Roy Jones Has A Better Case For “TBE” Than Floyd Mayweather

Roy-Jones

Fighters fight, that's what they do.

Real fighters never fear they might lose, instead they go into the ring wholeheartedly believing they are going to win regardless of who is coming out of the opposite corner. And ultimately they fight on too long and eventually suffer losses to opponents who they wouldn't even have paid to spar with them during their prime. The losses on their record begin to mount and slowly but surely the observers who saw them when they were practically untouchable forget about the supreme fighters they once were.

If there is a better case or example of the above, I can't think of one better than former three division champ Roy Jones 61-8 (44).

Between 1989 and 2003, Roy was one of the most physically skilled and gifted fighters of the last 50 years, easily. Roy was the perfect blend of athleticism, speed and power. He had blinding hand and foot speed, could fight in retreat or he could counter punch and when he chose to, he could take the initiative and explode offensively. And what a terrific body puncher he was.

During the years 1989-2003, Roy was a maestro in the ring, he really was. As a former fighter, it was easy to appreciate and marvel at all the tools and weapons he brought to do combat with. I think heavyweights aside, I only marveled at Sugar Ray Leonard more from a fascination vantage point. Sadly, Roy, because he's a fighter and it's so much a part of his DNA, he's continues to seek one more big moment at age 46. The problem is, Jones is not Bernard Hopkins, in that Hopkins is/was much more technically proficient than he was and was more capable of protecting himself. Roy dominated with athleticism, speed and physical brilliance in much the same way Muhammad Ali did. And like Ali, once the athleticism eroded, he didn't have the basics and fundamentals to fall back on and became more vulnerable defensively. Ali lost three of his last four fights. Jones has won seven in a row since suffering three consecutive loses, two by knockout, in between 2009-2011. And after winning seven bouts in a row against fighters who wouldn't have made it as his sparring partner during his prime, he's at the doorstep of getting a shot a one of the cruiserweight titles.

Today, it's widely considered that Floyd Mayweather is the best pound-for-pound fighter in professional boxing. Ironically, Jones did the color commentary on Mayweather's last fight against Manny Pacquiao. It wasn't that long ago when Roy Jones was considered the best pound-for-pound fighter in the sport. This of course leads one to make comparisons between the best Jones and the best Mayweather when listening to Roy comment on Floyd. And frankly, I don't think it's much of a contest.

From a physical skill-set, Jones was faster than Mayweather, had a better offensive repertoire, punched harder with both hands, was a better body puncher and finisher, and yes, because of his foot speed and foot-work, he was harder to hit. In fact the only category where Mayweather gets the check in his column is in the punch resistance column. And even that is a little misleading. Remember, when Roy was stopped and lost for the first time in the ring against Antonio Tarver in their rematch, he was 49-1 (38). The lone defeat was by DQ versus Montel Griffin, who he hit while he was down in the ninth round of their first fight. Roy demolished Griffin in the first round five months later when they met again. So if you compare Jones and Mayweather through 48 fights, Jones is 47-1 (38), but really he is 48-0 (38) compared to Mayweather who is 48-0 (26), and could be 47-1 (26). Floyd lost the first time he fought Jose Luis Castillo in the eyes of everybody who saw the fight and knows what they're watching. Whereas Jones never even had a close fight through his first 48 bouts and seldom lost a round. There was never a discussion during any of Roy's bouts circa 1989 and 2003 as to whether he won or lost – the discussion was did he even lose a minute of the bout let alone a round or two.

Some have, myself included, suggested that Mayweather's opposition and when he fought the biggest names on his record is a little spotty. This is something that applies to Jones as well, only to a lesser degree. The difference is, Jones dominated Bernard Hopkins (a certifiable all-time great and Hall of Famer) when he was near his peak physically. Hopkins entered the fight with Jones 22-1, with the loss coming in his pro-debut. Hopkins won 22 bouts in a row before losing to Jones by a pronounced margin, and then went undefeated for 12 years 1993-2005 after he fought Jones.

Roy fought James Toney a year and a half after he beat Hopkins. Toney entered their fight undefeated at 44-0-2. Jones dominated Toney even more than he did Hopkins and dropped him in the third round. Toney happens to be one of the most complete/great fighters circa 1990-2003. He beat outstanding/great fighters in between middleweight and heavyweight. Toney, like Hopkins, is a certifiable all-time great and Hall of Famer. And Toney holds a stoppage win over former heavyweight great Evander Holyfield, something Dwight Muhammad Qawi, Buster Douglas, Bert Cooper, George Foreman, Michael Moorer, Ray Mercer, Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis couldn't do in 12 total fights. Combined, Hopkins and Toney entered their fight with Jones 66-1-2, and it's doubtful that combined they won six of the 24 rounds they fought him.

After going virtually unchallenged fighting middleweights and light heavyweights during the years 1989-2002, Jones challenged WBA heavyweight title holder John Ruiz in March of 2003. Ruiz entered the fight 38-4-1. His four losses were to Sergey Kobosev (15-0), Danell Nicholson (15-1), David Tua (22-0) and Evander Holyfield (36-4-1). As you can see there were no soft touches for Ruiz. One was unbeaten, one only lost once, Tua was undefeated and is one of the biggest single shot punching heavyweights in history and Holyfield is among the all-time top-10 greats in heavyweight history. No, Ruiz wasn't the second coming of Joe Louis, but held wins over Tony Tucker, Evander Holyfield and Kirk Johnson before fighting Jones. After losing to Jones he beat Hasim Rahman, Fres Oquendo and Andrew Golota.

Everybody makes a big deal about how middleweight champ Gennady Golovin is too big for Floyd Mayweather, out-weighing him 159-146. Well, Ruiz was 50 pounds heavier than any other opponent Jones ever fought. Did Roy ask for Ruiz to weigh in lighter than he had for any other heavyweight fight? No. Did he ask for Ruiz to wear special gloves or undergo any other specified testing? No. What Jones did was allow Ruiz, who won and retained the title against Evander Holyfield, to fight him under those same conditions. And Roy won eight, nine and 10 of the 12-rounds against Ruiz on the judges’ scorecards. In fact Jones' decision over Ruiz was about as legitimate as it gets regarding a smaller fighter challenging a bigger fighter. No catch-weights or subterfuge to game the system.

In my opinion, Jones dominating Hopkins, Toney and Ruiz the way he did when he did gives him a better claim to being “TBE” than Mayweather has. Floyd has nothing on his record to compare to that, no way, no how. And Roy was never stopped or beaten up until after he went back down to light heavyweight after moving up to heavyweight to challenge Ruiz. Had Roy retired after beating Ruiz, he would've had a legitimate case to be considered among the five greatest pound-for-pound boxers/fighters in history. This is a claim Mayweather couldn't even make jokingly.

And to those who say Jones feared and ducked light heavyweight Dariusz Michalczewski, wake up and smell the coffee. Michalczewski wouldn't fight outside of Germany and Poland. After getting hosed out of a Gold medal at the 1988 Olympics in Seoul South Korea, Roy feared leaving the United States and didn't trust the foreign judges. Mayweather won't even leave the MGM Grand in Las Vegas.

Roy Jones was superior to Floyd Mayweather in terms of physical skill and talent in the ring. At their best he was clearly the greater fighter and has the better resume. He took more risks and beat greater fighters along with a few stiffs in between. Sure, when it comes to the amount of money made per-risk taken, Mayweather is no doubt “TBE” in that regard. But Roy Jones was a once in a lifetime talent, like Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Leonard. I just can't say that for Floyd Mayweather.

Frank Lotierzo can be contacted at GlovedFist@Gmail.com

WATCH RELATED VIDEOS ON BOXINGCHANNEL.TV

Comment on this article

COMMENTS

-deepwater2 :

Bingo. Frank hits the nail on the head like a master carpenter.


-Domenic :

[br] title="Roy Jones Has A Better Case For TBE Than Floyd Mayweather"[/br] Everybody makes a big deal about how middleweight champ Gennady Golovin is too big for Floyd Mayweather, out-weighing him 159-146. Well, Ruiz was 50 pounds heavier than any other opponent Jones ever fought. Did Roy ask for Ruiz to weigh in lighter than he had for any other heavyweight fight? No. Did he ask for Ruiz to wear special gloves or undergo any other specified testing? No. What Jones did was allow Ruiz, who won and retained the title against Evander Holyfield, to fight him under those same conditions. And Roy won eight, nine and 10 of the 12-rounds against Ruiz on the judges? scorecards. In fact Jones' decision over Ruiz was about as legitimate as it gets regarding a smaller fighter challenging a bigger fighter. No catch-weights or subterfuge to game the system. In my opinion, Jones dominating Hopkins, Toney and Ruiz the way he did when he did gives him a better claim to being "TBE" than Mayweather has. Floyd has nothing on his record to compare to that, no way, no how. And Roy was never stopped or beaten up until after he went back down to light heavyweight after moving up to heavyweight to challenge Ruiz. Had Roy retired after beating Ruiz, he would've had a legitimate case to be considered among the five greatest pound-for-pound boxers/fighters in history. This is a claim Mayweather couldn't even make jokingly. Frank Lotierzo can be contacted at [url=http://www.thesweetscience.com/mailto:GlovedFist@Gmail.com]GlovedFist@Gmail.com
Excellent article. If Roy Jones had retired after the Ruiz fight, or the first Tarver fight, he's in the top tier of the ATG's. Just think back to how highly regarded and untouchable he was during those years. If you said to someone in 11/2003 that RJJ would be KO'd twice back to back, in highlight reel style, they'd have laughed you out of the building. It was that inconceivable. Against Ruiz, obviously not an ATG, but a better than adequate, legitimate heavyweight who was very difficult to fight, he asked for no concessions at all. Then he tried to get a fight with Lennox Lewis! Thankfully, that one never happened, but he was willing to do it. Amazing. Jones fighting Lewis far outweighs Floyd fighting Golovkin risk-wise, in my opinion (although Roy would never have had the drain-down situation had he stayed up there, so perhaps he would've survived 12 rounds without being caught). Then against Tarver, who was prime, way hungrier and more motivated for the fight than Roy, he drops 25 pounds to return to LH. Outside of Tarver, there was no clamor or public mandate for that fight at all. In retrospect, Roy might've been better off going to cruiserweight then, instead of LH, in order to collect another strap. Roy took risks for his historical legacy that Mayweather would never dream of taking. And he's not required to at all. More power to him. He's made enough money that money hardly has any value anymore. How much can you spend? But you sacrifice being an ATG if you eschew the top challenges out there in favor of avoiding risk. He's a HoF guy, right in the same category as Joe Calzaghe to me. A very nice career, but nothing even sniffing TBE status. Time Zones away from TBE.


-stormcentre :

I think the claim that Jones has any claim to the TBE title - whether ahead of Floyd or not is laughable and would only be supported by both a dislike of Floyd and also a lack of real understanding of whom Jones avoided. Here's just some of the reasons why.
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?19763-Floyd-Mayweather-Can%92t-Win&p=75901&viewfull=1#post75901 :) :) :)


-SouthPawFlo :

Damn Good Article... Some people forget how good RJJR really was...


-stormcentre :

Despite how good Roy was . . . . Actually - and perhaps I am playing the Devil's advocate here - I actually think both Hopkins and Joe Calzaghe (beat Jones), but perhaps - in some ways - Joe even more so than Hopkins (but you could make a case for Hopkins over Joe too); have far better claims to the TBE throne than RJJ does. Jone's other-worldly skills (especially reflexes and speed) seemed to deteriorate incredibly in sync with the Balco scandal take-down; coincidence or not? Who knows. Still - even though Roy didn't fight a lot of other really good and available competition - I appreciate that many people were mesmerized with Roy's performances. :) :)


-stormcentre :

Despite how; A) Good Roy was. B) Ruiz probably constituted one of the weakest, slowest, and most hugging/clinching Heavyweights around, and probably of most eras. . . . . . . Actually - and perhaps I am playing the Devil's advocate here - I actually think both Hopkins and Joe Calzaghe (beat Jones), but perhaps - in some ways - Joe even more so than Hopkins (but you could make a case for Hopkins over Joe too); have far better claims to the TBE throne than RJJ does. Jone's other-worldly skills (especially reflexes and speed) seemed to deteriorate incredibly in sync with the Balco scandal take-down; coincidence or not? Who knows. Still - even though Roy didn't fight a lot of other really good and available competition (*see my above post/link) - I appreciate that many people were mesmerized with Roy's performances. I was for a time there too. Actually, for a while there Jones seemed like a magician in the ring; pugilistic perfection. But he never really consistently stepped it up in terms of the competition. In fact he often refused to fight strong and available opponents in a manner that - if dissected* - would even have those whom dislike Floyd seeing reason for a case that Jones ducked more competition than Floyd. I think most fast middleweights would have had a field day with Ruiz. I know, when I was younger and more active, if there was a Light Heavyweight and/or Heavyweight in the gym that was not fast - or they had even some of the attributes Ruiz (poor speed, poor stamina, poor timing, poor coordination, poor balance) possessed - I would almost always flog them. This doesn't mean the accomplishment at Heavyweight that Jones achieved is nothing. It just means it was - like many of Roy's title and other fights - achieved against measured opposition; opposition that it is OK for us to consider if we're talking "TBE". I also think Jones was very well managed in terms of the overall opposition he fought, and when; especially for a "TBE" candidate. This doesn't mean I am saying Jones wasn't good. But Roy did consistently, and at times extremely obviously, show preference for and also take fights with much easier opposition than was available (see above *post/link, and also below "A" - "E" list as a brief example). Jones' best and/or most significant wins were probably (arguably?) over Toney or Hopkins. After that - save the fights with Glen Johnson and Antonio Tarver - his competition was not only, at times, noticeably less difficult than Floyd's, Bernard's, and possibly also Joes' - but also whenever Roy stepped it up the results were not as pretty; often resulting in a clear and/or KO loss for Jones. It would be interesting to see Roy judged by the same, sometimes excessively harsh, critique that Floyd is judged in these forums; as I suspect it would not be pretty for Roy - just as the (slow moving) comparison between Pernell and Floyd is starting to show after much fanfare suggesting otherwise. Still, when Roy was on his game and blowing out guys like; A) Glen Kelly: whom Jones (extremely) questionably - and whilst other far better Light Heavyweight fighters were around - defended 6 titles against. B) Derrick Harmon: whom Jones questionably defended 4 titles with. C) Richard Hall: whom Jones questionably defended 3 titles with. E) And, Vinny Pazienza (IBf Super Middleweight title). He did look sensational. As he did "look" when he fought Ruiz. :) :)


-SouthPawFlo :

I think skills alone and in ring performance against who he fought, no one can argue that RJJR is an ATG... For a light heavyweight he had the speed of a 135lber and he was deadly with both hands, and most importantly he CLOSED THE SHOW and was always looking to finish his opponent and not just win by UD


-stormcentre :

I think skills alone and in ring performance against who he fought, no one can argue that RJJR is an ATG... For a light heavyweight he had the speed of a 135lber and he was deadly with both hands, and most importantly he CLOSED THE SHOW and was always looking to finish his opponent and not just win by UD
Hey SPF I was hoping you would chime back in and explain the way you were thinking about Roy. As I usually take the time to consider and think about your posts (whether they align with me {as they sometimes do} or not) - because you usually seem to know what you're talking about and, even if/when I may personally think you're not right, you're still even then (at least as far as I am concerned) not often off the mark. So that's refreshing. You're right, Jones - particularly in his prime and at Light Heavyweight - he did look like he was from another planet with the moves he made. And, yes, he did look to close the show; often spectacularly so. As his fights with; 1) Virgil Hill. 2) Vinny Pazienza. 3) Otis Grant. 4) Richard Frazier. 5) Richard Hall. And even those at Middleweight (Hopkins) and Super Middleweight (Toney) . . . Show. What do you think Roy's best win is and why?


-oldschool :

Great article but I have one reservation. I agree that James Toney was a great fighter but the Evander Holyfield that Toney KO'd was well and truly over the hill. Just look at the dates for Holyfield's fights: Quawi,1987,Foreman 1991, Lewis 1999,Tyson,1996,


-stormcentre :

Yep, now we're talking about two of boxings' best modern era fighters; Holyfield and Toney. Forget whether they lost or not, both James Toney and Evander Holyfield were and are legends. Far better than Jones in my estimation - light years in fact. James had - whether it be due to himself, contracts, or otherwise - had to really starve down for his fight with Jones, and I think he gave a pretty good showing of himself in it; although Jones clearly won and had some spectacular moments. Holyfield, what can you say? How can this guy not be, at least, one of the best modern Cruiserweight and/or Heavyweights out there? So many great fights where Evander laid it all on the line for us to enjoy his skills, heart, and determination. Agree, Evander was not the same as he was in his prime years when Toney fought him. That said, Evander (in my opinion) knew he was in way too deep with James' style; if not when he first agreed to fight Toney, then when he stepped into the ring to actually fight. Prior to Toney; Holyfield had not really fought a; slick, and extremely tough, skilled, and experienced, defensive/offensive fighter that really knew how to get into position and put clever and creative combinations and counterpunches together; that could also walk in on Holyfield relatively unscathed, diffuse Evander's offence and get into positions where he could hit Evander whilst Evander was unable to mount a significant resistance to such moves. What Toney had and still - to some extent - currently has; is not an easy skillset to acquire. And that's why really experienced guys like Holyfield were caught without a means to meaningfully deal with it; when Holyfield fought James. Now, if Jones had fought Evander at Heavyweight, or even Light Heavyweight - rather than Ruiz - I think Jones' legacy would then - possibly - be a in a lot better standing for any "TBE" discussion; even though, in reality it probably would - even then - be still way off the mark. Now please excuse me, as I think Frank Lotierzo has ordered me a cup of coffee to drink; as the masses get wound up over the use of words such as "Floyd", "Roy Jones" and "TBE" embedded in an article that could probably do with a little more thought - at least as far as hailing Jones as anything near a "TBE" and/or better accomplished than Floyd is, is concerned anyway. :)
PS: Imagine if Toney and Jones fought now; or even 4 or 5 years ago when they may have been able to make it to a weight division that both could compete in !!!!


-teaser :

Prime Jones toyed with opposition ?never lost a round for years ?.nuff said


-mortcola :

There is a repeating and necessary question that comes up as a result of both the topics and the smarts of this forum: Are the representatives of a division during an era automatically judged as inferior historically because of the pre-eminence of a single fighter or two, or would the same fighters be seen as the cream, close to the mean for any given era, if there were no one to make EVERYBODY look equally bad. I say, at least, that the rose-glasses and/or turd-glasses of nostalgia not only turn the good old days into a golden era, or the present into a wasteland. I'm not sure there are many exceptions. C'mob - the term "Bum of the Month" club was coined DURING Joe Louis' day. And yet that career also contains signature wins over guys considered greats combined with at least several historically legit true warriors - the same as any modern day fighter mixing mandatories with occasional show-pieces against dangerous legacy-opponents. Thoughts?


-Froggy :

Prime Jones toyed with opposition …never lost a round for years ….nuff said
Nuff said for me !


-deepwater2 :

Nuff said for me !
Nuff said for me too


-gibola :

Agree with deep and froggy. No-one came close to beating RJJ when he was anything near his peak and that includes Hopkins and Toney. I couldn't care less that RJJ lost fights when he was basically fading or shot, so did the Sugar Rays. RJJ is in arguments for TBE and even his greatest critics have to admit he'd give other ATGs fits. RJJ and PBF are both ATGS but RJJ is higher in my list.


-stormcentre :

Yep, know where you're coming from (RJJ loving) guys but (despite the fact I like him too) I guess I am looking at this with not only the same critique as that showed to Floyd in these forums ("TBE") - but also being mindful of the fact that in RJJ's prime he deliberately and often fought many obviously subpar levels of competition; as noted by my above posts. A lot of greats didn't do that quite so obviously and consistently whilst there was other, better, and available opponents out there. For instance, when was the last time a really great fighter (of Jones' claimed or real ilk {"TBE"}) defended all 6 titles against a guy like Glen Kelly when many other opponents were available? Furthermore when Jones fought and/or lost by KO to Tarver (and other guys around the same time) he was still not considered to be over the hill then. However that was the beginning of a period where Jones started to fight a better level of competition. Once you consider these above factors some of the above comparisons between the sugar rays and other fighters used to position RJJ where we want, fall away just a little. Now that's nuff said for me. :) :) :)


-stormcentre :

Yep, know where you're coming from (RJJ loving) guys but (despite the fact I like him too) I guess I am looking at this with not only the same critique as that showed to Floyd in these forums ("TBE") - but also being mindful of the fact that in RJJ's prime he deliberately and often fought many obviously subpar levels of competition; as noted by my above posts. A lot of greats didn't do that quite so obviously and consistently particularly whilst there was other, better, and available opponents/champions out there; calling them out. For instance, when was the last time a really great fighter (of Jones' claimed or real ilk {"TBE"}) defended all 6 titles against a guy like Glen Kelly when many other opponents were available? Furthermore when Jones fought and/or lost by KO to Tarver (and other guys around the same time) he was still not considered to be over the hill then. However that was the beginning of a period where Jones started to fight a better level of competition. Once you consider these above factors some of the above comparisons between the sugar rays and other fighters used to position RJJ where we want, fall away just a little. Now that's nuff said for me. :) :) :)


-stormcentre :

There is a repeating and necessary question that comes up as a result of both the topics and the smarts of this forum: Are the representatives of a division during an era automatically judged as inferior historically because of the pre-eminence of a single fighter or two, or would the same fighters be seen as the cream, close to the mean for any given era, if there were no one to make EVERYBODY look equally bad. I say, at least, that the rose-glasses and/or turd-glasses of nostalgia not only turn the good old days into a golden era, or the present into a wasteland. I'm not sure there are many exceptions. C'mob - the term "Bum of the Month" club was coined DURING Joe Louis' day. And yet that career also contains signature wins over guys considered greats combined with at least several historically legit true warriors - the same as any modern day fighter mixing mandatories with occasional show-pieces against dangerous legacy-opponents. Thoughts?
Yep that is a consideration I have thought too. Basically we're (as a boxing collective) often saying/inferring that fighters of yesteryear are greater and/or the benchmark without always considering some of the reasons why that belief either may not hold, or should be relaxed. Now, to borrow a quote from an old friend of mine that doesn't always read/think about what he says . . . There are optical illusions everywhere. And, mostly these optical illusions come from the introduction of promotions, serious money, and management to boxing. This is why it's sometimes important to have a think about claims related to boxing before we release them, only to then find out they're not quite as we thought; just before the embarrassment sets in and becomes a motive for defence. These illusions were there in the years gone by, and there here now too. For example see here in this thread how what Jones has done is enough, which, some might say, is a very different set of values applied to Floyd; check this and the facts out . . . As MortCola infers above throughout boxings' history there have been many great champions that have not always been able to fight another guy in their weight that was considered their equal, and it hasn't hurt their legacy. Here's a little history lesson on Roy Jones and who he did and didn't fight; see how clearly it differs from the Sugar Rays and other comments mentioned above. Roy Jones Jr never went near
Dariusz Michalczewski. And, Dariusz was considered to be one of the better light heavyweight champions around at the time of his reign. Michalczewski possessed both above average power, and also wins over Montell Griffin and Virgil Hill; making him a very marketable opponent for Jones. Michalczewski also had around 17 title defences and as such his reign was considered to be even more astonishing than Jones' domination. However, Jones, when asked about the fight, often cited the fact that Michalczewski fought almost exclusively out of Germany; a point that Frank also makes. However, Jones also refused outright to fight Dariusz abroad when promoters suggested it. Jones, reportedly, often discarded suggestions to fly Michalczewski stateside and fight him on home soil.
Other greats Roy Jones never faced were; Michael Nunn, Sven Ottke, Julian Jackson, Nigel Benn, Chris Eubank, Frankie Liles, Gerald McClellan. I don't see similar a path of the same amount of available and great fighters, and in similar weights, that Ray Leonard (or Floyd) didn't fight; do you? Yet Jones (as we can see here in this thread) is often considered to be one of the best in his weight(s). Optical illusions? This stuff has been happening all throughout boxings' history - just as often as people have been mistakenly saying . . . if Boxer "X" never fights Boxer "Y" it will forever hurt his legacy. Floyd went and fought Pacquaio and, as far as many here are concerned, despite claiming if Floyd never fights Pacquaio it will hurt his legacy; fighting Pacquaio at the end of his career did hurt his legacy. Yet, according to some, Jones is exempt from the same critique whether it be at the end of his career, or when he ducked all the guys I mention here that are overlooked. For me the most anticipated fight Jones could have had with a genuine rival - aside from Toney - was the talk of Jones and
Gerald McClellan meeting each other. Gerald McClellan was a mean mofo and had only fought at 168 no more than a few times, if that, whilst Jones campaigned there. One of those times was, tragically, against Nigel Benn; where McClellan was taken to hospital after collapsing from what appeared to be (at the time of the incident) a severe case of dehydration (Geale V Cotto anyone?). Jones, whom could arguably be labelled guilty of ducking more than Mayweather, never got to fight Gerald McClellan as a result but no-one ever says it has held his legacy back. Jones also never fought
Frankie Liles either, and Liles - a crafty lefty - beat him as an amateur. Jones never fought
Steve Collins either. Collins was a seriously tough Irish fighter (guys I knew in Ireland gyms used to call him the "Ice Warrior") who garnered significant respect for calling Jones out and chasing him down as often as he did. At the time(s) all this happened, Jones retorted and claimed the fact that Collins didn't have a known belt and he wasn't a big name in America meant the fight was worthless. However, looking at Jones' record shows that those obstacles certainly weren't aways impediments to Jones appointing someone as his "opponent". Furthermore, even though Collins' main claim to fame was via defeating faded versions of Eubank and Benn, these accomplishments were still more than some of Jones' other opponents. Please see my above posts for examples of the type of opponent that Jones regularly preferred for his multiple title defences. So, Roy Jones and whom he did and didn't fight seems like a worthy subject of not only those whom claim legacies are diminished by ducking - but also that Roy has done enough to be considered an all time great and/or "TBE"; above Floyd. Of course I am not applying the same criticism here with Jones, that Floyd receives, otherwise I would be diving into his personal life, dealings with women, and a raft of other things such as PED use. :) I am just sticking to those elusive and often hated facts. Finally, on the
Steve Collins example, Collins actually held the WBO belt when he was calling out Jones. Further making him an ideal unification opponent for Jones so he could "genuinely" fight opposition and perform in a way that allows us all to confidently say ""nuff said for me"" and mean it, when we speak of Jones legacy; rather than relying on divination and conjecture. However, the WBO - perhaps like IBO or WBU now - really wasn't respected back then; providing the perfect excuse and opportunity for Jones to fight guys like Glen Kelly whom - whilst they were miles/classes below Collins - were far less dangerous. So, when the facts are laid bare what we can see is that, yes, (despite the title to the article) unlike Floyd in most of his weights, Jones - contrary to many beliefs - missed many of the big names at 160. This practice, for Jones, wasn't just confined to 160 though; but - for now - that is all the work I will do on cleaning up Frank's article for him - despite how nice his coffee tastes. :) So, what we can really see - via the facts - is that Roy Jones - for a great part of the time, and also by comparison to other fighters (Floyd or the Sugar(s) ) used here to draw quick, simple and neat comparisons - was effectively fighting tomato cans on many occasions; particularly if one accepts how good Roy Jones is here and elsewhere claimed to be. Concurrently, as both all this happened and Jones picnicked on lesser opponents and arguably had a Balco ball; James Toney, Gerald McClellan, Julian Jackson, and Mike McCallum all fought each other. Gee, no wonder no one touched or came near Roy Jones, and he toyed with opposition and never lost a round for years; eh? If someone can help me out here and show how Sugar Ray Leonard and/or Floyd have followed a similarly quite so pronounced ducking path on their way to greatness, I would be grateful. Not long after Jones beat Bernard Hopkins for the vacant middleweight title, Roy declared that he had already become too heavy for the weight. Jones then campaigned at 164-167, and then moved up to 168 not long after that. Who knows, maybe if the above-mentioned and horrible tragedy with McClellan and Benn hadn't have happened, either of them could have met up with Jones at some future point. It's funny, as whilst I hear many calling out Floyd on his legacy - despite all the above points - I don't hear anyone calling Roy Jones out on his legacy. There are many other boxing greats - some that we all currently still revere as legends - that never met - or were considered to duck - their best challenges. It's not necessarily a major crime; unless you want to judge their careers as "TBEs" and/or all time greats. Or unless you have already judged another fighter - whom has actually ducked less great, available and worthy fighter/champions - as being less accomplished than the fighter you claim is better; via overlooking their shortfalls. Optical illusions. So, finally, to close off, here are a list of - some of, but not all the - fighters that Roy ""nuff said for me"" Jones never fought . . . .
Dariusz Michalczewski. Michael Nunn. Sven Ottke. Julian Jackson. Nigel Benn. Chris Eubank. Frankie Liles. Gerald McClellan. Steve Collins. And . . that's just at 160. Forget the other weights for now. Thanks guys.
StormCentre.


-oldschool :

stormcentre, I agree about Toney's greatness but he has carried too much weight to be a factor in the heavy weight division. I think Evander, in his prime, would have beaten Roy Jones at his best.


-Kid Blast :

Damm right!! A prime Roy Jones Jr was as good as it gets. Had he retired after the first Tarver fight, his record would have been 50-1 and his place among the top five modern all time greats would have been well justified. As it is, he still will rate among the top ten on my lists because, as Larry Merchant said during the Brannon fight, he was ?Oscar Peterson with Boxing Gloves.? And if fast fingers and a hardwired sense of swing defined Peterson, fast hands and a seldom-seen sense of reflexes defined Jones. ?A fighter in history is judged by what he did in his prime, like most athletes and most successful anythings?.Roy was one of the best of his time, and that, to me, is the best you can be.??Larry Merchant


-Kid Blast :

Damm right!! A prime Roy Jones Jr was as good as it gets. Had he retired after the first Tarver fight, his record would have been 50-1 and his place among the top five modern all time greats would have been well justified. As it is, he still will rate among the top ten on my lists because, as Larry Merchant said during the Brannon fight, he was ?Oscar Peterson with Boxing Gloves.? And if fast fingers and a hardwired sense of swing defined Peterson, fast hands and a seldom-seen sense of reflexes defined Jones. ?A fighter in history is judged by what he did in his prime, like most athletes and most successful anythings?.Roy was one of the best of his time, and that, to me, is the best you can be.??Larry Merchant


-Absy71 :

How about we just appreciate what both fighters in their respective eras bought to the boxing world, to me RJJ was the Man, the most gifted Athletically , could of been the greatest, FMJ, is Technical Brilliance. Could of been the greatest. The debate goes on, that's why we love our Boxing!


-stormcentre :

stormcentre, I agree about Toney's greatness but he has carried too much weight to be a factor in the heavy weight division. I think Evander, in his prime, would have beaten Roy Jones at his best.
Hey OS. Your "OldSchool" moniker is exactly as Toney fought; old school. When was the last time we saw James . . clinch, hug, play for a break and points deductions, and/or complain about head butts and low blows? Never. He just gets on with it. I must admit I am probably a little biased towards Toney though, as years ago when I was younger I met him at a USA international amateur contest I was in (he was a Pro fighter, spectating) - plus, later in life, he also he came to one of my fights in Cali years after that; where I again met and talked to him. His no nonsense, deep, gangsta, and "keep it real" attitude kind of had an effect on me, and he became one of my favorite fighters. Amongst a world of complicated advice about how to win, James dropped this gem on me; ""just work that body hard, then tax the head to the max, and that bytch will fall and bleed"". Poetic pugilism at it's finest. The advice was, basically, just go in there hard, get to work on the body/head, and show no respect. I had always loved Toney's fighting style and longed to acquire some of its attributes. As I knew - just by trying to emulate them in the gym, let alone in a fight - how difficult they were to perfect to the level he had them at. They were all so different to the Eastern Bloc and European boxing styles I had originally learned. But I knew - from how good Toney's style was at achieving (if not bettering {eg; slipping incoming punches, getting into position, and then safely combination punching off of cute angles}) some of the same objectives to that of the styles I had learned - that some of the really ingrained principles I had picked up on as an amateur could probably be complemented and/or improved upon by either adopting some aspects of James' slip/slide moves - or by completely supplanting them into my routine. The problem was, at the time, that was going to be hard. Because when you're always in competition and used to doing various things under (undefined levels of) pressure - even if you see a better way - it's sometimes more risky to implement it under competition pressure. In the very least, slowly learning (some of) those techniques Toney used and integrating them into competition showed me just how good they and Toney were. So, that's a part of the reason I hold Toney as one of the better fighters of this era; despite the losses. However, then when you add all that up with some of the commentary that Emmanuel Steward has furnished us with about James (in the, Jirov, Nunn, and possibly McCullum fights) where Steward . . . not only talks about James' (even from a young age) fearless and brilliant sparring wars in the old Kronk gym (against top fighters) that Steward used to train fighters at - but also how - on many levels and dimensions - accomplished and deep Toney is; you start to really understand how good Toney guy is. I remember Manny Steward - when commenting during one of James' above-mentioned fights (possibly the Nunn and/or Jirov fight) - saying words to the effect that . . . James was a completely different fighter to anyone he had ever seen . . .he continued with words to the effect of . .
Emmanuel Steward: ""James' is the kind of guy that, no matter what, you can never count him out. He can punch with you, counterpunch, box, slip and slide. He rarely gets caught with a decent shot because he slips or rolls them, and he can fight exhausted and still find a way to win. Unlike most guys that have finished their workout and are tired, Toney will still spar if asked. A few time guys in my gym - good guys - have called James out for a spar as James was all showered and ready to leave, and James would just nod, unzip his bag, get the gloves out, and not only spar - but really lay down some moves. He is the deepest "(as in meanest and toughest) "guy I have ever seen in my gym, and he regularly as a youngster used to come to the gym and want to spar top guys like Hearns and Gerald "(I may have the names wrong but the names mentioned were top guys; I know that). "James' always wanted to spar more than the other guys, and he rarely got beat up and pushed around. I just don't know of any other fighter that is prepared to both put down and tolerate what Toney, in a fight, can"". Now, if ever there was a reason to say ""nuff said for me""; those words from Steward are it. Toney fights anyone, anywhere, anytime; almost regardless of whether he himself is ready or not. And rarely does James' Philly Crab and/or his other integrated defensive/fighting styles allow him to get really busted up; even if he loses. Gotta give credit where it is due though, as Roy Jones did look good beating James in 1994, as he also showed a way (if you're fast enough) to deal with James' style. Roy's fighting style though - particularly as a professional - was very fundamentally unsound. Jones was not the first fighter to make the risky game of pugilistic unorthodoxy work for him though. But he may just be one of its more spectacular proponents. When Roy Jones was on fire, he blazed with a unique, exceptional, and sensational intensity. But like any great movie that moves you, behind it all and also behind all the promotion, sensation, and glitter that accompanies it and wows audiences, there is usually a document set consisting of (at least) a script and investment/project plan that - whilst not always easy and comfortable reading - once understood, often lays out the inner mechanics and forces that are really at work. Sometimes the document set's true meaning is as pretty as the play - other times it's not. Other times its somewhere in between. Nevertheless the elusiveness of the document set's true meaning (and the truth) often has upsides; such as how it both assists marketing of the fight whilst also removing the possible onset of early promoter's fatigue. Jones, as an amateur was successful and achieved the highest level; only to be robbed at the Olympics. The robbery motivated him in his professional career. Aside from the skills Roy acquired as an amateur and from his father; mostly though, it was Jones' superior reflexes, coordination, and speed (and perhaps a few other things that have also assisted Pacquaio) that allowed Roy Jones - as a professional fighter - to "magically" blaze through opponents with his unique, exceptional, and sensational intensity. That and some clever management and matchmaking. Still, Roy entertained us - there's no doubt about that. But, behind it all was the clever use of an unorthodox style married (for a while) to superior reflexes, coordination, and speed; which - for the most part - effected how other opponents could react, plan and compete, by (Roy) presenting a much different, more complex, and enigmatic picture to his opponents. More than they had certainly seen in their gyms and most other opponents anyway. This is one reason why, during the decline of Jones' physical attributes and fighting determination he has become noticeably more vulnerable than, say, a guy like Floyd; whom - instead; A) Has not only a complex and multi-dimensional fighting style (down pat) that has its roots securely planted in the same (or a similar USA technician and slip/slide) style Toney used. B) But also - unlike Roy Jones - has evolved and perfected that style as he has aged and physically declined; to offset weakness that creep in with age. (Please note the above comments could also apply to Hopkins, and also Toney too). Whilst we're talking/looking at Roy Jones, Floyd Mayweather, and Bernard Hopkins; in addition - and contrary to the claims Frank (the author of this thread) has made . . . .
Frank Lotierzo: ""From a physical skill-set, Jones was faster than Mayweather, had a better offensive repertoire, punched harder with both hands, was a better body puncher and finisher, and yes, because of his foot speed and foot-work, he was harder to hit. In fact the only category where Mayweather gets the check in his column is in the punch resistance column"". That assert Floyd's only superiority to Jones is . . punch resistance. A good question may be; what about defence and fundamental boxing skills? Are we really sure that Roy Jones has a better defence and better fundamental boxing skills than Floyd and/or Bernard? A physical skillset - whether we like it or not - in boxing goes far beyond the unique, exceptional, and sensational intensity of some of the performances that Roy delivered; regardless of whether they were against subpar opposition, or opposition that were not in their *prime - more on *that later. So, back to defence and fundamental boxing skills, and Frank's claim that Floyd's only superiority to Jones is punch resistance.
Defence and fundamental boxing style/skills; they are (like both the KO and other losses on Roy's record, and also those Roy didn't fight) the big fat white elephant in the room; which metaphorically mark out a completely deeper and contrasting line in the sands of boxing ("TBE" or not) - even when the tide has both risen and recessed over a few cycles - particularly when drawing comparisons to Floyd, and (as far as KO losses and not ducking anyone is concerned) perhaps, also Toney. Furthermore, (as claims of how Floyd {and Lara [but not Rigondeaux]} runs when he defensively uses his legs attest) Roy's foot speed is not necessarily the same as an active defence, either. :) Although, I concede, it can be used defensively. Roy, once his speed had deteriorated in similar quantities to how Floyd's is said to have during the transition from Pretty Boy to Money May, has shown he virtually has no active defence and/or means to compete at the top level; in order to assist him with the evolution of a boxing style that can successfully carry him into his - most dangerous and risky - veteran years. One need only look at the light year wide hole in the fabric of boxings' spacetime that exists between Floyd's competition and that whom Roy fights (see above posts for the facts); at the tail end of both of their careers - itself a - like many above substantiated and made - point(s) that must be overlooked to consider Roy Jones ahead of Floyd or Hopkins in almost any stakes. Whether they be "TBE" or not. Furthermore, with respect to Frank's claims that . . .
Frank Lotierzo: ""From a physical skill-set, Jones was faster than Mayweather, had a better offensive repertoire, punched harder with both hands, was a better body puncher and finisher, and yes, because of his foot speed and foot-work, he was harder to hit.
In fact the only category where Mayweather gets the check in his column is in the punch resistance column"". Floyd's timing - even if it is not better than, but instead (let's just be nice and say) "equal" to Roy's in his peak - is also way, way, beyond Roy's in terms of longevity (and this matters not just for considerations of defence and fundamentally superior boxing style/skills - but also for reasons later discussed/proven) in the game. Over the long run, as we can see, there is no comparison between the two; in these categories. As Floyd still - unlike Roy - has sublime timing; which - even at 38 - is probably still the best in the business. Yes I know we were all amazed at Roy's ability to punch from behind the back and knock out Glen Kelly, and how he magically used his above-mentioned advantages over other guys and impressed us all more than Floyd and others, but we will get to that later and even, possibly, set a single category for it; "ability to entertain on both, first impressions and results (regardless of how they were achieved). Back to looking at the author's claim that; ""in fact the only category where Mayweather gets the check in his column is in the punch resistance column"." Same (as above comments for timing) for Floyd's counterpunching ability; it's miles better than Roy's now, and has been for years, and probably was - if not better than, then - at least equal to Jones' even when both fighters where in their primes. Same for Floyd's stamina. This category is almost one of the most fundamental aspects of a championship fighter that Frank seems to also have overlooked when comparing Roy and Floyd. Jones is, now, lazy compared to Floyd in this respect; which (aside from an inferior defence and fighting style capable of evolving) is another reason why Jones suffered serious losses both in his prime (Glen Johnson and Antonio Tarver) and also after it. Furthermore, Jones rarely displayed the 12 round high intensity stamina in his early years that Floyd did in his prime, and if Jones did, then it was for a far less duration of prime-time. In fact if one goes back to Floyd's "Pretty Boy" fights (as I have recently for the Whitaker V Mayweather comparison thread) you can easily see that - even aside from the fact that Mayweather has displayed and retained these high level skills for a far longer bandwidth in time than Roy Jones; against not less than the, but probably a better, level of opposition Jones faced - in some of Floyd's Pretty Boy fights his dynamic abilities, speed, counterpunching, and especially his timing, where easily as good as Roy's. Take a look at the Burten/Augustus, Ndou, Chavez, Castillo, Corrales and some of Floyd's earlier fights before you throw your hands up in the air. Add to it all Roy paid very little attention to defence when he would release his blistering combinations that wooed us all; mostly because he had superior speed and skills to his opposition - which is another reason why Roy lost dramatically both, when he finally stepped it up in his prime, and also in his veteran/current years. You can't always teach an old dog new (defence) tricks, and Jones and his style was not prepared to evolve; confirming an inferior fighting technique to that adopted by Floyd, Bernard, and even Toney. Fundamentally Roy did many things wrong. But, he cleverly made it work for him, and got away with it, due to lightening fast reflexes, that (like Shane Mosely and some other fighters' other worldly speed/skills) quickly deteriorated around the same time the Balco scandal hit town. However, let's leave Balco out of it for now, and what you have left is that the remainder of those above 23 or so sentences/paragraphs are still why not only both Glen Johnson and also Antonio Tarver were so confident - but why almost everyone was shocked to see Glen Johnson and also Antonio Tarver knockout Roy Jones when he was considered to be in his prime and a cut above such opponents. You see, both Glen Johnson and also Antonio Tarver knew what Roy had been, doing, and fighting; and why. So, the moral of the story here is that which has been overlooked (White Elephant) not just when ignoring how some of Roy's best achievements were scripted and/or stating Roy Jones has a better stake to a "TBE" trophy than Floyd - but also that information skipped across when claiming Floyd only betters Roy in punch resistance; is that Floyd actually - if you look at it subjectively and forget how we all drooled when Roy blew out some guys - has several superior traits to Jones. Not in the least his entire fundamental boxing style is superior for the above reasons, including the fact that it has stood up against "the most sternest of tests boxing can throw at a fighter"; the test of (father) time, remaining unbeaten, and continually good - if not great - competition. Any look at both guy's records shows that Jones has not continuously fought better opposition than Floyd; but lets just say they're equal. Remember I didn't draw the comparison between Floyd and Jones; Frank did that. Jones' exciting approach and style has - unlike Floyd's that is rooted in the correct techniques - (and not just when Roy was considered over the hill either) quickly dissipated with age and other factors; as we have seen. This is true even if we disregard all the anomalies and overlooked considerations (of which there are many) related to whom Jones didn't fight I am not (in depth) going near Frank's implicit claim that Roy was faster than Pretty Boy and/or Money May? Both were blindingly fast in their prime, Floyd still can be, Roy is not, and Floyd's prime lasted longer; Floyd (easily) takes it on that meritorious assessment that was not undertaken when the claim that Floyd only betters Roy in punch resistance was made. All I will further add to the hand-speed comparison is to say; take a look at all Floyd's fights first and then judge for yourself. Even aside from the actual hand-speed demonstration and overall performances Floyd gives; in many of his fights - particularly those as Pretty Boy" - you can actually hear commentary from professional HBO and Showtime commentators (some even include commentary from Roy Jones himself) that have also worked on Roy's fights, discussing how Mayweather's skills and speed is up there with, if not the, best they have seen. So, in summary, some of Floyd's Pretty Boy fights display pretty good hand speed; a point seemingly overlooked in the Frank Lotierzo Floyd V Jones comparo. I say that as, interestingly (despite Floyd's speed being one of his more obvious superior traits) - and as with the other points mentioned above - Frank appears to make no comment on this, as he claims punch resistance is the only area where Floyd betters Jones. Such approaches though - where facts are overlooked - are not uncommon with subjective opinions and discussions related to Floyd Mayweather and Roy Jones. And that's OK too. Well . . . it's OK . . . so long as we don't pretend subjective opinion is fact (Glen Kelly V Roy Jones for 6 belts; whilst a swag of other more suitable and dangerous opponents
did actually exist {see my above posts}) only to then get upset, loud, possibly bullying, and defensive, when we finally put subjective opinion to work in the real world and a boxing ring, and find out it is really just the soft opposition to the facts and truth; Glen Johnson/Antonio Tarver V Roy Jones for 5 belts; whilst a swag of other more suitable and dangerous opponents
did not exist in the same quantities) These are the facts ladies and gentlemen, the writing is on the wall and in the record books, and both guys performances and longevity is there for all to see, check, accept, or deny. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My take on it all (and I love Roy Jones, as a fighter and especially his commentary these days);
1)
Is Jones a better finisher? Yes - but usually against comparably lesser opposition.
2)
Is Jones a harder puncher? Yes - his KO ratio (~64% { to Floyd's ~54%}) certainly suggests it is. But then this is without considering whom each guy fought, and from above posts we can clearly see that all is not as it seems there for Roy and any (un-scrutinized) and/or purely subjective assessment (as most are) of his and perhaps also Floyd's fighting reputation.
3)
Is Jones a bigger risk taker? Debatable - his opposition suggests there is need of more research than Frank and others have provided and/or engaged in.
4)
Is Jones a better counterpuncher? No. There is no evidence to suggest he is; particularly when - but even without - considering opposition. Roy has not displayed the same repertoire of clever and fast counterpunching against the same level of competition, and for as long as Floyd has.
5)
Is Jones a better athlete in terms of preparation and stamina? No. See above and below comments. Sure Roy was dynamic, fast, and mesmerizing; but so was Floyd - and for longer and arguably against better opposition.
6)
Is Jones the holder of a fundamentally better and more effective/successful boxing style? No. See above and below comments.
7)
Is Jones the holder of a better boxing-defence system? No, or (at best) it's equal to Floyds. There is much, much, more to defence than . . .
Frank Lotierzo: ""From a physical skill-set, Jones was faster than Mayweather, had a better offensive repertoire, punched harder with both hands, was a better body puncher and finisher,
and yes, because of his foot speed and foot-work, he was harder to hit. Foot speed and foot work. If not one of Floyd's, then view one of Toney's fights, to prove and see this. This is one of the main reasons why Roy Jones is not unbeaten, has been KO'd numerous times, and has not aged extremely well in the sport; unlike Floyd.
8) (Just to look at one or a few aspects of defence);
is Jones the holder of fundamentally better head movement and integrated defensive/offensive coordination moves? No. They must be (provided you ignore the longevity gap between the two; because if you don't Floyd wins easily) at least equal; if not the (more likely) answer is "No".
9)
Is Jones the holder of faster foot work? Yes. In his prime (only) Roy could float across - using oblique and brilliant angles - the face and side of opponents in ways that are probably neater and faster than Floyd.
10)
Is Jones the holder of better foot work? No - if we look at the careers over the entire period; as Frank clearly does when assessing Roy's punch resistance. Draw if you consider each guys' prime, as both - in similar and different ways - had excellent footwork in their primes. Floyd's footwork still almost without exception perfectly underpins all his strategy (the true objective of footwork); you can't say that about Roy Jones.
11)
Is Floyd the holder of better punch resistance? I am not even sure this claim Frank has made is true, particularly for their primes. Sure Jones has been KO'd a lot, and Floyd never has. But Floyd's superior defensive technique, and options have allowed him to rarely get hit cleanly multiple times in succession; unlike Roy. But then, Mosley seemed to rattle Floyd with a good shot too; when they fought. Jones, on the other hand, especially before the Balco scandal, at 160, and before he started regularly fighting tomato cans; took some decent shots from Toney, Hopkins and some other fighters. Sure Jones' punch resistance is shot now and (even considering the competition level differences) way less than Floyds. But if we chose a time when they were both in their peak punch resistance form, I am unsure how Frank or anyone could tell that Floyd's punch resistance was better than (or worse) than Jones'. Furthermore, if we're going to now compare Roy's punch resistance at the end of his career - as the lack detail about placing Roy behind Floyd in this category, and some above comments surely suggest - why can't we then compare other fighting attributes of both fighters in the latter parts of the careers, where it is - hands down - clear that Floyd is far better across a range of (overlooked) categories? Sure hate on Floyd all you like and subjectively rush for Jones' plums when you can. But why rig the experiment? As all that does is allow one to waltz around, whistling Dixie in Falsetto, and pretending they have backed a winner - only to disappear to the toilets when the real players go to collect their winnings.
12)
Is Jones the guy that has faced better available opposition, including those that have called him out? No. Floyd has been said to have not always fought the best opposition and I agree with that claim, as there are some guys - particularly when they were in their prime - that Floyd didn't or could not fight. Williams, Cotto, Margarito and others called Floyd out and for various reasons (including a short break from boxing) Floyd did not face them. That said when you look at the majority of Floyd's title defences and his other fights, his opponents are usually not less than (at most) one or two rating levels down from him. Sure Baldomir and other exceptions may exist, but there really are no unified title defences (or many other fights) against guys as far down as say Glen Kelly and Clinton Woods were, for Roy Jones. Also, we have to consider that - as shown in above posts - there was a swag of other champions and/or fighters at certain weights that Roy Jones never fought when he held titles in those same weights; yet - particularly in the latter stages of his career where it is much harder to do so and also where Roy has failed to even get any traction with/into a meaningful contention position pertaining to the major sanctions - we just can't say that same thing for Floyd as a welterweight. As Floyd - for last 8 years of his boxing career, and essentially the 2 or 3 years during which he has been a unified champion - has pretty much cleaned house, sanctions, and titles in that respect, and fought the best (or near that) welterweights available - all whilst remaining undefeated. Notwithstanding the above comments about Williams, Cotto, Margarito and others; Floyd also has a noticeably better record with both rematches, and also accepting challenges from other available fighters - and beating them. Roy's record in this respect is (as shown from how easy it is to jump on the bandwagon) - whilst deceptive - not the same in this respect. It is impossible to realistically think that as Roy Jones was a champion and telling everyone that he was the best, he somehow forgot about these other (below listed) champions/opponents that were all - in their own rights - making big noises; both with their wins/successes and (ignored) calls for a showdown with Jones. Dariusz Michalczewski. Michael Nunn. Sven Ottke. Julian Jackson. Nigel Benn. Chris Eubank. Frankie Liles. Gerald McClellan. Steve Collins. There is just no way - as history has shown - that Floyd would allow that many other champions/opponents to go untested. Happy to hear - with facts - how this view is wrong, and if so (and the argument is reasonable) I will change this category win from one for a win Floyd - over to a win for Roy.
13)
Is Jones the guy that has entertained us more on both, first impressions and results (regardless of how they were achieved)? As above promised; lucky number 13. I guess on the weight of evidence from the forum and the overall dislike for Floyd, I'd have to give this one to Roy Jones. So, "Yes". Roy takes number 13; even though Roy Jones has pulled less numbers, cash, and success from the sport than Floyd and his all time record numbers may be massaged into representing and/or constituting "entertainment". There's no denying, Roy Jones is probably a more popular athlete and boxer. Although I reckon (but can't prove), worldwide, that is outside of the USA, there would be legions more fans that would agree that Floyd has entertained us as much - if not both to a greater extent and for longer - than Roy; offsetting the dislike a lot of people have for Floyd and his sometimes defensive style.
In summary; we could go on with this (detailed and proper) comparison, but I think the point(s) are clear. Some people like to dislike and dismiss Floyd, but those same people may sometimes also be reserved to apply the same judgment, critique, and overall approach to others (including Roy Jones, Hopkins and Rigondeaux); which can lead to overlooking flaws of other fighters - sometimes to prop them up to be better than both, Floyd, and what the fighter of interest/choice may really be. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Furthermore, I am unsure about this too . . . .
Frank Lotierzo: ""
The difference is, Jones dominated Bernard Hopkins (a certifiable all-time great and Hall of Famer) when he was near his peak physically. Hopkins entered the fight with Jones 22-1, with the loss coming in his pro-debut. Hopkins won 22 bouts in a row before losing to Jones by a pronounced margin, and then went undefeated for 12 years 1993-2005 after he fought Jones"". Dear me. Perhaps, never before has "TBE" been used so loosely and without meaningful research. Was the article put together on a napkin that had accommodated too many spilt pints? Sorry Frank, but I am really not sure Hopkins fought Jones when he was at his prime. Hopkins - when he first fought Jones - may have been at an age where most men are in their physical prime. But Hopkins got a lot (and I mean a lot) better and craftier in his fights that came after Jones; possibly learning from that fight. Hopkins was in his fighting prime about 8 or 10 years after he first fought Roy Jones. Furthermore, the claim that infers Hopkins was otherwise smacks of fitting up a story with misinterpreted factoids, and then hoping the subjectivity of Roy Jones and his (un-scrutinized) best performances will do the rest. Sorry, I do generally like your work, but this piece leaves a bit to be desired; even though the fans have come rushing out. Some of us have been around a little longer, remember, have some real experience, and are not so quick be satiated; so I thought rather than rubbish the article I would re-write it for you - for free. See the
StormCentre is your friend. Sure, feel free to flick me a 50% cut of your fee for the piece if you like; it's up to you. Now, Hopkins - like Floyd - is another guy that has probably fought better opposition than Jones and (successfully) lasted longer than him due to - arguably - both, a better overall spread of fundamental boxing skills (capable of evolving), and also not a complete reliance upon speed and reflexes (as Roy Jones did); even though Bernard and/or Floyd may have not been as mesmerizing and sensationalized as Roy Jones was in his most quintessential prime. Hopkins (whilst not innocent of the practice) has also ducked less credible opponents and champions than Roy Jones; in my view. Hopkins - when much older - but physically, then, was, as a fighter, better - than when he first fought Roy Jones; beat both Tarver (whom destroyed the "other worldly" and unbeatable {forget the Montell Griffin fight in 1997 for now that Roy lost due to a disqualification} myth of Jones ), and Roy Jones. Hopkins - almost 14 years after that time when Roy Jones first fought Hopkins (in 1993) - beat Tarver in 2006. Yet - to bolster your piece and claims in relation to Roy Jones - you're claiming that Hopkins was near his physical boxing peak in 1993; when Bernard first fought Roy Jones. I suggest and think that a far better theory is that in 1993 Bernard Hopkins was nowhere near his physical boxing peak, and that that did not begin to occur for him until, at least, 2001; ~8 years later - when Bernard fought and stopped Felix Trinidad. However, I don't want to make a claim that recalibrations are in order without thinking about it, so let's do this properly and take a look at the Antonio Tarver that Hopkins beat in 2006. Stay with me, as there's a method to my madness. Prior to facing Hopkins in 2006 Tarver had;
A) Avenged a (points) loss to Eric Harding (that took place in 2000) by defeating him in 2002; via a KO in round 5. Tarver had 3 fights before this fight, all of which he won; 2 by KO. Prior to that came the loss to Harding I above refer to. So Tarver was pretty much on a good winning streak.
B) Beat Montell Griffin in 2003.
C) Lost a controversial decision to Jones in 2003.
D) Avenged the controversial decision to Jones (in 2003) by, in 2004, knocking Jones out in 2 rounds. Jones was still largely considered to be in his prime at this point and also those fights/before it.
E) Lost a split decision to Glen Johnson in 2004.
F) Avenged the earlier 2004 loss to Glen Johnson, in 2005.
G) Defeated Roy Jones (again) by unanimous decision, in 2006. So, if not in 2006 when Hopkins beat Tarver and - in some sense - then collected/avenged all those scalps I have above listed "A" to "G"; one could easily argue that before it - at, say around the point when Bernard stopped Felix Trinidad (2001) and in doing so unified his WBC and IBF middleweight titles with the WBA super middleweight title Trinidad lost; Bernard was then - not when he first fought Roy Jones - in his fighting prime. If not, then Bernard Hopkins' record suggests otherwise and aligns with what I am saying. Not in the least as from that point onward Bernard Hopkins successfully defended the aforementioned WBA, WBA, and IBF middleweight titles, in a uniformed manner, and no less than 8 times; along the way, collecting also the WBO middleweight title from Oscar DeLa Hoya in 2004, and also both putting up for grabs and successfully defending that title - along with also the aforementioned 3 other WBA, WBA, and IBF middleweight titles - within his last 3 unified title defences, in total involving no less than the; WBO, WBA, WBA, and IBF middleweight titles for these championship bouts. Furthermore, as further reason to reconsider whether Hopkins was at or near his physical boxing peak when he first met Roy Jones; prior to fighting Roy Jones for the first time (in 1993), the highest level Bernard had operated at was only at USBA level - a level Hopkins immediately revisited after fighting Jones (too soon). Now (just to be fair) Roy Jones himself - prior to fighting Hopkins for the first time (in 1993) - had, at the highest professional level, at that stage, really only contested a WBC continental title (whatever that is); but even considering this, the comment in question and need of possible recalibration has no direct and/or explicit association with Roy Jones' physical boxing peak - as it was in relation to Bernard Hopkins, whom arguably peaked as a fighter almost 10 years after he fought Jones. Additionally, by the time Jones initially faced Hopkins, Roy already possessed a wide range of international amateur experience - experience that Hopkins just did not have; due to incarceration and other factors. So, Roy was - as the fight itself shows - quite an advanced fighter for Hopkins to fight in 1993; even aside from the fact that Bernard had not physically peaked as a fighter by then. Facts, facts and more facts; their absence makes rewriting history easy - as many nations have shown us. If this is not ""enough said"" to shine light on when Bernard's real fighting prime was (because it certainly was not when he first faced Roy Jones), then we can look further ahead, out, to 2008; just after Hopkins lost to Joe Calzaghe - whom probably has a better claim to being a "TBE" than Jones, despite how Joes' style was not as mesmerizing and/or pleasing to the eye, as Roy's was. At that stage not only had Bernard physically peaked as a fighter and really knew his craft - but Kelly Pavlik was also the next big thing that Top Rank and HBO had. Prior to meeting Hopkins; Pavlik had impressed greatly by beating Jermain Taylor (whom himself in 2005 controversially {according to some} had ended Bernard's legendary undisputed middleweight run that took place
almost 13 years after when Jones first fought Hopkins) twice. Pavlik defeated Jermain Taylor the first time in 2007, by a serious KO in round 7. And, the second time Pavlik defeated Jermain Taylor was in 2008, this time by decision over 12 rounds. On both occasions Pavlik beat Taylor the WBC and WBO middleweight titles were for up for grabs - the same titles Taylor took from Hopkins a few years earlier. So, not too many held hope for Hopkins - whom was said to be too old - when he attempted to fight and beat Pavlik, and reclaim his WBC and WBO middleweight titles (that he believed he didn't legitimately lose to Taylor in 2005). Sometimes people - and this is the kicker here when comparing boxing skills and attributes - simply didn't understand that (not just individual aspects of it like hand-speed, footwork, and punching strength, but also) the actual boxing style itself that a fighter may possess and develop is in itself an (often overlooked) attribute, and therefore it's a consideration/category for comparison; particularly when discussing matters of either, such as when fighters are in their physical fighting peak - or even, if one fighter is more successful and/or better than the other. Hopkins - like Floyd - has and had a better and more evolved boxing style than Roy Jones. One - if not "the" - essential quality of man, life, and even boxing, is the ability to adapt and evolve. In boxing you must be able to adapt/evolve - not just in competition - but also across it. It's an often overlooked consideration in boxing and fighter comparisons. And, the ability to adapt and evolve in boxing and as a fighter is both essential and critical for many other reasons, including longevity. And, if the ability to adapt and evolve in boxing and as a fighter is both essential and critical for many other reasons, including longevity; then it's significantly important to a fighter's ability to ensure he remains both unbeaten and never knocked out. Not in the least as if you have never been knockout there is also good reason to think your positivity and learning curves stay on the correct trajectory to ensure you are as successful - in this sometimes dangerous but brilliant sport - as you can be. Therefore Bernard Hopkins - when he fought Kelly Pavlik (and probably also Felix Trinidad) - but not when he fought Roy Jones (as Hopkins was not at his peak physical fighting peak then) - knew precisely what parts of his well adapted boxing arsenal to push into the shadows and what components to let the lights shine on; in order to diffuse HBO's next great unified middleweight fighter - Kelly Pavlik. Hopkins - like Floyd and unlike Roy Jones - also, by then, knew how to juggle with his adaptive set of skills when faced with other/different fighters too. Like a Rubic cube guys with adaptive and complete fighting styles like Bernard, Toney, and Floyd can (metaphorically) turn a few dials and click a few squares here and there, and "hey presto" before you know they can present as the worst opponent you can find for the guy in front of them; without increasing their own risks beyond what might otherwise be the case. Lots of people - particularly those that are quick to jump to and agree with conclusions and subjective claims - don't completely understand how these styles and skills really operate and work. Old timer boxing Sages do. Hopkins' initial trainer did. As does Floyd Sr. and Roger. As did Toney's initial coach and Steward. This - and its beautiful accommodation of a complete and active (USA slip/slide style) defence - is why Hopkins, Mayweather, and Toney can - within reason - adapt to almost any guy. Hopkins - as he predicted - flogged, embarrassed, and destroyed Pavlik. Kelly's career was never the same. This all happened (contrary to Frank's overtones) when Bernard Hopkins was in his prime, or, if not, then perhaps only a few years removed from it; as Hopkins was not at all embarrassed against Jermain Taylor when he - ~3 years earlier to facing Pavlik - lost those fights. Still, arguably, you could say that Hopkins' best (pjysical fighting prime?) years were yet to come. So, let's look at the proof associated with that claim shall we? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whoops, hold on . . . with the above breakdown of Hopkins, his opponents, and how it all relates to when his physical boxing prime was, I actually missed the important fact that prior to Joe Calzaghe (in 2008) - whom actually preceded Hopkins' fight with Pavlik - Bernard, in 2007, also defeated Winky Wright too. Wright had - prior to Hopkins - collected some very good scalps and never been soundly beaten. Winky had actually - prior to meeting Bernard - been undefeated for approximately 8 years. It is not until you go back in Wright's career, back to 1999, before you see his pre-Hopkins loss (in a close fight) to Fernando Vargas; in a fight where Vargas gave an excellent display on how to, and what punches/combinations to throw in order to, fight/beat a lefty. OK, I didn't want to miss Wright out, as he's not only a very good boxer - but also yet another example of how Hopkins' physical fighting peak didn't occur until much later than when Bernard first fought Roy Jones. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alright, back to the point where Bernard had destroyed Kelly Pavlik, and in some sense indirectly avenged his losses to Jermain Taylor, by; A) Beating the man that knocked out Taylor. B) Successfully reclaiming back his WBC and WBO middleweight titles. After beating Pavlik in 2008, Hopkins then went onto;
A) (Just after defeating Enrique Ornelas over 12 rounds in 2009) defeat
Roy Jones in 2010. At that point Jones had, only 4 months earlier - in his previous fight in Australia - been knocked out by Danny Green in 1 round.
B) Fight a draw with a very tough and durable
Jean Pascal (26-1-0 going in) in 2010; in contest for both the IBO and WBC light heavyweight titles. Pascal only had 1 loss going in to this fight with Hopkins, and if my memory serves me correctly that was a 12 round decision loss in 2008 courtesy of Carl Froch.
C) Avenge the draw and defeat
Jean Pascal in 2011; in doing so earn the above-mentioned light heavyweight titles.
D) 2011 still; Fight
Chad Dawson (30-1-0 going in) to a no contest and in doing so Bernard retained the WBC light heavyweight title. Chad was, at the time, a highly reputed and young light heavyweight fighter Dawson only had 1 loss going in to this fight with Hopkins, and I think that was a 12 round decision loss in 2010 courtesy of Jean Pascal; whom Bernard himself went on to beat in 2011 - after Pascal actually beat Dawson. Dawson, after his loss to Pascal 2010, had one more fight (Adrian Diaconu) before finally meeting Hopkins for the first time in 2011; in their no contest ending bout.
E) 2012; lose the above-mentioned WBC light heavyweight title to
Chad Dawson.
F) Bounce straight back (after the Chad Dawson loss) and defeat - the previously undefeated -
Tavoris Cloud (24-0-0 going in) for the IBF light heavyweight title, in 2013.
G) Successfully defend (after Tavoris Cloud) the aforementioned IBF light heavyweight title, against
Karo Murat (25-1-1 going in) in 2013. Murat only had 1 loss going in to his fight with Hopkins, courtesy of a TKO loss (in 2010) via Nathan Cleverly. After losing to Nathan Cleverly in 2010; Karo still went on and had 4 more fights, where he didn't lose, before meeting Hopkins.
H)
Beibut Shumenov (14-1-0 going in) was, after Karo Murat, defeated by Hopkins next, over 12 rounds in 2014. In defeating Shumenov Hopkins snatched his IBA and WBA light heavyweight titles and then added them to his own IBF light heavyweight title. Shumenov only had 1 loss going in to his fight with Hopkins, and that was a 12 round decision loss in 2009 courtesy of Gabriel Campillo in Kazakhstan. With his win over Beibut Shumenov, Hopkins was, now - again - a unified title holder - this time, again, as a light heavyweight. Just as he was (previously also) a unified title holder in 2010 - 2011; as a light heavyweight. And, just as he was a unified title holder earlier than that, from 2001 - 2005; as a middleweight - a unified title reign that - just as it commenced approximately 8 years "after" Bernard's first fight with Roy Jones - serves as notice to both;
H1) How Bernard's first fight with Roy Jones does not represent Bernard Hopkins' fighting prime.
H2) How Bernard Hopkins' fighting prime commenced approximately 8 years after Bernard's first fight with Roy Jones; at about - or possibly just before (Antwun Echols?) - the Felix Trinidad mark - where Hopkins commenced his first reign as a unified title holder in the middleweight division .
I)
Sergey Kovalev, undefeated (25-0-0 going in) fought and beat Hopkins next. The fight was over 12 rounds in 2014. In defeating Hopkins, Kovalev snatched Bernard's WBA and IBF light heavyweight titles and added them to his already existing WBO light heavyweight title. Whilst there were some indicators shown in the Calzaghe, Dawson, and perhaps some other fights Hopkins partook in over the last 10 years; his fight with the heavy handed Sergey Kovalev probably marked the fist significant signs of Bernard's decline. So . . what does it all mean? I am not saying that (the first fight with) Hopkins was a "gimme" fight for Roy. But - contrary to what the author appears to claim and state as a means to bolster Roy Jones' achievements and also Jones' claimed (and questionable) place both amongst "TBEs" and before Floyd in terms of skills - Hopkins best years were, really, still to come at that point in 1993. Fast forward approximately 8 (or 14) years, and you will find the point(s) at which Bernard Hopkins could be said to have physically peaked as a fighter. Frank, if the funds transfer doesn't work for you; I like my (aromatic) coffee as a cappuccino, well sugar(Ray Robinson or Leonard)ed, and I am also partial to crumbed veal with a side serve of Cabonara and fries. Finally, OldSchool, yes I agree with you. Holyfield would have probably destroyed Roy Jones if they fought. I suspect this is - along with several others - one reason why Jones opted to fight Ruiz instead of Evander; that is, if Evander was campaigning at a weight that was relevant when Jones opted to fight Ruiz. OK Roy Jones fans please don't be up in arms and hate on me, because; A) I didn't suggest the Jones V Mayweather comparison or make claims with respect to it. B) I didn't claim Hopkins was in his prime when he first fought Jones. C) I really do love Jones' craft; it's just that a lot of fighters accomplishments are not as good as they seem when the facts - rather than subjectivity and feelings - are used as a the guiding light. D) A case can be made for Floyd being better than Roy; personally, I don't really care who is better between Floyd and Roy. But, if I am going to tell you one thing, it's that I am pretty sure that - from the above - it's clear that both, Floyd is and that the article's assumptions and oversights are the main reason the alternative view was arrived at. E) I am not a professional boxing writer. I am not associated with any writer's association. All I do is think about what I am told and read, and then consider objectively (without emotion) what the facts are, before jumping about with excitement and typing a reply/post. Aside from that I am all over the place like bad weather, a Meth freak at night and seeking counseling for it; although that is not going too well. Put simply, I guess all I am is a
StormCentre. But, at least, I am - within reason - both the TSS's and your
StormCentre. Because I love boxing; this is the only home I have. So please make me and my infinitely variable and unpredictable weather system feel welcome, even if what I write isn't always aligned with what you might say, think, defend, and believe. The
StormCentre is always - no matter where on the Earth's rotational scope and/or axis you may exist upon and reside - open to change his views and what direction they blow in; provided yours are reasonable, substantiated, written, and fair. So, peace out Roy lovers and Floyd haters; in some ways we're all the same clan.
StormCentre. :) :)


-stormcentre :

stormcentre, I agree about Toney's greatness but he has carried too much weight to be a factor in the heavy weight division. I think Evander, in his prime, would have beaten Roy Jones at his best.
Hey OS. Your "OldSchool" moniker is exactly as Toney fought; old school. When was the last time we saw James . . clinch, hug, play for a break and points deductions, and/or complain about head butts and low blows? Never. He just gets on with it. I must admit I am probably a little biased towards Toney though, as years ago when I was younger I met him at a USA international amateur contest I was in (he was a Pro fighter, spectating) - plus, later in life, he also he came to one of my fights in Cali years after that; where I again met and talked to him. His no nonsense, deep, gangsta, and "keep it real" attitude kind of had an effect on me, and he became one of my favorite fighters. Amongst a world of complicated advice about how to win, James dropped this gem on me; ""just work that body hard, then tax the head to the max, and that bytch will fall and bleed"". Poetic pugilism at it's finest. The advice was, basically, just go in there hard, get to work on the body/head, and show no respect. I had always loved Toney's fighting style and longed to acquire some of its attributes. As I knew - just by trying to emulate them in the gym, let alone in a fight - how difficult they were to perfect to the level he had them at. They were all so different to the Eastern Bloc and European boxing styles I had originally learned. But I knew - from how good Toney's style was at achieving (if not bettering {eg; slipping incoming punches, getting into position, and then safely combination punching off of cute angles}) some of the same objectives to that of the styles I had learned - that some of the really ingrained principles I had picked up on as an amateur could probably be complemented and/or improved upon by either adopting some aspects of James' slip/slide moves - or by completely supplanting them into my routine. The problem was, at the time, that was going to be hard. Because when you're always in competition and used to doing various things under (undefined levels of) pressure - even if you see a better way - it's sometimes more risky to implement it under competition pressure. In the very least, slowly learning (some of) those techniques Toney used and integrating them into competition showed me just how good they and Toney were. So, that's a part of the reason I hold Toney as one of the better fighters of this era; despite the losses. However, then when you add all that up with some of the commentary that Emmanuel Steward has furnished us with about James (in the, Jirov, Nunn, and possibly McCullum fights) where Steward . . . not only talks about James' (even from a young age) fearless and brilliant sparring wars in the old Kronk gym (against top fighters) that Steward used to train fighters at - but also how - on many levels and dimensions - accomplished and deep Toney is; you start to really understand how good Toney guy is. I remember Manny Steward - when commenting during one of James' above-mentioned fights (possibly the Nunn and/or Jirov fight) - saying words to the effect that . . . James was a completely different fighter to anyone he had ever seen . . .he continued with words to the effect of . .
Emmanuel Steward: ""James' is the kind of guy that, no matter what, you can never count him out. He can punch with you, counterpunch, box, slip and slide. He rarely gets caught with a decent shot because he slips or rolls them, and he can fight exhausted and still find a way to win. Unlike most guys that have finished their workout and are tired, Toney will still spar if asked. A few time guys in my gym - good guys - have called James out for a spar as James was all showered and ready to leave, and James would just nod, unzip his bag, get the gloves out, and not only spar - but really lay down some moves. He is the deepest "(as in meanest and toughest) "guy I have ever seen in my gym, and he regularly as a youngster used to come to the gym and want to spar top guys like Hearns and Gerald "(I may have the names wrong but the names mentioned were top guys; I know that). "James' always wanted to spar more than the other guys, and he rarely got beat up and pushed around. I just don't know of any other fighter that is prepared to both put down and tolerate what Toney, in a fight, can"". Now, if ever there was a reason to say ""nuff said for me""; those words from Steward are it. Toney fights anyone, anywhere, anytime; almost regardless of whether he himself is ready or not. And rarely does James' Philly Crab and/or his other integrated defensive/fighting styles allow him to get really busted up; even if he loses. Gotta give credit where it is due though, as Roy Jones did look good beating James in 1994, as he also showed a way (if you're fast enough) to deal with James' style. Roy's fighting style though - particularly as a professional - was very fundamentally unsound. Jones was not the first fighter to make the risky game of pugilistic unorthodoxy work for him though. But he may just be one of its more spectacular proponents. When Roy Jones was on fire, he blazed with a unique, exceptional, and sensational intensity. But like any great movie that moves you, behind it all and also behind all the promotion, sensation, and glitter that accompanies it and wows audiences, there is usually a document set consisting of (at least) a script and investment/project plan that - whilst not always easy and comfortable reading - once understood, often lays out the inner mechanics and forces that are really at work. Sometimes the document set's true meaning is as pretty as the play - other times it's not. Other times its somewhere in between. Nevertheless the elusiveness of the document set's true meaning (and the truth) often has upsides; such as how it both assists marketing of the fight whilst also removing the possible onset of early promoter's fatigue. Jones, as an amateur was successful and achieved the highest level; only to be robbed at the Olympics. The robbery motivated him in his professional career. Aside from the skills Roy acquired as an amateur and from his father; mostly though, it was Jones' superior reflexes, coordination, and speed (and perhaps a few other things that have also assisted Pacquaio) that allowed Roy Jones - as a professional fighter - to "magically" blaze through opponents with his unique, exceptional, and sensational intensity. That and some clever management and matchmaking. Still, Roy entertained us - there's no doubt about that. But, behind it all was the clever use of an unorthodox style married (for a while) to superior reflexes, coordination, and speed; which - for the most part - effected how other opponents could react, plan and compete, by (Roy) presenting a much different, more complex, and enigmatic picture to his opponents. More than they had certainly seen in their gyms and most other opponents anyway. This is one reason why, during the decline of Jones' physical attributes and fighting determination he has become noticeably more vulnerable than, say, a guy like Floyd; whom - instead; A) Has not only a complex and multi-dimensional fighting style (down pat) that has its roots securely planted in the same (or a similar USA technician and slip/slide) style Toney used. B) But also - unlike Roy Jones - has evolved and perfected that style as he has aged and physically declined; to offset weakness that creep in with age. (Please note the above comments could also apply to Hopkins, and also Toney too). Whilst we're talking/looking at Roy Jones, Floyd Mayweather, and Bernard Hopkins; in addition - and contrary to the claims Frank (the author of this thread) has made . . . .
Frank Lotierzo: ""From a physical skill-set, Jones was faster than Mayweather, had a better offensive repertoire, punched harder with both hands, was a better body puncher and finisher, and yes, because of his foot speed and foot-work, he was harder to hit. In fact the only category where Mayweather gets the check in his column is in the punch resistance column"". That assert Floyd's only superiority to Jones is . . punch resistance. A good question may be; what about defence and fundamental boxing skills? Are we really sure that Roy Jones has a better defence and better fundamental boxing skills than Floyd and/or Bernard? A physical skillset - whether we like it or not - in boxing goes far beyond the unique, exceptional, and sensational intensity of some of the performances that Roy delivered; regardless of whether they were against subpar opposition, or opposition that were not in their *prime - more on *that later. So, back to defence and fundamental boxing skills, and Frank's claim that Floyd's only superiority to Jones is punch resistance.
Defence and fundamental boxing style/skills; they are (like both the KO and other losses on Roy's record, and also those Roy didn't fight) the big fat white elephant in the room; which metaphorically mark out a completely deeper and contrasting line in the sands of boxing ("TBE" or not) - even when the tide has both risen and recessed over a few cycles - particularly when drawing comparisons to Floyd, and (as far as KO losses and not ducking anyone is concerned) perhaps, also Toney. Furthermore, (as claims of how Floyd {and Lara [but not Rigondeaux]} runs when he defensively uses his legs attest) Roy's foot speed is not necessarily the same as an active defence, either. :) Although, I concede, it can be used defensively. Roy, once his speed had deteriorated in similar quantities to how Floyd's is said to have during the transition from Pretty Boy to Money May, has shown he virtually has no active defence and/or means to compete at the top level; in order to assist him with the evolution of a boxing style that can successfully carry him into his - most dangerous and risky - veteran years. One need only look at the light year wide hole in the fabric of boxings' spacetime that exists between Floyd's competition and that whom Roy fights (see above posts for the facts); at the tail end of both of their careers - itself a - like many above substantiated and made - point(s) that must be overlooked to consider Roy Jones ahead of Floyd or Hopkins in almost any stakes. Whether they be "TBE" or not. Furthermore, with respect to Frank's claims that . . .
Frank Lotierzo: ""From a physical skill-set, Jones was faster than Mayweather, had a better offensive repertoire, punched harder with both hands, was a better body puncher and finisher, and yes, because of his foot speed and foot-work, he was harder to hit.
In fact the only category where Mayweather gets the check in his column is in the punch resistance column"". Floyd's timing - even if it is not better than, but instead (let's just be nice and say) "equal" to Roy's in his peak - is also way, way, beyond Roy's in terms of longevity (and this matters not just for considerations of defence and fundamentally superior boxing style/skills - but also for reasons later discussed/proven) in the game. Over the long run, as we can see, there is no comparison between the two; in these categories. As Floyd still - unlike Roy - has sublime timing; which - even at 38 - is probably still the best in the business. Yes I know we were all amazed at Roy's ability to punch from behind the back and knock out Glen Kelly, and how he magically used his above-mentioned advantages over other guys and impressed us all more than Floyd and others, but we will get to that later and even, possibly, set a single category for it; "ability to entertain on both, first impressions and results (regardless of how they were achieved). Back to looking at the author's claim that; ""in fact the only category where Mayweather gets the check in his column is in the punch resistance column"." Same (as above comments for timing) for Floyd's counterpunching ability; it's miles better than Roy's now, and has been for years, and probably was - if not better than, then - at least equal to Jones' even when both fighters where in their primes. Same for Floyd's stamina. This category is almost one of the most fundamental aspects of a championship fighter that Frank seems to also have overlooked when comparing Roy and Floyd. Jones is, now, lazy compared to Floyd in this respect; which (aside from an inferior defence and fighting style capable of evolving) is another reason why Jones suffered serious losses both in his prime (Glen Johnson and Antonio Tarver) and also after it. Furthermore, Jones rarely displayed the 12 round high intensity stamina in his early years that Floyd did in his prime, and if Jones did, then it was for a far less duration of prime-time. In fact if one goes back to Floyd's "Pretty Boy" fights (as I have recently for the Whitaker V Mayweather comparison thread) you can easily see that - even aside from the fact that Mayweather has displayed and retained these high level skills for a far longer bandwidth in time than Roy Jones; against not less than the, but probably a better, level of opposition Jones faced - in some of Floyd's Pretty Boy fights his dynamic abilities, speed, counterpunching, and especially his timing, where easily as good as Roy's. Take a look at the Burten/Augustus, Ndou, Chavez, Castillo, Corrales and some of Floyd's earlier fights before you throw your hands up in the air. Add to it all Roy paid very little attention to defence when he would release his blistering combinations that wooed us all; mostly because he had superior speed and skills to his opposition - which is another reason why Roy lost dramatically both, when he finally stepped it up in his prime, and also in his veteran/current years. You can't always teach an old dog new (defence) tricks, and Jones and his style was not prepared to evolve; confirming an inferior fighting technique to that adopted by Floyd, Bernard, and even Toney. Fundamentally Roy did many things wrong. But, he cleverly made it work for him, and got away with it, due to lightening fast reflexes, that (like Shane Mosely and some other fighters' other worldly speed/skills) quickly deteriorated around the same time the Balco scandal hit town. However, let's leave Balco out of it for now, and what you have left is that the remainder of those above 23 or so sentences/paragraphs are still why not only both Glen Johnson and also Antonio Tarver were so confident - but why almost everyone was shocked to see Glen Johnson and also Antonio Tarver knockout Roy Jones when he was considered to be in his prime and a cut above such opponents. You see, both Glen Johnson and also Antonio Tarver knew what Roy had been, doing, and fighting; and why.

So, the moral of the story here is that which has been overlooked (White Elephant) not just when ignoring how some of Roy's best achievements were scripted and/or stating Roy Jones has a better stake to a "TBE" trophy than Floyd - but also that information skipped across when claiming Floyd only betters Roy in punch resistance; is that Floyd actually - if you look at it subjectively and forget how we all drooled when Roy blew out some guys - has several superior traits to Jones. Not in the least his entire fundamental boxing style is superior for the above reasons, including the fact that it has stood up against "the most sternest of tests boxing can throw at a fighter"; the test of (father) time, remaining unbeaten, and continually good - if not great - competition. Any look at both guy's records shows that Jones has not continuously fought better opposition than Floyd; but lets just say they're equal. Remember I didn't draw the comparison between Floyd and Jones; Frank did that. Jones' exciting approach and style has - unlike Floyd's that is rooted in the correct techniques - (and not just when Roy was considered over the hill either) quickly dissipated with age and other factors; as we have seen. This is true even if we disregard all the anomalies and overlooked considerations (of which there are many) related to whom Jones didn't fight I am not (in depth) going near Frank's implicit claim that Roy was faster than Pretty Boy and/or Money May? Both were blindingly fast in their prime, Floyd still can be, Roy is not, and Floyd's prime lasted longer; Floyd (easily) takes it on that meritorious assessment that was not undertaken when the claim that Floyd only betters Roy in punch resistance was made. All I will further add to the hand-speed comparison is to say; take a look at all Floyd's fights first and then judge for yourself. Even aside from the actual hand-speed demonstration and overall performances Floyd gives; in many of his fights - particularly those as Pretty Boy" - you can actually hear commentary from professional HBO and Showtime commentators (some even include commentary from Roy Jones himself) that have also worked on Roy's fights, discussing how Mayweather's skills and speed is up there with, if not the, best they have seen. So, in summary, some of Floyd's Pretty Boy fights display pretty good hand speed; a point seemingly overlooked in the Frank Lotierzo Floyd V Jones comparo. I say that as, interestingly (despite Floyd's speed being one of his more obvious superior traits) - and as with the other points mentioned above - Frank appears to make no comment on this, as he claims punch resistance is the only area where Floyd betters Jones. Such approaches though - where facts are overlooked - are not uncommon with subjective opinions and discussions related to Floyd Mayweather and Roy Jones. And that's OK too. Well . . . it's OK . . . so long as we don't pretend subjective opinion is fact (Glen Kelly V Roy Jones for 6 belts; whilst a swag of other more suitable and dangerous opponents
did actually exist {see my above posts}) only to then get upset, loud, possibly bullying, and defensive, when we finally put subjective opinion to work in the real world and a boxing ring, and find out it is really just the soft opposition to the facts and truth; Glen Johnson/Antonio Tarver V Roy Jones for 5 belts; whilst a swag of other more suitable and dangerous opponents
did not exist in the same quantities) These are the facts ladies and gentlemen, the writing is on the wall and in the record books, and both guys performances and longevity is there for all to see, check, accept, or deny. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My take on it all (and I love Roy Jones, as a fighter and especially his commentary these days);
1)
Is Jones a better finisher? Yes - but usually against comparably lesser opposition.
2)
Is Jones a harder puncher? Yes - his KO ratio (~64% { to Floyd's ~54%}) certainly suggests it is. But then this is without considering whom each guy fought, and from above posts we can clearly see that all is not as it seems there for Roy and any (un-scrutinized) and/or purely subjective assessment (as most are) of his and perhaps also Floyd's fighting reputation.
3)
Is Jones a bigger risk taker? Debatable - his opposition suggests there is need of more research than Frank and others have provided and/or engaged in.
4)
Is Jones a better counterpuncher? No. There is no evidence to suggest he is; particularly when - but even without - considering opposition. Roy has not displayed the same repertoire of clever and fast counterpunching against the same level of competition, and for as long as Floyd has.
5)
Is Jones a better athlete in terms of preparation and stamina? No. See above and below comments. Sure Roy was dynamic, fast, and mesmerizing; but so was Floyd - and for longer and arguably against better opposition.
6)
Is Jones the holder of a fundamentally better and more effective/successful boxing style? No. See above and below comments.
7)
Is Jones the holder of a better boxing-defence system? No, or (at best) it's equal to Floyds. There is much, much, more to defence than . . .
Frank Lotierzo: ""From a physical skill-set, Jones was faster than Mayweather, had a better offensive repertoire, punched harder with both hands, was a better body puncher and finisher,
and yes, because of his foot speed and foot-work, he was harder to hit. Foot speed and foot work. If not one of Floyd's, then view one of Toney's fights, to prove and see this. This is one of the main reasons why Roy Jones is not unbeaten, has been KO'd numerous times, and has not aged extremely well in the sport; unlike Floyd.
8) (Just to look at one or a few aspects of defence);
is Jones the holder of fundamentally better head movement and integrated defensive/offensive coordination moves? No. They must be (provided you ignore the longevity gap between the two; because if you don't Floyd wins easily) at least equal; if not the (more likely) answer is "No".
9)
Is Jones the holder of faster foot work? Yes. In his prime (only) Roy could float across - using oblique and brilliant angles - the face and side of opponents in ways that are probably neater and faster than Floyd.
10)
Is Jones the holder of better foot work? No - if we look at the careers over the entire period; as Frank clearly does when assessing Roy's punch resistance. Draw if you consider each guys' prime, as both - in similar and different ways - had excellent footwork in their primes. Floyd's footwork still almost without exception perfectly underpins all his strategy (the true objective of footwork); you can't say that about Roy Jones.
11)
Is Floyd the holder of better punch resistance? I am not even sure this claim Frank has made is true, particularly for their primes. Sure Jones has been KO'd a lot, and Floyd never has. But Floyd's superior defensive technique, and options have allowed him to rarely get hit cleanly multiple times in succession; unlike Roy. But then, Mosley seemed to rattle Floyd with a good shot too; when they fought. Jones, on the other hand, especially before the Balco scandal, at 160, and before he started regularly fighting tomato cans; took some decent shots from Toney, Hopkins and some other fighters. Sure Jones' punch resistance is shot now and (even considering the competition level differences) way less than Floyds. But if we chose a time when they were both in their peak punch resistance form, I am unsure how Frank or anyone could tell that Floyd's punch resistance was better than (or worse) than Jones'. Furthermore, if we're going to now compare Roy's punch resistance at the end of his career - as the lack detail about placing Roy behind Floyd in this category, and some above comments surely suggest - why can't we then compare other fighting attributes of both fighters in the latter parts of the careers, where it is - hands down - clear that Floyd is far better across a range of (overlooked) categories? Sure hate on Floyd all you like and subjectively rush for Jones' plums when you can. But why rig the experiment? As all that does is allow one to waltz around, whistling Dixie in Falsetto, and pretending they have backed a winner - only to disappear to the toilets when the real players go to collect their winnings.
12)
Is Jones the guy that has faced better available opposition, including those that have called him out? No. Floyd has been said to have not always fought the best opposition and I agree with that claim, as there are some guys - particularly when they were in their prime - that Floyd didn't or could not fight. Williams, Cotto, Margarito and others called Floyd out and for various reasons (including a short break from boxing) Floyd did not face them. That said when you look at the majority of Floyd's title defences and his other fights, his opponents are usually not less than (at most) one or two rating levels down from him. Sure Baldomir and other exceptions may exist, but there really are no unified title defences (or many other fights) against guys as far down as say Glen Kelly and Clinton Woods were, for Roy Jones. Also, we have to consider that - as shown in above posts - there was a swag of other champions and/or fighters at certain weights that Roy Jones never fought when he held titles in those same weights; yet - particularly in the latter stages of his career where it is much harder to do so and also where Roy has failed to even get any traction with/into a meaningful contention position pertaining to the major sanctions - we just can't say that same thing for Floyd as a welterweight. As Floyd - for last 8 years of his boxing career, and essentially the 2 or 3 years during which he has been a unified champion - has pretty much cleaned house, sanctions, and titles in that respect, and fought the best (or near that) welterweights available - all whilst remaining undefeated. Notwithstanding the above comments about Williams, Cotto, Margarito and others; Floyd also has a noticeably better record with both rematches, and also accepting challenges from other available fighters - and beating them. Roy's record in this respect is (as shown from how easy it is to jump on the bandwagon) - whilst deceptive - not the same in this respect. It is impossible to realistically think that as Roy Jones was a champion and telling everyone that he was the best, he somehow forgot about these other (below listed) champions/opponents that were all - in their own rights - making big noises; both with their wins/successes and (ignored) calls for a showdown with Jones. Dariusz Michalczewski. Michael Nunn. Sven Ottke. Julian Jackson. Nigel Benn. Chris Eubank. Frankie Liles. Gerald McClellan. Steve Collins. There is just no way - as history has shown - that Floyd would allow that many other champions/opponents to go untested. Happy to hear - with facts - how this view is wrong, and if so (and the argument is reasonable) I will change this category win from one for a win Floyd - over to a win for Roy.
13)
Is Jones the guy that has entertained us more on both, first impressions and results (regardless of how they were achieved)? As above promised; lucky number 13. I guess on the weight of evidence from the forum and the overall dislike for Floyd, I'd have to give this one to Roy Jones. So, "Yes". Roy takes number 13; even though Roy Jones has pulled less numbers, cash, and success from the sport than Floyd and his all time record numbers may be massaged into representing and/or constituting "entertainment". There's no denying, Roy Jones is probably a more popular athlete and boxer. Although I reckon (but can't prove), worldwide, that is outside of the USA, there would be legions more fans that would agree that Floyd has entertained us as much - if not both to a greater extent and for longer - than Roy; offsetting the dislike a lot of people have for Floyd and his sometimes defensive style.
In summary; we could go on with this (detailed and proper) comparison, but I think the point(s) are clear. Some people like to dislike and dismiss Floyd, but those same people may sometimes also be reserved to apply the same judgment, critique, and overall approach to others (including Roy Jones, Hopkins and Rigondeaux); which can lead to overlooking flaws of other fighters - sometimes to prop them up to be better than both, Floyd, and what the fighter of interest/choice may really be. Optical Illusions; damn right - Jones is as good as it gets. Except, upon inspection the facts - the same ones that, when revealed, still drive some to prefer untruths over the truth - often speak otherwise. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Furthermore, I am unsure about this too . . . .
Frank Lotierzo: ""
The difference is, Jones dominated Bernard Hopkins (a certifiable all-time great and Hall of Famer) when he was near his peak physically. Hopkins entered the fight with Jones 22-1, with the loss coming in his pro-debut. Hopkins won 22 bouts in a row before losing to Jones by a pronounced margin, and then went undefeated for 12 years 1993-2005 after he fought Jones"". Dear me. Perhaps, never before has "TBE" been used so loosely and without meaningful research. Was the article put together on a napkin that had accommodated too many spilt pints? Sorry Frank, but I am really not sure Hopkins fought Jones when he was at his prime. Hopkins - when he first fought Jones - may have been at an age where most men are in their physical prime. But Hopkins got a lot (and I mean a lot) better and craftier in his fights that came after Jones; possibly learning from that fight. Hopkins was in his fighting prime about 8 or 10 years after he first fought Roy Jones. Furthermore, the claim that infers Hopkins was otherwise smacks of fitting up a story with misinterpreted factoids, and then hoping the subjectivity of Roy Jones and his (un-scrutinized) best performances will do the rest. Sorry, I do generally like your work, but this piece leaves a bit to be desired; even though the fans have come rushing out. Some of us have been around a little longer, remember, have some real experience, and are not so quick be satiated; so I thought rather than rubbish the article I would re-write it for you - for free. See the
StormCentre is your friend. Sure, feel free to flick me a 50% cut of your fee for the piece if you like; it's up to you. Now, Hopkins - like Floyd - is another guy that has probably fought better opposition than Jones and (successfully) lasted longer than him due to - arguably - both, a better overall spread of fundamental boxing skills (capable of evolving), and also not a complete reliance upon speed and reflexes (as Roy Jones did); even though Bernard and/or Floyd may have not been as mesmerizing and sensationalized as Roy Jones was in his most quintessential prime. Hopkins (whilst not innocent of the practice) has also ducked less credible opponents and champions than Roy Jones; in my view. Hopkins - when much older - but physically, then, was, as a fighter, better - than when he first fought Roy Jones; beat both Tarver (whom destroyed the "other worldly" and unbeatable {forget the Montell Griffin fight in 1997 for now that Roy lost due to a disqualification} myth of Jones ), and Roy Jones. Hopkins - almost 14 years after that time when Roy Jones first fought Hopkins (in 1993) - beat Tarver in 2006. Yet - to bolster your piece and claims in relation to Roy Jones - you're claiming that Hopkins was near his physical boxing peak in 1993; when Bernard first fought Roy Jones. I suggest and think that a far better theory is that in 1993 Bernard Hopkins was nowhere near his physical boxing peak, and that that did not begin to occur for him until, at least, 2001; ~8 years later - when Bernard fought and stopped Felix Trinidad. However, I don't want to make a claim that recalibrations are in order without thinking about it, so let's do this properly and take a look at the Antonio Tarver that Hopkins beat in 2006. Stay with me, as there's a method to my madness. Prior to facing Hopkins in 2006 Tarver had;
A) Avenged a (points) loss to Eric Harding (that took place in 2000) by defeating him in 2002; via a KO in round 5. Tarver had 3 fights before this fight, all of which he won; 2 by KO. Prior to that came the loss to Harding I above refer to. So Tarver was pretty much on a good winning streak.
B) Beat Montell Griffin in 2003.
C) Lost a controversial decision to Jones in 2003.
D) Avenged the controversial decision to Jones (in 2003) by, in 2004, knocking Jones out in 2 rounds. Jones was still largely considered to be in his prime at this point and also those fights/before it.
E) Lost a split decision to Glen Johnson in 2004.
F) Avenged the earlier 2004 loss to Glen Johnson, in 2005.
G) Defeated Roy Jones (again) by unanimous decision, in 2006. So, if not in 2006 when Hopkins beat Tarver and - in some sense - then collected/avenged all those scalps I have above listed "A" to "G"; one could easily argue that before it - at, say around the point when Bernard stopped Felix Trinidad (2001) and in doing so unified his WBC and IBF middleweight titles with the WBA super middleweight title Trinidad lost; Bernard was then - not when he first fought Roy Jones - in his fighting prime. If not, then Bernard Hopkins' record suggests otherwise and aligns with what I am saying. Not in the least as from that point onward Bernard Hopkins successfully defended the aforementioned WBA, WBA, and IBF middleweight titles, in a uniformed manner, and no less than 8 times; along the way, collecting also the WBO middleweight title from Oscar DeLa Hoya in 2004, and also both putting up for grabs and successfully defending that title - along with also the aforementioned 3 other WBA, WBA, and IBF middleweight titles - within his last 3 unified title defences, in total involving no less than the; WBO, WBA, WBA, and IBF middleweight titles for these championship bouts. Furthermore, as further reason to reconsider whether Hopkins was at or near his physical boxing peak when he first met Roy Jones; prior to fighting Roy Jones for the first time (in 1993), the highest level Bernard had operated at was only at USBA level - a level Hopkins immediately revisited after fighting Jones (too soon). Now (just to be fair) Roy Jones himself - prior to fighting Hopkins for the first time (in 1993) - had, at the highest professional level, at that stage, really only contested a WBC continental title (whatever that is); but even considering this, the comment in question and need of possible recalibration has no direct and/or explicit association with Roy Jones' physical boxing peak - as it was in relation to Bernard Hopkins, whom arguably peaked as a fighter almost 10 years after he fought Jones. Additionally, by the time Jones initially faced Hopkins, Roy already possessed a wide range of international amateur experience - experience that Hopkins just did not have; due to incarceration and other factors. So, Roy was - as the fight itself shows - quite an advanced fighter for Hopkins to fight in 1993; even aside from the fact that Bernard had not physically peaked as a fighter by then. Facts, facts and more facts; their absence makes rewriting history easy - as many nations have shown us. If this is not ""enough said"" to shine light on when Bernard's real fighting prime was (because it certainly was not when he first faced Roy Jones), then we can look further ahead, out, to 2008; just after Hopkins lost to Joe Calzaghe - whom probably has a better claim to being a "TBE" than Jones, despite how Joes' style was not as mesmerizing and/or pleasing to the eye, as Roy's was. At that stage not only had Bernard physically peaked as a fighter and really knew his craft - but Kelly Pavlik was also the next big thing that Top Rank and HBO had. Prior to meeting Hopkins; Pavlik had impressed greatly by beating Jermain Taylor (whom himself in 2005 controversially {according to some} had ended Bernard's legendary undisputed middleweight run that took place
almost 13 years after when Jones first fought Hopkins) twice. Pavlik defeated Jermain Taylor the first time in 2007, by a serious KO in round 7. And, the second time Pavlik defeated Jermain Taylor was in 2008, this time by decision over 12 rounds. On both occasions Pavlik beat Taylor the WBC and WBO middleweight titles were for up for grabs - the same titles Taylor took from Hopkins a few years earlier. So, not too many held hope for Hopkins - whom was said to be too old - when he attempted to fight and beat Pavlik, and reclaim his WBC and WBO middleweight titles (that he believed he didn't legitimately lose to Taylor in 2005). Sometimes people - and this is the kicker here when comparing boxing skills and attributes - simply didn't understand that (not just individual aspects of it like hand-speed, footwork, and punching strength, but also) the actual boxing style itself that a fighter may possess and develop is in itself an (often overlooked) attribute, and therefore it's a consideration/category for comparison; particularly when discussing matters of either, such as when fighters are in their physical fighting peak - or even, if one fighter is more successful and/or better than the other. Hopkins - like Floyd - has and had a better and more evolved boxing style than Roy Jones. One - if not "the" - essential quality of man, life, and even boxing, is the ability to adapt and evolve. In boxing you must be able to adapt/evolve - not just in competition - but also across it. It's an often overlooked consideration in boxing and fighter comparisons. And, the ability to adapt and evolve in boxing and as a fighter is both essential and critical for many other reasons, including longevity. And, if the ability to adapt and evolve in boxing and as a fighter is both essential and critical for many other reasons, including longevity; then it's significantly important to a fighter's ability to ensure he remains both unbeaten and never knocked out. Not in the least as if you have never been knockout there is also good reason to think your positivity and learning curves stay on the correct trajectory to ensure you are as successful - in this sometimes dangerous but brilliant sport - as you can be. Therefore Bernard Hopkins - when he fought Kelly Pavlik (and probably also Felix Trinidad) - but not when he fought Roy Jones (as Hopkins was not at his peak physical fighting peak then) - knew precisely what parts of his well adapted boxing arsenal to push into the shadows and what components to let the lights shine on; in order to diffuse HBO's next great unified middleweight fighter - Kelly Pavlik. Hopkins - like Floyd and unlike Roy Jones - also, by then, knew how to juggle with his adaptive set of skills when faced with other/different fighters too. Like a Rubik cube, guys with adaptive and complete fighting styles like Bernard, Toney, and Floyd can (metaphorically) turn a few dials and click a few squares here and there, and "hey presto" before you know they can present as the worst opponent you can find for the guy in front of them; without increasing their own risks beyond what might otherwise be the case. Lots of people - particularly those that are quick to jump to and agree with conclusions and subjective claims - don't completely understand how these styles and skills really operate and work. Old timer boxing Sages do. Hopkins' initial trainer did. As does Floyd Sr. and Roger. As did Toney's initial coach and Steward. This - and its beautiful accommodation of a complete and active (USA slip/slide style) defence - is why Hopkins, Mayweather, and Toney can - within reason - adapt to almost any guy. Hopkins - as he predicted - flogged, embarrassed, and destroyed Pavlik. Kelly's career was never the same. This all happened (contrary to Frank's overtones) when Bernard Hopkins was in his prime, or, if not, then perhaps only a few years removed from it; as Hopkins was not at all embarrassed against Jermain Taylor when he - ~3 years earlier to facing Pavlik - lost those fights. Still, arguably, you could say that Hopkins' best (pjysical fighting prime?) years were yet to come. So, let's look at the proof associated with that claim shall we? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whoops, hold on . . . with the above breakdown of Hopkins, his opponents, and how it all relates to when his physical boxing prime was, I actually missed the important fact that prior to Joe Calzaghe (in 2008) - whom actually preceded Hopkins' fight with Pavlik - Bernard, in 2007, also defeated Winky Wright too. Wright had - prior to Hopkins - collected some very good scalps and never been soundly beaten. Winky had actually - prior to meeting Bernard - been undefeated for approximately 8 years. It is not until you go back in Wright's career, back to 1999, before you see his pre-Hopkins loss (in a close fight) to Fernando Vargas; in a fight where Vargas gave an excellent display on how to, and what punches/combinations to throw in order to, fight/beat a lefty. OK, I didn't want to miss Wright out, as he's not only a very good boxer - but also yet another example of how Hopkins' physical fighting peak didn't occur until much later than when Bernard first fought Roy Jones. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alright, back to the point where Bernard had destroyed Kelly Pavlik, and in some sense indirectly avenged his losses to Jermain Taylor, by; A) Beating the man that knocked out Taylor. B) Successfully reclaiming back his WBC and WBO middleweight titles. After beating Pavlik in 2008, Hopkins then went onto;
A) (Just after defeating Enrique Ornelas over 12 rounds in 2009) defeat
Roy Jones in 2010. At that point Jones had, only 4 months earlier - in his previous fight in Australia - been knocked out by Danny Green in 1 round.
B) Fight a draw with a very tough and durable
Jean Pascal (26-1-0 going in) in 2010; in contest for both the IBO and WBC light heavyweight titles. Pascal only had 1 loss going in to this fight with Hopkins, and if my memory serves me correctly that was a 12 round decision loss in 2008 courtesy of Carl Froch.
C) Avenge the draw and defeat
Jean Pascal in 2011; in doing so earn the above-mentioned light heavyweight titles.
D) 2011 still; Fight
Chad Dawson (30-1-0 going in) to a no contest and in doing so Bernard retained the WBC light heavyweight title. Chad was, at the time, a highly reputed and young light heavyweight fighter Dawson only had 1 loss going in to this fight with Hopkins, and I think that was a 12 round decision loss in 2010 courtesy of Jean Pascal; whom Bernard himself went on to beat in 2011 - after Pascal actually beat Dawson. Dawson, after his loss to Pascal 2010, had one more fight (Adrian Diaconu) before finally meeting Hopkins for the first time in 2011; in their no contest ending bout.
E) 2012; lose the above-mentioned WBC light heavyweight title to
Chad Dawson.
F) Bounce straight back (after the Chad Dawson loss) and defeat - the previously undefeated -
Tavoris Cloud (24-0-0 going in) for the IBF light heavyweight title, in 2013.
G) Successfully defend (after Tavoris Cloud) the aforementioned IBF light heavyweight title, against
Karo Murat (25-1-1 going in) in 2013. Murat only had 1 loss going in to his fight with Hopkins, courtesy of a TKO loss (in 2010) via Nathan Cleverly. After losing to Nathan Cleverly in 2010; Karo still went on and had 4 more fights, where he didn't lose, before meeting Hopkins.
H)
Beibut Shumenov (14-1-0 going in) was, after Karo Murat, defeated by Hopkins next, over 12 rounds in 2014. In defeating Shumenov Hopkins snatched his IBA and WBA light heavyweight titles and then added them to his own IBF light heavyweight title. Shumenov only had 1 loss going in to his fight with Hopkins, and that was a 12 round decision loss in 2009 courtesy of Gabriel Campillo in Kazakhstan. With his win over Beibut Shumenov, Hopkins was, now - again - a unified title holder - this time, again, as a light heavyweight. Just as he was (previously also) a unified title holder in 2010 - 2011; as a light heavyweight. And, just as he was a unified title holder earlier than that, from 2001 - 2005; as a middleweight - a unified title reign that - just as it commenced approximately 8 years "after" Bernard's first fight with Roy Jones - serves as notice to both;
H1) How Bernard's first fight with Roy Jones does not represent Bernard Hopkins' fighting prime.
H2) How Bernard Hopkins' fighting prime commenced approximately 8 years after Bernard's first fight with Roy Jones; at about - or possibly just before (Antwun Echols?) - the Felix Trinidad mark - where Hopkins commenced his first reign as a unified title holder in the middleweight division .
I)
Sergey Kovalev, undefeated (25-0-0 going in) fought and beat Hopkins next. The fight was over 12 rounds in 2014. In defeating Hopkins, Kovalev snatched Bernard's WBA and IBF light heavyweight titles and added them to his already existing WBO light heavyweight title. Whilst there were some indicators shown in the Calzaghe, Dawson, and perhaps some other fights Hopkins partook in over the last 10 years; his fight with the heavy handed Sergey Kovalev probably marked the fist significant signs of Bernard's decline. So . . what does it all mean? I am not saying that (the first fight with) Hopkins was a "gimme" fight for Roy. But - contrary to what the author appears to claim and state as a means to bolster Roy Jones' achievements and also Jones' claimed (and questionable) place both amongst "TBEs" and before Floyd in terms of skills - Hopkins best years were, really, still to come at that point in 1993. Fast forward approximately 8 (or 14) years, and you will find the point(s) at which Bernard Hopkins could be said to have physically peaked as a fighter. Frank, if the funds transfer doesn't work for you; I like my (aromatic) coffee as a cappuccino, well sugar(Ray Robinson or Leonard)ed, and I am also partial to crumbed veal with a side serve of Cabonara and fries. Finally, OldSchool, yes I agree with you. Holyfield would have probably destroyed Roy Jones if they fought. I suspect this is - along with several others - one reason why Jones opted to fight Ruiz instead of Evander; that is, if Evander was campaigning at a weight that was relevant when Jones opted to fight Ruiz. OK Roy Jones fans please don't be up in arms and hate on me, because; A) I didn't suggest the Jones V Mayweather comparison or make claims with respect to it. B) I didn't claim Hopkins was in his prime when he first fought Jones. C) I really do love Jones' craft; it's just that a lot of fighters accomplishments are not as good as they seem when the facts - rather than subjectivity and feelings - are used as a the guiding light. D) A case can be made for Floyd being better than Roy; personally, I don't really care who is better between Floyd and Roy. But, if I am going to tell you one thing, it's that I am pretty sure that - from the above - it's clear that both, Floyd is and that the article's assumptions and oversights are the main reason the alternative view was arrived at. E) I am not a professional boxing writer. I am not associated with any writer's association. All I do is think about what I am told and read, and then consider objectively (without emotion) what the facts are, before jumping about with excitement and typing a reply/post. Aside from that I am all over the place like bad weather, a Meth freak at night and seeking counseling for it; although that is not going too well. Put simply, I guess all I am is a
StormCentre. But, at least, I am - within reason - both the TSS's and your
StormCentre. Because I love boxing; this is the only home I have. So please make me and my infinitely variable and unpredictable weather system feel welcome, even if what I write isn't always aligned with what you might say, think, defend, and believe. The
StormCentre is always - no matter where on the Earth's rotational scope and/or axis you may exist upon and reside - open to change his views and what direction they blow in; provided yours are reasonable, substantiated, written, and fair. So, peace out Roy lovers and Floyd haters; in some ways we're all the same clan.
StormCentre. :) :)


-Domenic :

The one, surefire way to get a fight with Roy Jones was to become his mandatory. It really was that simple. He would've fought Tarver sooner, but Tarver lost the eliminator to an undefeated Eric Harding, who broke his jaw in the bout. He became Roy's mandatory and they immediately fought inside of 3 months. As for Gerald Mclellan, that absolutely would have happened, but Roy dominated the undefeated Toney in 11/94, and McLellan's career ended in 2/95. It's a fair question why Roy never fought Benn. Maybe he ducked him. I know that NB generally would travel across the pond, and it would've required that to fight Jones. And he fought Pazienza at this time period, which was not the stiffest test out there. Some notable guys for Jones: 1/96 - Merqui Sosa. James Toney considered Sosa one of the hardest punchers around. Roy stopped him early (although it was arguably an early stoppage, but no real evidence that Roy would've lost this fight; he knocked him down, then smothered him, forcing the stoppage). 6/96 - Eric Lucas. Decent fighter. Held a legit strap years after the Jones fight. Jones played professional hoops same day in this one. 11/96 - Mike McCallum. MM was never an easy night. 97 - Montell Griffin twice. He was undefeated, beat James Toney. 1/99 - Richard Frazier. He was horrible and Jones took a gimme here. This was a horrible mismatch. Most guys after were undefeated or 1 loss mandatories: Richard Hall, Eric Harding (see above, beat Tarver), Julio Cesar Gonzalez (he was 27-0, and would later beat Michalczewski in Germany, DM's first loss), Glen Kelly, Clinton Woods. Definitely some of these guys aren't murderer's row. But Jones never one time avoided a guy that became his mandatory. He loved the straps. He also thoroughly dominated an undefeated James Toney (yes, JT had trouble making wait, as has been the case for him since Clinton's first term), but this was years before the subtitles James Toney. He also beat a prime Bernard Hopkins. This fight was an undercard bout on a Bowe title defense, which is astonishing. Floyd has some great wins. Diego Corrales was a sensational performance. Canelo Alvarez was also a superb win. But I don't put these in the James Toney and Bernard Hopkins territory. Even John Ruiz. Look, Roy put on 25 pounds and fought a guy that was difficult with the Greco-Roman stuff, and was in every fight except one (Tua). He was the first middleweight to hold a legit heavyweight strap in a century, a notable achievement. And Roy was calling out Lennox Lewis at this time. Can you envision a scenario where Floyd would've embraced that kind of danger?? Neither Roy nor Floyd are TBE. Neither guy. But both are ATG's. Jones probably should've traveled outside of the U.S. during his reign (Floyd won't fight outside of the MGM, forget leaving the country, he won't leave that building), so it's a fair critique, but all those guys had to do was become Jones' mandatory and they'd have fought him.


-stormcentre :

stormcentre, I agree about Toney's greatness but he has carried too much weight to be a factor in the heavy weight division. I think Evander, in his prime, would have beaten Roy Jones at his best.
Hey OS. Your "OldSchool" moniker is exactly as Toney fought; old school. When was the last time we saw James . . clinch, hug, play for a break and points deductions, and/or complain about head butts and low blows? Never. He just gets on with it. I must admit I am probably a little biased towards Toney though, as years ago when I was younger I met him at a USA international amateur contest I was in (he was a Pro fighter, spectating) - plus, later in life, he also he came to one of my fights in Cali years after that; where I again met and talked to him. His no nonsense, deep, gangsta, and "keep it real" attitude kind of had an effect on me, and he became one of my favorite fighters. Amongst a world of complicated advice about how to win, James dropped this gem on me; ""just work that body hard, then tax the head to the max, and that bytch will fall and bleed"". Poetic pugilism at it's finest. The advice was, basically, just go in there hard, get to work on the body/head, and show no respect. I had always loved Toney's fighting style and longed to acquire some of its attributes. As I knew - just by trying to emulate them in the gym, let alone in a fight - how difficult they were to perfect to the level he had them at. They were all so different to the Eastern Bloc and European boxing styles I had originally learned. But I knew - from how good Toney's style was at achieving (if not bettering {eg; slipping incoming punches, getting into position, and then safely combination punching off of cute angles}) some of the same objectives to that of the styles I had learned - that some of the really ingrained principles I had picked up on as an amateur could probably be complemented and/or improved upon by either adopting some aspects of James' slip/slide moves - or by completely supplanting them into my routine. The problem was, at the time, that was going to be hard. Because when you're always in competition and used to doing various things under (undefined levels of) pressure - even if you see a better way - it's sometimes more risky to implement it under competition pressure. In the very least, slowly learning (some of) those techniques Toney used and integrating them into competition showed me just how good they and Toney were. So, that's a part of the reason I hold Toney as one of the better fighters of this era; despite the losses. However, then when you add all that up with some of the commentary that Emmanuel Steward has furnished us with about James (in the, Jirov, Nunn, and possibly McCullum fights) where Steward . . . not only talks about James' (even from a young age) fearless and brilliant sparring wars in the old Kronk gym (against top fighters) that Steward used to train fighters at - but also how - on many levels and dimensions - accomplished and deep Toney is; you start to really understand how good Toney guy is. I remember Manny Steward - when commenting during one of James' above-mentioned fights (possibly the Nunn and/or Jirov fight) - saying words to the effect that . . . James was a completely different fighter to anyone he had ever seen . . .he continued with words to the effect of . .
Emmanuel Steward: ""James' is the kind of guy that, no matter what, you can never count him out. He can punch with you, counterpunch, box, slip and slide. He rarely gets caught with a decent shot because he slips or rolls them, and he can fight exhausted and still find a way to win. Unlike most guys that have finished their workout and are tired, Toney will still spar if asked. A few time guys in my gym - good guys - have called James out for a spar as James was all showered and ready to leave, and James would just nod, unzip his bag, get the gloves out, and not only spar - but really lay down some moves. He is the deepest "(as in meanest and toughest) "guy I have ever seen in my gym, and he regularly as a youngster used to come to the gym and want to spar top guys like Hearns and Gerald "(I may have the names wrong but the names mentioned were top guys; I know that). "James' always wanted to spar more than the other guys, and he rarely got beat up and pushed around. I just don't know of any other fighter that is prepared to both put down and tolerate what Toney, in a fight, can"". Now, if ever there was a reason to say ""nuff said for me""; those words from Steward are it. Toney fights anyone, anywhere, anytime; almost regardless of whether he himself is ready or not. And rarely does James' Philly Crab and/or his other integrated defensive/fighting styles allow him to get really busted up; even if he loses. Gotta give credit where it is due though, as Roy Jones did look good beating James in 1994, as he also showed a way (if you're fast enough) to deal with James' style. Roy's fighting style though - particularly as a professional - was very fundamentally unsound. Jones was not the first fighter to make the risky game of pugilistic unorthodoxy work for him though. But he may just be one of its more spectacular proponents. When Roy Jones was on fire, he blazed with a unique, exceptional, and sensational intensity. But like any great movie that moves you, behind it all and also behind all the promotion, sensation, and glitter that accompanies it and wows audiences, there is usually a document set consisting of (at least) a script and investment/project plan that - whilst not always easy and comfortable reading - once understood, often lays out the inner mechanics and forces that are really at work. Sometimes the document set's true meaning is as pretty as the play - other times it's not. Other times its somewhere in between. Nevertheless the elusiveness of the document set's true meaning (and the truth) often has upsides; such as how it both assists marketing of the fight whilst also removing the possible onset of early promoter's fatigue. Jones, as an amateur was successful and achieved the highest level; only to be robbed at the Olympics. The robbery motivated him in his professional career. Aside from the skills Roy acquired as an amateur and from his father; mostly though, it was Jones' superior reflexes, coordination, and speed (and perhaps a few other things that have also assisted Pacquaio) that allowed Roy Jones - as a professional fighter - to "magically" blaze through opponents with his unique, exceptional, and sensational intensity. That and some clever management and matchmaking. Still, Roy entertained us - there's no doubt about that. But, behind it all was the clever use of an unorthodox style married (for a while) to superior reflexes, coordination, and speed; which - for the most part - effected how other opponents could react, plan and compete, by (Roy) presenting a much different, more complex, and enigmatic picture to his opponents. More than they had certainly seen in their gyms and most other opponents anyway. This is one reason why, during the decline of Jones' physical attributes and fighting determination he has become noticeably more vulnerable than, say, a guy like Floyd; whom - instead; A) Has not only a complex and multi-dimensional fighting style (down pat) that has its roots securely planted in the same (or a similar USA technician and slip/slide) style Toney used. B) But also - unlike Roy Jones - has evolved and perfected that style as he has aged and physically declined; to offset weakness that creep in with age. (Please note the above comments could also apply to Hopkins, and also Toney too). Whilst we're talking/looking at Roy Jones, Floyd Mayweather, and Bernard Hopkins; in addition - and contrary to the claims Frank (the author of this thread) has made . . . .
Frank Lotierzo: ""From a physical skill-set, Jones was faster than Mayweather, had a better offensive repertoire, punched harder with both hands, was a better body puncher and finisher, and yes, because of his foot speed and foot-work, he was harder to hit. In fact the only category where Mayweather gets the check in his column is in the punch resistance column"". That assert Floyd's only superiority to Jones is . . punch resistance. A good question may be; what about defence and fundamental boxing skills? Are we really sure that Roy Jones has a better defence and better fundamental boxing skills than Floyd and/or Bernard? A physical skillset - whether we like it or not - in boxing goes far beyond the unique, exceptional, and sensational intensity of some of the performances that Roy delivered; regardless of whether they were against subpar opposition, or opposition that were not in their *prime - more on *that later. So, back to defence and fundamental boxing skills, and Frank's claim that Floyd's only superiority to Jones is punch resistance.
Defence and fundamental boxing style/skills; they are (like both the KO and other losses on Roy's record, and also those Roy didn't fight) the big fat white elephant in the room; which metaphorically mark out a completely deeper and contrasting line in the sands of boxing ("TBE" or not) - even when the tide has both risen and recessed over a few cycles - particularly when drawing comparisons to Floyd, and (as far as KO losses and not ducking anyone is concerned) perhaps, also Toney. Furthermore, (as claims of how Floyd {and Lara [but not Rigondeaux]} runs when he defensively uses his legs attest) Roy's foot speed is not necessarily the same as an active defence, either. :) Although, I concede, it can be used defensively. Roy, once his speed had deteriorated in similar quantities to how Floyd's is said to have during the transition from Pretty Boy to Money May, has shown he virtually has no active defence and/or means to compete at the top level; in order to assist him with the evolution of a boxing style that can successfully carry him into his - most dangerous and risky - veteran years. One need only look at the light year wide hole in the fabric of boxings' spacetime that exists between Floyd's competition and that whom Roy fights (see above posts for the facts); at the tail end of both of their careers - itself a - like many above substantiated and made - point(s) that must be overlooked to consider Roy Jones ahead of Floyd or Hopkins in almost any stakes. Whether they be "TBE" or not. Furthermore, with respect to Frank's claims that . . .
Frank Lotierzo: ""From a physical skill-set, Jones was faster than Mayweather, had a better offensive repertoire, punched harder with both hands, was a better body puncher and finisher, and yes, because of his foot speed and foot-work, he was harder to hit.
In fact the only category where Mayweather gets the check in his column is in the punch resistance column"". Floyd's timing - even if it is not better than, but instead (let's just be nice and say) "equal" to Roy's in his peak - is also way, way, beyond Roy's in terms of longevity (and this matters not just for considerations of defence and fundamentally superior boxing style/skills - but also for reasons later discussed/proven) in the game. Over the long run, as we can see, there is no comparison between the two; in these categories. As Floyd still - unlike Roy - has sublime timing; which - even at 38 - is probably still the best in the business. Yes I know we were all amazed at Roy's ability to punch from behind the back and knock out Glen Kelly, and how he magically used his above-mentioned advantages over other guys and impressed us all more than Floyd and others, but we will get to that later and even, possibly, set a single category for it; "ability to entertain on both, first impressions and results (regardless of how they were achieved). Back to looking at the author's claim that; ""in fact the only category where Mayweather gets the check in his column is in the punch resistance column"." Same (as above comments for timing) for Floyd's counterpunching ability; it's miles better than Roy's now, and has been for years, and probably was - if not better than, then - at least equal to Jones' even when both fighters where in their primes. Same for Floyd's stamina. This category is almost one of the most fundamental aspects of a championship fighter that Frank seems to also have overlooked when comparing Roy and Floyd. Jones is, now, lazy compared to Floyd in this respect; which (aside from an inferior defence and fighting style capable of evolving) is another reason why Jones suffered serious losses both in his prime (Glen Johnson and Antonio Tarver) and also after it. Furthermore, Jones rarely displayed the 12 round high intensity stamina in his early years that Floyd did in his prime, and if Jones did, then it was for a far less duration of prime-time. In fact if one goes back to Floyd's "Pretty Boy" fights (as I have recently for the Whitaker V Mayweather comparison thread) you can easily see that - even aside from the fact that Mayweather has displayed and retained these high level skills for a far longer bandwidth in time than Roy Jones; against not less than the, but probably a better, level of opposition Jones faced - in some of Floyd's Pretty Boy fights his dynamic abilities, speed, counterpunching, and especially his timing, where easily as good as Roy's. Take a look at the Burten/Augustus, Ndou, Chavez, Castillo, Corrales and some of Floyd's earlier fights before you throw your hands up in the air. Add to it all Roy paid very little attention to defence when he would release his blistering combinations that wooed us all; mostly because he had superior speed and skills to his opposition - which is another reason why Roy lost dramatically both, when he finally stepped it up in his prime, and also in his veteran/current years. You can't always teach an old dog new (defence) tricks, and Jones and his style was not prepared to evolve; confirming an inferior fighting technique to that adopted by Floyd, Bernard, and even Toney. Fundamentally Roy did many things wrong. But, he cleverly made it work for him, and got away with it, due to lightening fast reflexes, that (like Shane Mosely and some other fighters' other worldly speed/skills) quickly deteriorated around the same time the Balco scandal hit town. However, let's leave Balco out of it for now, and what you have left is that the remainder of those above 23 or so sentences/paragraphs are still why not only both Glen Johnson and also Antonio Tarver were so confident - but why almost everyone was shocked to see Glen Johnson and also Antonio Tarver knockout Roy Jones when he was considered to be in his prime and a cut above such opponents. You see, both Glen Johnson and also Antonio Tarver knew what Roy had been, doing, and fighting; and why.

So, the moral of the story here is that which has been overlooked (White Elephant) not just when ignoring how some of Roy's best achievements were scripted and/or stating Roy Jones has a better stake to a "TBE" trophy than Floyd - but also that information skipped across when claiming Floyd only betters Roy in punch resistance; is that Floyd actually - if you look at it subjectively and forget how we all drooled when Roy blew out some guys - has several superior traits to Jones. Not in the least his entire fundamental boxing style is superior for the above reasons, including the fact that it has stood up against "the most sternest of tests boxing can throw at a fighter"; the test of (father) time, remaining unbeaten, and continually good - if not great - competition. Any look at both guy's records shows that Jones has not continuously fought better opposition than Floyd; but lets just say they're equal. Remember I didn't draw the comparison between Floyd and Jones; Frank did that. Jones' exciting approach and style has - unlike Floyd's that is rooted in the correct techniques - (and not just when Roy was considered over the hill either) quickly dissipated with age and other factors; as we have seen. This is true even if we disregard all the anomalies and overlooked considerations (of which there are many) related to whom Jones didn't fight I am not (in depth) going near Frank's implicit claim that Roy was faster than Pretty Boy and/or Money May? Both were blindingly fast in their prime, Floyd still can be, Roy is not, and Floyd's prime lasted longer; Floyd (easily) takes it on that meritorious assessment that was not undertaken when the claim that Floyd only betters Roy in punch resistance was made. All I will further add to the hand-speed comparison is to say; take a look at all Floyd's fights first and then judge for yourself. Even aside from the actual hand-speed demonstration and overall performances Floyd gives; in many of his fights - particularly those as Pretty Boy" - you can actually hear commentary from professional HBO and Showtime commentators (some even include commentary from Roy Jones himself) that have also worked on Roy's fights, discussing how Mayweather's skills and speed is up there with, if not the, best they have seen. So, in summary, some of Floyd's Pretty Boy fights display pretty good hand speed; a point seemingly overlooked in the Frank Lotierzo Floyd V Jones comparo. I say that as, interestingly (despite Floyd's speed being one of his more obvious superior traits) - and as with the other points mentioned above - Frank appears to make no comment on this, as he claims punch resistance is the only area where Floyd betters Jones. Such approaches though - where facts are overlooked - are not uncommon with subjective opinions and discussions related to Floyd Mayweather and Roy Jones. And that's OK too. Well . . . it's OK . . . so long as we don't pretend subjective opinion is fact (Glen Kelly V Roy Jones for 6 belts; whilst a swag of other more suitable and dangerous opponents
did actually exist {see my above posts}) only to then get upset, loud, possibly bullying, and defensive, when we finally put subjective opinion to work in the real world and a boxing ring, and find out it is really just the soft opposition to the facts and truth; Glen Johnson/Antonio Tarver V Roy Jones for 5 belts; whilst a swag of other more suitable and dangerous opponents
did not exist in the same quantities) These are the facts ladies and gentlemen, the writing is on the wall and in the record books, and both guys performances and longevity is there for all to see, check, accept, or deny. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My take on it all (and I love Roy Jones, as a fighter and especially his commentary these days);
1)
Is Jones a better finisher? Yes - but usually against comparably lesser opposition.
2)
Is Jones a harder puncher? Yes - his KO ratio (~64% { to Floyd's ~54%}) certainly suggests it is. But then this is without considering whom each guy fought, and from above posts we can clearly see that all is not as it seems there for Roy and any (un-scrutinized) and/or purely subjective assessment (as most are) of his and perhaps also Floyd's fighting reputation.
3)
Is Jones a bigger risk taker? Debatable - his opposition suggests there is need of more research than Frank and others have provided and/or engaged in.
4)
Is Jones a better counterpuncher? No. There is no evidence to suggest he is; particularly when - but even without - considering opposition. Roy has not displayed the same repertoire of clever and fast counterpunching against the same level of competition, and for as long as Floyd has.
5)
Is Jones a better athlete in terms of preparation and stamina? No. See above and below comments. Sure Roy was dynamic, fast, and mesmerizing; but so was Floyd - and for longer and arguably against better opposition.
6)
Is Jones the holder of a fundamentally better and more effective/successful boxing style? No. See above and below comments.
7)
Is Jones the holder of a better boxing-defence system? No, or (at best) it's equal to Floyds. There is much, much, more to defence than . . .
Frank Lotierzo: ""From a physical skill-set, Jones was faster than Mayweather, had a better offensive repertoire, punched harder with both hands, was a better body puncher and finisher,
and yes, because of his foot speed and foot-work, he was harder to hit. Foot speed and foot work. If not one of Floyd's, then view one of Toney's fights, to prove and see this. This is one of the main reasons why Roy Jones is not unbeaten, has been KO'd numerous times, and has not aged extremely well in the sport; unlike Floyd.
8) (Just to look at one or a few aspects of defence);
is Jones the holder of fundamentally better head movement and integrated defensive/offensive coordination moves? No. They must be (provided you ignore the longevity gap between the two; because if you don't Floyd wins easily) at least equal; if not the (more likely) answer is "No".
9)
Is Jones the holder of faster foot work? Yes. In his prime (only) Roy could float across - using oblique and brilliant angles - the face and side of opponents in ways that are probably neater and faster than Floyd.
10)
Is Jones the holder of better foot work? No - if we look at the careers over the entire period; as Frank clearly does when assessing Roy's punch resistance. Draw if you consider each guys' prime, as both - in similar and different ways - had excellent footwork in their primes. Floyd's footwork still almost without exception perfectly underpins all his strategy (the true objective of footwork); you can't say that about Roy Jones.
11)
Is Floyd the holder of better punch resistance? I am not even sure this claim Frank has made is true, particularly for their primes. Sure Jones has been KO'd a lot, and Floyd never has. But Floyd's superior defensive technique, and options have allowed him to rarely get hit cleanly multiple times in succession; unlike Roy. But then, Mosley seemed to rattle Floyd with a good shot too; when they fought. Jones, on the other hand, especially before the Balco scandal, at 160, and before he started regularly fighting tomato cans; took some decent shots from Toney, Hopkins and some other fighters. Sure Jones' punch resistance is shot now and (even considering the competition level differences) way less than Floyds. But if we chose a time when they were both in their peak punch resistance form, I am unsure how Frank or anyone could tell that Floyd's punch resistance was better than (or worse) than Jones'. Furthermore, if we're going to now compare Roy's punch resistance at the end of his career - as the lack detail about placing Roy behind Floyd in this category, and some above comments surely suggest - why can't we then compare other fighting attributes of both fighters in the latter parts of the careers, where it is - hands down - clear that Floyd is far better across a range of (overlooked) categories? Sure hate on Floyd all you like and subjectively rush for Jones' plums when you can. But why rig the experiment? As all that does is allow one to waltz around, whistling Dixie in Falsetto, and pretending they have backed a winner - only to disappear to the toilets when the real players go to collect their winnings.
12)
Is Jones the guy that has faced better available opposition, including those that have called him out? No. Floyd has been said to have not always fought the best opposition and I agree with that claim, as there are some guys - particularly when they were in their prime - that Floyd didn't or could not fight. Williams, Cotto, Margarito and others called Floyd out and for various reasons (including a short break from boxing) Floyd did not face them. That said when you look at the majority of Floyd's title defences and his other fights, his opponents are usually not less than (at most) one or two rating levels down from him. Sure Baldomir and other exceptions may exist, but there really are no unified title defences (or many other fights) against guys as far down as say Glen Kelly and Clinton Woods were, for Roy Jones. Also, we have to consider that - as shown in above posts - there was a swag of other champions and/or fighters at certain weights that Roy Jones never fought when he held titles in those same weights; yet - particularly in the latter stages of his career where it is much harder to do so and also where Roy has failed to even get any traction with/into a meaningful contention position pertaining to the major sanctions - we just can't say that same thing for Floyd as a welterweight. As Floyd - for last 8 years of his boxing career, and essentially the 2 or 3 years during which he has been a unified champion - has pretty much cleaned house, sanctions, and titles in that respect, and fought the best (or near that) welterweights available - all whilst remaining undefeated. Notwithstanding the above comments about Williams, Cotto, Margarito and others; Floyd also has a noticeably better record with both rematches, and also accepting challenges from other available fighters - and beating them. Roy's record in this respect is (as shown from how easy it is to jump on the bandwagon) - whilst deceptive - not the same in this respect. It is impossible to realistically think that as Roy Jones was a champion and telling everyone that he was the best, he somehow forgot about these other (below listed) champions/opponents that were all - in their own rights - making big noises; both with their wins/successes and (ignored) calls for a showdown with Jones. Dariusz Michalczewski. Michael Nunn. Sven Ottke. Julian Jackson. Nigel Benn. Chris Eubank. Frankie Liles. Gerald McClellan. Steve Collins. There is just no way - as history has shown - that Floyd would allow that many other champions/opponents to go untested. Happy to hear - with facts - how this view is wrong, and if so (and the argument is reasonable) I will change this category win from one for a win Floyd - over to a win for Roy.
13)
Is Jones the guy that has entertained us more on both, first impressions and results (regardless of how they were achieved)? As above promised; lucky number 13. I guess on the weight of evidence from the forum and the overall dislike for Floyd, I'd have to give this one to Roy Jones. So, "Yes". Roy takes number 13; even though Roy Jones has pulled less numbers, cash, and success from the sport than Floyd and his all time record numbers may be massaged into representing and/or constituting "entertainment". There's no denying, Roy Jones is probably a more popular athlete and boxer. Although I reckon (but can't prove), worldwide, that is outside of the USA, there would be legions more fans that would agree that Floyd has entertained us as much - if not both to a greater extent and for longer - than Roy; offsetting the dislike a lot of people have for Floyd and his sometimes defensive style.
In summary; we could go on with this (detailed and proper) comparison, but I think the point(s) are clear. Some people like to dislike and dismiss Floyd, but those same people may sometimes also be reserved to apply the same judgment, critique, and overall approach to others (including Roy Jones, Hopkins and Rigondeaux); which can lead to overlooking flaws of other fighters - sometimes to prop them up to be better than both, Floyd, and what the fighter of interest/choice may really be. Optical Illusions; damn right - Jones is as good as it gets. Except, upon inspection the facts - the same ones that, when revealed, still drive some to prefer untruths over the truth - often speak otherwise. Another management trick that Roy used to use - afforded by the luxury of holding so many belts (and it is not an uncommon "trick") - was choose the mandatory and/or opponent that suited, and then claim the others (some of which are listed above) had to wait and/or were fights that were too hard to make. By the time the same name came up again as an opponent they had usually deteriorated and/or been beaten - or Roy had moved up in weight. So being a mandatory was not always a sure fire way to fight Roy; unless you were a mandatory that was not on the above list that is, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Furthermore, I am unsure about this too . . . .
Frank Lotierzo: ""
The difference is, Jones dominated Bernard Hopkins (a certifiable all-time great and Hall of Famer) when he was near his peak physically. Hopkins entered the fight with Jones 22-1, with the loss coming in his pro-debut. Hopkins won 22 bouts in a row before losing to Jones by a pronounced margin, and then went undefeated for 12 years 1993-2005 after he fought Jones"". Dear me. Perhaps, never before has "TBE" been used so loosely and without meaningful research. Was the article put together on a napkin that had accommodated too many spilt pints? Sorry Frank, but I am really not sure Hopkins fought Jones when he was at his prime. Hopkins - when he first fought Jones - may have been at an age where most men are in their physical prime. But Hopkins got a lot (and I mean a lot) better and craftier in his fights that came after Jones; possibly learning from that fight. Hopkins was in his fighting prime about 8 or 10 years after he first fought Roy Jones. Furthermore, the claim that infers Hopkins was otherwise smacks of fitting up a story with misinterpreted factoids, and then hoping the subjectivity of Roy Jones and his (un-scrutinized) best performances will do the rest. Sorry, I do generally like your work, but this piece leaves a bit to be desired; even though the fans have come rushing out. Some of us have been around a little longer, remember, have some real experience, and are not so quick be satiated; so I thought rather than rubbish the article I would re-write it for you - for free. See the
StormCentre is your friend. Sure, feel free to flick me a 50% cut of your fee for the piece if you like; it's up to you. Now, Hopkins - like Floyd - is another guy that has probably fought better opposition than Jones and (successfully) lasted longer than him due to - arguably - both, a better overall spread of fundamental boxing skills (capable of evolving), and also not a complete reliance upon speed and reflexes (as Roy Jones did); even though Bernard and/or Floyd may have not been as mesmerizing and sensationalized as Roy Jones was in his most quintessential prime. Hopkins (whilst not innocent of the practice) has also ducked less credible opponents and champions than Roy Jones; in my view. Hopkins - when much older - but physically, then, was, as a fighter, better - than when he first fought Roy Jones; beat both Tarver (whom destroyed the "other worldly" and unbeatable {forget the Montell Griffin fight in 1997 for now that Roy lost due to a disqualification} myth of Jones ), and Roy Jones. Hopkins - almost 14 years after that time when Roy Jones first fought Hopkins (in 1993) - beat Tarver in 2006. Yet - to bolster your piece and claims in relation to Roy Jones - you're claiming that Hopkins was near his physical boxing peak in 1993; when Bernard first fought Roy Jones. I suggest and think that a far better theory is that in 1993 Bernard Hopkins was nowhere near his physical boxing peak, and that that did not begin to occur for him until, at least, 2001; ~8 years later - when Bernard fought and stopped Felix Trinidad. However, I don't want to make a claim that recalibrations are in order without thinking about it, so let's do this properly and take a look at the Antonio Tarver that Hopkins beat in 2006. Stay with me, as there's a method to my madness. Prior to facing Hopkins in 2006 Tarver had;
A) Avenged a (points) loss to Eric Harding (that took place in 2000) by defeating him in 2002; via a KO in round 5. Tarver had 3 fights before this fight, all of which he won; 2 by KO. Prior to that came the loss to Harding I above refer to. So Tarver was pretty much on a good winning streak.
B) Beat Montell Griffin in 2003.
C) Lost a controversial decision to Jones in 2003.
D) Avenged the controversial decision to Jones (in 2003) by, in 2004, knocking Jones out in 2 rounds. Jones was still largely considered to be in his prime at this point and also those fights/before it.
E) Lost a split decision to Glen Johnson in 2004.
F) Avenged the earlier 2004 loss to Glen Johnson, in 2005.
G) Defeated Roy Jones (again) by unanimous decision, in 2006. So, if not in 2006 when Hopkins beat Tarver and - in some sense - then collected/avenged all those scalps I have above listed "A" to "G"; one could easily argue that before it - at, say around the point when Bernard stopped Felix Trinidad (2001) and in doing so unified his WBC and IBF middleweight titles with the WBA super middleweight title Trinidad lost; Bernard was then - not when he first fought Roy Jones - in his fighting prime. If not, then Bernard Hopkins' record suggests otherwise and aligns with what I am saying. Not in the least as from that point onward Bernard Hopkins successfully defended the aforementioned WBA, WBA, and IBF middleweight titles, in a uniformed manner, and no less than 8 times; along the way, collecting also the WBO middleweight title from Oscar DeLa Hoya in 2004, and also both putting up for grabs and successfully defending that title - along with also the aforementioned 3 other WBA, WBA, and IBF middleweight titles - within his last 3 unified title defences, in total involving no less than the; WBO, WBA, WBA, and IBF middleweight titles for these championship bouts. Furthermore, as further reason to reconsider whether Hopkins was at or near his physical boxing peak when he first met Roy Jones; prior to fighting Roy Jones for the first time (in 1993), the highest level Bernard had operated at was only at USBA level - a level Hopkins immediately revisited after fighting Jones (too soon). Now (just to be fair) Roy Jones himself - prior to fighting Hopkins for the first time (in 1993) - had, at the highest professional level, at that stage, really only contested a WBC continental title (whatever that is); but even considering this, the comment in question and need of possible recalibration has no direct and/or explicit association with Roy Jones' physical boxing peak - as it was in relation to Bernard Hopkins, whom arguably peaked as a fighter almost 10 years after he fought Jones. Additionally, by the time Jones initially faced Hopkins, Roy already possessed a wide range of international amateur experience - experience that Hopkins just did not have; due to incarceration and other factors. So, Roy was - as the fight itself shows - quite an advanced fighter for Hopkins to fight in 1993; even aside from the fact that Bernard had not physically peaked as a fighter by then. Facts, facts and more facts; their absence makes rewriting history easy - as many nations have shown us. If this is not ""enough said"" to shine light on when Bernard's real fighting prime was (because it certainly was not when he first faced Roy Jones), then we can look further ahead, out, to 2008; just after Hopkins lost to Joe Calzaghe - whom probably has a better claim to being a "TBE" than Jones, despite how Joes' style was not as mesmerizing and/or pleasing to the eye, as Roy's was. At that stage not only had Bernard physically peaked as a fighter and really knew his craft - but Kelly Pavlik was also the next big thing that Top Rank and HBO had. Prior to meeting Hopkins; Pavlik had impressed greatly by beating Jermain Taylor (whom himself in 2005 controversially {according to some} had ended Bernard's legendary undisputed middleweight run that took place
almost 13 years after when Jones first fought Hopkins) twice. Pavlik defeated Jermain Taylor the first time in 2007, by a serious KO in round 7. And, the second time Pavlik defeated Jermain Taylor was in 2008, this time by decision over 12 rounds. On both occasions Pavlik beat Taylor the WBC and WBO middleweight titles were for up for grabs - the same titles Taylor took from Hopkins a few years earlier. So, not too many held hope for Hopkins - whom was said to be too old - when he attempted to fight and beat Pavlik, and reclaim his WBC and WBO middleweight titles (that he believed he didn't legitimately lose to Taylor in 2005). Sometimes people - and this is the kicker here when comparing boxing skills and attributes - simply didn't understand that (not just individual aspects of it like hand-speed, footwork, and punching strength, but also) the actual boxing style itself that a fighter may possess and develop is in itself an (often overlooked) attribute, and therefore it's a consideration/category for comparison; particularly when discussing matters of either, such as when fighters are in their physical fighting peak - or even, if one fighter is more successful and/or better than the other. Hopkins - like Floyd - has and had a better and more evolved boxing style than Roy Jones. One - if not "the" - essential quality of man, life, and even boxing, is the ability to adapt and evolve. In boxing you must be able to adapt/evolve - not just in competition - but also across it. It's an often overlooked consideration in boxing and fighter comparisons. And, the ability to adapt and evolve in boxing and as a fighter is both essential and critical for many other reasons, including longevity. And, if the ability to adapt and evolve in boxing and as a fighter is both essential and critical for many other reasons, including longevity; then it's significantly important to a fighter's ability to ensure he remains both unbeaten and never knocked out. Not in the least as if you have never been knockout there is also good reason to think your positivity and learning curves stay on the correct trajectory to ensure you are as successful - in this sometimes dangerous but brilliant sport - as you can be. Therefore Bernard Hopkins - when he fought Kelly Pavlik (and probably also Felix Trinidad) - but not when he fought Roy Jones (as Hopkins was not at his peak physical fighting peak then) - knew precisely what parts of his well adapted boxing arsenal to push into the shadows and what components to let the lights shine on; in order to diffuse HBO's next great unified middleweight fighter - Kelly Pavlik. Hopkins - like Floyd and unlike Roy Jones - also, by then, knew how to juggle with his adaptive set of skills when faced with other/different fighters too. Like a Rubik cube, guys with adaptive and complete fighting styles like Bernard, Toney, and Floyd can (metaphorically) turn a few dials and click a few squares here and there, and "hey presto" before you know they can present as the worst opponent you can find for the guy in front of them; without increasing their own risks beyond what might otherwise be the case. Lots of people - particularly those that are quick to jump to and agree with conclusions and subjective claims - don't completely understand how these styles and skills really operate and work. Old timer boxing Sages do. Hopkins' initial trainer did. As does Floyd Sr. and Roger. As did Toney's initial coach and Steward. This - and its beautiful accommodation of a complete and active (USA slip/slide style) defence - is why Hopkins, Mayweather, and Toney can - within reason - adapt to almost any guy. Hopkins - as he predicted - flogged, embarrassed, and destroyed Pavlik. Kelly's career was never the same. This all happened (contrary to Frank's overtones) when Bernard Hopkins was in his prime, or, if not, then perhaps only a few years removed from it; as Hopkins was not at all embarrassed against Jermain Taylor when he - ~3 years earlier to facing Pavlik - lost those fights. Still, arguably, you could say that Hopkins' best (physical fighting prime?) years were yet to come. So, let's look at the proof associated with that claim shall we? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whoops, hold on . . . with the above breakdown of Hopkins, his opponents, and how it all relates to when his physical boxing prime was, I actually missed the important fact that prior to Joe Calzaghe (in 2008) - whom actually preceded Hopkins' fight with Pavlik - Bernard, in 2007, also defeated Winky Wright too. Wright had - prior to Hopkins - collected some very good scalps and never been soundly beaten. Winky had actually - prior to meeting Bernard - been undefeated for approximately 8 years. It is not until you go back in Wright's career, back to 1999, before you see his pre-Hopkins loss (in a close fight) to Fernando Vargas; in a fight where Vargas gave an excellent display on how to, and what punches/combinations to throw in order to, fight/beat a lefty. OK, I didn't want to miss Wright out, as he's not only a very good boxer - but also yet another example of how Hopkins' physical fighting peak didn't occur until much later than when Bernard first fought Roy Jones. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alright, back to the point where Bernard had destroyed Kelly Pavlik, and in some sense indirectly avenged his losses to Jermain Taylor, by; A) Beating the man that knocked out Taylor. B) Successfully reclaiming back his WBC and WBO middleweight titles. After beating Pavlik in 2008, Hopkins then went onto;
A) (Just after defeating Enrique Ornelas over 12 rounds in 2009) defeat
Roy Jones in 2010. At that point Jones had, only 4 months earlier - in his previous fight in Australia - been knocked out by Danny Green in 1 round.
B) Fight a draw with a very tough and durable
Jean Pascal (26-1-0 going in) in 2010; in contest for both the IBO and WBC light heavyweight titles. Pascal only had 1 loss going in to this fight with Hopkins, and if my memory serves me correctly that was a 12 round decision loss in 2008 courtesy of Carl Froch.
C) Avenge the draw and defeat
Jean Pascal in 2011; in doing so earn the above-mentioned light heavyweight titles.
D) 2011 still; Fight
Chad Dawson (30-1-0 going in) to a no contest and in doing so Bernard retained the WBC light heavyweight title. Chad was, at the time, a highly reputed and young light heavyweight fighter Dawson only had 1 loss going in to this fight with Hopkins, and I think that was a 12 round decision loss in 2010 courtesy of Jean Pascal; whom Bernard himself went on to beat in 2011 - after Pascal actually beat Dawson. Dawson, after his loss to Pascal 2010, had one more fight (Adrian Diaconu) before finally meeting Hopkins for the first time in 2011; in their no contest ending bout.
E) 2012; lose the above-mentioned WBC light heavyweight title to
Chad Dawson.
F) Bounce straight back (after the Chad Dawson loss) and defeat - the previously undefeated -
Tavoris Cloud (24-0-0 going in) for the IBF light heavyweight title, in 2013.
G) Successfully defend (after Tavoris Cloud) the aforementioned IBF light heavyweight title, against
Karo Murat (25-1-1 going in) in 2013. Murat only had 1 loss going in to his fight with Hopkins, courtesy of a TKO loss (in 2010) via Nathan Cleverly. After losing to Nathan Cleverly in 2010; Karo still went on and had 4 more fights, where he didn't lose, before meeting Hopkins.
H)
Beibut Shumenov (14-1-0 going in) was, after Karo Murat, defeated by Hopkins next, over 12 rounds in 2014. In defeating Shumenov Hopkins snatched his IBA and WBA light heavyweight titles and then added them to his own IBF light heavyweight title. Shumenov only had 1 loss going in to his fight with Hopkins, and that was a 12 round decision loss in 2009 courtesy of Gabriel Campillo in Kazakhstan. With his win over Beibut Shumenov, Hopkins was, now - again - a unified title holder - this time, again, as a light heavyweight. Just as he was (previously also) a unified title holder in 2010 - 2011; as a light heavyweight. And, just as he was a unified title holder earlier than that, from 2001 - 2005; as a middleweight - a unified title reign that - just as it commenced approximately 8 years "after" Bernard's first fight with Roy Jones - serves as notice to both;
H1) How Bernard's first fight with Roy Jones does not represent Bernard Hopkins' fighting prime.
H2) How Bernard Hopkins' fighting prime commenced approximately 8 years after Bernard's first fight with Roy Jones; at about - or possibly just before (Antwun Echols?) - the Felix Trinidad mark - where Hopkins commenced his first reign as a unified title holder in the middleweight division .
I)
Sergey Kovalev, undefeated (25-0-0 going in) fought and beat Hopkins next. The fight was over 12 rounds in 2014. In defeating Hopkins, Kovalev snatched Bernard's WBA and IBF light heavyweight titles and added them to his already existing WBO light heavyweight title. Whilst there were some indicators shown in the Calzaghe, Dawson, and perhaps some other fights Hopkins partook in over the last 10 years; his fight with the heavy handed Sergey Kovalev probably marked the fist significant signs of Bernard's decline. So . . what does it all mean? I am not saying that (the first fight with) Hopkins was a "gimme" fight for Roy. But - contrary to what the author appears to claim and state as a means to bolster Roy Jones' achievements and also Jones' claimed (and questionable) place both amongst "TBEs" and before Floyd in terms of skills - Hopkins best years were, really, still to come at that point in 1993. Fast forward approximately 8 (or 14) years, and you will find the point(s) at which Bernard Hopkins could be said to have physically peaked as a fighter. Frank, if the funds transfer doesn't work for you; I like my (aromatic) coffee as a cappuccino, well sugar(Ray Robinson or Leonard)ed, and I am also partial to crumbed veal with a side serve of Cabonara and fries. Finally, OldSchool, yes I agree with you. Holyfield would have probably destroyed Roy Jones if they fought. I suspect this is - along with several others - one reason why Jones opted to fight Ruiz instead of Evander; that is, if Evander was campaigning at a weight that was relevant when Jones opted to fight Ruiz. OK Roy Jones fans please don't be up in arms and hate on me, because; A) I didn't suggest the Jones V Mayweather comparison or make claims with respect to it. B) I didn't claim Hopkins was in his prime when he first fought Jones. C) I really do love Jones' craft; it's just that a lot of fighters accomplishments are not as good as they seem when the facts - rather than subjectivity and feelings - are used as a the guiding light. D) A case can be made for Floyd being better than Roy; personally, I don't really care who is better between Floyd and Roy. But, if I am going to tell you one thing, it's that I am pretty sure that - from the above - it's clear that both, Floyd is and that the article's assumptions and oversights are the main reason the alternative view was arrived at. E) I am not a professional boxing writer. I am not associated with any writer's association. All I do is think about what I am told and read, and then consider objectively (without emotion) what the facts are, before jumping about with excitement and typing a reply/post. Aside from that I am all over the place like bad weather, a Meth freak at night and seeking counseling for it; although that is not going too well. Put simply, I guess all I am is a
StormCentre. But, at least, I am - within reason - both the TSS's and your
StormCentre. Because I love boxing; this is the only home I have. So please make me and my infinitely variable and unpredictable weather system feel welcome, even if what I write isn't always aligned with what you might say, think, defend, and believe. The
StormCentre is always - no matter where on the Earth's rotational scope and/or axis you may exist upon and reside - open to change his views and what direction they blow in; provided yours are reasonable, substantiated, written, and fair. So, peace out Roy lovers and Floyd haters; in some ways we're all the same clan.
StormCentre. :) :)


-stormcentre :

stormcentre, I agree about Toney's greatness but he has carried too much weight to be a factor in the heavy weight division. I think Evander, in his prime, would have beaten Roy Jones at his best.
Hey OS. Your "OldSchool" moniker is exactly as Toney fought; old school. When was the last time we saw James . . clinch, hug, play for a break and points deductions, and/or complain about head butts and low blows? Never. He just gets on with it. I must admit I am probably a little biased towards Toney though, as years ago when I was younger I met him at a USA international amateur contest I was in (he was a Pro fighter, spectating) - plus, later in life, he also he came to one of my fights in Cali years after that; where I again met and talked to him. His no nonsense, deep, gangsta, and "keep it real" attitude kind of had an effect on me, and he became one of my favorite fighters. Amongst a world of complicated advice about how to win, James dropped this gem on me; ""just work that body hard, then tax the head to the max, and that bytch will fall and bleed"". Poetic pugilism at it's finest. The advice was, basically, just go in there hard, get to work on the body/head, and show no respect. I had always loved Toney's fighting style and longed to acquire some of its attributes. As I knew - just by trying to emulate them in the gym, let alone in a fight - how difficult they were to perfect to the level he had them at. They were all so different to the Eastern Bloc and European boxing styles I had originally learned. But I knew - from how good Toney's style was at achieving (if not bettering {eg; slipping incoming punches, getting into position, and then safely combination punching off of cute angles}) some of the same objectives to that of the styles I had learned - that some of the really ingrained principles I had picked up on as an amateur could probably be complemented and/or improved upon by either adopting some aspects of James' slip/slide moves - or by completely supplanting them into my routine. The problem was, at the time, that was going to be hard. Because when you're always in competition and used to doing various things under (undefined levels of) pressure - even if you see a better way - it's sometimes more risky to implement it under competition pressure. In the very least, slowly learning (some of) those techniques Toney used and integrating them into competition showed me just how good they and Toney were. So, that's a part of the reason I hold Toney as one of the better fighters of this era; despite the losses. However, then when you add all that up with some of the commentary that Emmanuel Steward has furnished us with about James (in the, Jirov, Nunn, and possibly McCullum fights) where Steward . . . not only talks about James' (even from a young age) fearless and brilliant sparring wars in the old Kronk gym (against top fighters) that Steward used to train fighters at - but also how - on many levels and dimensions - accomplished and deep Toney is; you start to really understand how good Toney guy is. I remember Manny Steward - when commenting during one of James' above-mentioned fights (possibly the Nunn and/or Jirov fight) - saying words to the effect that . . . James was a completely different fighter to anyone he had ever seen . . .he continued with words to the effect of . .
Emmanuel Steward: ""James' is the kind of guy that, no matter what, you can never count him out. He can punch with you, counterpunch, box, slip and slide. He rarely gets caught with a decent shot because he slips or rolls them, and he can fight exhausted and still find a way to win. Unlike most guys that have finished their workout and are tired, Toney will still spar if asked. A few time guys in my gym - good guys - have called James out for a spar as James was all showered and ready to leave, and James would just nod, unzip his bag, get the gloves out, and not only spar - but really lay down some moves. He is the deepest "(as in meanest and toughest) "guy I have ever seen in my gym, and he regularly as a youngster used to come to the gym and want to spar top guys like Hearns and Gerald "(I may have the names wrong but the names mentioned were top guys; I know that). "James' always wanted to spar more than the other guys, and he rarely got beat up and pushed around. I just don't know of any other fighter that is prepared to both put down and tolerate what Toney, in a fight, can"". Now, if ever there was a reason to say ""nuff said for me""; those words from Steward are it. Toney fights anyone, anywhere, anytime; almost regardless of whether he himself is ready or not. And rarely does James' Philly Crab and/or his other integrated defensive/fighting styles allow him to get really busted up; even if he loses. Gotta give credit where it is due though, as Roy Jones did look good beating James in 1994, as he also showed a way (if you're fast enough) to deal with James' style. Roy's fighting style though - particularly as a professional - was very fundamentally unsound. Jones was not the first fighter to make the risky game of pugilistic unorthodoxy work for him though. But he may just be one of its more spectacular proponents. When Roy Jones was on fire, he blazed with a unique, exceptional, and sensational intensity. But like any great movie that moves you, behind it all and also behind all the promotion, sensation, and glitter that accompanies it and wows audiences, there is usually a document set consisting of (at least) a script and investment/project plan that - whilst not always easy and comfortable reading - once understood, often lays out the inner mechanics and forces that are really at work. Sometimes the document set's true meaning is as pretty as the play - other times it's not. Other times its somewhere in between. Nevertheless the elusiveness of the document set's true meaning (and the truth) often has upsides; such as how it both assists marketing of the fight whilst also removing the possible onset of early promoter's fatigue. Jones, as an amateur was successful and achieved the highest level; only to be robbed at the Olympics. The robbery motivated him in his professional career. Aside from the skills Roy acquired as an amateur and from his father; mostly though, it was Jones' superior reflexes, coordination, and speed (and perhaps a few other things that have also assisted Pacquaio) that allowed Roy Jones - as a professional fighter - to "magically" blaze through opponents with his unique, exceptional, and sensational intensity. That and some clever management and matchmaking. Still, Roy entertained us - there's no doubt about that. But, behind it all was the clever use of an unorthodox style married (for a while) to superior reflexes, coordination, and speed; which - for the most part - effected how other opponents could react, plan and compete, by (Roy) presenting a much different, more complex, and enigmatic picture to his opponents. More than they had certainly seen in their gyms and most other opponents anyway. This is one reason why, during the decline of Jones' physical attributes and fighting determination he has become noticeably more vulnerable than, say, a guy like Floyd; whom - instead; A) Has not only a complex and multi-dimensional fighting style (down pat) that has its roots securely planted in the same (or a similar USA technician and slip/slide) style Toney used. B) But also - unlike Roy Jones - has evolved and perfected that style as he has aged and physically declined; to offset weakness that creep in with age. (Please note the above comments could also apply to Hopkins, and also Toney too). Whilst we're talking/looking at Roy Jones, Floyd Mayweather, and Bernard Hopkins; in addition - and contrary to the claims Frank (the author of this thread) has made . . . .
Frank Lotierzo: ""From a physical skill-set, Jones was faster than Mayweather, had a better offensive repertoire, punched harder with both hands, was a better body puncher and finisher, and yes, because of his foot speed and foot-work, he was harder to hit. In fact the only category where Mayweather gets the check in his column is in the punch resistance column"". That assert Floyd's only superiority to Jones is . . punch resistance. A good question may be; what about defence and fundamental boxing skills? Are we really sure that Roy Jones has a better defence and better fundamental boxing skills than Floyd and/or Bernard? A physical skillset - whether we like it or not - in boxing goes far beyond the unique, exceptional, and sensational intensity of some of the performances that Roy delivered; regardless of whether they were against subpar opposition, or opposition that were not in their *prime - more on *that later. So, back to defence and fundamental boxing skills, and Frank's claim that Floyd's only superiority to Jones is punch resistance.
Defence and fundamental boxing style/skills; they are (like both the KO and other losses on Roy's record, and also those Roy didn't fight) the big fat white elephant in the room; which metaphorically mark out a completely deeper and contrasting line in the sands of boxing ("TBE" or not) - even when the tide has both risen and recessed over a few cycles - particularly when drawing comparisons to Floyd, and (as far as KO losses and not ducking anyone is concerned) perhaps, also Toney. Furthermore, (as claims of how Floyd {and Lara [but not Rigondeaux]} runs when he defensively uses his legs attest) Roy's foot speed is not necessarily the same as an active defence, either. :) Although, I concede, it can be used defensively. Roy, once his speed had deteriorated in similar quantities to how Floyd's is said to have during the transition from Pretty Boy to Money May, has shown he virtually has no active defence and/or means to compete at the top level; in order to assist him with the evolution of a boxing style that can successfully carry him into his - most dangerous and risky - veteran years. One need only look at the light year wide hole in the fabric of boxings' spacetime that exists between Floyd's competition and that whom Roy fights (see above posts for the facts); at the tail end of both of their careers - itself a - like many above substantiated and made - point(s) that must be overlooked to consider Roy Jones ahead of Floyd or Hopkins in almost any stakes. Whether they be "TBE" or not. Furthermore, with respect to Frank's claims that . . .
Frank Lotierzo: ""From a physical skill-set, Jones was faster than Mayweather, had a better offensive repertoire, punched harder with both hands, was a better body puncher and finisher, and yes, because of his foot speed and foot-work, he was harder to hit.
In fact the only category where Mayweather gets the check in his column is in the punch resistance column"". Floyd's timing - even if it is not better than, but instead (let's just be nice and say) "equal" to Roy's in his peak - is also way, way, beyond Roy's in terms of longevity (and this matters not just for considerations of defence and fundamentally superior boxing style/skills - but also for reasons later discussed/proven) in the game. Over the long run, as we can see, there is no comparison between the two; in these categories. As Floyd still - unlike Roy - has sublime timing; which - even at 38 - is probably still the best in the business. Yes I know we were all amazed at Roy's ability to punch from behind the back and knock out Glen Kelly, and how he magically used his above-mentioned advantages over other guys and impressed us all more than Floyd and others, but we will get to that later and even, possibly, set a single category for it; "ability to entertain on both, first impressions and results (regardless of how they were achieved). Back to looking at the author's claim that; ""in fact the only category where Mayweather gets the check in his column is in the punch resistance column"." Same (as above comments for timing) for Floyd's counterpunching ability; it's miles better than Roy's now, and has been for years, and probably was - if not better than, then - at least equal to Jones' even when both fighters where in their primes. Same for Floyd's stamina. This category is almost one of the most fundamental aspects of a championship fighter that Frank seems to also have overlooked when comparing Roy and Floyd. Jones is, now, lazy compared to Floyd in this respect; which (aside from an inferior defence and fighting style capable of evolving) is another reason why Jones suffered serious losses both in his prime (Glen Johnson and Antonio Tarver) and also after it. Furthermore, Jones rarely displayed the 12 round high intensity stamina in his early years that Floyd did in his prime, and if Jones did, then it was for a far less duration of prime-time. In fact if one goes back to Floyd's "Pretty Boy" fights (as I have recently for the Whitaker V Mayweather comparison thread) you can easily see that - even aside from the fact that Mayweather has displayed and retained these high level skills for a far longer bandwidth in time than Roy Jones; against not less than the, but probably a better, level of opposition Jones faced - in some of Floyd's Pretty Boy fights his dynamic abilities, speed, counterpunching, and especially his timing, where easily as good as Roy's. Take a look at the Burten/Augustus, Ndou, Chavez, Castillo, Corrales and some of Floyd's earlier fights before you throw your hands up in the air. Add to it all Roy paid very little attention to defence when he would release his blistering combinations that wooed us all; mostly because he had superior speed and skills to his opposition - which is another reason why Roy lost dramatically both, when he finally stepped it up in his prime, and also in his veteran/current years. You can't always teach an old dog new (defence) tricks, and Jones and his style was not prepared to evolve; confirming an inferior fighting technique to that adopted by Floyd, Bernard, and even Toney. Fundamentally Roy did many things wrong. But, he cleverly made it work for him, and got away with it, due to lightening fast reflexes, that (like Shane Mosely and some other fighters' other worldly speed/skills) quickly deteriorated around the same time the Balco scandal hit town. However, let's leave Balco out of it for now, and what you have left is that the remainder of those above 23 or so sentences/paragraphs are still why not only both Glen Johnson and also Antonio Tarver were so confident - but why almost everyone was shocked to see Glen Johnson and also Antonio Tarver knockout Roy Jones when he was considered to be in his prime and a cut above such opponents. You see, both Glen Johnson and also Antonio Tarver knew what Roy had been, doing, and fighting; and why.

So, the moral of the story here is that which has been overlooked (White Elephant) not just when ignoring how some of Roy's best achievements were scripted and/or stating Roy Jones has a better stake to a "TBE" trophy than Floyd - but also that information skipped across when claiming Floyd only betters Roy in punch resistance; is that Floyd actually - if you look at it subjectively and forget how we all drooled when Roy blew out some guys - has several superior traits to Jones. Not in the least his entire fundamental boxing style is superior for the above reasons, including the fact that it has stood up against "the most sternest of tests boxing can throw at a fighter"; the test of (father) time, remaining unbeaten, and continually good - if not great - competition. Any look at both guy's records shows that Jones has not continuously fought better opposition than Floyd; but lets just say they're equal. Remember I didn't draw the comparison between Floyd and Jones; Frank did that. Jones' exciting approach and style has - unlike Floyd's that is rooted in the correct techniques - (and not just when Roy was considered over the hill either) quickly dissipated with age and other factors; as we have seen. This is true even if we disregard all the anomalies and overlooked considerations (of which there are many) related to whom Jones didn't fight I am not (in depth) going near Frank's implicit claim that Roy was faster than Pretty Boy and/or Money May? Both were blindingly fast in their prime, Floyd still can be, Roy is not, and Floyd's prime lasted longer; Floyd (easily) takes it on that meritorious assessment that was not undertaken when the claim that Floyd only betters Roy in punch resistance was made. All I will further add to the hand-speed comparison is to say; take a look at all Floyd's fights first and then judge for yourself. Even aside from the actual hand-speed demonstration and overall performances Floyd gives; in many of his fights - particularly those as Pretty Boy" - you can actually hear commentary from professional HBO and Showtime commentators (some even include commentary from Roy Jones himself) that have also worked on Roy's fights, discussing how Mayweather's skills and speed is up there with, if not the, best they have seen. So, in summary, some of Floyd's Pretty Boy fights display pretty good hand speed; a point seemingly overlooked in the Frank Lotierzo Floyd V Jones comparo. I say that as, interestingly (despite Floyd's speed being one of his more obvious superior traits) - and as with the other points mentioned above - Frank appears to make no comment on this, as he claims punch resistance is the only area where Floyd betters Jones. Such approaches though - where facts are overlooked - are not uncommon with subjective opinions and discussions related to Floyd Mayweather and Roy Jones. And that's OK too. Well . . . it's OK . . . so long as we don't pretend subjective opinion is fact (Glen Kelly V Roy Jones for 6 belts; whilst a swag of other more suitable and dangerous opponents
did actually exist {see my above posts}) only to then get upset, loud, possibly bullying, and defensive, when we finally put subjective opinion to work in the real world and a boxing ring, and find out it is really just the soft opposition to the facts and truth; Glen Johnson/Antonio Tarver V Roy Jones for 5 belts; whilst a swag of other more suitable and dangerous opponents
did not exist in the same quantities) These are the facts ladies and gentlemen, the writing is on the wall and in the record books, and both guys performances and longevity is there for all to see, check, accept, or deny. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My take on it all (and I love Roy Jones, as a fighter and especially his commentary these days);
1)
Is Jones a better finisher? Yes - but usually against comparably lesser opposition.
2)
Is Jones a harder puncher? Yes - his KO ratio (~64% { to Floyd's ~54%}) certainly suggests it is. But then this is without considering whom each guy fought, and from above posts we can clearly see that all is not as it seems there for Roy and any (un-scrutinized) and/or purely subjective assessment (as most are) of his and perhaps also Floyd's fighting reputation.
3)
Is Jones a bigger risk taker? Debatable - his opposition suggests there is need of more research than Frank and others have provided and/or engaged in.
4)
Is Jones a better counterpuncher? No. There is no evidence to suggest he is; particularly when - but even without - considering opposition. Roy has not displayed the same repertoire of clever and fast counterpunching against the same level of competition, and for as long as Floyd has.
5)
Is Jones a better athlete in terms of preparation and stamina? No. See above and below comments. Sure Roy was dynamic, fast, and mesmerizing; but so was Floyd - and for longer and arguably against better opposition.
6)
Is Jones the holder of a fundamentally better and more effective/successful boxing style? No. See above and below comments.
7)
Is Jones the holder of a better boxing-defence system? No, or (at best) it's equal to Floyds. There is much, much, more to defence than . . .
Frank Lotierzo: ""From a physical skill-set, Jones was faster than Mayweather, had a better offensive repertoire, punched harder with both hands, was a better body puncher and finisher,
and yes, because of his foot speed and foot-work, he was harder to hit. Foot speed and foot work. If not one of Floyd's, then view one of Toney's fights, to prove and see this. This is one of the main reasons why Roy Jones is not unbeaten, has been KO'd numerous times, and has not aged extremely well in the sport; unlike Floyd.
8) (Just to look at one or a few aspects of defence);
is Jones the holder of fundamentally better head movement and integrated defensive/offensive coordination moves? No. They must be (provided you ignore the longevity gap between the two; because if you don't Floyd wins easily) at least equal; if not the (more likely) answer is "No".
9)
Is Jones the holder of faster foot work? Yes. In his prime (only) Roy could float across - using oblique and brilliant angles - the face and side of opponents in ways that are probably neater and faster than Floyd.
10)
Is Jones the holder of better foot work? No - if we look at the careers over the entire period; as Frank clearly does when assessing Roy's punch resistance. Draw if you consider each guys' prime, as both - in similar and different ways - had excellent footwork in their primes. Floyd's footwork still almost without exception perfectly underpins all his strategy (the true objective of footwork); you can't say that about Roy Jones.
11)
Is Floyd the holder of better punch resistance? I am not even sure this claim Frank has made is true, particularly for their primes. Sure Jones has been KO'd a lot, and Floyd never has. But Floyd's superior defensive technique, and options have allowed him to rarely get hit cleanly multiple times in succession; unlike Roy. But then, Mosley seemed to rattle Floyd with a good shot too; when they fought. Jones, on the other hand, especially before the Balco scandal, at 160, and before he started regularly fighting tomato cans; took some decent shots from Toney, Hopkins and some other fighters. Sure Jones' punch resistance is shot now and (even considering the competition level differences) way less than Floyds. But if we chose a time when they were both in their peak punch resistance form, I am unsure how Frank or anyone could tell that Floyd's punch resistance was better than (or worse) than Jones'. Furthermore, if we're going to now compare Roy's punch resistance at the end of his career - as the lack detail about placing Roy behind Floyd in this category, and some above comments surely suggest - why can't we then compare other fighting attributes of both fighters in the latter parts of the careers, where it is - hands down - clear that Floyd is far better across a range of (overlooked) categories? Sure hate on Floyd all you like and subjectively rush for Jones' plums when you can. But why rig the experiment? As all that does is allow one to waltz around, whistling Dixie in Falsetto, and pretending they have backed a winner - only to disappear to the toilets when the real players go to collect their winnings.
12)
Is Jones the guy that has faced better available opposition, including those that have called him out? No. Floyd has been said to have not always fought the best opposition and I agree with that claim, as there are some guys - particularly when they were in their prime - that Floyd didn't or could not fight. Williams, Cotto, Margarito and others called Floyd out and for various reasons (including a short break from boxing) Floyd did not face them. That said when you look at the majority of Floyd's title defences and his other fights, his opponents are usually not less than (at most) one or two rating levels down from him. Sure Baldomir and other exceptions may exist, but there really are no unified title defences (or many other fights) against guys as far down as say Glen Kelly and Clinton Woods were, for Roy Jones. Also, we have to consider that - as shown in above posts - there was a swag of other champions and/or fighters at certain weights that Roy Jones never fought when he held titles in those same weights; yet - particularly in the latter stages of his career where it is much harder to do so and also where Roy has failed to even get any traction with/into a meaningful contention position pertaining to the major sanctions - we just can't say that same thing for Floyd as a welterweight. As Floyd - for last 8 years of his boxing career, and essentially the 2 or 3 years during which he has been a unified champion - has pretty much cleaned house, sanctions, and titles in that respect, and fought the best (or near that) welterweights available - all whilst remaining undefeated. Notwithstanding the above comments about Williams, Cotto, Margarito and others; Floyd also has a noticeably better record with both rematches, and also accepting challenges from other available fighters - and beating them. Roy's record in this respect is (as shown from how easy it is to jump on the bandwagon) - whilst deceptive - not the same in this respect. It is impossible to realistically think that as Roy Jones was a champion and telling everyone that he was the best, he somehow forgot about these other (below listed) champions/opponents that were all - in their own rights - making big noises; both with their wins/successes and (ignored) calls for a showdown with Jones. Dariusz Michalczewski. Michael Nunn. Sven Ottke. Julian Jackson. Nigel Benn. Chris Eubank. Frankie Liles. Gerald McClellan. Steve Collins. There is just no way - as history has shown - that Floyd would allow that many other champions/opponents to go untested. Happy to hear - with facts - how this view is wrong, and if so (and the argument is reasonable) I will change this category win from one for a win Floyd - over to a win for Roy.
13)
Is Jones the guy that has entertained us more on both, first impressions and results (regardless of how they were achieved)? As above promised; lucky number 13. I guess on the weight of evidence from the forum and the overall dislike for Floyd, I'd have to give this one to Roy Jones. So, "Yes". Roy takes number 13; even though Roy Jones has pulled less numbers, cash, and success from the sport than Floyd and his all time record numbers may be massaged into representing and/or constituting "entertainment". There's no denying, Roy Jones is probably a more popular athlete and boxer. Although I reckon (but can't prove), worldwide, that is outside of the USA, there would be legions more fans that would agree that Floyd has entertained us as much - if not both to a greater extent and for longer - than Roy; offsetting the dislike a lot of people have for Floyd and his sometimes defensive style.
In summary; we could go on with this (detailed and proper) comparison, but I think the point(s) are clear. Some people like to dislike and dismiss Floyd, but those same people may sometimes also be reserved to apply the same judgment, critique, and overall approach to others (including Roy Jones, Hopkins and Rigondeaux); which can lead to overlooking flaws of other fighters - sometimes to prop them up to be better than both, Floyd, and what the fighter of interest/choice may really be. Optical Illusions; damn right - Jones is as good as it gets. Except, upon inspection the facts - the same ones that, when revealed, still drive some to prefer untruths over the truth - often speak otherwise. Another management trick that Roy used to use - afforded by the luxury of holding so many belts (and it is not an uncommon "trick") - was choose the mandatory and/or opponent that suited, and then claim the others (some of which are listed above) had to wait and/or were fights that were too hard to make. By the time the same name came up again as an opponent they had usually deteriorated and/or been beaten - or Roy had moved up in weight. So being a mandatory was not always a sure fire way to fight Roy; unless you were a mandatory that was not on the above list that is, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Furthermore, I am unsure about this too . . . .
Frank Lotierzo: ""
The difference is, Jones dominated Bernard Hopkins (a certifiable all-time great and Hall of Famer) when he was near his peak physically. Hopkins entered the fight with Jones 22-1, with the loss coming in his pro-debut. Hopkins won 22 bouts in a row before losing to Jones by a pronounced margin, and then went undefeated for 12 years 1993-2005 after he fought Jones"". Dear me. Perhaps, never before has "TBE" been used so loosely and without meaningful research. Was the article put together on a napkin that had accommodated too many spilt pints? Sorry Frank, but I am really not sure Hopkins fought Jones when he was at his prime. Hopkins - when he first fought Jones - may have been at an age where most men are in their physical prime. But Hopkins got a lot (and I mean a lot) better and craftier in his fights that came after Jones; possibly learning from that fight. Hopkins was in his fighting prime about 8 or 10 years after he first fought Roy Jones. Furthermore, the claim that infers Hopkins was otherwise smacks of fitting up a story with misinterpreted factoids, and then hoping the subjectivity of Roy Jones and his (un-scrutinized) best performances will do the rest. Sorry, I do generally like your work, but this piece leaves a bit to be desired; even though the fans have come rushing out. Some of us have been around a little longer, remember, have some real experience, and are not so quick be satiated; so I thought rather than rubbish the article I would re-write it for you - for free. See the
StormCentre is your friend. Sure, feel free to flick me a 50% cut of your fee for the piece if you like; it's up to you. Now, Hopkins - like Floyd - is another guy that has probably fought better opposition than Jones and (successfully) lasted longer than him due to - arguably - both, a better overall spread of fundamental boxing skills (capable of evolving), and also not a complete reliance upon speed and reflexes (as Roy Jones did); even though Bernard and/or Floyd may have not been as mesmerizing and sensationalized as Roy Jones was in his most quintessential prime. Hopkins (whilst not innocent of the practice) has also ducked less credible opponents and champions than Roy Jones; in my view. Hopkins - when much older - but physically, then, was, as a fighter, better - than when he first fought Roy Jones; beat both Tarver (whom destroyed the "other worldly" and unbeatable {forget the Montell Griffin fight in 1997 for now that Roy lost due to a disqualification} myth of Jones ), and Roy Jones. Hopkins - almost 14 years after that time when Roy Jones first fought Hopkins (in 1993) - beat Tarver in 2006. Yet - to bolster your piece and claims in relation to Roy Jones - you're claiming that Hopkins was near his physical boxing peak in 1993; when Bernard first fought Roy Jones. I suggest and think that a far better theory is that in 1993 Bernard Hopkins was nowhere near his physical boxing peak, and that that did not begin to occur for him until, at least, 2001; ~8 years later - when Bernard fought and stopped Felix Trinidad. However, I don't want to make a claim that recalibrations are in order without thinking about it, so let's do this properly and take a look at the Antonio Tarver that Hopkins beat in 2006. Stay with me, as there's a method to my madness. Prior to facing Hopkins in 2006 Tarver had;
A) Avenged a (points) loss to Eric Harding (that took place in 2000) by defeating him in 2002; via a KO in round 5. Tarver had 3 fights before this fight, all of which he won; 2 by KO. Prior to that came the loss to Harding I above refer to. So Tarver was pretty much on a good winning streak.
B) Beat Montell Griffin in 2003.
C) Lost a controversial decision to Jones in 2003.
D) Avenged the controversial decision to Jones (in 2003) by, in 2004, knocking Jones out in 2 rounds. Jones was still largely considered to be in his prime at this point and also those fights/before it.
E) Lost a split decision to Glen Johnson in 2004.
F) Avenged the earlier 2004 loss to Glen Johnson, in 2005.
G) Defeated Roy Jones (again) by unanimous decision, in 2006. So, if not in 2006 when Hopkins beat Tarver and - in some sense - then collected/avenged all those scalps I have above listed "A" to "G"; one could easily argue that before it - at, say around the point when Bernard stopped Felix Trinidad (2001) and in doing so unified his WBC and IBF middleweight titles with the WBA super middleweight title Trinidad lost; Bernard was then - not when he first fought Roy Jones - in his fighting prime. If not, then Bernard Hopkins' record suggests otherwise and aligns with what I am saying. Not in the least as from that point onward Bernard Hopkins successfully defended the aforementioned WBA, WBA, and IBF middleweight titles, in a uniformed manner, and no less than 8 times; along the way, collecting also the WBO middleweight title from Oscar DeLa Hoya in 2004, and also both putting up for grabs and successfully defending that title - along with also the aforementioned 3 other WBA, WBA, and IBF middleweight titles - within his last 3 unified title defences, in total involving no less than the; WBO, WBA, WBA, and IBF middleweight titles for these championship bouts. Furthermore, as further reason to reconsider whether Hopkins was at or near his physical boxing peak when he first met Roy Jones; prior to fighting Roy Jones for the first time (in 1993), the highest level Bernard had operated at was only at USBA level - a level Hopkins immediately revisited after fighting Jones (too soon). Now (just to be fair) Roy Jones himself - prior to fighting Hopkins for the first time (in 1993) - had, at the highest professional level, at that stage, really only contested a WBC continental title (whatever that is); but even considering this, the comment in question and need of possible recalibration has no direct and/or explicit association with Roy Jones' physical boxing peak - as it was in relation to Bernard Hopkins, whom arguably peaked as a fighter almost 10 years after he fought Jones. Additionally, by the time Jones initially faced Hopkins, Roy already possessed a wide range of international amateur experience - experience that Hopkins just did not have; due to incarceration and other factors. So, Roy was - as the fight itself shows - quite an advanced fighter for Hopkins to fight in 1993; even aside from the fact that Bernard had not physically peaked as a fighter by then. Facts, facts and more facts; their absence makes rewriting history easy - as many nations have shown us. If this is not ""enough said"" to shine light on when Bernard's real fighting prime was (because it certainly was not when he first faced Roy Jones), then we can look further ahead, out, to 2008; just after Hopkins lost to Joe Calzaghe - whom probably has a better claim to being a "TBE" than Jones, despite how Joes' style was not as mesmerizing and/or pleasing to the eye, as Roy's was. At that stage not only had Bernard physically peaked as a fighter and really knew his craft - but Kelly Pavlik was also the next big thing that Top Rank and HBO had. Prior to meeting Hopkins; Pavlik had impressed greatly by beating Jermain Taylor (whom himself in 2005 controversially {according to some} had ended Bernard's legendary undisputed middleweight run that took place
almost 13 years after when Jones first fought Hopkins) twice. Pavlik defeated Jermain Taylor the first time in 2007, by a serious KO in round 7. And, the second time Pavlik defeated Jermain Taylor was in 2008, this time by decision over 12 rounds. On both occasions Pavlik beat Taylor the WBC and WBO middleweight titles were for up for grabs - the same titles Taylor took from Hopkins a few years earlier. So, not too many held hope for Hopkins - whom was said to be too old - when he attempted to fight and beat Pavlik, and reclaim his WBC and WBO middleweight titles (that he believed he didn't legitimately lose to Taylor in 2005). Sometimes people - and this is the kicker here when comparing boxing skills and attributes - simply didn't understand that (not just individual aspects of it like hand-speed, footwork, and punching strength, but also) the actual boxing style itself that a fighter may possess and develop is in itself an (often overlooked) attribute, and therefore it's a consideration/category for comparison; particularly when discussing matters of either, such as when fighters are in their physical fighting peak - or even, if one fighter is more successful and/or better than the other. Hopkins - like Floyd - has and had a better and more evolved boxing style than Roy Jones. One - if not "the" - essential quality of man, life, and even boxing, is the ability to adapt and evolve. In boxing you must be able to adapt/evolve - not just in competition - but also across it. It's an often overlooked consideration in boxing and fighter comparisons. And, the ability to adapt and evolve in boxing and as a fighter is both essential and critical for many other reasons, including longevity. And, if the ability to adapt and evolve in boxing and as a fighter is both essential and critical for many other reasons, including longevity; then it's significantly important to a fighter's ability to ensure he remains both unbeaten and never knocked out. Not in the least as if you have never been knockout there is also good reason to think your positivity and learning curves stay on the correct trajectory to ensure you are as successful - in this sometimes dangerous but brilliant sport - as you can be. Therefore Bernard Hopkins - when he fought Kelly Pavlik (and probably also Felix Trinidad) - but not when he fought Roy Jones (as Hopkins was not at his peak physical fighting peak then) - knew precisely what parts of his well adapted boxing arsenal to push into the shadows and what components to let the lights shine on; in order to diffuse HBO's next great unified middleweight fighter - Kelly Pavlik. Hopkins - like Floyd and unlike Roy Jones - also, by then, knew how to juggle with his adaptive set of skills when faced with other/different fighters too. Like a Rubik cube, guys with adaptive and complete fighting styles like Bernard, Toney, and Floyd can (metaphorically) turn a few dials and click a few squares here and there, and "hey presto" before you know they can present as the worst opponent you can find for the guy in front of them; without increasing their own risks beyond what might otherwise be the case. Lots of people - particularly those that are quick to jump to and agree with conclusions and subjective claims - don't completely understand how these styles and skills really operate and work. Old timer boxing Sages do. Hopkins' initial trainer did. As does Floyd Sr. and Roger. As did Toney's initial coach and Steward. This - and its beautiful accommodation of a complete and active (USA slip/slide style) defence - is why Hopkins, Mayweather, and Toney can - within reason - adapt to almost any guy. Hopkins - as he predicted - flogged, embarrassed, and destroyed Pavlik. Kelly's career was never the same. This all happened (contrary to Frank's overtones) when Bernard Hopkins was in his prime, or, if not, then perhaps only a few years removed from it; as Hopkins was not at all embarrassed against Jermain Taylor when he - ~3 years earlier to facing Pavlik - lost those fights. Still, arguably, you could say that Hopkins' best (physical fighting prime?) years were yet to come. So, let's look at the proof associated with that claim shall we? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whoops, hold on . . . with the above breakdown of Hopkins, his opponents, and how it all relates to when his physical boxing prime was, I actually missed the important fact that prior to Joe Calzaghe (in 2008) - whom actually preceded Hopkins' fight with Pavlik - Bernard, in 2007, also defeated Winky Wright too. Wright had - prior to Hopkins - collected some very good scalps and never been soundly beaten. Winky had actually - prior to meeting Bernard - been undefeated for approximately 8 years. It is not until you go back in Wright's career, back to 1999, before you see his pre-Hopkins loss (in a close fight) to Fernando Vargas; in a fight where Vargas gave an excellent display on how to, and what punches/combinations to throw in order to, fight/beat a lefty. OK, I didn't want to miss Wright out, as he's not only a very good boxer - but also yet another example of how Hopkins' physical fighting peak didn't occur until much later than when Bernard first fought Roy Jones. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alright, back to the point where Bernard had destroyed Kelly Pavlik, and in some sense indirectly avenged his losses to Jermain Taylor, by; A) Beating the man that knocked out Taylor. B) Successfully reclaiming back his WBC and WBO middleweight titles. After beating Pavlik in 2008, Hopkins then went onto;
A) (Just after defeating Enrique Ornelas over 12 rounds in 2009) defeat
Roy Jones in 2010. At that point Jones had, only 4 months earlier - in his previous fight in Australia - been knocked out by Danny Green in 1 round.
B) Fight a draw with a very tough and durable
Jean Pascal (26-1-0 going in) in 2010; in contest for both the IBO and WBC light heavyweight titles. Pascal only had 1 loss going in to this fight with Hopkins, and if my memory serves me correctly that was a 12 round decision loss in 2008 courtesy of Carl Froch.
C) Avenge the draw and defeat
Jean Pascal in 2011; in doing so earn the above-mentioned light heavyweight titles.
D) 2011 still; Fight
Chad Dawson (30-1-0 going in) to a no contest and in doing so Bernard retained the WBC light heavyweight title. Chad was, at the time, a highly reputed and young light heavyweight fighter Dawson only had 1 loss going in to this fight with Hopkins, and I think that was a 12 round decision loss in 2010 courtesy of Jean Pascal; whom Bernard himself went on to beat in 2011 - after Pascal actually beat Dawson. Dawson, after his loss to Pascal 2010, had one more fight (Adrian Diaconu) before finally meeting Hopkins for the first time in 2011; in their no contest ending bout.
E) 2012; lose the above-mentioned WBC light heavyweight title to
Chad Dawson.
F) Bounce straight back (after the Chad Dawson loss) and defeat - the previously undefeated -
Tavoris Cloud (24-0-0 going in) for the IBF light heavyweight title, in 2013.
G) Successfully defend (after Tavoris Cloud) the aforementioned IBF light heavyweight title, against
Karo Murat (25-1-1 going in) in 2013. Murat only had 1 loss going in to his fight with Hopkins, courtesy of a TKO loss (in 2010) via Nathan Cleverly. After losing to Nathan Cleverly in 2010; Karo still went on and had 4 more fights, where he didn't lose, before meeting Hopkins.
H)
Beibut Shumenov (14-1-0 going in) was, after Karo Murat, defeated by Hopkins next, over 12 rounds in 2014. In defeating Shumenov Hopkins snatched his IBA and WBA light heavyweight titles and then added them to his own IBF light heavyweight title. Shumenov only had 1 loss going in to his fight with Hopkins, and that was a 12 round decision loss in 2009 courtesy of Gabriel Campillo in Kazakhstan. With his win over Beibut Shumenov, Hopkins was, now - again - a unified title holder - this time, again, as a light heavyweight. Just as he was (previously also) a unified title holder in 2010 - 2011; as a light heavyweight. And, just as he was a unified title holder earlier than that, from 2001 - 2005; as a middleweight - a unified title reign that - just as it commenced approximately 8 years "after" Bernard's first fight with Roy Jones - serves as notice to both;
H1) How Bernard's first fight with Roy Jones does not represent Bernard Hopkins' fighting prime.
H2) How Bernard Hopkins' fighting prime commenced approximately 8 years after Bernard's first fight with Roy Jones; at about - or possibly just before (Antwun Echols?) - the Felix Trinidad mark - where Hopkins commenced his first reign as a unified title holder in the middleweight division .
I)
Sergey Kovalev, undefeated (25-0-0 going in) fought and beat Hopkins next. The fight was over 12 rounds in 2014. In defeating Hopkins, Kovalev snatched Bernard's WBA and IBF light heavyweight titles and added them to his already existing WBO light heavyweight title. Whilst there were some indicators shown in the Calzaghe, Dawson, and perhaps some other fights Hopkins partook in over the last 10 years; his fight with the heavy handed Sergey Kovalev probably marked the fist significant signs of Bernard's decline. So . . what does it all mean? I am not saying that (the first fight with) Hopkins was a "gimme" fight for Roy. But - contrary to what the author appears to claim and state as a means to bolster Roy Jones' achievements and also Jones' claimed (and questionable) place both amongst "TBEs" and before Floyd in terms of skills - Hopkins best years were, really, still to come at that point in 1993. Fast forward approximately 8 (or 14) years, and you will find the point(s) at which Bernard Hopkins could be said to have physically peaked as a fighter. Frank, if the funds transfer doesn't work for you; I like my (aromatic) coffee as a cappuccino, well sugar(Ray Robinson or Leonard)ed, and I am also partial to crumbed veal with a side serve of Cabonara and fries. Finally, OldSchool, yes I agree with you. Holyfield would have probably destroyed Roy Jones if they fought. I suspect this is - along with several others - one reason why Jones opted to fight Ruiz instead of Evander; that is, if Evander was campaigning at a weight that was relevant when Jones opted to fight Ruiz. OK Roy Jones fans please don't be up in arms and hate on me, because; A) I didn't suggest the Jones V Mayweather comparison or make claims with respect to it. B) I didn't claim Hopkins was in his prime when he first fought Jones. C) I really do love Jones' craft; it's just that a lot of fighters accomplishments are not as good as they seem when the facts - rather than subjectivity and feelings - are used as a the guiding light. D) A case can be made for Floyd being better than Roy; personally, I don't really care who is better between Floyd and Roy. But, if I am going to tell you one thing, it's that I am pretty sure that - from the above - it's clear that both, Floyd is and that the article's assumptions and oversights are the main reason the alternative view was arrived at. E) I am not a professional boxing writer. I am not associated with any writer's association. All I do is think about what I am told and read, and then consider objectively (without emotion) what the facts are, before jumping about with excitement and typing a reply/post. Aside from that I am all over the place like bad weather, a Meth freak at night and seeking counseling for it; although that is not going too well. Put simply, I guess all I am is a
StormCentre. But, at least, I am - within reason - both the TSS's and your
StormCentre. Because I love boxing; this is the only home I have. So please make me and my infinitely variable and unpredictable weather system feel welcome, even if what I write isn't always aligned with what you might say, think, defend, and believe. The
StormCentre is always - no matter where on the Earth's rotational scope and/or axis you may exist upon and reside - open to change his views and what direction they blow in; provided yours are reasonable, substantiated, written, and fair. So, peace out Roy lovers and Floyd haters; in some ways we're all the same clan.
StormCentre. :) :)


-gibola :

As a Brit I love Eubank, Benn and Collins - all world class, proven warriors. I watched all the fights through that era. To say RJJ never fought them is a fact. To say he avoided them is ridiculous. They were making plenty of money in the UK fighting each other or fighting in Europe and they had very little interest in fighting RJJ, I rarely remember it being discussed - ever - apart from by Collins at the end of his fantastic career. We'll never know, but I'd bet my house that at his supermiddle (not LH) peak, RJJ beats all of them and they're not close fights. I don't remember fans clamouring for the fights either. I agree RJJ didn't fight as many top fighters as he should have. He should have travelled to face challenges (like Andre Ward/PBF your P4P nos 1&2 do?) but during his peak very few top fighters desperately wanted to fight him or were convincing enough in their fights to make people they might be competitive. The Europeans sure as hell weren't going to the US for the meagre money on offer to fight him when they could make more money and have a better chance of wining by staying in Europe. Had McClellan ko'd Benn there would have been pressure for a hugely intriguing RJJ-McClellan fight, but we know the tragic result of that bout. I love Hopkins - a legend - but during Jones' peak and Hopkins middleweight reign nobody was desperate to see a repeat of their first fight - with good reason - RJJ would win comfortably - it would be repeat - everybody felt that way. Hopkins' stock rose massively late in his career remember. Post-Ruiz Jones is past his best, never the same after coming back down to 175. This retrospective stuff about the guys he didn't fight is interesting, but in the 90s I assure you nobody was screaming for Hopkins-Jones II, or Jones-Liles or Jones-Ottke. There was some comment about Michaelweski but neither party really wanted to make it happen. Just imagine for a moment if RJJ hadn't fought Hopkins and Toney - there'd be endless criticism and comment on TSS about how they'd have beaten him this way or that way, great fighters that they both are. However, they did fight him and when they fought him, RJJ beat them both easily, whether people like it or not. At his best he was that good.


-Domenic :

As a Brit I love Eubank, Benn and Collins - all world class, proven warriors. I watched all the fights through that era. To say RJJ never fought them is a fact. To say he avoided them is ridiculous. They were making plenty of money in the UK fighting each other or fighting in Europe and they had very little interest in fighting RJJ, I rarely remember it being discussed - ever - apart from by Collins at the end of his fantastic career. We'll never know, but I'd bet my house that at his supermiddle (not LH) peak, RJJ beats all of them and they're not close fights. I don't remember fans clamouring for the fights either. I agree RJJ didn't fight as many top fighters as he should have. He should have travelled to face challenges (like Andre Ward/PBF your P4P nos 1&2 do?) but during his peak very few top fighters desperately wanted to fight him or were convincing enough in their fights to make people they might be competitive. The Europeans sure as hell weren't going to the US for the meagre money on offer to fight him when they could make more money and have a better chance of wining by staying in Europe. Had McClellan ko'd Benn there would have been pressure for a hugely intriguing RJJ-McClellan fight, but we know the tragic result of that bout. I love Hopkins - a legend - but during Jones' peak and Hopkins middleweight reign nobody was desperate to see a repeat of their first fight - with good reason - RJJ would win comfortably - it would be repeat - everybody felt that way. Hopkins' stock rose massively late in his career remember. Post-Ruiz Jones is past his best, never the same after coming back down to 175. This retrospective stuff about the guys he didn't fight is interesting, but in the 90s I assure you nobody was screaming for Hopkins-Jones II, or Jones-Liles or Jones-Ottke. There was some comment about Michaelweski but neither party really wanted to make it happen. Just imagine for a moment if RJJ hadn't fought Hopkins and Toney - there'd be endless criticism and comment on TSS about how they'd have beaten him this way or that way, great fighters that they both are. However, they did fight him and when they fought him, RJJ beat them both easily, whether people like it or not. At his best he was that good.
Good stuff. Since the Tarver KO, Jones has been a shell of himself (I remember after the 3rd Tarver fight, he basically was satisfied not being KO'd, and simply finishing a fight, and presumably his career at that time, upright). Like you said, he's just never been the same since putting the weight on to fight Ruiz, then shedding it all to campaign at light heavyweight. McClellan and Jones were absolutely on a collision course to meet. That certainly would've happened had McClellan prevailed that night (he almost got the KO in the first round, but the referee, who was completely inept that night, kept breaking them up and holding GM back when he had Benn in desperate physical straits). As for Hopkins, I'll amend a comment I made somewhere earlier. I said his prime was against Jones. It was the precipice of his prime, to me. I think his true prime was when he demolished the undefeated Glen Johnson. I believe that was 1997, when he was still stopping guys. But Hopkins was very highly regarded, even when he fought Jones in 1993 (the fight is a snoozer, but well worth watching given its historical significance and excellent commentary). After all, his only loss after his pro debut in 1988 and the Jermain Taylor fight in 2005 was against Roy Jones.


-brownsugar :

Some great comments ( thanks Domenic )on this thread. You have to remember that Jones became such a freak of nature because his father put a young Roy Jones thought some ultra-abusive training regimens that would have surely prompted the Local Children's Services Agency to remove Jones from the custody of his father if they would have known what Jones senior was doing to a young Roy Jones during hot summer days on their remote patch of land, out in the middle of nowhere. Jones has said numerous times that he would have run away if his family didn't live so far in the boondocks where there was literally no where to run. These training sessions make Ann Wolfe look like Mary Poppins by comparison. We had never seen, nor were prepared for the spectacle of watching this supernaturally mutated version of a professional boxer, do things in the ring that we had only previously witnessed in comic books. Could this man be real???. But the magic began to quickly fade, whatever cosmic gifts were granted to Roy were stolen by fame money, decadence and the lure of Hollywood. Roy appeared in the top movies of the day (the Matrix) and countless rap videos, everybody wanted a piece of Roy and he was more than happy to oblige. Roy did more than mingle with Hollywood, he embraced it, was seduced by it and subsequently stripped of his virture. Instead of calling himself Superman, Roy was more like the other super Dude who's name started with an "S", ...Sampson...and the limelight was his Delilah. Where as Mayweather was sustained by his dedication and discipline (and vitue as it applied to boxing). Here was a man who could rent a whole strip club and every stripper, every bottle of champagne in the bar and transport the entire party to his mansion,.... and not smoke a single spliff or drink a single shot of champagne. Where Jones was measured by the seemingly supernatural aspects of his awesome physicality. Floyd will be measured by his iron will, self discipline, and peerless ring intelligence. I wanted to go into Roy's self imposed segregation from his European counter parts, and Floyd's calculated approach to boxing which has allowed him to defeat more HOF Fighters, extend his career over two decades and hone his mystique to the point where he can produce record breaking PPV shows and astronomical paydays, but Storm and Gibola have done a better job explaining that aspect of the discussion.


-deepwater2 :

Roy always made my fight parties fun. Floyd ruined my fight parties.after a few of Floyd's parties my friends switched to MMA. I went to a polo match last week and I tried to talk boxing. The overweight rich people are taking UFC classes and miss Tyson. Floyd got rich and boxing suffered.It is what it is.


-brownsugar :

That's odd, because our fight party was a blast... I suspect the only damage done was to the ego's of the folks who thought Floyd would lose. Jones was fun to watch, but lacked the discipline to reach his awesome potential. During his entire prime only Toney, Bhop, and Tarver, made him look like a normal boxer, but in between those guys.....Jones KO'd a slew of taxi drivers, construction workers, and fighters who would never be seen on the big stage again. Jones would come from playing a basketball game right before the fight , perform a rap tune, and knock out a guy with his hands behind his back. But like Tyson he followed the siren call into the world of entertainment....and into a lifestyle that destroyed more fighters than the after effects of getting hit in the head every day. I don't know if the TBE tag is valid for any fighter. But if this thread is a comparison between the career of Jones and Floyd..... Floyd wins hands down. Jones has had to fight two Hall of Famers in his career (Bhop and Toney) and fought a life altering bout with Ruiz a heavyweight.... Unheard of any the time. (Although Ruiz was tailor made) while Floyd has fought about 20 champions, at least 6 of those were HOF guys. Jones is not even a close 2nd by comparison.


-amayseng :

Great thread and comments by all. RJJ was the Bo Jackson of boxing, an absolute physical phenom. His speed, power, agility and athletic ability was absolutely off the charts. I think dropping all that weight after the Ruiz fight ruined his central nervous system and its ability to be efficient through nerve conduction. His reflexes truly suffered along with his punch resistance due to the rapid weight gain and loss.


-King Beef :

Gotta agree, Roy should have took the win over Ruiz and rode off into the sunset. I am, and will always be convinced the up and down weight jumps ruined RJJ! Jones Jr. and Lights Out are 2 of my favorite fighters so I will always be alittle biased, but the TBE thing is a conversation starter and good for forum and barbershop banter. TBE is too subjective; you can insert any "fighter x" and there will be a line of people to tell you why your wrong.


-stormcentre :

Good comments by all. Anything that can make Ann Wolfe look like Mary Poppins; I want to see. Thought that was never possible. :) I think, over time, Floyd has entertained more. But Roy in his prime was a sight to behold, but he needed to really step it up and (himself) chase down the other champions in/near his weight; to really be considered as good as he/we want to call him - whether it be "TBE" or not. That's (one of) the measuring sticks of greatness. Do you clean house, or even try. Do you chase down the other cats who say and show they're champion too. Both Floyd and Roy have blemishes in this respect, but there were a lot more champions campaigning at the time Jones was that he didn't fight. And Jones was a guy that (like Floyd with Pac) could make any fight happen, if he wanted to; but he didn't. Instead, for a while there, in his prime, he did fight some really suspicious competition; whether it had the right win/loss numbers (we all know how this can be misleading and manufactured) affixed to it or not. For a guy the simultaneously held so many titles but never faced all those other good guys and champions at 160 . . hmmm unfortunately we can't say he's an all time great. But as far as entertaining us goes. Yep, he's up there with Tyson. Neither Floyd or Roy is a "TBE", but then who is and how do you prove it? Floyd, when you break it down objectively, certainly has the better skills; particularly over time. But, arguably, you could say Roy, for a shorter time, used his to a more entertaining effect. Although I am not sure that Roy's shorter time used to a more entertaining effect, if that was the case, could really be considered to outweigh the entertainment value and sheer boxing class Floyd laid down as "Pretty Boy"; let alone both "Pretty Boy" and "Money May" combined. It's not a bad problem to have for use spectators though. To Hopkins; no way he was in his prime when he fought Jones. B-Hop, like fine wine, took a little longer to ferment and mature into the finer aspects of the sport. Jones, at that stage though, was and would have been, a hard project for any fighter. All the more reason why he should have - properly - cleaned house. Back to; making Ann Wolfe look like Mary Poppins. Far out man is that really possible? She scares the .**** outta me. I'd like to see her (try? and) train/manage Toney. Talk about reality TV; that would make. :) I had forgot about Roy's upbringing with his father. Yes, it was very, very strict. Reminds of a guy I used to know here in Oz (Troy) and his father. They all lived on a farm and Dad used to wake them up early in the morning with a bugle call, then have them running just ahead of his estate, feeling the bumper if they slowed up; all before the bag work and sparring would start. And that was just the morning session. Troy fought Simon Brown, Terry Norris and Felix Trinidad. His brothers were Dean and Guy. Here's a video of Troy's father (Ces) and brother (Dean). Ces, was, how you might say, unique. He's the closest thing that I know that would make Ann Wolfe look like Mary Poppins.

Ces coined phrases (sometimes on national television; as the above video shows) that for a while, were well used humor in some Australian boxing circles, like . . . ""You can get further with a gun and a kind word, than just a kind world alone"". ""Kill Time"". Which was a motivational call to his 3 sons to step training (or fighting) up, that was usually heard either by Ces' partner as she cooked breakfast on the farm to the tune of all 3 of the Water's boys bag work (front verandah) and Ces' bugle - or at ringside. Ces, particularly at ringside when his boys fought, was not shy. And when his sons heard the ""Kill Time"" cry - regardless of whether they were exhausted or not - they always stepped it up with the knowledge that it was far better to try to step it up in the fight/ring exhausted than go home and explain why not. Putting the two together; I reckon Ces might just fall for Anne. She loves boxing and fighting too much not too. But then Ces couldn't control her, and also Anne would probably beat him up. Someone would end up shot. Crazy world. :) :)


-King Beef :

Storm; I wonder how much Floyd's hand problems affect his style now as compared to his days in the lighter weightclasses when he was way more aggressive. I still lean to Roy being the more offensively exciting fighter, but Money is the technically the better fighter. Its funny how RJJ was criticized for alot of his opponents being cans, but alot of that was Roy making good fighters look like cans, similar to what Floyd does in his own way. and the ducking claims by the European crew wanting the P4P champ to come to them. LOL


-stormcentre :

Storm; I wonder how much Floyd's hand problems affect his style now as compared to his days in the lighter weightclasses when he was way more aggressive. I still lean to Roy being the more offensively exciting fighter, but Money is the technically the better fighter. Its funny how RJJ was criticized for alot of his opponents being cans, but alot of that was Roy making good fighters look like cans, similar to what Floyd does in his own way. and the ducking claims by the European crew wanting the P4P champ to come to them. LOL
Hey KB, Yep, agree with most of what you have said there. Both Roy and Floyd do make (some of) their opponents look less than they are; possibly opening themselves up for ridicule related to fighting tomato cans. I think Floyd?s hands are a factor; agree there too. Look, I am not on Floyd?s nuts (I know you're not saying I am) with all this, but I really do think the facts bear out that Floyd is technically better than both Roy and Pernell. That said, I can still run an objective analysis on it and if it starts to look like I was wrong, I have no issue with that and writing up Floyd as the lesser guy in that respect. There?s no doubt in my mind that Floyd evaded some guys. Same, but more so, in my opinion, for Roy. Almost every fighter - particularly when they get into earning the good/big dollars - does it. Was Roy the more offensively exciting fighter? I was thrilled with his performances too. But then recently, for the Pernell V Floyd comparison thread I have been watching a lot of Floyd?s earlier fights, and I am not sure. In some of Floyd?s early fights he really lays out some brilliant skills and also horrific beatings. Seriously; some of ?Pretty Boy?s? opponents are - at times - getting outsmarted and smacked so fast/hard that they actually can't keep up with how fast the shock is moving through their body. There?s some humour there. That said, you're probably right, Jones possibly found more inventive and spectacular ways to display his skills, and he also looked to really close the show. The problem I have with leaving it there though (and I know this is all know with the benefit of hindsight) is that Jone?s most spectacular displays were often against subpar competition. Whereas Floyd?s - particularly ?Pretty Boy?s? - dazzling displays were not always against those kinds of opponents, as Floyd can pull out the tricks at the top level too; consistently. Roy got spectacular KO?s though, and just as that fact can?t be denied it will always resonate through his fans minds to the extent that they may not care precisely where the hair thin line is that divides subjectivity and objectivity. And that?s OK too. Cause Jones as a fighter, commentator, and person was and is awesome. Love your posts KB. :) :)


-stormcentre :

Oh, in my above post #23. Where I say that Hopkins reclaimed his titles by beating Pavlik. That was a typo and not correct. I can't be bothered trundling through the post to find the exact spot (for repairs) cause that
StormCentre cat's posts are too long; dissertations. I mean, what's that guy smoking; Meth or what? :) :)


-King Beef :

Hey KB, Yep, agree with most of what you have said there. Both Roy and Floyd do make (some of) their opponents look less than they are; possibly opening themselves up for ridicule related to fighting tomato cans. I think Floyd?s hands are a factor; agree there too. Look, I am not on Floyd?s nuts (I know you're not saying I am) with all this, but I really do think the facts bear out that Floyd is technically better than both Roy and Pernell. That said, I can still run an objective analysis on it and if it starts to look like I was wrong, I have no issue with that and writing up Floyd as the lesser guy in that respect. There?s no doubt in my mind that Floyd evaded some guys. Same, but more so, in my opinion, for Roy. Almost every fighter - particularly when they get into earning the good/big dollars - does it. Was Roy the more offensively exciting fighter? I was thrilled with his performances too. But then recently, for the Pernell V Floyd comparison thread I have been watching a lot of Floyd?s earlier fights, and I am not sure. In some of Floyd?s early fights he really lays out some brilliant skills and also horrific beatings. Seriously; some of ?Pretty Boy?s? opponents are - at times - getting outsmarted and smacked so fast/hard that they actually can't keep up with how fast the shock is moving through their body. There?s some humour there. That said, you're probably right, Jones possibly found more inventive and spectacular ways to display his skills, and he also looked to really close the show. The problem I have with leaving it there though (and I know this is all know with the benefit of hindsight) is that Jone?s most spectacular displays were often against subpar competition. Whereas Floyd?s - particularly ?Pretty Boy?s? - dazzling displays were not always against those kinds of opponents, as Floyd can pull out the tricks at the top level too; consistently. Roy got spectacular KO?s though, and just as that fact can?t be denied it will always resonate through his fans minds to the extent that they may not care precisely where the hair thin line is that divides subjectivity and objectivity. And that?s OK too. Cause Jones as a fighter, commentator, and person was and is awesome. Love your posts KB. :) :)
No doubt, I think Floyd is technically better than Roy, but as it was said by the commentators during ALOT of Roy's fights "he does thing technically incorrect, but his physical abilities allow him to get away with it" with that said; like you mentioned Mayweather punished his opponents as well during his "PrettyBoy" days. So Storm, who do you think Floyd avoided?? I know the consensus here is that Floyd ducked every fighter that ever mentioned his name, curious to hear who you think he avoided. I am not sure of how close or serious talks were or if they were even started, but I think Floyd along with anyone else at 147 wanted no parts of the Punisher at the time. As I recalled Williams wanted either of the 147 cash cows before he got frustrated and hopped up to 154.


-King Beef :

Hey KB, Yep, agree with most of what you have said there. Both Roy and Floyd do make (some of) their opponents look less than they are; possibly opening themselves up for ridicule related to fighting tomato cans. I think Floyd’s hands are a factor; agree there too. Look, I am not on Floyd’s nuts (I know you're not saying I am) with all this, but I really do think the facts bear out that Floyd is technically better than both Roy and Pernell. That said, I can still run an objective analysis on it and if it starts to look like I was wrong, I have no issue with that and writing up Floyd as the lesser guy in that respect. There’s no doubt in my mind that Floyd evaded some guys. Same, but more so, in my opinion, for Roy. Almost every fighter - particularly when they get into earning the good/big dollars - does it. Was Roy the more offensively exciting fighter? I was thrilled with his performances too. But then recently, for the Pernell V Floyd comparison thread I have been watching a lot of Floyd’s earlier fights, and I am not sure. In some of Floyd’s early fights he really lays out some brilliant skills and also horrific beatings. Seriously; some of “Pretty Boy’s” opponents are - at times - getting outsmarted and smacked so fast/hard that they actually can't keep up with how fast the shock is moving through their body. There’s some humour there. That said, you're probably right, Jones possibly found more inventive and spectacular ways to display his skills, and he also looked to really close the show. The problem I have with leaving it there though (and I know this is all know with the benefit of hindsight) is that Jone’s most spectacular displays were often against subpar competition. Whereas Floyd’s - particularly “Pretty Boy’s” - dazzling displays were not always against those kinds of opponents, as Floyd can pull out the tricks at the top level too; consistently. Roy got spectacular KO’s though, and just as that fact can’t be denied it will always resonate through his fans minds to the extent that they may not care precisely where the hair thin line is that divides subjectivity and objectivity. And that’s OK too. Cause Jones as a fighter, commentator, and person was and is awesome. Love your posts KB. :) :)
No doubt, I think Floyd is technically better than Roy, but as it was said by the commentators during ALOT of Roy's fights "he does thing technically incorrect, but his physical abilities allow him to get away with it" with that said; like you mentioned Mayweather punished his opponents as well during his "PrettyBoy" days. So Storm, who do you think Floyd avoided?? I know the consensus here is that Floyd ducked every fighter that ever mentioned his name, curious to hear who you think he avoided. I am not sure of how close or serious talks were or if they were even started, but I think Floyd along with anyone else at 147 wanted no parts of the Punisher at the time. As I recalled Williams wanted either of the 147 cash cows before he got frustrated and hopped up to 154.


-stormcentre :

No doubt, I think Floyd is technically better than Roy, but as it was said by the commentators during ALOT of Roy's fights "he does thing technically incorrect, but his physical abilities allow him to get away with it" with that said; like you mentioned Mayweather punished his opponents as well during his "PrettyBoy" days.
So Storm, who do you think Floyd avoided?? I know the consensus here is that Floyd ducked every fighter that ever mentioned his name, curious to hear who you think he avoided. I am not sure of how close or serious talks were or if they were even started, but I think Floyd along with anyone else at 147 wanted no parts of the Punisher at the time. As I recalled Williams wanted either of the 147 cash cows before he got frustrated and hopped up to 154.
Hey KB, Take a look over here . . .
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?21567-StormCentre-amp-InfiniteObjectivity-ft-King-Beef-guys-Floyd-Mayweather-has-not-fought I have answered your QQ (quick question) as best as I can. Cheers. :) :) :)


-brownsugar :

Good comments by all. Anything that can make Ann Wolfe look like Mary Poppins; I want to see. Thought that was never possible. :) I think, over time, Floyd has entertained more. But Roy in his prime was a sight to behold, but he needed to really step it up and (himself) chase down the other champions in/near his weight; to really be considered as good as he/we want to call him - whether it be "TBE" or not. That's (one of) the measuring sticks of greatness. Do you clean house, or even try. Do you chase down the other cats who say and show they're champion too. Both Floyd and Roy have blemishes in this respect, but there were a lot more champions campaigning at the time Jones was that he didn't fight. And Jones was a guy that (like Floyd with Pac) could make any fight happen, if he wanted to; but he didn't. Instead, for a while there, in his prime, he did fight some really suspicious competition; whether it had the right win/loss numbers (we all know how this can be misleading and manufactured) affixed to it or not. For a guy the simultaneously held so many titles but never faced all those other good guys and champions at 160 . . hmmm unfortunately we can't say he's an all time great. But as far as entertaining us goes. Yep, he's up there with Tyson. Neither Floyd or Roy is a "TBE", but then who is and how do you prove it? Floyd, when you break it down objectively, certainly has the better skills; particularly over time. But, arguably, you could say Roy, for a shorter time, used his to a more entertaining effect. Although I am not sure that Roy's shorter time used to a more entertaining effect, if that was the case, could really be considered to outweigh the entertainment value and sheer boxing class Floyd laid down as "Pretty Boy"; let alone both "Pretty Boy" and "Money May" combined. It's not a bad problem to have for use spectators though. To Hopkins; no way he was in his prime when he fought Jones. B-Hop, like fine wine, took a little longer to ferment and mature into the finer aspects of the sport. Jones, at that stage though, was and would have been, a hard project for any fighter. All the more reason why he should have - properly - cleaned house. Back to; making Ann Wolfe look like Mary Poppins. Far out man is that really possible? She scares the .**** outta me. I'd like to see her (try? and) train/manage Toney. Talk about reality TV; that would make. :) I had forgot about Roy's upbringing with his father. Yes, it was very, very strict. Reminds of a guy I used to know here in Oz (Troy) and his father. They all lived on a farm and Dad used to wake them up early in the morning with a bugle call, then have them running just ahead of his estate, feeling the bumper if they slowed up; all before the bag work and sparring would start. And that was just the morning session. Troy fought Simon Brown, Terry Norris and Felix Trinidad. His brothers were Dean and Guy. Here's a video of Troy's father (Ces) and brother (Dean). Ces, was, how you might say, unique. He's the closest thing that I know that would make Ann Wolfe look like Mary Poppins.
Ces coined phrases (sometimes on national television; as the above video shows) that for a while, were well used humor in some Australian boxing circles, like . . . ""You can get further with a gun and a kind word, than just a kind world alone"". ""Kill Time"". Which was a motivational call to his 3 sons to step training (or fighting) up, that was usually heard either by Ces' partner as she cooked breakfast on the farm to the tune of all 3 of the Water's boys bag work (front verandah) and Ces' bugle - or at ringside. Ces, particularly at ringside when his boys fought, was not shy. And when his sons heard the ""Kill Time"" cry - regardless of whether they were exhausted or not - they always stepped it up with the knowledge that it was far better to try to step it up in the fight/ring exhausted than go home and explain why not. Putting the two together; I reckon Ces might just fall for Anne. She loves boxing and fighting too much not too. But then Ces couldn't control her, and also Anne would probably beat him up. Someone would end up shot. Crazy world. :) :)
Horrifyingly tragic outcome for such an overbearing persona and his family. Dysfunction was apparently normal in their case. Great find. By contrast I think since Jones was such a success he overlooked his fathers transgressions who was also Roy's first manager, but Roy Senior became a "diva" in the sense that he became increasingly difficult to deal with and Roy needed some space. With his dad out of his life, ironically RJJ also became rudderless, ....less disciplined, and gravitated to the life style his entertainment industry buddies were living.( which basically means seeking all the upwordly mobile socialization and exposure you can get ) But yes, Roy was fascinating to watch even against the untalented opposition he sometimes fought.


-stormcentre :

Horrifyingly tragic outcome for such an overbearing persona and his family. Dysfunction was apparently normal in their case. Great find. By contrast I think since Jones was such a success he overlooked his fathers transgressions who was also Roy's first manager, but Roy Senior became a "diva" in the sense that he became increasingly difficult to deal with and Roy needed some space. With his dad out of his life, ironically RJJ also became rudderless, ....less disciplined, and gravitated to the life style his entertainment industry buddies were living.( which basically means seeking all the upwordly mobile socialization and exposure you can get ) But yes, Roy was fascinating to watch even against the untalented opposition he sometimes fought.
Yep, spot on. Troy Waters - in boxing - could have done anything. Seriously. All the great chances against Terry Norris (check that fight out for a shoot out), Simon Brown (what a great fighter he was), and Felix Trinidad . . all came for Troy just when the separate court case(s) between the state, and both Dean and Ces exploded; leaving Troy without a trainer, training partners, and with lots to worry about. It all effectively meant that Troy and the entire family, all for one reason or another (including the law and family politics) - instantly - lost their; Father, brother(s), and surrogate mother. I remember, a year before it all exploded thinking . . ""if Troy gets his shot in the USA he is really going to make it there""; as his style was as perfect as it could be for that. Then, when all the legal sh.t hit finally the fan and their worlds cracked upon, arched back upon themselves, and shook to the core as if 2 of the deepest oceanic tectonic plates - that had butted heads for centuries storing energy - had finally worked their way loose; Troy, only then, got his call to fight Terry Norris in San Diego. It was his first big break in the USA. Talk about timing. And as they do, the court cases dragged on for years and years after that, overlapping with the subsequent Simon Brown and Felix Trinidad opportunities; effectively wrecking them and Troy's preparation. Along with it went the public's view of the family too; as the kids were treated as pariahs - when it wasn't really all of them. Troy had nothing to do with it, but they were his family. Really sad stuff. So, all that work (training) for Troy (and the brothers), pretty much went down the drain. Later in Ces' court case, or perhaps after it, I think they actually found a missing person stowed away in one of the farm houses walls or floors. No-one knew about it and it had been there for approximately 8 years I think!! Think about that, Ces (and his partner and 3 boys) slept soundly in the house all that time Nice stuff !!! As an amateur no one - not even internationally - and particularly when he had trained on the farm with Ces - touched Troy; he was that good. I guess training and also sparring (sometimes) twice a day, from the bugle call at dawn and then again later at dusk, will do that for you. Domestically, Troy pretty much owned the landscape in his weight, and he was a real nice kid too. You're right about Roy Jones and him going off the rails a bit after he moved away from his father; I had forgot about all that. I guess it's closer to home for you cats over there in the USA, than here; easier to remember. Yep, Roy Jones Jr. did, with his dad out of his life, became rather rudderless, and noticeably less disciplined. Still, I guess after all that discipline Roy Jones Jr. needed the break. As Sr. worked him pretty hard. Probably not with a bugle in the morning though. There is a documentary and kind of training video of the Waters family somewhere that - before all the abovementioned legalities came down - shows Ces proudly training his sons on their rural NSW farm. It's hilarious. At the time the film was made it was, within reason, just meant to be all about how amazing this boxing family were. The film wasn't originally or really meant to be about how much of a "legend" or "hard man" Ces (thought he) was; but Ces had other ideas and that really comes through on film to the point where it's really, really funny - especially when the female interviewer gets totally gob-smacked by the juvenile nature of some of Ces' antics. Ces simply loved the publicity it brought him, and (as the film rolled) used it to tell stories of how he was a "hard man" in his day and still now (then?); it's a scream. The film shows Ces like he's a general in the army, always getting up early in the morning before the sun, blowing the bugle for the 3 "soldiers" to get out of bed, run, train and spar; before breakfast. Unfortunately for Ces, on this occasion, his "soldiers" were too tired from the sparring the night before to get out of bed on time for the cameras. You can see Ces is not impressed with both it and the potentially wasted chance to show the world how brilliant and obeyed Ces is. But at the same time it's funny to watch Ces struggle with his inner demons and have to control himself (for the cameras) about such matters of disobedience too; that would probably be treated in a much harsher manner than was captured on film. So into the farm house dives Ces (followed by the cameras whom were told to stay out, but didn't) stiff back, serious face and all, as if there is mutiny on the bounty taking place. And in there we see the boys sleeping on mattresses on the floor, amongst chickens, cats, and dogs that all look like they have never been washed in their life - just as much as the dogs know to high tail it out of there real fast when Ces enters stomping. It shouldn't be funny but is. I am laughing about it even as I type this because it's that funny, and has brought so many good laughs for us for so many years. It's really gold level humor that someone (Ces) with kids can really live and think like this, and at the same time think it is so appropriate that there is absolutely no qualms with letting TV cameras see it all. Like for Ces, this is how life should be - out in the country away from it all. :) In the house Ces gives a tap with his boot's heel on the floor (like Adolf Hitler) - and any cats, chickens, and dogs that haven't already shrieked and scattered, do so - then he walks over to the boys mattresses and gently digs his boot into the ribs of Guy Waters (but not before suspiciously looking over his shoulder at the camera to see if he could possibly get away with more; in response to the mutiny); then when Guy rouses Ces nods to him with a serious look as if to say, "get the boys up and lets go - now". The film then shows Ces in the house letting the bugle go loudly (as if there is a war to go to with a front line in need of urgent backup) at what must be no more than 5am. Then seconds later we see Ces walk out through the front door gap (there is no front door); still proudly playing the bugle as if Pearl Harbor is being attacked and under fire. I just can't convey to you how funny this film, and Ces, is The cameras then show Ces proudly smiling about the militant manner in which his "soldiers" are made to get out of bed. Not once does he check if they're OK, completely woken, and ready; for what is a 2 hour training session. And it's so cold that it looks like everyone's smoking when they talk. Ces then leads the march out of the house to the car where - as they did every morning - he will drive behind the 3 boys, keeping them at a constant pace, as they do their mandatory roadwork. And as he walks out of the house and over to the car- with bugle in hand, and beanie on head - he lets go with a loud; ""c'mon warriors, you always have to be ready, you never know when the enemy will strike, and you never know when it's "kill time""". Then these exhausted 3 scruffy farm boys reveal their heads and start quickly donning their running shoes and shorts; as Ces is (already) in the car and revving the engine of his station wagon (estate for you USA cats). The run is underway and there are cameras both in the car with Ces and also in front of the boys doing roadwork, and the film shows Ces chuckling and toying around with making the padding that's tied to the car's bumper and kangaroo bar touch the boys; nudging them to run faster. Ces then turns to the camera and says; ""these early mornings out on the farm, there's nothing like them - I have 3 world champions here"". Aside from how brutal, abusive, unnecessary, and militant it all was; Ces and these videos were gold for laughter as he was quite literally like a little English version of boxings' Adolf Hitler - transplanted across to NSW, Australia. The way he used to call out "Kill Time" at the boys fights was both outrageous and hilarious. Wasn't unusual for him to do that 2 or 3 times a round, and/or within the 1st minute of the 1st round. He was merciless. I remember one time Ces was interviewed by Jana Went, whom was a pretty crafty Australian investigative journalist in her day. Ces had been tricked into thinking they wanted to interview him to talk about how much of a legend in the fight game and underworld he was; and for some crazy reason it was all live too. However, when the cameras started rolling Ces soon found out that not only was Jana no pushover - but that she also had a hidden agenda; exposing Ces for being an abusive father and a freak. Let's just say the interview didn't go well. Ces ended up (on live TV) calling her a dirty little cvnt and (effectively) told her not to be too surprised if someone waited in the bushes near her house one night to silt her throat. We all knew beforehand that the interview between Jana and Ces was never going to be anything but a slow motion train smash, as Jana hated the fight scene and had done a similar thing to Fenech after he (allegedly) bashed a guy in Sydney's grocery markets. But Ces thought he could handle Jana, and in he went with his track suit pants, T-shirt, beanie and all. Jana Went, at the time, must have thought "come in sucker"; as, in the early stages of the interview, it was like a Black Widow spider offering a blowfly residence in her web. Back then everything was VHS - not digital recorders like now - so we all taped the interview and remember it well. As far as humour was concerned, the tape was a highlight feature at many fight parties. As it was so hilarious to watch the little militant Hitler Ces slowly get more and more pissed off as his face got redder and redder - all as Went casually smiled like a Cheshire cat thinking I am going to eat you alive with these next questions. When Ces finally broke and completed the above threat, he then abruptly stood up, pushed a cameraman out of the way, let go with some more profanities, and then all you saw was a blurry screen for (yes we counted it as it represented the amount of mayhem Ces could bring down upon a live broadcast/station) no less than 2 minutes; which is years in live broadcast terms. Mayhem at Sydney's channel 9 had set in and the studio was in tatters. I would have loved to have been there at the studio and seen how they settled Ces down and finally got him to leave. He was a volatile character, that rarely did what he was told and/or didn't want to. The next day the papers were all awash with stories like; "Ces Waters brings Sydney's channel 9 transmission to a halt during Jana Went interview", and "Boxing trainer Ces Waters threatens Jana Went during interview and trashes C9 Studio and workers". When we used to replay the tape, one of the best parts was just the blurry screen and how long it went for. But that was nowhere near as good as Ces' loss of control, his threats to Jana, and then - after the blurry screen had subsided - the standard text message that channel 9 had for emergencies . . . "We are experiencing unexpected technical issues at the moment and will resume your broadcast as soon as possible". That was up there and beamed across all of NSW for easily 10 minutes. Imagine the poor broadcasting security guys that had to help out, as even aside from the fact that they're not usually the toughest breed of security, Ces would have been there with his 3 sons too. My god it was funny. Despite how it was all over the TV news and papers for at least a week in terms that were not at all prettily describing Ces; none of this seemed to bother or slow Ces down though. He loved both it and the thought that he had caused Jana Went and channel 9 havoc in return for trying to set him up. Channel 9 even sent him a bill for the damaged equipment and Ces publicly mocked it and never paid. As if that wasn't enough, over the following weeks Ces also spilled his guts to every local boxing rag that would listen, and in turn they all jumped on the bandwagon and supported him; making him both more of a madman and proud of his actions. If I ever find a YT video of the above incident(s) I will post it, and you guys will scream with laughter; as we all did. Ahh the good old days. Crazy stuff eh?


-stormcentre :

Horrifyingly tragic outcome for such an overbearing persona and his family. Dysfunction was apparently normal in their case. Great find. By contrast I think since Jones was such a success he overlooked his fathers transgressions who was also Roy's first manager, but Roy Senior became a "diva" in the sense that he became increasingly difficult to deal with and Roy needed some space. With his dad out of his life, ironically RJJ also became rudderless, ....less disciplined, and gravitated to the life style his entertainment industry buddies were living.( which basically means seeking all the upwordly mobile socialization and exposure you can get ) But yes, Roy was fascinating to watch even against the untalented opposition he sometimes fought.
Yep, spot on. Troy Waters - in boxing - could have done anything. Seriously. All the great chances against Terry Norris (check that fight out for a shoot out), Simon Brown (what a great fighter he was), and Felix Trinidad . . all came for Troy just when the separate court case(s) between the state, and both Dean and Ces exploded; leaving Troy without a trainer, training partners, and with lots to worry about. It all effectively meant that Troy and the entire family, all for one reason or another (including the law and family politics) - instantly - lost their; Father, brother(s), and surrogate mother. I remember, a year before it all exploded thinking . . ""if Troy gets his shot in the USA he is really going to make it there""; as his style was as perfect as it could be for that. Then, when all the legal sh.t hit finally the fan and their worlds cracked upon, arched back upon themselves, and shook to the core as if 2 of the deepest oceanic tectonic plates - that had butted heads for centuries storing energy - had finally worked their way loose; Troy, only then, got his call to fight Terry Norris in San Diego. It was his first big break in the USA. Talk about timing. And as they do, the court cases dragged on for years and years after that, overlapping with the subsequent Simon Brown and Felix Trinidad opportunities; effectively wrecking them and Troy's preparation. Along with it went the public's view of the family too; as the kids were treated as pariahs - when it wasn't really all of them. Troy had nothing to do with it, but they were his family. Really sad stuff. So, all that work (training) for Troy (and the brothers), pretty much went down the drain. Later in Ces' court case, or perhaps after it, I think they actually found a missing person stowed away in one of the farm houses walls or floors. No-one knew about it and it had been there for approximately 8 years I think!! Think about that, Ces (and his partner and 3 boys) slept soundly in the house all that time Nice stuff !!! As an amateur no one - not even internationally - and particularly when he had trained on the farm with Ces - touched Troy; he was that good. I guess training and also sparring (sometimes) twice a day, from the bugle call at dawn and then again later at dusk, will do that for you. Domestically, Troy pretty much owned the landscape in his weight, and he was a real nice kid too. You're right about Roy Jones and him going off the rails a bit after he moved away from his father; I had forgot about all that. I guess it's closer to home for you cats over there in the USA, than here; easier to remember. Yep, Roy Jones Jr. did, with his dad out of his life, became rather rudderless, and noticeably less disciplined. Still, I guess after all that discipline Roy Jones Jr. needed the break. As Sr. worked him pretty hard. Probably not with a bugle in the morning though. There is a documentary and kind of training video of the Waters family somewhere that - before all the abovementioned legalities came down - shows Ces proudly training his sons on their rural NSW farm. It's hilarious. At the time the film was made it was, within reason, just meant to be all about how amazing this boxing family were. The film wasn't originally or really meant to be about how much of a "legend" or "hard man" Ces (thought he) was; but Ces had other ideas and that really comes through on film to the point where it's really, really funny - especially when the female interviewer gets totally gob-smacked by the juvenile nature of some of Ces' antics. Ces simply loved the publicity it brought him, and (as the film rolled) used it to tell stories of how he was a "hard man" in his day and still now (then?); it's a scream. The film shows Ces like he's a general in the army, always getting up early in the morning before the sun, blowing the bugle for the 3 "soldiers" to get out of bed, run, train and spar; before breakfast. Unfortunately for Ces, on this occasion, his "soldiers" were too tired from the sparring the night before to get out of bed on time for the cameras. You can see Ces is not impressed with both it and the potentially wasted chance to show the world how brilliant and obeyed Ces is. But at the same time it's funny to watch Ces struggle with his inner demons and have to control himself (for the cameras) about such matters of disobedience too; that would probably be treated in a much harsher manner than was captured on film. So into the farm house dives Ces (followed by the cameras whom were told to stay out, but didn't) stiff back, serious face and all, as if there is mutiny on the bounty taking place. And in there we see the boys sleeping on mattresses on the floor, amongst chickens, cats, and dogs that all look like they have never been washed in their life - just as much as the dogs know to high tail it out of there real fast when Ces enters stomping. It shouldn't be funny but is. I am laughing about it even as I type this because it's that funny, and has brought so many good laughs for us for so many years. It's really gold level humor that someone (Ces) with kids can really live and think like this, and at the same time think it is so appropriate that there is absolutely no qualms with letting TV cameras see it all. Like for Ces, this is how life should be - out in the country away from it all. :) In the house Ces gives a tap with his boot's heel on the floor (like Adolf Hitler) - and any cats, chickens, and dogs that haven't already shrieked and scattered, do so - then he walks over to the boys mattresses and gently digs his boot into the ribs of Guy Waters (but not before suspiciously looking over his shoulder at the camera to see if he could possibly get away with more; in response to the mutiny); then when Guy rouses Ces nods to him with a serious look as if to say, "get the boys up and lets go - now". The film then shows Ces in the house letting the bugle go loudly (as if there is a war to go to with a front line in need of urgent backup) at what must be no more than 5am. Then seconds later we see Ces walk out through the front door gap (there is no front door); still proudly playing the bugle as if Pearl Harbor is being attacked and under fire. I just can't convey to you how funny this film, and Ces, is The cameras then show Ces proudly smiling about the militant manner in which his "soldiers" are made to get out of bed. Not once does he check if they're OK, completely woken, and ready; for what is a 2 hour training session. And it's so cold that it looks like everyone's smoking when they talk. Ces then leads the march out of the house to the car where - as they did every morning - he will drive behind the 3 boys, keeping them at a constant pace, as they do their mandatory roadwork. And as he walks out of the house and over to the car- with bugle in hand, and beanie on head - he lets go with a loud; ""c'mon warriors, you always have to be ready, you never know when the enemy will strike, and you never know when it's "kill time""". Then these exhausted 3 scruffy farm boys reveal their heads and start quickly donning their running shoes and shorts; as Ces is (already) in the car and revving the engine of his station wagon (estate for you USA cats). The run is underway and there are cameras both in the car with Ces and also in front of the boys doing roadwork, and the film shows Ces chuckling and toying around with making the padding that's tied to the car's bumper and kangaroo bar touch the boys; nudging them to run faster. Ces then turns to the camera and says; ""these early mornings out on the farm, there's nothing like them - I have 3 world champions here"". Aside from how brutal, abusive, unnecessary, and militant it all was; Ces and these videos were gold for laughter as he was quite literally like a little English version of boxings' Adolf Hitler - transplanted across to NSW, Australia. The way he used to call out "Kill Time" at the boys fights was both outrageous and hilarious. Wasn't unusual for him to do that 2 or 3 times a round, and/or within the 1st minute of the 1st round. He was merciless. I remember one time Ces was interviewed by Jana Went, whom was a pretty crafty Australian investigative journalist in her day. Ces had been tricked into thinking they wanted to interview him to talk about how much of a legend in the fight game and underworld he was; and for some crazy reason it was all live too. However, when the cameras started rolling Ces soon found out that not only was Jana no pushover - but that she also had a hidden agenda; exposing Ces for being an abusive father and a freak. Let's just say the interview didn't go well. Ces ended up (on live TV) calling her a dirty little cvnt and (effectively) told her not to be too surprised if someone waited in the bushes near her house one night to silt her throat. We all knew beforehand that the interview between Jana and Ces was never going to be anything but a slow motion train smash, as Jana hated the fight scene and had done a similar thing to Fenech after he (allegedly) bashed a guy in Sydney's grocery markets. But Ces thought he could handle Jana, and in he went with his track suit pants, T-shirt, beanie and all. Jana Went, at the time, must have thought "come in sucker"; as, in the early stages of the interview, it was like a Black Widow spider offering a blowfly residence in her web. Back then everything was VHS - not digital recorders like now - so we all taped the interview and remember it well. As far as humour was concerned, the tape was a highlight feature at many fight parties. As it was so hilarious to watch the little militant Hitler Ces slowly get more and more pissed off as his face got redder and redder - all as Went casually smiled like a Cheshire cat thinking I am going to eat you alive with these next questions. When Ces finally broke and completed the above threat, he then abruptly stood up, pushed a cameraman out of the way, let go with some more profanities, and then all you saw was a blurry screen for (yes we counted it as it represented the amount of mayhem Ces could bring down upon a live broadcast/station) no less than 2 minutes; which is years in live broadcast terms. Mayhem at Sydney's channel 9 had set in and the studio was in tatters. I would have loved to have been there at the studio and seen how they settled Ces down and finally got him to leave. He was a volatile character, that rarely did what he was told and/or didn't want to. The next day the papers were all awash with stories like; "Ces Waters brings Sydney's channel 9 transmission to a halt during Jana Went interview", and "Boxing trainer Ces Waters threatens Jana Went during interview and trashes C9 Studio and workers". When we used to replay the tape, one of the best parts was just the blurry screen and how long it went for. But that was nowhere near as good as Ces' loss of control, his threats to Jana, and then - after the blurry screen had subsided - the standard text message that channel 9 had for emergencies . . . "We are experiencing unexpected technical issues at the moment and will resume your broadcast as soon as possible". That was up there and beamed across all of NSW for easily 10 minutes. Imagine the poor broadcasting security guys that had to help out, as even aside from the fact that they're not usually the toughest breed of security, Ces would have been there with his 3 sons too. My god it was funny. Despite how it was all over the TV news and papers for at least a week in terms that were not at all prettily describing Ces; none of this seemed to bother or slow Ces down though. He loved both it and the thought that he had caused Jana Went and channel 9 havoc in return for trying to set him up. Channel 9 even sent him a bill for the damaged equipment and Ces publicly mocked it and never paid. As if that wasn't enough, over the following weeks Ces also spilled his guts to every local boxing rag that would listen, and in turn they all jumped on the bandwagon and supported him; making him both more of a madman and proud of his actions. If I ever find a YT video of the above incident(s) I will post it, and you guys will scream with laughter; as we all did. Ahh the good old days. Crazy stuff eh?


-Absy71 :

Storm, You have bought back some great memories of OZ Boxing. I agree Troy Waters could of been anything in Boxing, he was definitely the better of the brothers, I was absolutely sure he would win a world title or 2, Actually friends & I, at the time were devastated he didn't, oh well It wasn't meant to be. Last I heard/ read, Troy was having a huge battle with the big C, I wish Troy & his Family all the best.


-stormcentre :

Cheers Absy. Aside from the laughs related to Ces and the other antics; yep, there was some sentimentality there too. For some reason I have always been fascinated (and sometimes associated) with crazy dudes. Not in a gay way; but it's a love hate relationship kind of thing. Living on the edge is fun, but you can die and early death from it. :) Knew a (competent) heavyweight guy that went out to their farm and trained with the boys and Ces; namely to spar Dean. Said Ces had a shotgun leaning against the boxing ring's steel structure that supported the floor and canvass. Apparently it was in full sight as he scaled the steps to get through the ropes. :) As you would imagine, Dean survived quite well during that session. Glad some Oz boxing history was not lost on you, because as I wrote that I wondered if the majority of readers here would know what it was about and/or care. The Waters family were a colorful and good (particularly Troy) fixture in Australia for a while. I will never forget the above noted/posted; media, legal, Jana Went, and other film related incidents - especially C9 being off the air for a total of (at least) 10 minutes after Ces exploded. That and Ces' ""Kill Time"" war cries at Troy's fights were gold. Sometimes - at these fights when Ces' ""Kill Time"" war cries were loudly released - or just in anticipation of them - almost all the spectators that constituted the knowledgeable boxing fraternity would all sideways glance at each other inspecting/confirming that others too where struggling to try and hold back the overt laughter. Remember the movie "Snatch" with Brad Pitt in it about the UK underground fight scene and "BrickTop"? Well, you could have made a movie about Ces and his antics. For a while there he was Australia's version of "BrickTop". And, yes, Troy was special. Shame it all ended up the way it did, particularly where/how Ces was actually happy he lost in the USA. :) :)


-stormcentre :

Cheers Absy. Aside from the laughs related to Ces and the other antics; yep, there was some sentimentality there too. For some reason I have always been fascinated (and sometimes associated) with crazy dudes. Not in a gay way; but it's a love hate relationship kind of thing. Living on the edge is fun, but you can die and early death from it. :) Knew a (competent) heavyweight guy that went out to their farm and trained with the boys and Ces; namely to spar Dean. Said Ces had a shotgun leaning against the boxing ring's steel structure that supported the floor and canvass. Apparently it was in full sight as he scaled the steps to get through the ropes. :) As you would imagine, Dean survived quite well during that session. Glad some Oz boxing history was not lost on you, because as I wrote that I wondered if the majority of readers here would know what it was about and/or care. The Waters family were a colorful and good (particularly Troy) fixture in Australia for a while. I will never forget the above noted/posted; media, legal, Jana Went, and other film related incidents - especially C9 being off the air for a total of (at least) 10 minutes after Ces exploded. That and Ces' ""Kill Time"" war cries at Troy's fights were gold. Sometimes - at these fights when Ces' ""Kill Time"" war cries were loudly released - or just in anticipation of them - almost all the spectators that constituted the knowledgeable boxing fraternity would all sideways glance at each other inspecting/confirming that others too where struggling to try and hold back the overt laughter. Remember the movie "Snatch" with Brad Pitt in it about the UK underground fight scene and "BrickTop"? Well, you could have made a movie about Ces and his antics. For a while there he was Australia's version of "BrickTop". And, yes, Troy was special. Shame it all ended up the way it did, particularly where/how Ces was actually happy he lost in the USA. :) :)