Best fighters of the 90's?

[RubenSonny]

lets not forget that Chavez was on his fourth weight class and after tons of fights

Yet you don't mention that it wasn't fought at full welterweight limit, his record though excellent was very padded and that it was Peas '3rd' weight class, and thats not even as bad as it sounds if you only count the 'original 8'.

No version of Chavez would beat Pea.

[Steak]

I do believe the weight gain took something out of him. but I dont think it was the only thing that made him past prime. I think he had been on the slide since before the Tarver fight.

the thing is that he only weighed 193 against Ruiz. you can cut 15lbs of water weight fairly easily, a lot of fighters rehydrate more than that in 24 hours. and the Tarver fight was 8 months after fighting Ruiz, thats a pretty good amount of time to settle back down about 5 or so pounds.

and Roy never 'got it back' either. Thats why Tarver said 'do you have any excuses tonight Roy?' in the rematch, because Roy had used the cutting weight excuse in their first fight and was confident he had settled those issues in the rematch. well, didnt seem that way.

Roy wasnt just effected by losing weight. he was on the slide to begin with.

[IronDanHamza]

Yet you don't mention that it wasn't fought at full welterweight limit, his record though excellent was very padded and that it was Peas '3rd' weight class, and thats not even as bad as it sounds if you only count the 'original 8'.

No version of Chavez would beat Pea.

I agree with this statement.

[IronDanHamza]

I do believe the weight gain took something out of him. but I dont think it was the only thing that made him past prime. I think he had been on the slide since before the Tarver fight.

the thing is that he only weighed 193 against Ruiz. you can cut 15lbs of water weight fairly easily, a lot of fighters rehydrate more than that in 24 hours. and the Tarver fight was 8 months after fighting Ruiz, thats a pretty good amount of time to settle back down about 5 or so pounds.

and Roy never 'got it back' either. Thats why Tarver said 'do you have any excuses tonight Roy?' in the rematch, because Roy had used the cutting weight excuse in their first fight and was confident he had settled those issues in the rematch. well, didnt seem that way.

Roy wasnt just effected by losing weight. he was on the slide to begin with.

I don't think it mattered by then. The damage was done, Roy was offically on the decline, and the weight loss was the reason for that wide decline, IMO. I don't believe he ever truley recovered from the weight loss.

It wasn't just water weight though, he has clearly gained muscle mass when he weighed in at 190. And he had to lose that to get back down. That's no excuse for Roy, that was his choice, but it wasn't just water weight again like I just touched on, he clearly gained a fair bit of muscle mass.

When he came back down, that was it, the damaage was done. He looked poor against Tarver, and I think that effected his confidence. In the 2nd fight he got caught with that shot, and it was wrap. Roy Jones would never be the same again, and it showed.

Of he's going to claim he was 100% for the 2nd fight, he's a fighter. One that isn't used to looking bad. But I don't believe he was, the weight effected him badly and to me, the Tarver fight showed that. But that's just me opinion, anyway.

[Ben Bolt]

Julio Cesar was the best fighter during the closing years of the 80's, and the best fighter during the opening years of the 90's ... ruling him out for being selected the best fighter of either decade ...

However, if the question in this thread had been
"Best fighter of the 1900's" ...

[Steak]

Yet you don't mention that it wasn't fought at full welterweight limit, his record though excellent was very padded and that it was Peas '3rd' weight class, and thats not even as bad as it sounds if you only count the 'original 8'.

No version of Chavez would beat Pea.

Actually, I did mention that Whitaker wasnt at his best either.

and I agree, Chavez would always lose to Whitaker, although their fight would have been even better had they fought at Lightweight, when they both were at their best.

[StarshipTrooper]

However, if the question in this thread had been
"Best fighter of the 1900's" ...

Then Chavez wouldn't crack the top-10.

Poet

[Steak]

I don't think it mattered by then. The damage was done, Roy was offically on the decline, and the weight loss was the reason for that wide decline, IMO. I don't believe he ever truley recovered from the weight loss.

It wasn't just water weight though, he has clearly gained muscle mass when he weighed in at 190. And he had to lose that to get back down. That's no excuse for Roy, that was his choice, but it wasn't just water weight again like I just touched on, he clearly gained a fair bit of muscle mass.

When he came back down, that was it, the damaage was done. He looked poor against Tarver, and I think that effected his confidence. In the 2nd fight he got caught with that shot, and it was wrap. Roy Jones would never be the same again, and it showed.

Of he's going to claim he was 100% for the 2nd fight, he's a fighter. One that isn't used to looking bad. But I don't believe he was, the weight effected him badly and to me, the Tarver fight showed that. But that's just me opinion, anyway.

even with extra muscle gain, many fighters are able to consistantly lose 15+lbs of water weight, and Roy had 8 months to prep. He didnt have to lose 20lbs of muscle, just get to a point where he could have lost enough water weight to make weight. Its not like he had to drain himself to lose 20lbs within two weeks(which fighters have done in the past and still been successful).

dont you think that Roy at 168 was better than at 175? He certainly looked better there than at LHW to me overall.

people think past prime=shot or something drastic, but thats not what I mean at all. there are many varying degrees of being 'past prime', it doesnt just instantly happen overnight. most guys start going downhill at a constant rate, and you simply have to look closely to recongnise it. its even more difficult when the guy is dominating his fights, but its still happening.

[Ben Bolt]

*************************

Kayoed.

[IronDanHamza]

even with extra muscle gain, many fighters are able to consistantly lose 15+lbs of water weight, and Roy had 8 months to prep. He didnt have to lose 20lbs of muscle, just get to a point where he could have lost enough water weight to make weight. Its not like he had to drain himself to lose 20lbs within two weeks(which fighters have done in the past and still been successful).

dont you think that Roy at 168 was better than at 175? He certainly looked better there than at LHW to me overall.

people think past prime=shot or something drastic, but thats not what I mean at all. there are many varying degrees of being 'past prime', it doesnt just instantly happen overnight. most guys start going downhill at a constant rate, and you simply have to look closely to recongnise it. its even more difficult when the guy is dominating his fights, but its still happening.

Fighters have lost that amount of weight in quick succession and been successful and some have done it and been unsuccessful. Same way some fighters have been KO'd and been successful and some have been KO'd and been unsuccessful.

Roy is one of those guys who lost weight and was unsuccessful, IMO. Roy and his team said the weight was an issue, could be by lieing? Absolutely. But to me, it's quite clear something had an effect on him in the Tarver fight, and it seems logical to suggest it could very well be the fact he gained and lost quite a vast amount of weight like he suggests.

I consider Roy at his best at 168 however I also consider him prime at 175. I consider him prime in 2002 and on the decline in 2003, for whatever reason. Similar to I do with Chavez.

To me, the Tarver fight identified for whatever reason he is on the decline, before that, to me, he showed no signs of decline, thus I consider him prime. And again, the same goes for Chavez.

You don't agree with that, and that's fine. To me, I consider someone on the decline when I see signs of decline. And I simply can't see any, for Chavez nor Roy Jones. And that's just how it is, my opinion is never going to change on that.