Tweet
Well, just as this pigeon, this is my exit out of this thread :
-
Last edited by PeacefulFury; 05-09-2012, 07:23 AM. -
Your post seems to do everything it can to invalidate the guys he beat in his prime and ignore everything wrong with the guys he lost to after his prime. We could just as easily do the opposite.
Let's think of your argument like this. If Roy had beaten the guys you listed Instead of who he actually beat, would anyone really think it was impressive?
Johnson? really? He was better than all of Jones previous competition in 10 years of matches that were not even close? Because he sure didn't look like it before the Roy fight or after it, piling up loss after loss on each of those ends of his career. Was he only superior to all of Roy's previous opponents the night he beat him?
Calzaghe was a guy with only one really impressive win on his entire resume. So we pose the question again, if Jones had beaten him, would you really be saying that it was a wonderful win?
I'm quite confused as to why you think Antonio Tarver's "reign" prior to beating a past prime Jones is better than James Toney's at Middleweight. Toney with wins over Nun, Barkley, Macallum?
I don't care if Hill lost to Dariusz, he is still better than a Danny Green. Griffin was a novice? he sure as heck didn't look like one. Is every fighter a novice four years into his career? was Tyson? Would he have been a novice if Roy hadn't beat him?
Finally you bring up Roy's wins after the Tarver fight. Wins against who?! two guys who hadn't beaten anybody and an old Tito Trinidad fighting at a weight he never should have even been fighting at? (he started out as a Welter).
These conversions are endless because it seems you can never get certain younger fans to realize that Boxing didn't start when they became aware of it, and everything that was accomplished before that is relevant, even if the same fighters who were around then are around now. The fact that some of them are still around now simply means they have unusual longevity, often due to style and other personal attributes. The fact that fighters in the mid 30's and 40's are dominating the sport is only an indication of how the younger generation of fighters are not stepping up as they should. Mid 30's is not supposed to be prime for a fighter, it is usually past it. All the more so for fighters that rely almost entirely upon youthful reflexes and speed, rather than orthodox Boxing technique. It's simply a biological fact that these things usually begin to decrease around that age..Last edited by res; 05-09-2012, 08:01 AM.Comment
-
Hi res, thanks for the response. You have to appreciate that Johnson was on a good winning run, and a champion when he faced Jones. Although is higher rated, he was just coming off a gruelling 12 round loss to DM, who established himself as the man at LHW. Those mental factors are huge in fights. Look at Cotto getting destroyed by Pacquiao, then 3 years later giving Mayweather a really tough,gruelling fight. Cotto was in a bad place mentally when he faced Pac, but he was on a winning run and he was a champion when he faced Mayweather.
I don't think Glencoffe gets the credit he deserves from many. Roy was low on confidence, and Glen assaulted him from the first bell, didn't give him time to settle. When he stood off, you could see that Roy's hand speed, foot speed and combinations were all still there. Glen fought a great fight that night. With his iron chin, and the pressure he puts on fighters, Glen is a tough fight for Roy at any time in his career.
I think Calzaghe's win over Eubank, Lacy and Kessler were impressive. He also held good wins over former and future champions in Reid, Mitchell, Woodhall and Veit. Calzaghe had a very impressive SMW resume (considered the most accomplished SMW of all time(, then moved up to beat Hopkins (ring magazine champion) at LHW. If Jones had beaten Calzaghe, who was undefeated and 45-0 having been a world champion for over 10 years, that would have been far and away the best win of his career.
Tarver was an underachiever to a degree. His style is a nightmare for Roy, he's tall, rangy and has a very good jab. We saw how Roy struggled with well time jabs against Griffin. Tarver was confident, at his prime weight, and genuinely believed he could beat Roy.
Roy fought Toney at SMW, Toney's SMW resume is terrible. He accomplished very little at that weight. Although, the win over Tim Littles was a good win, but that's it. He was completely drained when he fought Jones, I think he had to cut over 30 pounds in a few weeks. Toney beat Mccallum and Nunn at MW.
The Green fight was unlucky for Roy as he got caught so early, if he hadn't have got caught like that early on, he probably would have beaten Green, that can happen in boxing. Hill was coming off a loss to DM, losses seriously affect fighters confidence, surely you appreciate that?
Tito had no business at MW, yet that's considered a career defining win for Hopkins.
Who had Montell Griffin had beat prior to facing Jones? yet that's considered a good win for Roy. The opponents that Roy beat after Tarver, and after Calzaghe are on a par with the opponents Roy was facing during his LHW reign, guys like Richard Hall, Rick Frazier, Glenn Kelly, and Roy looked just as good beating these guys. Remember, he was the first to stop Lacy
Thanks for the responses guys, this is an interesting discussion.Last edited by SergioMaravilla; 05-09-2012, 10:52 AM.Comment
-
TS is an idiot. BTW, Griffin beat James Toney twice before Jones.Comment
-
Combination of all these things:
1. Mileage + aging
2. Weight loss after Ruiz
3. Stopped taking steroids.Comment
-
How was Roy a has-been? Not long before, he recorded one of the best wins of his career against John Ruiz. When faced Tarver in the rematch, he was ranked P4P number 1.
The steroids point is important. We don't know what Roy was taking, he may well have been using anabolic enhancers, which brings into question the level he was performing at, before he failed a drugs test.Comment
-
Comment
Comment