Roy Jones Jr's alleged "weak opposition"

[IronDanHamza]

It's pure semantics. You suggesting that Roy's opponents aren't as weak as people say they are, as other top fighters struggled with them, is strongly implying that they are underrated. It's saying exactly the same thing. Just because you didn't say it in those exact words doesn't mean that's not the basic point of what you're saying, so just relax. The way it's been written is what brings up the constant confusion from everyone here, not everyone's poor comprehension skills.

You've now come out and pointed out that's not what you're saying, but you could have made that much clearer in the initial post. You've gone through a series of Jones' opponents and written out why they're not weak opposition (which is simply another way of saying underrated), despite most people saying they are. That means that you are saying they are better than people give them credit for and are thus good wins. The constant confusion from everyone is because that's what being underrated is!

Or do you think that every single person that took it exactly that way is wrong and should have read your mind clearer? Maybe the fault lies with you and the way you wrote it out, and the strong implications and suggestions therein, rather than with literally every single person that read it just being too blind and confused to figure out what you were really saying.

I know it's not a comparison between. But people are going to draw very obvious conclusions between the two threads, as they fought common opponents, fought each other, had similar careers in many respects and you are saying one is the most overrated of the decade, while the other has opponents that aren't nearly as underra...sorry, weak, as they seem.

Everyone that has read this is going to draw parallels very naturally and very quickly between the two threads. How you are getting defensive over that is beyond me...you must have expected that, given what you've written about both. Like it or not, but people are going to draw the conclusion that you're taking the piss a little or are on an NSB style kind of rant by saying two opposite extremes between two fighters with similar opponents, similar careers, etc. Maybe that's not what you meant it to come out like, but that's how it looks, hence why everyone is saying the same things.

That's your problem if your draw a conclusion mate not mine.

It's very clear in basic English. Specific opponents - Are they weak? Hell, use the term "underrated" because the same rule applies there for those specific fights. It makes no difference to the point I'm making nor doesn't it contradict anything I've said. If I was saying that James Toney fought weak opponents or I was saying that Roy had an underrated career then yeah I'd get your point but I'm saying neither of those think and don't think either of those things.

Where you and others are getting confused for whatever reason is you're turning into me saying that his career is underrated which I haven't said or implied and I don't even think that. Roy is rated just fine for the most part.

Why these aren't comparable is because the Toney thread is about his career, and his performances. I've not once said Toney's opposition is weak or poor or overrated what I'm arguing is whether his performances equate to him being overrated. Should he be rated as high as he seems to be?

This thread isn't about any of that, it's about the oppositon Roy fought, not only that be the specific ones and how they rate. Nothing to do with Jones career or how he should be rated etc etc etc.

I thought this was pretty damn obvious but clearly not. I hope this makes things clearer.

[BKM-]

You say you rank Hopkins higher than Jones - But Jones beat more ATGs than Hopkins. And his general opposition is also way better.

Say what you will about these wins(and I can certainly nitpick Roy's wins over Hopkins and Toney to death too) but Trinidad and De La Hoya both by stoppage and the schooling of LHW champ Tarver while moving up and keeping in mind that that's the same guy who dethroned RJJ. The latter is bigger than any of Roy's wins. Also beat Wright, a nightmare matchup to many foes.

There's also domination over much younger guys in Pavlik and Pascal at an advanced age, extreme longevity and the record of oldest champ, and also had the record for MW title defenses. And lastly, I believe he clearly beat Calzaghe and Taylor as well.

Oh, and also never been stopped in 66 bouts, even taking everything that the young lion with crushing power Kovalev had to throw at him in the 12th. Oh, and also he never lost in his peak prime and only started losing in his 40s, most of which were very debatable decisions.

Hell yeah he has a better resume than Roy, in fact I don't even think it's close which includes their ATG rankings. But again, keep in mind that the people who discredit Hopkins' resume should realise that the exact same can be done to Roy's, I have my finger ready on the trigger

[BKM-]

It's pure semantics. You suggesting that Roy's opponents aren't as weak as people say they are, as other top fighters struggled with them, is strongly implying that they are underrated. It's saying exactly the same thing. Just because you didn't say it in those exact words doesn't mean that's not the basic point of what you're saying, so just relax. The way it's been written is what brings up the constant confusion from everyone here, not everyone's poor comprehension skills.

You've now come out and pointed out that's not what you're saying, but you could have made that much clearer in the initial post. You've gone through a series of Jones' opponents and written out why they're not weak opposition (which is simply another way of saying underrated), despite most people saying they are. That means that you are saying they are better than people give them credit for and are thus good wins. The constant confusion from everyone is because that's what being underrated is!

Or do you think that every single person that took it exactly that way is wrong and should have read your mind clearer? Maybe the fault lies with you and the way you wrote it out, and the strong implications and suggestions therein, rather than with literally every single person that read it just being too blind and confused to figure out what you were really saying.

I know it's not a comparison between. But people are going to draw very obvious conclusions between the two threads, as they fought common opponents, fought each other, had similar careers in many respects and you are saying one is the most overrated of the decade, while the other has opponents that aren't nearly as underra...sorry, weak, as they seem.

Everyone that has read this is going to draw parallels very naturally and very quickly between the two threads. How you are getting defensive over that is beyond me...you must have expected that, given what you've written about both. Like it or not, but people are going to draw the conclusion that you're taking the piss a little or are on an NSB style kind of rant by saying two opposite extremes between two fighters with similar opponents, similar careers, etc. Maybe that's not what you meant it to come out like, but that's how it looks, hence why everyone is saying the same things.

This. I think Hamza may have absolutely no self-awareness at all. He either doesn't know how he comes across or he has so much pride and ego that he denies his obvious flops so vehemently.

[IronDanHamza]

This. I think Hamza may have absolutely no self-awareness at all. He either doesn't know how he comes across or he has so much pride and ego that he denies his obvious flops so vehemently.

I'll just say the same thing I said to Benny if you want to draw conclusions then that's on you.

You know what they say about assumptions.

It doesn't exactly take a genius to comprehend what the threads about that's despite the gigantic clues most notably the title of the thread followed by the OP explaining in very basic English what the threads about.

[LacedUp]

Say what you will about these wins(and I can certainly nitpick Roy's wins over Hopkins and Toney to death too) but Trinidad and De La Hoya both by stoppage and the schooling of LHW champ Tarver while moving up and keeping in mind that that's the same guy who dethroned RJJ. The latter is bigger than any of Roy's wins. Also beat Wright, a nightmare matchup to many foes.

There's also domination over much younger guys in Pavlik and Pascal at an advanced age, extreme longevity and the record of oldest champ, and also had the record for MW title defenses. And lastly, I believe he clearly beat Calzaghe and Taylor as well.

Oh, and also never been stopped in 66 bouts, even taking everything that the young lion with crushing power Kovalev had to throw at him in the 12th. Oh, and also he never lost in his peak prime and only started losing in his 40s, most of which were very debatable decisions.

Hell yeah he has a better resume than Roy, in fact I don't even think it's close which includes their ATG rankings. But again, keep in mind that the people who discredit Hopkins' resume should realise that the exact same can be done to Roy's, I have my finger ready on the trigger

OK - But you said Jones needed to beat an ATG in his prime - but you rank Hopkins higher. Which ATG did Hopkins beat in his prime?

Roy Jones jr beat James Toney when he was undefeated and was an underdog in that fight. I can't see how Tarver is a better win than that, despite Tarver beating RJJ. Trinidad's is Hopkins best win imo.

Yeah Hopkins moved up, but RJJ moved up more times and beat more champions. + He beat Hopkins himself.

I have no issue saying Hopkins is definitely an ATG, but Roy Jones' resume is a lot better. Hopkins' win over Pavlik would have been a lot better if they had actually fought at a weight Pavlik was comfortable with too.

OK - But he didn't beat Calzaghe and at best it is very disputable. Taylor I agree with. Still, who is Jermain Taylor on Roy Jones' resume?

RJJ dominated every division from Middleweight to lightheavyweight and was champion all the way up to heavyweight and was considered the best in the world for almost a decade. His run in every division was more impressive than Hopkins' in the same divisions if you look at who they fought.

[BennyST]

I'll just say the same thing I said to Benny if you want to draw conclusions then that's on you.

You know what they say about assumptions.

It doesn't exactly take a genius to comprehend what the threads about that's despite the gigantic clues most notably the title of the thread followed by the OP explaining in very basic English what the threads about.

Yet, somehow, every single person that's read it has drawn the same 'wrong' conclusion. But I guess that's our fault cause we're not genius'. You're the only person smart enough to figure your own post (but that's only because the meaning you had in your head isn't what came out when you wrote it down for).

When the only person that sees it's real meaning is the person who wrote it, while every single other person that read it took a different meaning from it...maybe, just maybe Dan, it's you who's lacking the comprehension of what you yourself wrote and how it comes across to everyone else.

Can you see that? Can you admit that you just might have written it in a way that doesn't get your meaning across properly? Can you admit that you just might be wrong in the face of everyone that read it taking a different meaning from it than you intended?

But keep arguing that everyone else is wrong, except you. It's a good look.

We're not the ass in this case mate.

[BennyST]

That's your problem if your draw a conclusion mate not mine.

It's very clear in basic English. Specific opponents - Are they weak? Hell, use the term "underrated" because the same rule applies there for those specific fights. It makes no difference to the point I'm making nor doesn't it contradict anything I've said. If I was saying that James Toney fought weak opponents or I was saying that Roy had an underrated career then yeah I'd get your point but I'm saying neither of those think and don't think either of those things.

Where you and others are getting confused for whatever reason is you're turning into me saying that his career is underrated which I haven't said or implied and I don't even think that. Roy is rated just fine for the most part.

Why these aren't comparable is because the Toney thread is about his career, and his performances. I've not once said Toney's opposition is weak or poor or overrated what I'm arguing is whether his performances equate to him being overrated. Should he be rated as high as he seems to be?

This thread isn't about any of that, it's about the oppositon Roy fought, not only that be the specific ones and how they rate. Nothing to do with Jones career or how he should be rated etc etc etc.

I thought this was pretty damn obvious but clearly not. I hope this makes things clearer.

Yeah, I know that already. I don't even think you read what I wrote because everything you just replied to I'd already answered and talked about in the earlier post. I know that it's about Jones' specific opponents and the Toney one about his career. Makes no diff...Urgh, just go read the post again, I can't be bothered writing it out again.

[robertzimmerman]

Omg. What a longass reply that really brings little new.


Why? (Rhetorical question). Because in Mr. Zimmerman's mind alphabet belts and the number of Them is what matters. Not linage.

We know. We also know why. At the same time we also know that you Blake DM for not going to the US.


He didnt drop the belt. He Was stripped! Why (not rhetorical because you clearly do not know). Because he displayed the WBO belt alongside the WBA!

He Was stripped dude. He had the WBO belt before the unification with Hill. Aften he beat Hill he had there belts. Unlike you I reel that it is the man who makes the belt and not the belt that makes the man.

Nothing new here. You just give Jones a pass and still fail to see that bad decisions are everywhere. We have covered it. I have explained it to you. Reiterating the exact same argument proves nothing Else than you simply cannot see this case from another perspective than that of Roy Jones JR.

And why does that matter (Rhetorical question)? Because in Mr. Zimmerman's mind Alphabet organizations carry the authority in boxing history.

Enough? Its a repetion of the the exact same things you have said before and which has been dealt with before.

Lineage dude. Lineage. Had Ring Magazine not dropped the ball on this issue, there Might have been more pressure on Roy to travel. Yet Ring magazine wanted Roy as champion and also chose to strip DM.


Yes, and he had a fine career. It just could have been so much better but for various reasons it stands as stands. I Think he Might have made the top 20 or maybe even 10 had he fought them all.


Yes you are.

Your argument Was that Roy did not have to travel to fight a man who could 'only' get a decision against a boxer Jones KO'ed.

Thats about as triangular as it Can get!
.
Same as before. Lineage.
.
I havent trashed his career. At least not here.
So you are a ....? Or?


The rest here is what we have seen from you before and its repetitive and has been dealt with.

Unless you want me to repeat what I've already written, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[robertzimmerman]

Sugar Adam Ali,

But for real,,, roy jones was the money man on his day.. After the toney fight, roy could make any fight he wanted, but he would have rather taken the hbo millions from his contract and fight no hopers like de Valle, paz, Brannon, lucas, etc.. Hbo executives are even on record saying when they signed roy to the deal they expected much more, but they ****ed up and gave him millions for fighting scrubs on hbo... Once the contract ended, then you saw roy take the ruiz fight, and tarver, calzaghe, etc...

Roy could not make any fight he wanted. Why do you keep saying that?

Eubank, Calzaghe, Hopkins, Dariusz, (in the U.S.) Liles, and Holyfield, (in 98) did not want to fight Roy.

Lou Del Valle was for the WBA title. He wasn't going to pass on that.

Vinny Pazienza was a keep busy fight for very good money, whilst his advisors, The Levin's, were trying to negotiate with Don King, for possible fights against Benn and Liles.

Bryant Brannon and Eric Lucas were mandatories.

Yes, HBO were upset that he didn't fight more high profile fights. They were frustrated like many boxing fans were. However, the following factors have to be noted:

At times, they publicly supported him, admitting that he was finding it hard to face top opponents.

They had a pre approved list of fighters.

They gave him numerous contract extensions.

He fought on the network over 25 times.

They employed him as a commentator.

They knew he had mandatory obligations to fulfil.


The Ruiz, Tarver and Calzaghe fights were all shown on HBO.

It's absolutely laughable that people think he fought stiff competition during his prime..

Pretty pointless, because you'll just shoot them down.

Roy fought some good fighters within that time frame, that gave other world class fighters tough fights.

List his best five fights from 95-03

Virgil hill...lmao,, dude was old and already beaten by old hearns and pummeled by dariusZ

mccallum was 42 and a blown up jr mid

Reggie was a career 154-160 but a big win for roy at 175

Lucas, paz, Brannon, byrd, etc, etc... Roys resume from 95-03 was a ****ing joke, and he really didn't do anything pre 95 or post 03..

Normally, you're a decent poster. But when it comes to Roy, you just spew out hateful nonsense.

Montell Griffin was a good fighter. Quite underrated. Roy blew him out in a single round in their rematch.

Virgil Hill was faded, but Roy beat him with absolute ease, and was the only man to ever knock him out in 58 fights. Two years after Roy had beaten him, he knocked out Fabrice Tiozzo in a single round at CW.

Reggie was also faded, but Roy beat him with absolute ease.

Clinton Woods was a decent fighter, but Roy toyed with him.

Ruiz and Tarver are self explanatory.

Just please name me the big fights from 95-03,, between toney and ruiz.. A decade's worth of time, roy in his prime, the money man that could make any fight happen, and no big fights happened...

HE COULD NOT MAKE ANY FIGHT HE WANTED!

You are being so ignorant.

Within that time frame you have given, again, Liles, Calzaghe, Dariusz, Evander, and Hopkins would not fight Roy.

Do you UNDERSTAND??


Read the following links:

If you want a serious debate, you'll respectfully view them.


Eubank:

The Gloves are off, The Super Middleweights.

Go to 2 min, 50 secs.

http://********/VBw_q1rCa40


1996:

Pre Brannon, in ring interview, with HBO's full backing.

http://********/4TPjvtASn0c


Liles:

An interview with his former manager, Jack O'Halloran.

http://ringsidereport.com/?p=2112


Evander Holyfield:

An excerpt from Jim Thomas' book, Evander's attorney of 13 years.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...U5APsQ6AEIJzAC


Calzaghe:

1999:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Boxing...he.-a060444934

2003:

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/i-am...e-6352495.html


Hopkins:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...es-hopkins.htm

Same posters that hype roy, are the same that degrade oscar's career, even though Oscar fought everybody on the block..

Any non fanboy can realize that roy fought the bare minimum .. He had one night fight vs toney and that was it..l hopkins was an espn club fighter when roy fought him.. He just happened to turn out great a decade later..

He didn't only have one fight.

You should be embarrassed at what you've written.

Nothing but hateful inaccuracies.


Come back to me if you want an actual debate.

[robertzimmerman]

BKM,

Say what you will about these wins(and I can certainly nitpick Roy's wins over Hopkins and Toney to death too) but Trinidad and De La Hoya both by stoppage and the schooling of LHW champ Tarver while moving up and keeping in mind that that's the same guy who dethroned RJJ. The latter is bigger than any of Roy's wins. Also beat Wright, a nightmare matchup to many foes.

That's your opinion.

But there's lots of factors to consider here:

Roy had to burn muscle in just 2 months to fight Tarver, and he was absolutely exhausted in the last third of the fight.

It was a bigger fight than Tarver-Hopkins, because it was the number 1 and 2 fighters of the division squaring off, with main titles at stake.

Roy made history by dropping back from HW to reclaim the LHW titles.

There's a very good chance that Tarver was drained after his weight loss from his role in the Rocky movie. Mackie Shilstone, who helped prepare Hopkins for the fight and who'd helped Roy prepare for Ruiz, said that he expected Tarver to be flat after the weight loss. Roy, Chris Byrd and Chad Dawson all struggled after dropping weight.

Hopkins' win over Tito was truly great in my opinion. Although Tito did peak at lower weights.

The win over Oscar wasn't great in my opinion, as he'd looked absolutely awful against Sturm in his previous fight.

The win over Winky also wasn't that impressive, as the fight was at 170 pounds, and Winky had never fought at that weight for any of his other fights, in a career spanning almost 60 fights.

You've also got to note, that Bernard didn't commit to becoming a full time MW, until he'd been a pro for 3 years. Bernard is a big guy. He's 6'1, with a 75" reach. He had to make incredible sacrifices both mentally and physically to squeeze down to MW. He had size advantages over almost all of his opponents there. At the time, MW was a weak division, as the former greats had either retired or moved up to higher weights. Until Don King's MW tournament in 2000, he was content to just defend his IBF belt against whoever was put in front of him. He didn't really show any ambition until he'd lost to Taylor twice in 2005. He wouldn't rematch Roy in 2002, turning down $6m and demanding $10m.

There's also domination over much younger guys in Pavlik and Pascal at an advanced age, extreme longevity and the record of oldest champ, and also had the record for MW title defenses. And lastly, I believe he clearly beat Calzaghe and Taylor as well.

The Pavlik win was outstanding, but it's a shame it wasn't at MW.

The win over Pascal was great considering he was 45/46.

I don't think his reign at MW is that impressive, due to what I've wrote above. He eventually had a great win over Tito, but it took him over 6 years, and again, he didn't show any ambition before King's tournament. He even remained at MW for another 4 years after, even though there was nothing else to achieve. I don't think that was great, considering he could have moved up to try and fight better guys at SMW and LHW much sooner. He admitted before he fought Calzaghe in 2008, that he could have moved up to LHW 5/6 years earlier. Staying years in a weak division isn't impressive when you've got better options. Calzaghe stayed at SMW for years when he could have moved up to LHW a lot sooner. Roy could have stayed at SMW for a decade had he wanted too, which would have looked good on BoxRec.

You've got to do a lot of digging if you want to objectively rate a fighter.

Oh, and also never been stopped in 66 bouts, even taking everything that the young lion with crushing power Kovalev had to throw at him in the 12th. Oh, and also he never lost in his peak prime and only started losing in his 40s, most of which were very debatable decisions.

That's cool, but he didn't fight many top guys in his prime.

Hell yeah he has a better resume than Roy, in fact I don't even think it's close which includes their ATG rankings. But again, keep in mind that the people who discredit Hopkins' resume should realise that the exact same can be done to Roy's, I have my finger ready on the trigger

You think he has a better resume than Roy, and you don't think it's close?

Ha! I can't say that I'm surprised.

Are you going to factor in everything what I've wrote above?

Again:

He squeezed himself into a weak division for 12 years, where he was bigger than almost all of his opponents.

He showed no ambition until he'd lost back to back fights with Taylor.

His very best wins were against fighters who'd enjoyed their greatest successes at lower weights.


Roy on the other hand, won titles in 4 weight classes, including a portion of the HW title, even though he'd fought as a JMW in the previous decade.

He made history going up to HW and back, where he overcame adversity against naturally bigger guys.

He dominated the majority of his opponents while he was prime, only losing once in 50 fights on a DQ.


Both were great fighters. And Bernard really trumps him with his outstanding longevity which is an incredible achievment. As everyone knows, Roy should have retired many years ago.


For me, Roy definitely achieved more, he was far more dominant in his prime, he was more ambitious, and all things considered, he has the better overall resume.

For you to say Bernard has a better resume and it's not even close, is absolutely laughable.

One of the most ridiculous things I've read while I've been a member here.