-
-
We've discussed this logic before.
It would be like me and you sat in a bar having watched Danny Williams beat Mike Tyson.
It would have been like me saying: "Trust me man, Mike was a beast in his prime. He'd have taken out Danny with ease back in the day."
With you then replying back with:
"Yeah, I appreciate what you're saying, but Danny beat him so easily, I just can't see how an earlier fight would have played out much differently"
What happened in that 2008 fight is completely insignificant. Again: Four years earlier, Glen Johnson beat Roy up for 9 rounds and then knocked him out. Now anybody can get caught with a knockout punch. We both know that. But it's not as though Roy was beating Glen, and then got caught. No. Glen won every one of the 9 rounds before knocking him out. So what does that tell you? What would you say to someone if they told you that a prime version of Roy would have beaten Glen easily?
I'm not going to change your mind. That's fair enough. But you have to note that in 2008, Roy literally wasn't even half of the fighter he'd been in his prime.
If you watched Joe's fights against Eubank and Woodhall etc, and then you watched his fights against Lacy and Kessler, there's no noticeable difference. But if you watched Roy's fights against Griffin and Hill etc, and then you watched his fights against Hanshaw and Trinidad, you wouldn't believe that you were watching the same guy. Trust me. And that's the difference between Joe and Roy. Seriously, go and watch 5 mins against Tito, and then his knockout of Griffin. It's like a cruel game. So I appreciate you're going to fight Joe's corner because you're a big fan. But in an earlier fight, he would have been fighting a completely different fighter.
No, he wouldn't have beaten Roy to the punch. Because Roy was faster, with better timing, better accuracy, and better reflexes. As great as Joe was, he was always easy to hit. He left himself open, concentrating more on volume than accuracy. And you could bet your life that if they'd have fought earlier, Joe would have been ultra cautious.
If you get the time, go and watch Roy at his peak.Last edited by robertzimmerman; 04-24-2017, 05:02 PM.Comment
-
Roy had a great record against southpaws, and he tried to fight Frankie Liles.
Roy didn't have any real trouble with Del Valle. He won just about every round. Sure, you could say Joe was better than Del Valle. But Roy was on another planet to the guys who troubled Joe like Reid and Mitchell etc.
If you'd read Joe's comments and took a note of his actions throughout the years, you'd know that he had an enormous amount of respect for Roy, and he didn't pursue a fight. He didn't want to know. But for the sake of argument, we'll assume that one of us owns Doc Brown's Delorean.
Now I'll give Joe the credit he deserves, and state that he just wouldn't have been foolish enough to have bombarded Roy with 100's of shots like he tried to do with everyone else. I'd have bet my life on that. Any fighter who'd have gone at Roy aggressively throwing a huge number of shots would have found themselves in a shootout. After watching Joe for 14 years, I assure you he wouldn't have wanted a shoot out against a guy who he respected that much, and a guy who was faster and more powerful than he was. IF they'd have fought, it would have been an ultra cautious game of chess.
The quotes you've uploaded of Roy, was Roy being polite in 2008 to get the fight. Roy along with everyone else, knows that Joe wasn't relevant back in the late 90's-early 00's.Last edited by robertzimmerman; 04-24-2017, 05:17 PM.Comment
-
roy was an elite fighter but he never faced anyone who could nullify his speed. tbh the level of his opposition wasnt that great either, he caught hopkins when he was young, toney was a top win though. joe would have swarmed him, made roy fight at his pace. joe doesnt give you time to breath in the ring, he'd have took roy right out of his comfort zone.Comment
-
Joe's level of opposition wasn't great either.
Roy fought Hopkins when Hopkins was 28, and Roy had a fractured hand. Hopkins then went 12 years undefeated.
Joe fought a better all around version of Hopkins, but he had to be sneaky to earn breathers, because he couldn't fight at a high pace at 43.
I keep telling you that Joe wouldn't have swarmed Roy in an earlier fight. Because he would never have had the confidence to have done that. And I say that with full confidence. And that is based on watching him for 15 years. I've listened to various interviews, read numerous comments, read his autobiography, and watched how he carried himself.
Again, IF he'd have been that confident and ****** enough to have swarmed Roy when Roy had been been in his peak, he'd have ended up in a shootout. You don't need to possess psychic powers to work it out. Go and watch Roy's fights where he was briefly aggressively attacked and swarmed. Seriously, what do you think Roy would have done if Joe had tried to have unleashed 100's of punches per round? He'd have ended up in a firefight. A shootout. It would have been suicide.
Joe couldn't have out fought Roy, because again: Roy had superior speed and reflexes, and he had genuine one punch knockout power in either hand. The only guy out there who'd have tried to have had a shootout with a peak version of Roy from the outset, was Nigel Benn. No other world class fighter would have employed those crazy tactics.
You are putting far too much emphasis on their fight from 2008. Joe only overwhelmed then, because he didn't respect Roy as a threat. At that stage of his career, he was a near 40 year old fighter who was gun shy, due to 2 devastating knockout defeats. You've got to be out of your mind if you think Joe would have bossed him and showboated like that against a mid 20's version of Roy.
Hasn't it occurred to you yet, why Joe didn't want to fight Roy in 1999 or 2003, but was happy to do a 50/50 split in 2008? It doesn't take a lot of working out. You don't need to be a detective to find the answer. When it came to Roy, Joe was a scavenger feasting off of what was left. It was an easy win over a faded legend to top up his pension. Do you really think it was just a coincidence or bad luck, that whilst Roy was fighting guys like Ruiz and Tarver, Joe was fighting guys like Pudwell and Salem??
He couldn't have nullified Roy's speed. It wouldn't have been possible. Look, I love these debates, and you're entitled to your own opinion. But the thing is, I know that you've never seen Roy at his peak. I know you weren't watching back then. And that's cool. But you have no real knowledge of what I'm saying to you. So before we go any further with this, (if you want to) when you get some spare time, just go and watch him in his 90's peak.
Again: Joe was great. But he was easy to hit, and a guy who struggled with Reid and who was dropped by Salem and Mitchell etc, did not possess the attributes that would have been needed to have beaten the versions of Roy who beat the likes of Toney and who'd iced Griffin and Hill. Go and see for yourself. Because whilst it's commendable that you're fighting Joe's corner so hard, it's pretty pointless if you're not educated on Roy's career.Last edited by robertzimmerman; 04-25-2017, 06:50 AM.Comment
-
It's funny that the purpose of the video is to highlight Roy's skills and yet half the comments are still "what a freak of nature, so much flash". Pay attention to his boxing mind. He was a well-schooled fighter.Comment
Tweet
Comment