Charles by UD

charles. dem was real fighters back then
charles would never lost to milk baby tarver

charles. dem was real fighters back then
charles would never lost to milk baby tarver

Jones would never have lost 25 times.

Jones would never have lost 25 times.

u just got yerself some good karma.

Jones, Charles is to slow.

Charles, anyone who says otherwise is ignore list material.

Thank you for saving me time for the future.

Jones would never have lost 25 times.

u just got yerself some good karma.

Please be clear bout this. Do you pick Jones to beat Charles?

Jones by UD

pre-2002 version of RJJ wins hands down, people really overrate the fighters in the old era, i have seen both of them fight and I have no doubt in my mind that RJJ wins this one, too much speed, too much ring intelligence.

You people aer ignorant and/or unable to take your fan goggles off your eyes... serisously.

Charles had only 3 losses against 175ers. TWO were avenged. ONE was at age 19 against a veteran with a record of 118-18-6.

If Jones had the bad luck of turning pro during WW2, he would have his fair share of losses, like all the greats of that era.

Records from the 90s are different from records from the 40s, which are in turn different from the records of old-timers.

Place Charles in the pampered world of today's boxing and he will not finish his career with 25 losses. Place Jones fighting to avoid starving every 3 weeks and you can kiss 49-1 goodbye.

Charles is simply put the best fighter to come out of one of the best crop of MW-SMW-LHWS ever, they fought each other on a monthly basis. And Charles was pretty much the master.

If Jones fought in the same world, he would probably face in one year: Toney, Hopkins, Eubank, Benn, McLellan, some of them a couple of times... Repeat next year. Now maybe you see the record a bit different.

charles would ud it.......although both have the power to ko each other I see both being too cautious (charles of jones speed and jones of charles power) to make it that interesting...if the fight was a 15 rounder Id see charles getting the ko...otherwise its a UD for charles

You people aer ignorant and/or unable to take your fan goggles off your eyes... serisously.

Charles had only 3 losses against 175ers. TWO were avenged. ONE was at age 19 against a veteran with a record of 118-18-6.

If Jones had the bad luck of turning pro during WW2, he would have his fair share of losses, like all the greats of that era.

Records from the 90s are different from records from the 40s, which are in turn different from the records of old-timers.

Place Charles in the pampered world of today's boxing and he will not finish his career with 25 losses. Place Jones fighting to avoid starving every 3 weeks and you can kiss 49-1 goodbye.

Charles is simply put the best fighter to come out of one of the best crop of MW-SMW-LHWS ever, they fought each other on a monthly basis. And Charles was pretty much the master.

If Jones fought in the same world, he would probably face in one year: Toney, Hopkins, Eubank, Benn, McLellan, some of them a couple of times... Repeat next year. Now maybe you see the record a bit different.

Thank you.

People who say Jones would win because old fighters are overrated have never seen Charles fight.
People who say Jones would lose because new fighters are overrated have probably never seen Charles fight either.
Jones has the edge on athleticism, Charles has the edge on technique.
I won't pick a winner because I honestly don't know enough about Charles.

The fights where he was at his best were never recorded on tape.
I have only seen the fights he has lost in against Marciano and Walcott.
I don't think I can judge him well enough from those performances where he was past his best.

I would like to see some good Charles fights from which I can judge him properly.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fY4Woi4LYjI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fY4Woi4LYjI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

this is just a highlight(him at hw of course), but he still had KO power at hw.

If were talking pre ruiz jones, no middleweight to lhw beats him period. If were talking after ruiz jones. Charles has a great chance.

They say Ezzard Charles was never the same after he killed Sam Baroudi (from injuries in the ring). After this fight I'd still pick Charles to win, he was always an amazing fighter.

how can people pick Charles on this one? Jones is so much quicker and more accurate than Charles. Watching that video he looks all clumbsy and awkward.

They say Ezzard Charles was never the same after he killed Sam Baroudi (from injuries in the ring). After this fight I'd still pick Charles to win, he was always an amazing fighter.




Bert Sugar was the first I actually heard say that. Since then, I've heard others say it as well, specifically from former trainers, fighters, and sports writers who actually saw him. They all seem to come to the conclusion, he lost the high aggressive/killer side to him to finish off opponents. Sugar Ray Robinson the same. You have to look at him prior to the fight to really see how feared he was, and remember that is key, he was said to be the most feared fighter at Light-Heavyweight.

For his losses, fighters back then fought so much they didn't take time off for injuries, let alone fatigue.

Jones Jr. should be looked at prior to Ruiz since he didn't look anything like himself afterwards and neither did Tarver when he did the same routine of gaining muscle weight and losing muscle weight in a short span at their age.

There are circumstances in everything and everybody should always look at all the facts and not just numbers. If one fighter loses, search out why...maybe he had the ****s that day and it took a lot out of him.

Unless people on this board have been thinking about this a long time, I don't know how you can just spit out a particular fighter that easy. My first thought was, holy ****, what a fight.

Remember, this is the same fighter that Marciano said in their first fight was when he realized what pain was really like...now imagine that **** on Jones Jr.

I give all the credit to Jones Jr., the man is one of the freakish fighters I ever seen, but all I am saying, if we take notes on what Charles did prior to killing someone, the man was knocking out slicksters like Archie Moore.

I would suggest we get enough video on Charles first before we right him off.

Unless people on this board have been thinking about this a long time, I don't know how you can just spit out a particular fighter that easy. My first thought was, holy ****, what a fight.


Agreed. These are two of the top Light Heavyweights, two of the best ever p4p.

Both had similar accomplishments too, Jones' reign as a heavyweight champion wasn't much to talk about though compared to Ezzard's.

The big difference between these two is that while Jones is blamed for sometimes hand-picking his opposition, Ezzard should be criticized for giving way too MANY rematches. He beat Jersey Joe twice and gave him a third match and lost.
Not a very wise decision.

Charles fought Archie three times too, almost lost that last one but won all three.

Accomplishment-wise you might have to give it to Ezzard Charles, the amount of losses he had way past his best is why he is often ignored but if we can judge Charles from those losses then we should judge Roy Jones from the losses he had way past his best as well.

Remember, this is the same fighter that Marciano said in their first fight was when he realized what pain was really like...now imagine that **** on Jones Jr.

except, Marciano - being slow as mud probably absorbed much more damage than he should have, Jones on the other hand would only get a minuscule amount of it.

Hell i'd pick roy jones to win a UD over Marciano as well in his prime. Just being honest and its my opinion. Ive seen charles fight many times. I'd still go with rj. Charles vs Rj at heavy though, thats even more intriguing.

heavyweights were alot smaller then.. Roy would of fit in nicley and his speed would just make them look BAD

1. Jones is unproven at 175. It's probably not even his best weight (that would be 168).

Charles never got a shot at the 175 title. However..
1941-1948 Gus Lesnevich is the champ. Charles is 1-0 against him.
In 1950 Joey Maxim becomes champ (until 1952). Charles is 5-0 against him
In 1952 Archie Moore becomes champion (until 1962). Charles is 3-0 against him.
In other words... a ruler of kings.

I am a Jones fan, but I did my homework a while ago.

Didn't Charles kill a fighter @ LH??

At that weight he had speed AND power. He also owned Charley Burley whom no one was looking to fight then.

Charles by a mid round TKO. It would take him a few rounds to slow RJJ down with his body work and ring generalship.

Charles also ko's a prime Archie Moore.

out of all dem so called legends of today
roy jones is probably the only one who woulda stood a chance
back in the day dem was real fighters
dey fought all the time

charles. dem was real fighters back then
charles would never lost to milk baby tarver

give me a break

I have to take Charles. Jones was at his best at Super-Middlweight while Charles is regarded by many boxing experts as the greatest Light-Heavyweight ever. He beat the great Archie Moore six out of six times: No mean feat considering how great a Light-Heavy Moore was. I've heard a number of people cite a power deficit for Charles, but that was after Ezzard moved up to Heavyweight AND after he killed Sam Barodi in the ring: He was so effected mentally by Barodi's death that he started holding back on his power. As a Light-Heavyweight it was said he could knock your brains out with either hand.

This isn't to knock Jones. His speed, reflexes, and power give him good chances in any fight. It's a hard call really, but I think Charles was sufficiently superior at Light-Heavyweight for him to be my pick; but it's not a lock solid pick as on any given night Jones' talents could carry him to victory.

Poet

Please be clear bout this. Do you pick Jones to beat Charles?
I had respect for you before that bit about "ignore list material" for anyone who chooses Jones.

Charles is the #1 LHW of all time in my opinion, and #6 rated P4P boxer, but in a head to head matchup at 175, I think it's a very good possibility that Jones beats him, but that Charles also has a shot at beating Jones.

I was responding to cuzfozzy like that because he's an idiot and always makes retarded posts, but yes, I for sure believe Jones has a good chance at beating Charles. To say a prime Roy Jones has no chance beating a fighter his size is ignorance.

1. Jones is unproven at 175. It's probably not even his best weight (that would be 168).

Charles never got a shot at the 175 title. However..
1941-1948 Gus Lesnevich is the champ. Charles is 1-0 against him.
In 1950 Joey Maxim becomes champ (until 1952). Charles is 5-0 against him
In 1952 Archie Moore becomes champion (until 1962). Charles is 3-0 against him.
In other words... a ruler of kings.

I am a Jones fan, but I did my homework a while ago.
Unproven? LOL, aside from DM he literally cleaned out the division, including a 4th round body shot KO over Virgil Hill. 168 may have been a slightly better division for him, but only because he was facing smaller fighters, not because he was less skilled or physically gifted.

We saw how Jones did against other great fighters, this is a head to head matchup, not an analysis of their entire careers and who was greater. On an ATG list Charles ranks quite a bit higher, but head to head Jones in my opinion ranks higher(at least P4P) and could very well beat Charles at 175.

I had respect for you before that bit about "ignore list material" for anyone who chooses Jones.

Charles is the #1 LHW of all time in my opinion, and #6 rated P4P boxer, but in a head to head matchup at 175, I think it's a very good possibility that Jones beats him, but that Charles also has a shot at beating Jones.

I was responding to cuzfozzy like that because he's an idiot and always makes retarded posts, but yes, I for sure believe Jones has a good chance at beating Charles. To say a prime Roy Jones has no chance beating a fighter his size is ignorance.

The 25 losses comment is enough to guarantee Hank Kaplan a place on my ignore list.

To say a prime Roy Jones has no chance beating a fighter his size is ignorance.

I agree with this statement, thing is Charles is bigger than Jones. he was fighting regularly above 190 without weight training.

Didn't Charles kill a fighter @ LH??

At that weight he had speed AND power. He also owned Charley Burley whom no one was looking to fight then.

Charles by a mid round TKO. It would take him a few rounds to slow RJJ down with his body work and ring generalship.

Charles also ko's a prime Archie Moore.

Truth to be told, he was a bigger man than Burley was.

Still, I think Charles is the only man who Burley could not beat (I think, correct me if I am wrong).

The 25 losses comment is enough to guarantee Hank Kaplan a place on my ignore list.Again, I said that in response to cuzfozzy's ignorant comment.

Ezzard Charles

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fY4Woi4LYjI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fY4Woi4LYjI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>



RJJ

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/L03JZkqC5lQ&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/L03JZkqC5lQ&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>



you decide...

Again, I said that in response to cuzfozzy's ignorant comment.

ok, in view of this I will remove you from the list, but can I ask you why do you even feel the need to answer posts like "dem was real fighters"?

ok, in view of this I will remove you from the list, but can I ask you why do you even feel the need to answer posts like "dem was real fighters"?

To disprove everything cuzfozzy says, because he is always wrong.

Ezzard Charles

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fY4Woi4LYjI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fY4Woi4LYjI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>



RJJ

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/L03JZkqC5lQ&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/L03JZkqC5lQ&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>



you decide...

And when you decide,

remember that all of Charles fights come after he killed a man in the ring, and they are all HW fights,in which Charles was the smaller man.

In the first fight Charles gave away 14 pounds (181-195)
In the second 6.5 (182-188.5)
In the third 8 (185-193)
In the forth 7 (188-195)
In the last he has a 9 pound weight advantage (189-190)

Roy Jones highlights are all from fights between 160 and 175, except from the Ruiz fight.

To disprove everything cuzfozzy says, because he is always wrong.

Is he? I dont know, he has been on my ignore list pretty much ever since he graced the boards with his sophisticated posts. ;P

And when you decide,

remember that all of Charles fights come after he killed a man in the ring, and they are all HW fights,in which Charles was the smaller man.

In the first fight Charles gave away 14 pounds (181-195)
In the second 6.5 (182-188.5)
In the third 8 (185-193)
In the forth 7 (188-195)
In the last he has a 9 pound weight advantage (189-190)

Roy Jones highlights are all from fights between 160 and 175, except from the Ruiz fight.

This is a fight between the 2 at 175 though, so what they did at higher weights means nothing, and what they accomplished in their careers means nothing, how they match up with each other in a head to head clash is the only thing someone should be taking into account. It's called analyzing a fight, not analyzing their careers.

This is a fight between the 2 at 175 though, so what they did at higher weights means nothing, and what they accomplished in their careers means nothing, how they match up with each other in a head to head clash is the only thing someone should be taking into account. It's called analyzing a fight, not analyzing their careers.

I understand that, but the viewer should know that he is seeing Jones murdering middleweights-lightheavyweights and Charles knocking out heavyweights.

Say I show you highlights of Calderon and highlights of Jermain Taylor. Taylor surely looks worse, but he is 50 pounds heavier.

with a match-up like this, the #1 thing to look at is styles... styles makes fights... charles back then was a killer for other people who would stand there and trade with him.. if you stood there and traded you were done for... we all know rjj isnt standing anywhere and trading, until he knows he can... i say if charles LITERALLY stepped in the ring with rjj... hed be a deer in head lights.... it would be SRL vs Duran all over again.... "**** this im outta here".., no not literally but... a fighter with a style like charles, who is used to fighting other fighters of that time period, would have never seen a fighter like jones... wouldnt know what to do... too fast... charles would come , and roy would be gone.... roy on the other hand, altho maybe not seeing the EXACT fighter of charles' capability... he has seen charles' style before.. and he has beat it

rjj ud

and everyone on this forum is entitled to an opinion... especially on a fight that never and WILL never take place... so dont start adding people to your ignore list because there disagreences... its a boxing forum, people have their own opinions on everything

with a match-up like this, the #1 thing to look at is styles... styles makes fights... charles back then was a killer for other people who would stand there and trade with him.. if you stood there and traded you were done for... we all know rjj isnt standing anywhere and trading, until he knows he can... i say if charles LITERALLY stepped in the ring with rjj... hed be a deer in head lights.... it would be SRL vs Duran all over again.... "**** this im outta here".., no not literally but... a fighter with a style like charles, who is used to fighting other fighters of that time period, would have never seen a fighter like jones... wouldnt know what to do... too fast... charles would come , and roy would be gone.... roy on the other hand, altho maybe not seeing the EXACT fighter of charles' capability... he has seen charles' style before.. and he has beat it

rjj ud

and everyone on this forum is entitled to an opinion... especially on a fight that never and WILL never take place... so dont start adding people to your ignore list because there disagreences... its a boxing forum, people have their own opinions on everything

Charles beat the "sweetest" boxers from the era AND the brawlers, too.

Jersey Joe Walcott does not "stand and trade". Burley and Moore do not stand and trade (Moore sometims had to, in his 40s). Bivins was a defensive, negative fighter, he was well known for not standing and trading (and this was most likely what cost him a shot at Louis).

If anything the one who's seen it all is the guy with a 100 fights, not the guy with 50.

So if I believe people live in on the sun, ok? it's an opinion, no one has been on the sun to check, so its legit, right? This going by your logic. When I see bull**** posted I feel very free, to not want to read it again. This is what the ignore list was made for.

please by all means ignore me... i cant stand people who think there right 100% on a topic that cant be proven...

please by all means ignore me... i cant stand people who think there right 100% on a topic that cant be proven...

Funny that you pick Roy ud with a pic of Roy in your avatar, isn't it?

Funny that you would say something wildly inaccurate to back up your boy like Charles shining with those who stood and traded with him, but no being ready for other styles, isn't it?

I use an ignore list mostly for fanboys like you, so your invitation is most welcome.

oh how dare i come to a boxing forum with a favorite boxer...

get a life... i always particiapte in roy vs whoever debates.... and half the time i have roy losing... but not on this one...

roy would dance circles around him.... ignore me already

Charles beat the "sweetest" boxers from the era AND the brawlers, too.

Jersey Joe Walcott does not "stand and trade". Burley and Moore do not stand and trade (Moore sometims had to, in his 40s). Bivins was a defensive, negative fighter, he was well known for not standing and trading (and this was most likely what cost him a shot at Louis).

If anything the one who's seen it all is the guy with a 100 fights, not the guy with 50.

So if I believe people live in on the sun, ok? it's an opinion, no one has been on the sun to check, so its legit, right? This going by your logic. When I see bull**** posted I feel very free, to not want to read it again. This is what the ignore list was made for.

I do believe wmute has earned a ticket off my own ignore list. Your posts, Sir, have been logical and well reasoned. Spot on. I now go to adjust my signature.

Poet

I understand that, but the viewer should know that he is seeing Jones murdering middleweights-lightheavyweights and Charles knocking out heavyweights.

Say I show you highlights of Calderon and highlights of Jermain Taylor. Taylor surely looks worse, but he is 50 pounds heavier.
At LHW they are roughly the same size.

Anybody who says Roy Jones is a moron (that includes you, Sweet Pete).

Roy is quite possibly the greatest athlete boxing has ever seen.

But he was a gimmick.

Ezzard Charles at his zenith as I always say, is the epitome of a professional destroyer, no one that ko's Bob Satterfield in 2 like the Cobra did or Ko's Archie Moore, has to worry about anybody.

He was the absolute greatest at 175, greatest amateur and greatest pro, a gentle decent clean living human being who after the death of Sam Baroudi was deeply affected and saw his killer instinct disappear.

In this fight, Ezzard breaks up Roy to the head and body, walks through his shots, gets his hair messed up a bit with hard jabs and power shots but gives much more relentless damage until his speed, ring savy, left hooks and right hands take it's toll.

dem was real fighters back then .. the fighters today
just run ... you can run but you can't hide

I just ran a quick 100 bouts using Data Boxing PC, with both at 175, and at their best.
Charles- Jones 72-23-5; Ks 2-9, Ts 0-0, main trend Wu 64-13, Ws 4-1, Wm 2-0, no significant Ns, Cuts, or Injs, Rds W 60-40%.
It should be noted, that Data Boxing is a research project that has done independent research since 1967. It maintains a constantly revised ranking of the top boxers in the eight historical divisions. That LH ranking currently has Charles as #1, slightly edging out Tunney. Jones is #4. Data Boxing has independently agreed with IBRO( Independent Boxing Research Organization) on #1 in six of the eight divisions. The LHs is one division of disagreement, where they have Moore first. Moore is currently #7 in Data Boxing's LHs, where the ranking is quite volatile among the top six. The other four are Spinks, Greb, Foster and T. Gibbons. It is the TRUE division of great boxers, with the lowest stop% of all the weight divisions. Putting any of the top six, in against another, assures one of 15 rounds of pure boxing enjoyment. I wish all of you could experience this replay enjoyment, using Data Boxing, or some other quality PC/game experience. One of my most memorable game moments was a Tunney-Greb set of 100 bouts, that went 33-33-34. I don't expect to see that again, for a long time.

dem was real fighters back then .. the fighters today
just run ... you can run but you can't hide

back in da day john sullivan went to da nearest pub after a fight and whipped evry sonuva***** in da house, dem was real fighters back den

robinson and lamotta , now dem was real fighters.

If the fight was held in Charles' era i would give it to Jones. Charles was not the kind of swarming fighter that really gives Roy problems, (or I should say, a post prime Roy problems) he was more a boxer puncher. Roy could pretty much pot shot and then hold, and do so all night with those old fashioned referees with not much of a warning. How is Charles ever going to catch him?

If the fight was held in Charles' era i would give it to Jones. Charles was not the kind of swarming fighter that really gives Roy problems, (or I should say, a post prime Roy problems) he was more a boxer puncher. Roy could pretty much pot shot and then hold, and do so all night with those old fashioned referees with not much of a warning. How is Charles ever going to catch him?

What makes you think that the smaller Jones would find a way to hold, when it's NEVER been his game. Charles on the other hand was used to fight in clinches (and knock out his oppoents).

At LHW they are roughly the same size.

Charles is the bigger man. period. Maybe not by much, but he definitely is.

Charles had a bigger frame. Jones was never a big 175 fighter, hence why I pick his prime to be at 168. Charles was a big 175er, in fact he was soon fighting HWs.

What makes you think that the smaller Jones would find a way to hold, when it's NEVER been his game. Charles on the other hand was used to fight in clinches (and knock out his oppoents).

Jones tied up, he just didn't do it for long at any given time. I'm not talking about fighting in the clinch. Charles fought fighters in clinches who were also trying to hit him back (which gives him the opportunity to hit them and knock them out), not ones trying to avoid a brawl through clinching and breaking up so they can set up to punch again from a distance. Anyway, I think this would not play the major role that it would against a swarmer because Charles was at heart a boxer. In that case he just dosen't have the speed for Jones. Every time he misses there is an opening for Jones. Everytime he stands still there is an opening for Jones. :) But I have to say one thing, given Jones' chin, a Charles knockout is never out of the question.

Jones tied up, he just didn't do it for long at any given time. Charles fought fighters in clinches who were also trying to hit him back (which gives him the opportunity to hit them and knock them out), not ones trying to avoid a brawl through clinching and breaking up so they can set up to punch again from a distance. Anyway, I think this would not play the major role that it would against a swarmer because Charles was at heart a boxer. In that case he just dosen't have the speed for Jones. Every time he misses there is an opening for Jones. Everytime he stands still there is an opening for Jones. But I have to say one thing, given Jones' chin, a Charles knockout is never out of the question.

It is true that Jones only superior asset in this fight is his speed.

Unfortunately Charles is not a slow fighter, he has much better fundamentals than Jones, and straight punches arrive earlier than looping punches.

And I still dont see how Jones being smaller is going to keep punishment off him by clinching the bigger man. He would get headbutted and elbowed in the clinches, until Charles breaks free and lands something.

Jones best bet would use his fast footwork and try to stay off of harm's way for 12 rounds. TWO problems with this approach.

1) Straight punches. It's hard to pot shot against a stiff, accurate jab.
2) He might end up losing the decision if he just stayed at a distance.

It is true that Jones only superior asset in this fight is his speed.

Unfortunately Charles is not a slow fighter, he has much better fundamentals than Jones, and straight punches arrive earlier than looping punches.

Unfortunately a handful of people posting on these threads think if the fighter was filmed in black and white he was automatically slow and clumsy. Not an accurate assesment, but unfortunately one that is believed by at least a few (you know who you are).

Poet

Anybody who says Roy Jones is a moron (that includes you, Sweet Pete).

Roy is quite possibly the greatest athlete boxing has ever seen.

But he was a gimmick.




we all have opinions on what would happen in a fight between two completely different fighters in two completely different era's... and no one person is right, its impossible to prove who would win in a fight that never and will never take place...

but calling an 8 time world champion a gimmick... is :bsflag:

if he was a gimmick... it would of been another fighter in this thread being compared to charles, not roy.

I picked Charles but Jones' speed and power are always going to give him a fighting chance with anyone he steps in the ring with. Charles should win but if they fought a series as was common back then I doubt Jones would get shut out. On any given night you never know!

Poet

It is true that Jones only superior asset in this fight is his speed.

Unfortunately Charles is not a slow fighter, he has much better fundamentals than Jones, and straight punches arrive earlier than looping punches.

And I still dont see how Jones being smaller is going to keep punishment off him by clinching the bigger man. He would get headbutted and elbowed in the clinches, until Charles breaks free and lands something.

Jones best bet would use his fast footwork and try to stay off of harm's way for 12 rounds. TWO problems with this approach.

1) Straight punches. It's hard to pot shot against a stiff, accurate jab.
2) He might end up losing the decision if he just stayed at a distance.


Well slow is relative. I know that Charles is not a slow fighter in general, but we are talking about versus Roy Jones. Here he will be slow, relatively speaking. Jones has distance that is better than Charles' jab with his hooks because they are leaping hooks. As for his ability to land them on Charles, he has landed them repeatedly on fighters as defensively slick as James Toney. Roy also had excellent defense against the jab because of his two armed defense that was perpetually out far in front of his head at different distances, enabled by his very wide stance. Ofcourse he hasn't faced a Charles jab, but jabs have not been very effective against his style. Charles would have height to assist his attempt to get the jab through though.

Well slow is relative. I know that Charles is not a slow fighter in general, but we are talking about versus Roy Jones. Here he will be slow, relatively speaking. Jones has distance that is better than Charles' jab with his hooks because they are leaping hooks. As for his ability to land them on Charles, he has landed them repeatedly on fighters as defensively slick as James Toney. Roy also had excellent defense against the jab because of his two armed defense that was perpetually out far in front of his head at different distances, enabled by his very wide stance. Ofcourse he hasn't faced a Charles jab, but jabs have not been very effective against his style. Charles would have height to assist his attempt to get the jab through though.

i couldnt agree more with what you said

roy holds that right hand out purposely to block your jab... and when he fought tarver he switched hands to block the jab... jabs dont land easily on roy AT ALL... prime roy is asbolutely something rare

Well slow is relative. I know that Charles is not a slow fighter in general, but we are talking about versus Roy Jones. Here he will be slow, relatively speaking. Jones has distance that is better than Charles' jab with his hooks because they are leaping hooks. As for his ability to land them on Charles, he has landed them repeatedly on fighters as defensively slick as James Toney. Roy also had excellent defense against the jab because of his two armed defense that was perpetually out far in front of his head at different distances, enabled by his very wide stance. Ofcourse he hasn't faced a Charles jab, but jabs have not been very effective against his style. Charles would have height to assist his attempt to get the jab through though.

As I said, Jones will be faster than Charles. Jones would be faster than anyone at 175 in history. I dont think anyone can dispute that, but he is not going to look like he did, when fighting any of the fighters he faced in his career.

The problem with leaping left hooks, is not landing them (well for humans not called Roy Jones, that would also be a problem) is being out of the way, when you are done with them. Unless Charles had to dehydrate 40 pounds like Toney did (hard to imagine when fighting 10 times a year), I doubt Jones will get the luxury to land many without having to eat the counters. And once he eats some of those, it's going to be a new world for Jones. Sure Charles is going to get hit, but his chin should be quite ahead of Jones' (and no I am not one of those who thinks Jones has a glass chin)

well we'll never know will we ? ... I've always said it
if there is a fighter that could hang with dem fighters of the past
it would be roy jones jnr.

And when you decide,

remember that all of Charles fights come after he killed a man in the ring, and they are all HW fights,in which Charles was the smaller man.

In the first fight Charles gave away 14 pounds (181-195)
In the second 6.5 (182-188.5)
In the third 8 (185-193)
In the forth 7 (188-195)
In the last he has a 9 pound weight advantage (189-190)

Roy Jones highlights are all from fights between 160 and 175, except from the Ruiz fight.

yep dont really change my decision... charles never stepped in the ring wiht someone who fights like that.

but has anyone ?!

yep dont really change my decision... charles never stepped in the ring wiht someone who fights like that.

With that avatar and that signature, that is not surprising.

I wanted to remind the viewers of the videos you posted, of the weights and time at which those fights took place.

As I said, Jones will be faster than Charles. Jones would be faster than anyone at 175 in history. I dont think anyone can dispute that, but he is not going to look like he did, when fighting any of the fighters he faced in his career.

The problem with leaping left hooks, is not landing them (well for humans not called Roy Jones, that would also be a problem) is being out of the way, when you are done with them. Unless Charles had to dehydrate 40 pounds like Toney did (hard to imagine when fighting 10 times a year), I doubt Jones will get the luxury to land many without having to eat the counters. And once he eats some of those, it's going to be a new world for Jones. Sure Charles is going to get hit, but his chin should be quite ahead of Jones' (and no I am not one of those who thinks Jones has a glass chin)

Agree with you about the chin comparison. I must say though that Jones has used this hooking technique on many other fighters and although they do not remotely match Charles in any other area, many of them were atleast as fast as he was.

Agree with you about the chin comparison. I must say though that Jones has used this hooking technique on many other fighters and although they do not match Charles in any other area, many of them were atleast as fast as he was.

Jones was spectacular when he hooked and right after was already ducking under the possible counter left hook, even if when it did not arrive! His timing was superb, but in Charles he would meet someone with a lot of cards up his sleeve. A big problem Jones would have is what he would do if Charles decided that he wanted to clinch. Another problem is that Jones needs that superb timing of his to land his looping shots. Charles like many fighters of the era and a few from the present was able to change tempo and movements. A recent example of that would be Mayweather adjusting to Judah. That type of adjustment, which today has us go "wow", was much more common back then (dem was real fighters back then ;P ).

If you look at Jones' most dominating performances (at 175, because at the lower weights he would just overwhelm his opponents at times) he is often just doing a couple of drills, he can do that because of the lack of flexibility and boxing IQ of his opponents. As he repeats the routine, he is hurting his opponent, drowning them in deeper waters, and perfecting the shots he lands. That effective repetition is lacking from his toughest fights (Hopkins, Griffin) and would surely lack if he faced another well schooled fighter who can make those changes (Hopkins and Griffin are both very skilled and smart in the ring), Charles with his multiple victories over Burley, Moore, Bivins, Walcott is definitely one of those. On top of that wide skillset, he was a murderous puncher at 175.

It's this combination of size, skills, power which makes me believe very strongly that Charles would win a wide majority of the fights between the two (which would inevitably happen if they fought "back then").

With that avatar and that signature, that is not surprising.

I wanted to remind the viewers of the videos you posted, of the weights and time at which those fights took place.

fair enough. its no secret RJJ is my all time fave.. but its how I honestly see it. Prime.. he was just somethin else.

fair enough. its no secret RJJ is my all time fave.. but its how I honestly see it. Prime.. he was just somethin else.

Here is something to help
Also note, my comment is in blue


THE SCHOLAR CONSIDERS:
An Interview With Boxing Historian Herbert G. Goldman

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/w42x-kd.htm

WHY ROY JONES, JR?

KD -- Some of the questions put forward by the CBZ scholars come to mind at this point.They’ve sent them to me by e-mail and I’ve printed them out and have them here. May I run a few by you?

HG -- Well, I’ll see what I can do, sure.

KD -- A couple of years ago you published your own greatest pound-for-pound list in International Boxing digest. You had Roy Jones Jr. at the top of your list. You’ve received much criticism from historians and others—typically older folks—What about Jones’ abilities and accomplishments prompted you to make such a bold statement? And how do you compare greatness in boxers? And would you still put Jones up at the top?

HG -- OK. My ranking of Jones in such a dramatic fashion, had to do not with his accomplishments but simply with his skills. He has more and greater skills than any fighter I’ve ever seen in my life. The way he can hook and go immediately to a straight punch, the way he can fire shots from all angles, his domination of every opponent he faces. I’ve never seen a comparable fighter in my life. I went out on a limb in making that pronouncement at that time. I don’t think I was that overboard. Now it’s true that Mr. Jones’ accomplishments in terms of being in great fights, in terms of being a super-star of his period do not begin to equal his skills. That’s the down side. Of course to make great fights it takes two to tango and Mr. Jones is so far above his competition that there are no great fights out there for him, certainly within his own weight classes. Now in terms of looking at the careers of certain fighters, certainly there are a number of men who outshone him in that respect. But I still maintain that Mr. Jones is the most skilfull, is the most over-powering man, pound-for-pound, in the history of boxing. I don’t think even Sugar Ray Robinson was as dominant over his opposition as Roy Jones has been. That takes nothing away from Sugar Ray. But I have never seen a phenomenon like Roy Jones. Of course Roy Jones knows it, too. He knows what he wants, what he doesn’t want. He’s a star. He won’t fight here. He will fight only here. He’s his own promoter, more or less. So he’s certainly not everyones’ ideal of what a fighter should be. But in terms of skills I think he’s the greatest.

NEW VS OLD

KD--What about the general quality of the new guys vs the old guys? Many fans believe that old time boxers were infinitely better than modern boxers.

HG -- Well, boxing historians are traditionally, I think, expected to favor the old-timers. I’m not of that make. I do believe that there’s been an evolution in boxing styles. You can almost trace it, in fact. I do not, for example believe that Jim Corbett would beat Joe Frazier. I do not believe that Joe Walcott or Mysterious Billy Smith would beat Tommy Hearns.

I believe that boxers definitely have evolved into better athletes. There’s been an increase in skills, certainly in combination punching. See, in the old days the main requisite for being a fighter was that you were tough. And there’s no doubt these old time fighters were tough. But for example, if you study the films, we don’t see sustained combination punching, really. George Dixon, .to break off for a moment, seems like a very skilled fighter, up on the balls of his feet. And there were, definitely, talented, skilled boxers in the old days. However, we do not see sustained combination punching until Benny Leonard, circa 1920.

There have been generations of trainers who have profited by their associations with each other. Each generation of trainers, although owing a debt to the preceding generation, has kept up with the times.

One thing I have to emphasize is the increasingly potent influence of amateur boxing on professional boxing. In the old days, say 1910’s and so forth, most fighters turned pro with no amateur experience. These kids were turned pro at 16 years of age and sometimes less. They would gather their experience as professionals. Today boxers of note gain the vast bulk of their experience in the amateurs, where you have bouts limited to three rounds, necessitating sustained action. There is no such thing as feeling-out your opponent in an amateur bout. You go out there and you throw combinations to the head, as quickly and fanatically as you can. And the emphasis is on sustained combination punching all the way through. As a result your skills improve. This has led to professional boxing of a very similar nature.

.................................................. ..............................



SOME OF THE BEST MODERNS

KD -- We discussed your controversial stance that Roy Jones Jr is one of the greatest boxers of all time. Would you care to mention any other of today’s fighters who you consider to be among the best?

HG -- I don’t think there’s any denying Naseem Hamed. Now here’s a small featherweight, when you look at him. He’s 5’3. He was European bantamweight champion. I think if he moved up to Jr. Light or Lightweight, he’d be very hard pressed because of his size. I would never put him in with Floyd Mayweather, Jr. I think Mayweather would just…unh! Would really knock him flat and give him a terrific beating. But at featherweight I don’t see anyone today capable of beating Naseem Hamed. I had to leave that in there to make things fair. Guess he never consider Hamed wouldn't train properly and didn't have certain intangibles against a solid fighter.
Fighters of today develop tremendous reflexes, they learn to punch from all angles. This is the new style. It’s replaced even the Muhammad Ali move-and-jab style. It’s not just Hamed, it’s the same basic style you see from Roy Jones, Jr. –shooting these punches from nowhere. The way Roy Jones can turn a straight jab into a hook is something I’ve never seen any fighter do. When I was watching boxing as a kid I used to imagine fighters who could do that, but I never saw anybody do it until I saw Roy Jones. I think that’s part of my fascination with the man. This is a new development. By the way, one fighter of the old days who really, to a large extent, fought like that, was Jimmy Wild, the greatest flyweight of all time. I mean traditionally regarded as such, a Welshman active from 1911 to 1923.

Oh Floyd Mayweather, Jr. My god! Ability like nobody’s business.

yep dont really change my decision... charles never stepped in the ring wiht someone who fights like that.

roy never stepped in the ring against someone as good as charles. ezzard charles is considered by many to be the greatest lt hw of all time, and he beat better hw's than john ruiz when he moved up to hw. i loved watching roy jones in the 90's, roy and james toney are the most naturally talented fighters i've seen in my lifetime, but roy isn't going to look as good in a fight against all time great ezzard charles as he does knocking out a policeman or schooling a weight drained james toney.

Here is something to help
Also note, my comment is in blue

Boxing historians have their biases too. There are others who would contend with Goldman that while later boxers are more athletic they aren't as skilled as earlier fighters because they never really learn their trade. They fight no where near as many fights and rarely fight a top opponent more than once or twice as opposed to 5+ for many older fighters. For the older fighters it was simple: Learn your trade to survive. It's a different mentality when you're fighting for your supper. Later fighters (except some Hispanic fighters) fight 40-50 fights getting by mostly on their athleticism. If everyone else is doing it it doesn't hurt you which is why it continues.

Poet

Jones SD12 Ezzard

Charles is the stronger of the two. He wins a decision.

Charles is the stronger of the two. He wins a decision.

Can you still float like a butterfly?


And I'd give charles the slight edge... He was strong and could take a punch, with skill to back it up.

Charles is the stronger of the two. He wins a decision.

Hey Galveston long time no see!

Poet

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pWIqZKhNY90&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pWIqZKhNY90&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Can you still float like a butterfly?

You better believe it!!:D

:killyou: :killyou: :killyou: :killyou:

Charles is the stronger of the two. He wins a decision.

Foreman was stronger than Ali. He wins a decision.

Foreman was stronger than Ali. He wins a decision.


Hahaha.


Yeah, that was a pretty strange assesment. If Charles wins this it is going to be by knckout, period.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/L03JZkqC5lQ&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/L03JZkqC5lQ&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/L03JZkqC5lQ&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/L03JZkqC5lQ&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


Very few fighters could **** with Roy. He's a freak of nature, he's too good.

Very few fighters could **** with Roy. He's a freak of nature, he's too good.

I have always thought that the fall of Roy was sad for boxing because in one specific area he had alot to teach it. People think that what made Roy what he was was all speed but in reality what he was was a revolutionary in the area of Timing. If he had retired while he was on top of the world people would have continued to study his style more as an unbeatable pound for pound legend and perhaps realized that this is what set him apart and begin to examine it more in boxing. Roy did not use human timing, he had animal timing, which means it didn't conform to any rhythm whatsoever. Well sort of makes sense, he says he used to get ready for fights training with chickens. :)

Charles knocks Roys head smooth off...

Charles knocks Roys head smooth off...

lol if he can catch it.

prime roy no one could fuk wit... no one

Both these guys facing eachother at their peak would be absolutely 'Awesome' to watch! RJJ mastery is phenomenal. Whether fighting from a distance, mid-range or throwing 'Explosive' combinations on inside i.e. taking Woods to school with amazing combos. You want to learn to fight the right way then watch Ezzard Charles, the guy was technically brilliant, text book. Charles fleet of foot, reflexes and 'Vicious' killer instinct which he subsequently later lost after killing opponent in ring. Few could mess with Mr Charles at his peak. I'd have to pick Charles by UD in a very, very close fight.

All I've seen of light heavy charles is the second Marshall fight but if one couples that with what we saw left of him at heavy...good God. I favor Charles here but it's an intriguing fight and likely one where each tocuhes the deck.

Ezzard Charles all the way. He was just an old school cagey fighter who could solve any style. He could punch and he could take a punch. He would be able to pick apart Jones' holes.

Ezzard Charles all the way. He was just an old school cagey fighter who could solve any style. He could punch and he could take a punch. He would be able to pick apart Jones' holes.
Charles was a rhythm based fighter, but a very smart one. Jones picked guys off their rhythm with his incredible speed and unorthodox style. This would be a bit of a chess match. I would favor Jones to get the better of the two, but I believe Charles is capable of KO'ing Jones as well.

Head to head there is no question, in my mind, that Roy Jones Jr. would walk away with the win if they had fought.

Head to head, Roy Jones Jr. in his prime would have laid the hurt down on anyone that got in the ring with him.

You talk about the people in the past having fought once every three weeks. So what? Everyone fought once every three weeks back then, so they were all on a level playing field. It's not like the people Charles fought were all rested up and training for a year to fight him. That's not how it worked. It's the same now. Roy Jones Jr. and whoever he ended up fighting trained for the same amount of time, so they were on a level playing field. Just because Charles fought more doesn't make him better or more durable because the guys he was fighting fought just as much if not more than him.

Glass jaw? Are you jokin'? The reason that RJJ was even KOable in the fights against Tarver and Johnson is because of the weight he lost jumping quickly down from heavy to lhw in such a short period of time. Because he made the muscle in his legs detriorate he lost the spring in his legs, and with it his ability to absorb the shock from being hit in the chin as well as he used to. Legs are a big part of the chin if you know how the body works.

I don't think you guys fully understand just how good Roy Jones was. He didn't even have to use conventional boxing. He went, what, almost 10 years without losing a round? He didn't just beat the other greats of his era, he crushed them. He made James Toney who, at the time, was considered the king P4P, look like an absolute bum. You can make any excuse you want for another fighter when they were against Jones...but it's just like he said; it's not that he didn't fight nobody, he just made them look like nobody.

Look at Clinton woods. Only decisive loss of his career, in which he is the LHW champion now? Yeah, it came from Jones who won every single round against him before the other corner threw in the towel. Look at Lucas. Lucas ended up being another title holder that faced off against Kessler.

If you're talking about power, this Ezzard Charles better have a chin of pure granite because RJJ could knock anyone out he fought. He chose not to. He blantantly stated that if he can go into the ring and fight a guy without having to hurt him, he will. He hated knocking people out right away and trying to hurt them, so in stead he was notorious for carrying his opponents through the fight. Where is this exemplified perfectly? The two Montel Griffin fights. The first fight, RJJ wasn't looking to hurt the guy and carried him through the fight until he got Disq'ed. What did this do? It pissed RJJ off. How did the next fight end? Round 1 KO. RJJ wasn't messing around that fight. RJJ broke a guy's ribs with one punch. If we're talking about power RJJ is not to be messed with.

Speed? RJJ is the fastest boxer, P4P, of all time. No question. Ezzard Charles wouldn't be avoiding **** especially with RJJ's immaculate timing. You're talking about a guy that can hit you from any angle, at any time, and he's already out of the way before you have a chance to throw a counter. But, not only that, he isn't afraid to stand and trade. Watch his fight with Ruiz. After his confidence was built up, he traded with Ruiz for a bit and, not only that, but got the better of it. He stunned Ruiz. He made Ruiz afraid to rush in. I'm 100% certain that if RJJ wasn't trying to prove he could go 12 rounds with a Heavyweight, he would have KOed Ruiz. And don't forget that Ruiz has only been KO'ed once in his entire career and he's faced some pretty strong guys.

So we're talking about a match-up where the power MIGHT go to Ezzard, but if it does he doesn't have a huge power advantage. Speed? No question goes to RJJ. Timing? RJJ. Reflexes? RJJ. The fight? RJJ. Ezzard Charles would be taking more explosive and powerful shots to the head than he ever took in his career when he fought professionally and regardless of how tough your chin is after a while that stuff wears you down. Not to mention the brutal body shots that RJJ gives with the same kind of power behind them. I'd call RJJ to win by KO by the 7th or 8th if he was actually trying to KO him, but, if not, UD for RJJ losing maybe 1 or 2 rounds.

You sound like a Roy Jones fan.

of course he's a roy jones fan.....But back on topic, bob foster runs in hits both with a steel chair.

You guys sound like morons who don't know anything substantial about boxing.

You guys sound like morons who don't know anything substantial about boxing.

Hey, you are the mastermind who called Joe Louis a terrible technical fighter who had nothing but power. :banana:

And you disagreeing shows just how much you know about boxing.

And you disagreeing shows just how much you know about boxing.

LOL I love this logic, you dont agree with me you know nothing about boxing!! these are all just opinions, yours isnt the truth.

Joe Louis was a terrible fighter techincally. Every time he threw a punch his hands went down and that's how he lost the first fight to Max Schmeling.

Both of them had tremendous power. Joe Louis was known for it because he didn't really have much else.

And you disagreeing shows just how much you know about boxing.

Alright I'll explain it to you plain and simple.
You're calling Joe Louis, one of the most fundamentally sound fighters of all time, a bad technical boxer because of one fight he had in his early 20's.

Yes, Louis had a habit of leaving his left hand low after he threw a jab when he was young and Max Schmeling studied that habit thoroughly and schooled him with counter right hands. It was man against boy.

After that fight Joe Louis improved as a boxer, he became one of the best fundamental boxers of all time and reigned as the heavyweight champion for over 10 years.

Louis DESTROYED Max Schmeling in the first round when they had their rematch a few years later.

I was pretty sure just about everyone knew the Joe Louis' story on how he became the great technical boxer he is... well it seems like I was wrong about that.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VwPY5CzOGzw&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VwPY5CzOGzw&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

And you disagreeing shows just how much you know about boxing.

Wow, you've just ruined any cred you once had, which was none.

Glass jaw? Are you jokin'? The reason that RJJ was even KOable in the fights against Tarver and Johnson is because of the weight he lost jumping quickly down from heavy to lhw in such a short period of time.

** Interesting take on Jones overall, but let's address the above specifically.

Roy had 8 months from Ruiz to the first Tarver fight. A lot of time even for less active modern fighters. Roy won that fight. It's over 14 months until the Tarver KO. That's a lot of training time.

I wouldn't say Roy has a glass jaw. That's terminology thrown about by loose fans most of the time. It means no more than "Roy sucks" would mean. Roy has largely followed a safety first type of career in the 2nd half of his prime, and at any rate I doubt he ever took a flush bomb like Tarver landed at any time in his career. It was a one off shot, the kind Tarver made his name on in rematches.

OK, now Johnson. Tough journeyman type fighter lined up for the WBO belt and leverage for the Tarver negotiations. Strictly business, except that Roy forgot he was in the hurt business and just hung out on the ropes, probably figuring Johnson would wear out. Who wouldn't at that pace?

Thing is, Roy looked like he was answering his cell phone, chatting up his little buddies in the audience, waiting for Johnson to fall apart, but it didn't happen that way. Bad strategy did him in.

Weight loss? Oh really? I'd love dearly to know how much he really weighed for Ruiz. Nobody but the innercamp knows. I suspect he was around 188-190, which means he would only need to lose a few lbs to be at his LH ring weight of 185+, but since he juked the scales, I can't prove it and neither can you.

Now, I admire Jone's style immensely, and can see why the nattering noobs to boxing froth all over each other praising his greatness. Happens every new generation of fans and fighters. Think back to Tyson if you even remember that far back.

However, EZ was the real deal. Toney and Hop can't hold his prime jock. Virgil Hill a poor man's Ez. Agree that Ez would have his hands full with Roy, but vice versa. You can talk about level playing fields, but it's a fact Jack, look it up, Ez put himself on the line against a whole lotta more punches and HOFers than did Roy in a more competitive era and did it in 6oz horsehair gloves. Boxing deaths peaked in his era.

Might want to add some balance to your analysis lest you get gratuitously KDed for sport.

Head to head there is no question, in my mind, that Roy Jones Jr. would walk away with the win if they had fought.

Head to head, Roy Jones Jr. in his prime would have laid the hurt down on anyone that got in the ring with him.

You talk about the people in the past having fought once every three weeks. So what? Everyone fought once every three weeks back then, so they were all on a level playing field. It's not like the people Charles fought were all rested up and training for a year to fight him. That's not how it worked. It's the same now. Roy Jones Jr. and whoever he ended up fighting trained for the same amount of time, so they were on a level playing field. Just because Charles fought more doesn't make him better or more durable because the guys he was fighting fought just as much if not more than him.

Glass jaw? Are you jokin'? The reason that RJJ was even KOable in the fights against Tarver and Johnson is because of the weight he lost jumping quickly down from heavy to lhw in such a short period of time. Because he made the muscle in his legs detriorate he lost the spring in his legs, and with it his ability to absorb the shock from being hit in the chin as well as he used to. Legs are a big part of the chin if you know how the body works.

I don't think you guys fully understand just how good Roy Jones was. He didn't even have to use conventional boxing. He went, what, almost 10 years without losing a round? He didn't just beat the other greats of his era, he crushed them. He made James Toney who, at the time, was considered the king P4P, look like an absolute bum. You can make any excuse you want for another fighter when they were against Jones...but it's just like he said; it's not that he didn't fight nobody, he just made them look like nobody.

Look at Clinton woods. Only decisive loss of his career, in which he is the LHW champion now? Yeah, it came from Jones who won every single round against him before the other corner threw in the towel. Look at Lucas. Lucas ended up being another title holder that faced off against Kessler.

If you're talking about power, this Ezzard Charles better have a chin of pure granite because RJJ could knock anyone out he fought. He chose not to. He blantantly stated that if he can go into the ring and fight a guy without having to hurt him, he will. He hated knocking people out right away and trying to hurt them, so in stead he was notorious for carrying his opponents through the fight. Where is this exemplified perfectly? The two Montel Griffin fights. The first fight, RJJ wasn't looking to hurt the guy and carried him through the fight until he got Disq'ed. What did this do? It pissed RJJ off. How did the next fight end? Round 1 KO. RJJ wasn't messing around that fight. RJJ broke a guy's ribs with one punch. If we're talking about power RJJ is not to be messed with.

Speed? RJJ is the fastest boxer, P4P, of all time. No question. Ezzard Charles wouldn't be avoiding **** especially with RJJ's immaculate timing. You're talking about a guy that can hit you from any angle, at any time, and he's already out of the way before you have a chance to throw a counter. But, not only that, he isn't afraid to stand and trade. Watch his fight with Ruiz. After his confidence was built up, he traded with Ruiz for a bit and, not only that, but got the better of it. He stunned Ruiz. He made Ruiz afraid to rush in. I'm 100% certain that if RJJ wasn't trying to prove he could go 12 rounds with a Heavyweight, he would have KOed Ruiz. And don't forget that Ruiz has only been KO'ed once in his entire career and he's faced some pretty strong guys.

So we're talking about a match-up where the power MIGHT go to Ezzard, but if it does he doesn't have a huge power advantage. Speed? No question goes to RJJ. Timing? RJJ. Reflexes? RJJ. The fight? RJJ. Ezzard Charles would be taking more explosive and powerful shots to the head than he ever took in his career when he fought professionally and regardless of how tough your chin is after a while that stuff wears you down. Not to mention the brutal body shots that RJJ gives with the same kind of power behind them. I'd call RJJ to win by KO by the 7th or 8th if he was actually trying to KO him, but, if not, UD for RJJ losing maybe 1 or 2 rounds.

Jones did note carry Griffin in their first fight. He spent the first half of the fight figuring him out. That's quite different.

** Interesting take on Jones overall, but let's address the above specifically.

Roy had 8 months from Ruiz to the first Tarver fight. A lot of time even for less active modern fighters. Roy won that fight. It's over 14 months until the Tarver KO. That's a lot of training time.

I wouldn't say Roy has a glass jaw. That's terminology thrown about by loose fans most of the time. It means no more than "Roy sucks" would mean. Roy has largely followed a safety first type of career in the 2nd half of his prime, and at any rate I doubt he ever took a flush bomb like Tarver landed at any time in his career. It was a one off shot, the kind Tarver made his name on in rematches.

OK, now Johnson. Tough journeyman type fighter lined up for the WBO belt and leverage for the Tarver negotiations. Strictly business, except that Roy forgot he was in the hurt business and just hung out on the ropes, probably figuring Johnson would wear out. Who wouldn't at that pace?

Thing is, Roy looked like he was answering his cell phone, chatting up his little buddies in the audience, waiting for Johnson to fall apart, but it didn't happen that way. Bad strategy did him in.

Weight loss? Oh really? I'd love dearly to know how much he really weighed for Ruiz. Nobody but the innercamp knows. I suspect he was around 188-190, which means he would only need to lose a few lbs to be at his LH ring weight of 185+, but since he juked the scales, I can't prove it and neither can you.

Now, I admire Jone's style immensely, and can see why the nattering noobs to boxing froth all over each other praising his greatness. Happens every new generation of fans and fighters. Think back to Tyson if you even remember that far back.

However, EZ was the real deal. Toney and Hop can't hold his prime jock. Virgil Hill a poor man's Ez. Agree that Ez would have his hands full with Roy, but vice versa. You can talk about level playing fields, but it's a fact Jack, look it up, Ez put himself on the line against a whole lotta more punches and HOFers than did Roy in a more competitive era and did it in 6oz horsehair gloves. Boxing deaths peaked in his era.

Might want to add some balance to your analysis lest you get gratuitously KDed for sport.

Apparently he was weighing around 198. If you look beyond the glory there is footage of friday evening after the weigh in, when Jones and his camp brag about how big he is. He weighs in again, the scale shows 198 and they Stuff like “Ruiz is gonna: think this mutha****a aint 193”

Now unless, they were already planning to use the weight excuse in the next fight, Jones had to lose more than 20 pounds of muscle. That's a lot. I dont know if it affects your chin, as I am not a doctor.

Apparently he was weighing around 198. If you look beyond the glory there is footage of friday evening after the weigh in, when Jones and his camp brag about how big he is. He weighs in again, the scale shows 198 and they Stuff like “Ruiz is gonna: think this mutha****a aint 193”

Now unless, they were already planning to use the weight excuse in the next fight, Jones had to lose more than 20 pounds of muscle. That's a lot. I dont know if it affects your chin, as I am not a doctor.

** Apparently?

Like I stated, nobody knows Roy's real weight. The official weigh in in street clothes. He could have weighed 165 and juked dead weight underneath, a long tradition in boxing.

Now, why would Jones have to lose more than 20lbs of muscle to fight as a LH when his ring weight was traditionally 185+ at that weight? 198-185 is 13lbs, but you still can't tell me objectively how much he weighed for Ruiz. You only saw what he claimed to weigh, which was not the official weight, which nobody could tell his real weight from anyway because the weighin was designed to be disingenuous from the start.

** Apparently?

Like I stated, nobody knows Roy's real weight. The official weigh in in street clothes. He could have weighed 165 and juked dead weight underneath, a long tradition in boxing.

Now, why would Jones have to lose more than 20lbs of muscle to fight as a LH when his ring weight was traditionally 185+ at that weight? 198-185 is 13lbs, but you still can't tell me objectively how much he weighed for Ruiz. You only saw what he claimed to weigh, which was not the official weight, which nobody could tell his real weight from anyway because the weighin was designed to be disingenuous from the start.


I understand that weigh ins can be deceptive, but why would Roy and his camp brag about how big Roy got, (NOTE no one would have seen that video before the Ruiz fight) unless he actually got that big?

I think Roy ring weight was in the low 180s, not in the high 180s btw.

** Apparently?


Oops, Apparently is a “false friend” for Italians. What I meant to say is ”it looks like“, but I read that what apparently means is “beyond doubt”.

So read my post as ”it looks like Roy's weight was 198-199“

Yeah they did a television series with Roy Jones Jr. for the Ruiz fight. When he came back from the weigh in after they weighed him at 193, he stepped on the scale and came up 201. Then he took off his clothes and he weighed 200.

On the night of the fight they did another weighing of him, this time in just his boxers, with an official weighing him. It came up at 199.

The fight with Tarver was at LHW. Regardless of what his RING WEIGHT is, he had to go all the way down to 175 for the official weigh in. That's 25 pounds of muscle that he lost.

In terms of what that does to your chin? The deteriorated muscle in your legs takes away the spring. It's very hard, regardless of how much time you have, to get that muscle to be healthy again after that kind of drain. The spring in your legs is very important to taking a punch on the chin because it helps absorb the shock from your body. Since the spring in his legs was gone once he fought Tarver and Johnson, he got knocked out by punches that, in his prime, wouldn't have phazed him.

Also to MrMachine:

Joe Louis never fixed that problem he had with his style. He just went at Schmeling all out in the first round and threw as many punches as he could to try and knock the guy out. Using his overwhelming power to just outbrawl the guy. It's what elicited the famous phrase "There's nothing more terrifying than having Joe across the ring and knowing he wants to go home early." Or something like that, I can't find the exact quote.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree, I was being a little stupid with my comment before about you knowing nothing about boxing yadayada. Sorry.

Well as has already been stated, Charles wasn't the same after killing Baroudi, I think most historians would agree that up until that point that Charles was about on the same level as Ray Robinson, but after that he just didn't have the same killer instinct anymore. With that said it really does seem like a toss up fight, on one hand I could see Charles power overwhelming Jones, but then again I could see RJJ's speed giving Charles some trouble, however I would be willing to bet that Charles could adjust to his style as he had done with many other fighters. I think the best way to really figure this question out is to see how exactly Charles defeated Charley Burley since Burley's style has been regarded by some as a more technically sound Roy Jones(can't really comment since I only have the Oakland Billy Smith rematch to go on however I did see the similarities), although Burley does appear to be a naturally smaller man than Jones since he was fighting at welterweight. It really is a shame that we don't have important historical fights like this on tape.

Burley's former sparring partner A.J. "Blackie" Nelson offers this comparison: "I see a lot of Charley in this kid, Roy Jones Junior. Both had unorthodox styles, could hit you from any angle, both hard to hit. Charley jabbed more than Jones, if Jones would concentrate on boxing as Charley did, he would become an all-time great."

Eddie Futch, the great trainer, called Burley "the finest all-around fighter I ever saw."


Charles was the only man who truly bested Burley, he beat Burley twice but there isn't much footage about Burley so I can't really say if he was like Roy Jones.

That's what the people who have seen Burley fight say, it's probably true, Burley was smaller than Roy though.

Yea I hear you TheManchine, this isn't much to go on as it is only one fight, but I can definitely see the comparison to Roy Jones. For those that don't know Burley is the one in the black trunks.:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/e4IsZxqeJos&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/e4IsZxqeJos&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-v1Ct2DFRQQ&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-v1Ct2DFRQQ&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

I think this does prove, even if Burley wasn't exactly like Jones, that Charles has seen something like Roy.

Burley was hard to hit, his hands were fast and powerful (50 KO's, Ring Magazine ranked him as one of the top 100 punchers of all time).
It was rumoured that boxers like Robinson and LaMotta ducked Burley.

A young 21 year old Ezzard Charles defeated him twice.

Charles was the only man who truly bested Burley, he beat Burley twice but there isn't much footage about Burley so I can't really say if he was like Roy Jones.

That's what the people who have seen Burley fight say, it's probably true, Burley was smaller than Roy though.

Is it true Sugar Ray Robinson was ducking Charlie Burley in 1949-1950???

Is it true Sugar Ray Robinson was ducking Charlie Burley in 1949-1950???

It could be a legend. Robinson was reported as telling to his manager "I am too pretty to fight Charley Burley". It could also be a legend.

It is true that Zivic's bought Burley's contract, and Burley never got a shot at Zivic. In general, no welterweight or middleweight champ ever gave a shot at Burley. With his record, you have to wonder why.

I dunno about 1949-1950, I think the fight was supposed to be made earlier.

Yea I hear you TheManchine, this isn't much to go on as it is only one fight, but I can definitely see the comparison to Roy Jones. For those that don't know Burley is the one in the black trunks.:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/e4IsZxqeJos&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/e4IsZxqeJos&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-v1Ct2DFRQQ&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-v1Ct2DFRQQ&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>



definite stylistic resemblance. No where near as fast.

I think this does prove, even if Burley wasn't exactly like Jones, that Charles has seen something like Roy.

Burley was hard to hit, his hands were fast and powerful (50 KO's, Ring Magazine ranked him as one of the top 100 punchers of all time).
It was rumoured that boxers like Robinson and LaMotta ducked Burley.

A young 21 year old Ezzard Charles defeated him twice.
Spot on.....

definite stylistic resemblance. No where near as fast.

Due to the quality of the video it is difficult to see how fast he really was, but certainly you can tell that both his feet and hands were fast. Not sure if he was Roy fast though.