Comments Thread For: Roy Jones Says Today's Fighters Focused on Talk, Not Taking Risks

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

According to former four division world champion Roy Jones Jr., today's fighters are not taking enough risks and doing too much talking. Jones, who captured belts at middleweight, super middleweight, light heavyweight and heavyweight, recalled when he took a huge risk by moving from the light heavyweight limit of 175-pounds to challenge John Ruiz for the WBA heavyweight belt in 2003. Jones won a twelve round unanimous decision.
[Click Here To Read More]

[LoadedWraps]

According to former four division world champion Roy Jones Jr., today's fighters are not taking enough risks and doing too much talking. Jones, who captured belts at middleweight, super middleweight, light heavyweight and heavyweight, recalled when he took a huge risk by moving from the light heavyweight limit of 175-pounds to challenge John Ruiz for the WBA heavyweight belt in 2003. Jones won a twelve round unanimous decision.
[Click Here To Read More]

[KillaCamNZ]

He ain't wrong. Every man and their dog are chasing paydays over respect and accomplishment.

[Boxing Logic]

I feel like this whole "in UFC you're allowed to lose, in boxing one loss ruins the career" narrative is totally overblown.

I mean, in UFC, guys fight the best within their first 10, 15 fights. Like the best, best. And if they lose, they're still improving, and there are so many elements in MMA, that a great striker with awful takedown defense could lose three fights in their first ten, but then learn takedown defense, and become the best. So of course people will still want to see that guy despite three losses once he becomes the best.

With boxing the problem isn't taking a loss. It's that these guys who take a loss 90% of the time never improve. People are happy to watch boxers with losses... what they DO NOT want to watch is guys who have now been exposed as not being on the elite level, who have no chance of winning a top fight.

Let's use Robert Guerrero as an example. Did the fact he lost to Floyd mean we didn't want to see him anymore? No, but the fact he was a hyped-up, overrated welterweight with no chance of beating a top guy, who has barely looked threatening against top welterweights ever since, is why we don't want to watch him against top welters. If he, like UFC athletes, actually markedly improved since the Floyd fight, and added new elements to his game (more speed, power, etc), then we'd definitely like to see him.

Or what about Lamont Peterson? It's not that he lost to Matthysse that made fans disinterested. It's that ever since he's shown he's not really a top player. He didn't even fight the first half against Danny Garcia because his power I guess was so inferior, he had to wait Danny out. He maybe still won the fight in the second half but that's kind of all these guys seem to be able to do... maybe fight an even fight with the top guys on their best days, or lose badly on their worst, but clearly they're not challenging to be the best. And Danny isn't even that good so if you can't even beat him, you're not even in the contest with guys like Thurman, Spence, Crawford, Pacquiao, etc.

That's the real issue. It's not about losses.

Hell, just look at David Lemieux and Danny Jacobs. Both didn't just lose, they got knocked out. But guess what? Unlike some of these other guys who take losses when they step up, those guys actually had elite talent, elite attributes. Speed, power, etc. David Lemieux actually added to his game, fixed the major weakness the stamina, and he was immediately back at the top of the sport. Got the GGG fight. And Jacobs also improved, and then showed he could actually beat a top guy. So now he gets GGG.

Roy honestly has it backwards. It's not taking a loss to a top guy that is ruining a lot of these careers. It's the fact they've never even gotten one WIN over a top guy, that is ruining their careers. If you're undefeated but you've never faced a top guy, and then the first top guy you face, you show you're not on that level, why would we want to see you in more big fights? You're 0-1 against top guys. Not even batting 500%. But does that ruin the career? Hell no. I mean hell Chris Algieri got beat up by Pacquiao, but did he get another shot? Of course! These guys who take losses often get MORE shots than the top guys who get ducked instead.

But Algieri got more shots. Over and over. He got to fight Khan and showed he was the only welterweight alive incapable of at least stunning Khan. Then he fought Spence and got blown out. So why the hell would we want to watch fights with him when he's shown three separate times he can't even compete with old Pacquiao, chinny Khan, and green Spence?

So stop saying it's one loss ruining these guys careers. It's not. JRoc just lost but he's still going to have a great career because he has elite talent. He will still beat top guys in the future. Guys like Algieri though were never that good to start with so just because that finally gets exposed on the record with the first loss of the career, don't blame that on the loss, blame it on the root problem which is he's not an elite boxer.

Now if it were UFC, and Algieri didn't have enough striking power to be a top striker, he could go learn to be an elite wrestler, or submission artist, he could develop elite leg kicks, and then we would be interested again, because he could actually make a run at being the best in his division. But that hasn't happened. He brawled a little more with Khan but that was overblown. He benefited from low expectations going into that fight where everyone saw his style was hopeless again Khan. But overall Algieri has still not developed into an elite fighter, so why would we want to see him fight elite fighters? It would just be a mismatch.

And that's the point. It has nothing to do with record. Fans want to see the elite fight the elite. You can be elite and have losses on your record, and then it doesn't matter. What Roy is really touching on is that a lot of these undefeated fighters are hyped up, and they're not elite fighters, so once we see them lose badly once or twice to top guys, we realize that, and unless the fighter demonstrates in comeback fights that they have markedly improved and now have a chance of beating the top guys, we have no interest in seeing them vs the top guys. It's actually very logical, and that logic is applied consistently to MMA and boxing alike, so people should stop repeating the false narrative that it's applied differently in boxing than MMA. It isn't. It's the same.

We want to see the best vs the best. Prove you can beat an elite guy, and we will want to see you again vs elite guys. Prove you can at least DOMINATE the B-level guys and show elite attributes, and we will believe those attributes could also beat the top guys, and we will want to see you vs the top guys again. But if you fight the top guys, show you don't have the speed or power to beat any of them, lose uncompetitively, and then still show no elite speed or power in your next fight, why would we want to see you step up again when you haven't proven you have the tools to beat guys on that level? It just doesn't make sense.

[Nomadic]

The great RJ is speaking the truth on this matter. It's about ticket sells and not what the fans want.

[DeLorean]

I feel like this whole "in UFC you're allowed to lose, in boxing one loss ruins the career" narrative is totally overblown.

I mean, in UFC, guys fight the best within their first 10, 15 fights. Like the best, best. And if they lose, they're still improving, and there are so many elements in MMA, that a great striker with awful takedown defense could lose three fights in their first ten, but then learn takedown defense, and become the best. So of course people will still want to see that guy despite three losses once he becomes the best.

With boxing the problem isn't taking a loss. It's that these guys who take a loss 90% of the time never improve. People are happy to watch boxers with losses... what they DO NOT want to watch is guys who have now been exposed as not being on the elite level, who have no chance of winning a top fight.

Let's use Robert Guerrero as an example. Did the fact he lost to Floyd mean we didn't want to see him anymore? No, but the fact he was a hyped-up, overrated welterweight with no chance of beating a top guy, who has barely looked threatening against top welterweights ever since, is why we don't want to watch him against top welters. If he, like UFC athletes, actually markedly improved since the Floyd fight, and added new elements to his game (more speed, power, etc), then we'd definitely like to see him.

Or what about Lamont Peterson? It's not that he lost to Matthysse that made fans disinterested. It's that ever since he's shown he's not really a top player. He didn't even fight the first half against Danny Garcia because his power I guess was so inferior, he had to wait Danny out. He maybe still won the fight in the second half but that's kind of all these guys seem to be able to do... maybe fight an even fight with the top guys on their best days, or lose badly on their worst, but clearly they're not challenging to be the best. And Danny isn't even that good so if you can't even beat him, you're not even in the contest with guys like Thurman, Spence, Crawford, Pacquiao, etc.

That's the real issue. It's not about losses.

Hell, just look at David Lemieux and Danny Jacobs. Both didn't just lose, they got knocked out. But guess what? Unlike some of these other guys who take losses when they step up, those guys actually had elite talent, elite attributes. Speed, power, etc. David Lemieux actually added to his game, fixed the major weakness the stamina, and he was immediately back at the top of the sport. Got the GGG fight. And Jacobs also improved, and then showed he could actually beat a top guy. So now he gets GGG.

Roy honestly has it backwards. It's not taking a loss to a top guy that is ruining a lot of these careers. It's the fact they've never even gotten one WIN over a top guy, that is ruining their careers. If you're undefeated but you've never faced a top guy, and then the first top guy you face, you show you're not on that level, why would we want to see you in more big fights? You're 0-1 against top guys. Not even batting 500%. But does that ruin the career? Hell no. I mean hell Chris Algieri got beat up by Pacquiao, but did he get another shot? Of course! These guys who take losses often get MORE shots than the top guys who get ducked instead.

But Algieri got more shots. Over and over. He got to fight Khan and showed he was the only welterweight alive incapable of at least stunning Khan. Then he fought Spence and got blown out. So why the hell would we want to watch fights with him when he's shown three separate times he can't even compete with old Pacquiao, chinny Khan, and green Spence?

So stop saying it's one loss ruining these guys careers. It's not. JRoc just lost but he's still going to have a great career because he has elite talent. He will still beat top guys in the future. Guys like Algieri though were never that good to start with so just because that finally gets exposed on the record with the first loss of the career, don't blame that on the loss, blame it on the root problem which is he's not an elite boxer.

Now if it were UFC, and Algieri didn't have enough striking power to be a top striker, he could go learn to be an elite wrestler, or submission artist, he could develop elite leg kicks, and then we would be interested again, because he could actually make a run at being the best in his division. But that hasn't happened. He brawled a little more with Khan but that was overblown. He benefited from low expectations going into that fight where everyone saw his style was hopeless again Khan. But overall Algieri has still not developed into an elite fighter, so why would we want to see him fight elite fighters? It would just be a mismatch.

And that's the point. It has nothing to do with record. Fans want to see the elite fight the elite. You can be elite and have losses on your record, and then it doesn't matter. What Roy is really touching on is that a lot of these undefeated fighters are hyped up, and they're not elite fighters, so once we see them lose badly once or twice to top guys, we realize that, and unless the fighter demonstrates in comeback fights that they have markedly improved and now have a chance of beating the top guys, we have no interest in seeing them vs the top guys. It's actually very logical, and that logic is applied consistently to MMA and boxing alike, so people should stop repeating the false narrative that it's applied differently in boxing than MMA. It isn't. It's the same.

We want to see the best vs the best. Prove you can beat an elite guy, and we will want to see you again vs elite guys. Prove you can at least DOMINATE the B-level guys and show elite attributes, and we will believe those attributes could also beat the top guys, and we will want to see you vs the top guys again. But if you fight the top guys, show you don't have the speed or power to beat any of them, lose uncompetitively, and then still show no elite speed or power in your next fight, why would we want to see you step up again when you haven't proven you have the tools to beat guys on that level? It just doesn't make sense.

[IMG]https://media3.*****.com/media/ny7UCd6JETnmE/200_s.gif[/IMG]

[classicbuzzbox]

Is this not a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

[firstborn]

Is this not a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

How so? Roy took risks, hell people are presently trying to get him to stop taking them!!!

[iamboxing]

[NYC8224]

Guy up top wrote a ****ing essay, jesus