Roy Jones fights these 1930's heavies

[Dempsey19]

Where are you getting your info on Braddock? Loved the man! Accomplished something remarkable but he was not competative with Joe Louis, Louis was a lot better and made easy work of Jim...Unless I am missing something? would not be the first time mind you and if Braddock did fight Louis well that would be nice to hear. He was a smart and crafty fighter who learned to turn adversity into success, putting him in a rare class of guys like Marciano, who managed to make a career out of being too short, too small, too little finess, etc...

With Braddock he turned into a two handed fighter. And beating Max was a remarkable fiat. But he was not a fighter on Louis' level.

His stats are from boxrec.
He beat Baer the most destructive heavyweight champion that was ever seen before a certain fellow called George appeared.

I've seen the Louis vs Braddock fight and Braddock gave him a hard fight. Both Louis and Blackburn were full of praise for him. He put Louis on his a**.

[QueensburyRules]

Toney was weakened with the weight loss, and that takes a little shine off of the win. But in my opinion, Roy was a stylistic nightmare for him.

- -Two Ton was weakened by weight loss the whole of his career until moving to heavy, so let's not get carried away with that.

Nor the fact that he received the best hydration obtainable with extra vitamins via IV after the Jones weighin and probably had 10+ lbs on Roy in the ring.

Only Mike Tyson in the modern era ever had so much dominance over opponents that many thought in full sway they were GOAT.

This fight is significant in how effortlessly Roy controls time and space, and much of that is leg driven combined with otherworldly reflexes and finely tuned unorthodox style crafted specifically to leverage those assets that nobody else had.

When Roy's legs went, and remember going into the Ruiz fight Roy was making noise about retirement with his longtime trainer noting that Roy's reflexes were already slipping. Most fighters are done after 50 fights, yet Roy hung in there. Why?

Probably once he started to slip, he came back from that lofty perch to become more accessible to fans that he liked.

[billeau2]

- -Two Ton was weakened by weight loss the whole of his career until moving to heavy, so let's not get carried away with that.

Nor the fact that he received the best hydration obtainable with extra vitamins via IV after the Jones weighin and probably had 10+ lbs on Roy in the ring.

Only Mike Tyson in the modern era ever had so much dominance over opponents that many thought in full sway they were GOAT.

This fight is significant in how effortlessly Roy controls time and space, and much of that is leg driven combined with otherworldly reflexes and finely tuned unorthodox style crafted specifically to leverage those assets that nobody else had.

When Roy's legs went, and remember going into the Ruiz fight Roy was making noise about retirement with his longtime trainer noting that Roy's reflexes were already slipping. Most fighters are done after 50 fights, yet Roy hung in there. Why?

Probably once he started to slip, he came back from that lofty perch to become more accessible to fans that he liked.

Could have also been that Toney was finest as a counter puncher...and nobody was going to counterpunch Jones... And in that fight? Toney apparently never met a feint that he didn't like...lol.

[them_apples]

Different strategies. In the past they trained more like marathon runners while now they train more like sprinters. Have you wrestled and played football? Even Wrestling, which is much, much more anaerobic than Boxing requires competitors to stay pretty light. You can hit the weights, but you definitely don't wanna carry too much size. Conversely, in Football, the bigger you are, the better. You don't wanna be an obese piece of shyt, but you don't have to be in top physical form.

Roy Jones might not be as "naturally" large as these other men, but a punch by a 200 pound man is still a punch by a 200pound man, regardless of why he's that big. I never helped anyone get ready for a MMA fight and conjectured about how big the other guy shouldbe.

I'm not really disagreeing with anything you said, per se. But I feel it needs to be stressed that Roy would indeed enter the ring at a weight comparable to many of these men, but with a distinct speed advantage. The bigger problem for Roy is that those muscles will eventually betray him. He'll have an advantage early, but if he cannot maximize on it he might pay the price.

I disagree about a punch by a 200 lb man is still a punch by a 200 lb man. In fact, a wirey 147 lb man might actually hit harder than a thick artificially built 200 lbder. Look at Pazienza at 160, couldn't bust a grape.

Jones would still be faster yes, because he is a naturally smaller man. his muscle would then betray him as the fight wore on, as would his chin. there is no way he couldn't finish any of those guys off - so we are talking 15 round fights, or even 12 rounds. All of them would get him.

And they were seriously crafty too, not pretty - but crafty. Look at Braddock, he tucks his chin and stares at your chest regardless if he's punching your head or body - poker face for 15 rounds. When he breaks out of a clinch he quickly loads up with a right hook at close range when most guys are sleeping and unprepared. I remember fullmer did this as well. It's not pretty but it hurts you.

[Tom Cruise]

I disagree about a punch by a 200 lb man is still a punch by a 200 lb man. In fact, a wirey 147 lb man might actually hit harder than a thick artificially built 200 lbder. Look at Pazienza at 160, couldn't bust a grape.

Jones would still be faster yes, because he is a naturally smaller man. his muscle would then betray him as the fight wore on, as would his chin. there is no way he couldn't finish any of those guys off - so we are talking 15 round fights, or even 12 rounds. All of them would get him.

And they were seriously crafty too, not pretty - but crafty. Look at Braddock, he tucks his chin and stares at your chest regardless if he's punching your head or body - poker face for 15 rounds. When he breaks out of a clinch he quickly loads up with a right hook at close range when most guys are sleeping and unprepared. I remember fullmer did this as well. It's not pretty but it hurts you.

I think you are underestimating Jones here tbh. He wasnt that small by the standards of the 30s, and we all know how great an athlete and boxer he was. Similar sized or even smaller fighters than Jones such as Loughran, Charles, Moore, Mickey Walker and Billy Conn stepped up to HW and had success in the 30s and 40s.

I think that Jones is more than capable of being a top top HW in the 30s, but that he would likely have taken some big losses as well. Which, tbh, is how I see it playing out if he had an extended run in the early 2000's as well.

[them_apples]

I think you are underestimating Jones here tbh. He wasnt that small by the standards of the 30s, and we all know how great an athlete and boxer he was. Similar sized or even smaller fighters than Jones such as Loughran, Charles, Moore, Mickey Walker and Billy Conn stepped up to HW and had success in the 30s and 40s.

I think that Jones is more than capable of being a top top HW in the 30s, but that he would likely have taken some big losses as well. Which, tbh, is how I see it playing out if he had an extended run in the early 2000's as well.

not at all, I remember that video of Jones in the ring with an old hunched over Ali, he looked like a boy compared to Ali, Jones is not big at all.

In fact, John Ruiz is not that big for aHW, and he was a lot bigger than Jones.

[Tom Cruise]

not at all, I remember that video of Jones in the ring with an old hunched over Ali, he looked like a boy compared to Ali, Jones is not big at all.

In fact, John Ruiz is not that big for aHW, and he was a lot bigger than Jones.

Weighing anywhere between 180/190, which is probably around his weight when he was at LHW, with his speed, athleticism and boxing ability, he would have been a handful for anyone of those 30's HWs. Same as Tommy Loughran was who was similar height and reach, and weighed in the 180s at HW.

I like those HWs btw. Not trying to crap on them at all. But they werent top top level greats. Baer, Schmelling and Sharkey in particular were very good and built excellent records, but they all had flaws and a 185 or so lb RJJ is gonna get some wins against them

[billeau2]

I think you are underestimating Jones here tbh. He wasnt that small by the standards of the 30s, and we all know how great an athlete and boxer he was. Similar sized or even smaller fighters than Jones such as Loughran, Charles, Moore, Mickey Walker and Billy Conn stepped up to HW and had success in the 30s and 40s.

I think that Jones is more than capable of being a top top HW in the 30s, but that he would likely have taken some big losses as well. Which, tbh, is how I see it playing out if he had an extended run in the early 2000's as well.

When we analyze Jones size there are two ways to make a conclusion. One way is to use a static indicator. So...we look at weight, we compare it, and affix it as though it indicates size, and many other variables...for example, punch resistance.

The other way to look at size as a factor is as an emerging, responsive category of understanding. We lose some of the precise points but..I believe we gain a lot more for the sacrifice.

According to this cybernetic system and flow Jone's weight is a fluid category which partially indicates relative punch resistance. We know that Jones did not have the punch resistance that other heavyweights in that era displayed...

What about advantages in the ring? We know that Jones had power, we know that he had speed... So nobody can say that fighters like Conn, Schmelling, or Braddock at a similar weight, had the speed and natural ability that Jones had in the ring.

This leaves us where we have to once again look at weight and size... In this instance as a fluid category... Guys like Braddock Conn and Schmelling were taught to come in light as possible, to be prepared to fight for 15 rounds. One can assume that they were approaching training to take the weight off as much as possible, and not to bulk upwards. JOnes on the other hand was trying to bulk upwards in his attempt to fight heavyweight.

Again...training weight, as a fluid, changing category, has a range... and when we look at JOnes and the three fighters I mention, all these men had a range of weights they carried: What they fought at, what they walked around at, etc. I believe that what we would find is that one of the biggest indicators here is that fighters in this time period, were trianing to come in light and able... Where as JOnes was attempting to add muscle to "bulk up" to be succeful.

On a range of values where we could look at these men side by side, we would find that Jones was in fact a smaller man. JOnes had very thin legs (for example) and not much width of shoulder. But to me one of the biggest indicators regarding training weight, acrtual size and strength, is the vantage point where one starts the training process. Cutting weight as opposed to gaining weight.

The concept of gaining weight to be a heavy seems very modern to me. And in the older epoches of boxing we often see men like Fitzimmons, who weighed all of 160 but had a shoulder, chest spread similar in all respects to Max Bauer. Notice that Fitzy;s weight is not an issue? It might have been depending, but he had the strength, reach and proportions in the upper body to fight as a heavyweight. Compare his build to Jones, who has sloping shoulders, smaller wrists, hands, arms...

Primates are very interesting creatures when it comes to strength and weight... A monkey has more strength than an adult male... Macquace male, that weighs about 40 pounds at most. But the weight is in the bones and sinews where the real strength generating takes place. While we can't analyze bone density for all the people we are comparing we can see from their build, their training routines and what they walked around at, how strong they were per their weight. And we would expect to find that a stronger man would hold more weight in his structure, because bond weights a lot more than muscle.

[QueensburyRules]

When we analyze Jones size there are two ways to make a conclusion. One way is to use a static indicator. So...we look at weight, we compare it, and affix it as though it indicates size, and many other variables...for example, punch resistance.

The other way to look at size as a factor is as an emerging, responsive category of understanding. We lose some of the precise points but..I believe we gain a lot more for the sacrifice.

According to this cybernetic system and flow Jone's weight is a fluid category which partially indicates relative punch resistance. We know that Jones did not have the punch resistance that other heavyweights in that era displayed...

What about advantages in the ring? We know that Jones had power, we know that he had speed... So nobody can say that fighters like Conn, Schmelling, or Braddock at a similar weight, had the speed and natural ability that Jones had in the ring.

This leaves us where we have to once again look at weight and size... In this instance as a fluid category... Guys like Braddock Conn and Schmelling were taught to come in light as possible, to be prepared to fight for 15 rounds. One can assume that they were approaching training to take the weight off as much as possible, and not to bulk upwards. JOnes on the other hand was trying to bulk upwards in his attempt to fight heavyweight.

Again...training weight, as a fluid, changing category, has a range... and when we look at JOnes and the three fighters I mention, all these men had a range of weights they carried: What they fought at, what they walked around at, etc. I believe that what we would find is that one of the biggest indicators here is that fighters in this time period, were trianing to come in light and able... Where as JOnes was attempting to add muscle to "bulk up" to be succeful.

On a range of values where we could look at these men side by side, we would find that Jones was in fact a smaller man. JOnes had very thin legs (for example) and not much width of shoulder. But to me one of the biggest indicators regarding training weight, acrtual size and strength, is the vantage point where one starts the training process. Cutting weight as opposed to gaining weight.

The concept of gaining weight to be a heavy seems very modern to me. And in the older epoches of boxing we often see men like Fitzimmons, who weighed all of 160 but had a shoulder, chest spread similar in all respects to Max Bauer. Notice that Fitzy;s weight is not an issue? It might have been depending, but he had the strength, reach and proportions in the upper body to fight as a heavyweight. Compare his build to Jones, who has sloping shoulders, smaller wrists, hands, arms...

Primates are very interesting creatures when it comes to strength and weight... A monkey has more strength than an adult male... Macquace male, that weighs about 40 pounds at most. But the weight is in the bones and sinews where the real strength generating takes place. While we can't analyze bone density for all the people we are comparing we can see from their build, their training routines and what they walked around at, how strong they were per their weight. And we would expect to find that a stronger man would hold more weight in his structure, because bond weights a lot more than muscle.

- -So much ado over nut'in as is your popcorn style.

Me and my college housemates built an large open enclosure for a troop of spydermonkey, a perfect ratio of 1 male to 13 females that yields breeding. Demetrius weren't as strong as a 4 yr old girl, but yeah, he was prob as strong as you.

Has nothing to do with Roy, the sole reason you posted it.

[billeau2]

- -So much ado over nut'in as is your popcorn style.

Me and my college housemates built an large open enclosure for a troop of spydermonkey, a perfect ratio of 1 male to 13 females that yields breeding. Demetrius weren't as strong as a 4 yr old girl, but yeah, he was prob as strong as you.

Has nothing to do with Roy, the sole reason you posted it.

That was for the adults Queenie...I am sorry should have said as much. No this is a bit beyond your tinfoil hat and pointed head ways...

But I do not take insults kindly... And we should settle this, in the most brutal way since rough and tumble...Tiddlewinks!, may the strongest thumb win. You call the time and place...best have a level table, and no excuses get your thumb ready lad...I am comin!