Did Roy Jones start losing at LHW when his competition stepped up?

[therealpugilist]

But there is a clear difference between being "shot" or "done", and just not being as good anymore.

You mention Ali's chin, but does it not count as a + for a fighter? Jones not having a above average one isn't exactly a good thing no?

before Jones was 35+ he was only dropped once, when he fought Tarver the first time he took alot of hard shots didnt wobble, stumble or even look hurt, the older you are your punch resistance goes...hell yea if you have a great chin its a plus, but its hard to say Jones didnt have a good chin when he went 15 years as a pro without being hurt, this is boxing not ballet and he took his fair share of shots

What Im saying is Jones was a decline, by 1999/2000 he was 30 years old and you can see it in his fights, he doesnt throw as many combos, he potshots, moves less, etc...dude in 2003-2004 was not the fighter of 2000 especially 1996-1997 whch were his best years....so how can you hold against him loses to Johnson, Hopkins, and Calzaghe when was on a visible decline for 5 years + before fighting them

When Tarver and Johnson(didnt have any confidence wouldnt swing back very important in boxing) beat him he was for sure past prime

by the time Calzaghe and Hopkins got to him he was no good anymore/shot

read the poets post...

[LHK]

What happens with a fighter past-prime can only help his standing, it can't hurt it. Why? Because when you're past-prime you're SUPPOSED to lose to top fighters and you're NOT supposed to beat them. That's why when you DO beat them you get kudos because you did something you weren't supposed to be able to do. That's why when you lose them you don't take criticism.....because you were SUPPOSED to lose to them.

Poet

I disagree that once past your prime a fighter is "suppose" to lose. It just feels, bizarre really. And then there is the question of how we measure prime. Prime seems to end as soon as someone gets clipped.

I completely agree Roy was past his prime, but so were all his opponents. You could argue he was "shot", but I don't agree. I think the "shot" comments come not simply because his skills were not their peak, but because he was losing to fighters in similar positions.

[Poet682006]

I disagree that once past your prime a fighter is "suppose" to lose. It just feels, bizarre really. And then there is the question of how we measure prime. Prime seems to end as soon as someone gets clipped.

I completely agree Roy was past his prime, but so were all his opponents. You could argue he was "shot", but I don't agree. I think the "shot" comments come not simply because his skills were not their peak, but because he was losing to fighters in similar positions.

I'll tell you how I define it. Prime is when you're at your physical peak and have the experience to make full use of your abilities. When your reflexes start to slide you're past-prime. When your reflexes have diminished drastically then you're shot. Regardless of age. Wilfred Benitez was shot at age 26.

Poet

[LHK]

before Jones was 35+ he was only dropped once, when he fought Tarver the first time he took alot of hard shots didnt wobble, stumble or even look hurt, the older you are your punch resistance goes...hell yea if you have a great chin its a plus, but its hard to say Jones didnt have a good chin when he went 15 years as a pro without being hurt, this is boxing not ballet and he took his fair share of shots

What Im saying is Jones was a decline, by 1999/2000 he was 30 years old and you can see it in his fights, he doesnt throw as many combos, he potshots, moves less, etc...dude in 2003-2004 was not the fighter of 2000 especially 1996-1997 whch were his best years....so how can you hold against him loses to Johnson, Hopkins, and Calzaghe when was on a visible decline for 5 years + before fighting them

When Tarver and Johnson(didnt have any confidence wouldnt swing back very important in boxing) beat him he was for sure past prime

by the time Calzaghe and Hopkins got to him he was no good anymore/shot

read the poets post...

Because they were all also on the decline. That is the thing, none of them were anywhere near their best when they fought Jones either. They all had 40+ fights, had been removed from their physical primes just as long as Jones, etc.

They simply made the best of what they had.

[IMDAZED]

Because they were all also on the decline. That is the thing, none of them were anywhere near their best when they fought Jones either. They all had 40+ fights, had been removed from their physical primes just as long as Jones, etc.

They simply made the best of what they had.

Not everyone ages the same way.

[Poet682006]

Because they were all also on the decline. That is the thing, none of them were anywhere near their best when they fought Jones either. They all had 40+ fights, had been removed from their physical primes just as long as Jones, etc.

They simply made the best of what they had.

Athletes don't all age athletically at the same rate.

Poet

[Poet682006]

Not everyone ages the same way.

Beat me to it

[LHK]

Not everyone ages the same way.

And not everyone were given the athletic gifts of Jones in his prime. But advantages are advantages. When you have two 35+ year old men fighting and one has slowed more then the other, I am not exactly sure that is different then one having different advantages 10 years before.

[IMDAZED]

And not everyone were given the athletic gifts of Jones in his prime. But advantages are advantages. When you have two 35+ year old men fighting and one has slowed more then the other, I am not exactly sure that is different then one having different advantages 10 years before.

Who said there was a difference? Irrelevant. Focus please. Bottom line, people don't age the same.

[therealpugilist]

Not everyone ages the same way.

precisely.....

As far as Tarver was a "fresh" 30+ fighter, he turned pro at 28, by age 28 Jones had a slew of fights and belts