Does This Make Sense To You?

**Smokin'** · 08-02-2006, 01:19 PM

Bernstein's usually a smart guy but that's just a ****** comment. If anyone saw Roy in the amateurs, they would know he had good skills and he could fight with fundamentals. He didn't choose too fight with fundamentals, because he didn't want to, and he didn't NEED too. He was a ****in' showman for then a just a well-schooled fighter. That's how he made his millions.

**Smokin'** · 08-02-2006, 01:24 PM

People also only say this when Muhammed Ali was the exact same way. I always hear people talk about how Ali was a technically gifted fighter but he was a guy who CONSISTENTLY only threw 1-2's, he was an arm puncher (for all you who don't know this means that he had no leg drive when he threw punches), and he had his hands down. Completely hypocritical.

Roy Jones could throw every punch in the book. Uppercut, left hook, right hand...you name it...and he threw them incredibly straight with precision. The only thing he did wrong was he always crossed his feet when he worked on the inside. His style was modern and what alot of fighter's even today try to mimic, it's ironic that people are bashing him for it but never Ali.

**amagnin** · 08-02-2006, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by TRUTH

"RD: Do you think Roy Jones� legacy will be hurt by his recent losses?

Bernstein: Yes it will. It will because it�s proof positive of something I�ve said many, many times. Roy Jones is a great athlete; he�s not a great fighter. Never has been a great fighter. He never made himself a great fighter. He didn�t work at his craft hard enough to be a great fighter. But he�s a great athlete, and so he ended up being great in the ring. When his quickness and some of his physical skills started to fail him, he had nothing else left to go back to. He didn�t have the technique."ESB 2004 interview
.................................................. ...............

If Roy was great in the ring that would mean hes a great fighter. People fight when they are in a boxing ring. Roy did win mostly because of his athletic ability but he used his athletic ability to win fights which makes him a fighter. Roy makes alot of technical mistakes but to say he was not a great fighter, and then say he was great in the ring makes no sense. Maybe I'm analyzing it too much.

Roy was a great fighter to me but not a great boxer. No doubt he was one of the best fighters of the recent era and his capture of the HW title should not be quickly overlooked. That being said, I agree with Bernstein that he did rely too much on athleticism and got away from boxing fundamentals. RJJ never really used a jab and never worked on his defense. He relied on being quicker and more athletic than his opponent and being able to land power shots. When he was near his peak, even with his technical shortcomings he was unbeatable.

**Dirt E Gomez** · 08-02-2006, 01:27 PM

The quote is a bit of an exageration but it's still not way off base. RJJ was a decent boxer with ridiculous physical attributes as an athlete.

**Smokin'** · 08-02-2006, 01:28 PM

I don't know what you guys are talking about. Just because he wasn't 'orthodox' and he did everything 'wrong' doesn't mean he wasn't well-schooled. Ask Scully if he thinks Roy Jones was schooled.

And contrary to belief, Roy Jones could jab, he ALWAYS feinted (which is rarely used today), and he rarely got hit because he knew all the old school tricks and his reflexes were superb that it allowed him to always get out of the way.

**amagnin** · 08-02-2006, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Smokin'

People also only say this when Muhammed Ali was the exact same way. I always hear people talk about how Ali was a technically gifted fighter but he was a guy who CONSISTENTLY only threw 1-2's, he was an arm puncher (for all you who don't know this means that he had no leg drive when he threw punches), and he had his hands down. Completely hypocritical.

Roy Jones could throw every punch in the book. Uppercut, left hook, right hand...you name it...and he threw them incredibly straight with precision. The only thing he did wrong was he always crossed his feet when he worked on the inside. His style was modern and what alot of fighter's even today try to mimic, it's ironic that people are bashing him for it but never Ali.

I totally agree with you about Ali. I would say the same thing about Jermain Taylor today. There are very few true "technical" boxers in the recent game. The only person I would really even consider a great "boxer" today is Mayweather. I want to include Wright but his lack of offense makes me think he is too limited. I guess my point is that this isn't an insult more than a commentary about modern boxing.

**amagnin** · 08-02-2006, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Smokin'

I don't know what you guys are talking about. Just because he wasn't 'orthodox' and he did everything 'wrong' doesn't mean he wasn't well-schooled. Ask Scully if he thinks Roy Jones was schooled.

And contrary to belief, Roy Jones could jab, he ALWAYS feinted (which is rarely used today), and he rarely got hit because he knew all the old school tricks and his reflexes were superb that it allowed him to always get out of the way.

Yes exactly he used tricks and reflexes... not technical boxing skill. And you are right, his feints were excellent otherwise he would have had to use a jab. I think Bernstein's point is just that if he had developed those skills even if he didn't want or have to use them it would have served him better later in his career.

**Smokin'** · 08-02-2006, 01:33 PM

Man, Willie Pep never needed to block or parry a punch. He was the best at getting out of the way of punches. Roy Jones is the same way except he did it more modern and he used more athletecism. i don't see the point in bashing him just because he didn't do it like everyone else.

**Dirt E Gomez** · 08-02-2006, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Smokin'

Man, Willie Pep never needed to block or parry a punch. He was the best at getting out of the way of punches. Roy Jones is the same way except he did it more modern and he used more athletecism. i don't see the point in bashing him just because he didn't do it like everyone else.

I think you take it like it's an insult. It's not like people are saying, "**** RJJ for doign it that way." Nobody can blame him or suggest he did something wrong. Any boxer with his reflexes and speed should've fought the way Roy fought. But at the same time, that's why people can say he used his athleticism to the max rather than boxing skill. He probably could've had great boxing skill, but he didn't need it. It's more like pointing out a fact than trying to be insulting or complementary.

Does This Make Sense To You?