Kovalev would brutally KO Roy Jones JR prime for prime

[cupocity303]

In conclusion: I think what's happening here is that a lot of people have an aesthetic bias/preference towards certain styles. If it isn't as slick, quick and doesn't move in the form of a Sweat Pea Whitaker or James Toney, it automatically cannot be as skillful. This is pure ignorance.

There are different cultures and different styles of fighting in other regions of the world and Kovalev has shown to have one of the best skills out there to compete against anybody in Light-heavyweight history or those moving up from 168. Rendering him as some Eastern European robot is pure ignorance.

[VatoMulatto]

Kovalev's punching power makes him a live underdog but a prime Roy wins this fight by UD. Roy was just simply incredible.

[Mooshashi]

Nobody beats a prime RJJ at 168...not Harry Greb, not Gene Tunney, not Archie Moore.

[JasonBoxing]

In conclusion: I think what's happening here is that a lot of people have an aesthetic bias/preference towards certain styles. If it isn't as slick, quick and doesn't move in the form of a Sweat Pea Whitaker or James Toney, it automatically cannot be as skillful. This is pure ignorance.

There are different cultures and different styles of fighting in other regions of the world and Kovalev has shown to have one of the best skills out there to compete against anybody in Light-heavyweight history or those moving up from 168. Rendering him as some Eastern European robot is pure ignorance.

But it works the other way around too. A lot of people are actually too much in love with the Eastern European robotic style(Wladimir) of effectiveness. Now I'm not talking about Kovalev or GGG(both fight nothing like Wlad). I'm simply pointing out that the EE Sterotypical style tends to get over rated as well. People point out Wlad's grab and jab as some sort of unbeatable line of defense when in reality a Prime Tyson would most likely have left Wlad dying on the floor.

Also saying Kovalev can 'compete' against anyone in history isn't saying anything more than he is a 'good fighter'. You don't even have to be 'very good' to compete against anyone in history.

Example:
David Tua at his best was a good fighter with great power. He can 100% 'compete' against anyone in HW History. Ali/Frazier/Tyson/Holyfield/ 'anyone' in HW History. Tua would have 'competed' against them and actually won some rounds at his best. There's a whole tier of fighters that could be 'competitive' against the greats.

Miguel Cotto could 'compete' as well. As would Sergio Martinez.


Kovalev seem to be a very good fighter, but Pascal touched him up way too much for me to believe he have a realistic chance against the likes of a Spinks or Foster. Would he be competitive? Ya......but beating them? I DOUBT IT,

[damuttz112]

Roy's chin can't handle tat power,

Kovalev doesn't have to land on the chin though, he broke Agnew's ribs, he went to hospital and the shot didn't look that hard, Caparello got the same treatment

Roy could **** as well.

[MrRolltide91]

Nope........

[cupocity303]

But it works the other way around too. A lot of people are actually too much in love with the Eastern European robotic style(Wladimir) of effectiveness. Now I'm not talking about Kovalev or GGG(both fight nothing like Wlad). I'm simply pointing out that the EE Sterotypical style tends to get over rated as well. People point out Wlad's grab and jab as some sort of unbeatable line of defense when in reality a Prime Tyson would most likely have left Wlad dying on the floor.

No, not at all. I have debated Tyson Vs Klitschko extensively over the years and pretty much thought that it's settled that Wlad beats Tyson 9 out of 10 times, which is pretty much every time. It's not even worth debating again like Ali Vs Klitschko. Tyson is the one who is overrated based on his thin 85-89 resume of opponents.

Also saying Kovalev can 'compete' against anyone in history isn't saying anything more than he is a 'good fighter'. You don't even have to be 'very good' to compete against anyone in history.

I was being respectful. Would BEAT any fighter in history be better? We can debate specific names but it's all academic.



P.S. You sure picked the worst example thinking you had something. Choosing a fighter who has had the most dominant decade in boxing, and one of the most skilled boxers ever. A few clinch filled fights here and there doesn't disqualify that. The Povetkin fight is not the norm.

[joseph5620]

Of course it's debatable. Just because he lost to Kovalev, does not mean it's not debatable. He just had one fight as a 49 year old against the guy every one touted as the next big thing because even amateur scouts can recognize a guys talent in advance.

Now, had Hopkins lost {or better yet gotten DOMINATED} by a sub-par Light-heavyweight, then you would be correct.

Hopkins clearly lost to Dawson, got dropped twice by Pascal and his defense clearly wasn't as sharp as it once was. He wasnt the same offensively either. So let's stop pretending Hopkins was on a dominating streak and he clearly wasn't the same fighter he was 10-20 years earlier. No matter how much your want to convince yourself of that it's not true or possible.

[Hype job]

Nostalgic guys need to let go of the past and embrace the new, different boxing landscape.

[boliodogs]

I am a big fan of both fighters. Roy Jones in his prime was really great and his chin was decent as well. Kovalev is a monster with one of the best most powerful left jabs in history in my opinion. Roy was faster than Kovalev in his prime. Kovalev is a KO artist and few can survive. His fights are more like big chases with his opponent just trying to stay alive. A prime Jones hit with great speed, power and accuracy. He would be a dangerous fight for any light heavyweight. I call it an even fight.