

Jip wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Anytime you disagree with me, I know I'm right. All the live fights and modern film lead you to the conclusion that Davies was better than Crawford.

Hehe.....that is all you got. One bad example from me that you will repeat 1000 times because aside from that you dont have nothing on me?

God no, you're constantly wrong. You just cited Brooks reach as a reason he'll beat Crawford when Terrence has longer arms. Whitaker was better than Roy. And the Davies thing, I've never been that wrong. You have nice enthusiasm for the sport and a rare positive attitude, you just struggle to understand what you're watching.