Hagler v Jones at Middleweight
Glen Harsh
Whilst I have always had the utmost admiration for Marvin, I can't help but
think that Jones may be just a little too slick and win on points (like
Leonard).
However, a converse point of view may be that because Jones hits harder than
Leonard, he may be less likely to run, and choose to play the machismo
game; which would suit Marvin quite nicely thank you.
Glen harsh
Michael Haught
: Would Hagler have beaten Jones at 165 lbs?
: Glen harsh
I think Marvin would teach a lesson to RJJ about hard work, determination
and paying your dues. I pick MMH to stop RJJ at 160 or 165 lbs. Probably
soon after the 10th round.
--
-mwh
pa...@samerica.com
mha...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Haught) wrote:
> I think Marvin would teach a lesson to RJJ about hard work, determination
> and paying your dues. I pick MMH to stop RJJ at 160 or 165 lbs. Probably
> soon after the 10th round.
Totally agreed. The opposition Jones has faced, and has sometimes looked
lacklustre against (Griffin, Del Valle) doesn't remotely compare to Hagler.
If there's someone who'd destroy Jones, it'd be Hagler. A prime Hagler would
walk straight through anything Jones could throw... Jones could bounce from
rope to rope with his arm spinning like a windmill a few times and jump into
Hagler with a punch, a Hagler still wouldn't be hurt. On the other hand,
Hagler would find a way to tag Jones harder and more often than he'd ever
been tagged. If Jones had faced tougher opposition in the course of his
career that would have prepared him for this bout, it might have been
interesting to watch. With Jones being the question mark and unproven fighter
he's at the real top, he'd wilt under Hagler's pressure. It'd be over in 8
rounds at most. Hagler's bout, no doubt.
...pablo
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
inverse...@my-dejanews.com
"Glen Harsh" <glen...@nextcentury.com.au> wrote:
> Would Hagler have beaten Jones at 165 lbs?
>
> Whilst I have always had the utmost admiration for Marvin, I can't help but
> think that Jones may be just a little too slick and win on points (like
> Leonard).
>
> However, a converse point of view may be that because Jones hits harder than
> Leonard, he may be less likely to run, and choose to play the machismo
> game; which would suit Marvin quite nicely thank you.
This is a toss-up, and I read it the same way. I tend to Hagler because of
his tenacity and ability to absorb punishment and come back even stronger. If
there is a criticism of Jones to be made (and there really are very few) it
is his lack of tenacity; if he knows he can't KO his opponent he tends to
cruise.
I really could not see Jones KO'ing Hagler, and if Jones started to cruise,
Hagler would punish him. Jones has had fewer quality opponents than Hagler,
so it's difficult to judge just how great he is. In the current era, only
Lopez and Oscar are on the 'great' list IMHO.
iF
emailed & posted
Mike Haught
wrote these words:
<snip>
>This is a toss-up, and I read it the same way. I tend to Hagler because of
>his tenacity and ability to absorb punishment and come back even stronger. If
>there is a criticism of Jones to be made (and there really are very few) it
>is his lack of tenacity; if he knows he can't KO his opponent he tends to
>cruise.
>
>I really could not see Jones KO'ing Hagler, and if Jones started to cruise,
>Hagler would punish him. Jones has had fewer quality opponents than Hagler,
>so it's difficult to judge just how great he is. In the current era, only
>Lopez and Oscar are on the 'great' list IMHO.
>
>iF
IMHO, the comparison of opponent quality is the key factor here. By
comparison, RJJ is a raw novice compared to Hagler. Hagler had faced
more PRIOR to his title shot than RJJ will likely face in his entire
career.
In a tough spot, there were no question amrks in Haglers mind. RJJ
would be flicking and running after a couple of rounds. Then it would
only be a question of how long it would take for Hagler to cut him
down.
-mwh
Chico
>>
>>This is a toss-up, and I read it the same way. I tend to Hagler because of
>>his tenacity and ability to absorb punishment and come back even stronger. If
>>there is a criticism of Jones to be made (and there really are very few) it
>>is his lack of tenacity; if he knows he can't KO his opponent he tends to
>>cruise.
>>
>>I really could not see Jones KO'ing Hagler, and if Jones started to cruise,
>>Hagler would punish him. Jones has had fewer quality opponents than Hagler,
>>so it's difficult to judge just how great he is. In the current era, only
>>Lopez and Oscar are on the 'great' list IMHO.
>mwh wrote:
>
>IMHO, the comparison of opponent quality is the key factor here. By
>comparison, RJJ is a raw novice compared to Hagler. Hagler had faced
>more PRIOR to his title shot than RJJ will likely face in his entire
>career.
>
>In a tough spot, there were no question amrks in Haglers mind. RJJ
>would be flicking and running after a couple of rounds. Then it would
>only be a question of how long it would take for Hagler to cut him
>down.
I disagree with both of you.
Yes- Hagler was one of the greatest middleweights of all-time; but he was
not invincible.
Don't forget that an in-his-prime Hagler struggled against Vito Antuofermo.
The 160 pound version of Roberto Duran (still very good- but certainly no Roy
Jones) took Hagler 15 rounds.
Ray Leonard- comebacking and past his prime- also took Hagler the distance and
frustrated him with his speed (fast- but not 'Roy Jones' fast).
Jones is (or was) considerably faster and stronger than any of these three.
Hagler was definitely "great". However, I don't think that Hagler's "toughness
and tenacity" would be enough to overcome Jones' physical advantages- unbelievable
speed and power (not to mention his ability to rise to the occasion- see
Jones/Griffin II).
Chico
Michael Haught
<snip>
: I disagree with both of you.
: Yes- Hagler was one of the greatest middleweights of all-time; but he was
: not invincible.
: Don't forget that an in-his-prime Hagler struggled against Vito Antuofermo.
: The 160 pound version of Roberto Duran (still very good- but certainly no Roy
: Jones) took Hagler 15 rounds.
: Ray Leonard- comebacking and past his prime- also took Hagler the distance and
: frustrated him with his speed (fast- but not 'Roy Jones' fast).
: Jones is (or was) considerably faster and stronger than any of these three.
: Hagler was definitely "great". However, I don't think that Hagler's "toughness
: and tenacity" would be enough to overcome Jones' physical advantages- unbelievable
: speed and power (not to mention his ability to rise to the occasion- see
: Jones/Griffin II).
: Chico
RJJ is abundantly gifted. But, the only fighter (that I know of) that MMH
allowed to be of stronger mind was Leonard. SRL did not defeat MMH because
of physical gifts and skills alone. MMH allowed himself to be goaded into
a fight that SRL could win.
RJJ has not allowed himself to be tested to the extent that he knows the
answer to how he will respond to almost any situation. MMH had. That,
IMHO, would be the difference in this fight. Mental toughness and experience.
--
-mwh
Michael Haught
are in today's era
Today's fighters are not tested in any way as fighters of generations
past. RJJ has only fought a couple of fighters who anybody thought had
any chance to defeat him. Like most of today's fighters, he'll run harder
away from a challenge or test than a ham and egger would fight the final
round for a $500 purse 20 years ago.
Today there are abundant questions as to how RJJ would react if pressured,
hurt, cut, etc. And RJJ has only had to answer one of those questions
when knocked down by a fighter who could not put more than one punch
together against him.
Brian (op...@newscene.com) wrote:
: On 10 Nov 1998 15:30:49 GMT, Chico wrote:
: >Don't forget that an in-his-prime Hagler struggled against Vito Antuofermo.
: Their first fight went 15 rounds and was declared a draw but Hagler
: should have won. Antuofermo would have been either KOed or it would
: be a lopsided decision by Jones. Don't forget that a few years later
: Hagler avenged his "draw" to Antuofermo with a KO.
: >The 160 pound version of Roberto Duran (still very good- but certainly no Roy
: >Jones) took Hagler 15 rounds.
: >Ray Leonard- comebacking and past his prime- also took Hagler the distance and
: >frustrated him with his speed (fast- but not 'Roy Jones' fast).
: >
: >Jones is (or was) considerably faster and stronger than any of these three.
: That's the key factors. Roy Jones Jr. has an awesome combination of
: speed and power. IMO the greatest combination of speed and power ever
: seen in a boxing ring. Jones Jr. also has a superior defense and is
: a better counterpuncher than Hagler. I would take for these reasons
: also.
: >Hagler was definitely "great". However, I don't think that Hagler's "toughness
: >and tenacity" would be enough to overcome Jones' physical advantages- unbelievable
: >speed and power (not to mention his ability to rise to the occasion- see
: >Jones/Griffin II).
: I'm with Chico on this one, Hagler was unquestionably an all time
: great, but Roy Jones Jr. is a tremendous fighter who's superior talent
: would enable him to defeat Hagler.
--
-mwh
Michael Haught
: IMHO, RJJ is dominant because the only point of reference for his skills
: are in today's era
Whoooaaaaa! Bad grammar!!
I see I should have subbed the word "is" for "are" after editing that
sentence.
--
-mwh
Michael Haught
: On Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:40:39 GMT, mwha...@netwalk.com (Mike Haught)
: wrote:
: >IMHO, the comparison of opponent quality is the key factor here. By
: >comparison, RJJ is a raw novice compared to Hagler.
: Using the word "novice" in the same sentecne with Roy Jones Jr. is
: absurd. In what ways besides your opinion of Roy Jones Jr's
: competition is he a "novice." I'd like you to tell us what parts of
: Roy Jones boxing skills are "novice." Also how were opponents like
: Light Out Toney novices.
Brian,
Please read the sentence again. In comparison to Marvin Hagler and their
quality of opponents.
Hagler fought top notch fighters for years before he received his first
title shot. He had around 50 bouts before his first title shot. Marvin
Hagler made more successful title defenses in boxing's #2 glamour division
except for Carlos Monzon.
In comparison to Hagler, Jones Jr's accomplishments are in the novice league.
Jones has fought two opponents that presented a risk (Hopkins and Toney)
and has actively avoided stiff challenges ever since. That analysis is
anything but absurd.
In answer to your request, I guess I'll start with Jones Jr. being a novice in
the cajones catagory vs. fighters of at least a generation ago. Its a
disease of the era, but he is more guilty than most in avoiding any kind
of competition now-a-days.
--
-mwh
Bob Sheehy
adversity in the early rounds of the first Griffin fight, backpedaling
away from the smaller man's clean, but not very hard shots with a look
of discouragement on his face. Off that performance, I doubt he could
stand up to Marvin's pressure, power and indomitable will.
The Holy Man said it best in the days before the earmunching fiasco: "He
may be faster than me, and he may hit harder than I do, but what it
comes down to is this: I can take his. Can he take mine?"
I suspect MMH could take RJJ's. I further suspect Roy could not take
Marvin's. Hagler by KO.
Robert Phillips
Brian wrote:
> On 10 Nov 1998 14:49:29 -0500, mha...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael
> Haught) wrote:
> >In comparison to Hagler, Jones Jr's accomplishments are in the novice league.
> You can say Hagler has accomplished more but to call Jones a novice at all
> show's how poor a judge of boxing talent you are.
> Your postings don't qualify as an analysis. In order to be an
> analysis you would have to do more than make the that Roy Jones Jr's
> opposition are novices. That is not an analysis. Your process of
> reasoning is flawed and therefore the conclusions you reach are
> flawed.
So is yours, and so are yours, as for the second time, you have ignored Michael's
all-important phrase "In comparison to Hagler..." You even snipped and included
the phrase in your own post (above) and somehow still missed it. It completely
qualifies Michael's statement(s) and gives a completely different reading than
what you allege (accusing MH of saying that Roy IS a "novice" and that "Roy Jones
Jr's opposition are novices"). Please read and comprehend everything fully before
you make yourself look so foolish.
Pie
Robert Phillips
Michael Haught wrote:
> Today there are abundant questions as to how RJJ would react if pressured,
> hurt, cut, etc. And RJJ has only had to answer one of those questions
> when knocked down by a fighter who could not put more than one punch
> together against him.
You illustrate the weakness in your argument. There's a very good reason why Jones has
not had to answer those questions - because so far the margin between him and his
opponents has been so large that he's been at little risk of having to face those
questions. And there are two factors in that, in turn - that the opponents have been
RELATIVELY underwhelming, AND Roy has been OVERwhelming. If the former needs to be
remembered, IMO so does the latter.
I've always thought that a fallacy - that because Jones has so far been so superiour as
to avoid facing those questions, that he would/will fail them if and when he does.
That's a non-sequitur, IMO...
That's very similar to saying that "Hey, he's never really been tagged, so he must not
have much of a chin..." I see that all the time - and it just doesn't follow.
I'm not putting out a vote in the Hagler/Jones debate. But I do think we need to be
careful with the logic we use...
Pie
Alejandro Olague
>On 10 Nov 1998 14:49:29 -0500, mha...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael
>Haught) wrote:
>
>>In comparison to Hagler, Jones Jr's accomplishments are in the novice league.
>>Jones has fought two opponents that presented a risk (Hopkins and Toney)
>>and has actively avoided stiff challenges ever since.
>
>Are you saying Roy Jones Jr. is ducking opposition? Who would please
>give an example of who you would like to see him fight that he has
>"actively avoided"? I think you're full of shit about his
>accomplishments being in the novice league compared to Hagler. You
>can say Hagler has accomplished more but to call Jones a novice at all
>show's how poor a judge of boxing talent you are.
>
>>That analysis is anything but absurd.
>
>Your postings don't qualify as an analysis. In order to be an
>analysis you would have to do more than make the that Roy Jones Jr's
>opposition are novices. That is not an analysis. Your process of
>reasoning is flawed and therefore the conclusions you reach are
>flawed.
I would venture to say that the Roberto Duran that Hagler fought at
160 is as good as if not better than any opponent that Jones has
faced. Jones level of opposition has been very underwhelming.
Alejandro
lokiSP...@midtown.net
>Hagler was definitely "great". However, I don't think that Hagler's "toughness
>and tenacity" would be enough to overcome Jones' physical advantages- unbelievable
>speed and power (not to mention his ability to rise to the occasion- see
>Jones/Griffin II).
I am inclined to agree. Just for snicks, how do you think either of
them would have stacked up against Monzon? Personally, I take Carlos
over either one...
Loki
Clint
Jones is too fast. Carlos would never get to him. Be like Nas against McCullough.
Jones probably has more power too. I think Monzon & Hagler are good tough
guys but yer gonne need a lot more than that against Roy.
Anytime I get to vote for P4P or Best of all time... RJJ is at the top of my list.
I really hate him as an announcer becuase he is terrible. But as a boxer
he is the best that I have seen
Clint
Michael Haught
: On 10 Nov 1998 14:49:29 -0500, mha...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael
: Haught) wrote:
: >In comparison to Hagler, Jones Jr's accomplishments are in the novice league.
: >Jones has fought two opponents that presented a risk (Hopkins and Toney)
: >and has actively avoided stiff challenges ever since.
: Are you saying Roy Jones Jr. is ducking opposition? Who would please
: give an example of who you would like to see him fight that he has
: "actively avoided"?
Brian, I know you're in love with today's fighters. It sure seems that
you're perspective of boxing and what has brought it to where it is today
starts with the Tyson era.
RJJ has talked bigger than anybody in the last several years and searched
for the least challenges. RJJ should thank God every night for the Marvin
Haglers, Roberto Durans, Bob Fosters, Michael Spinks, etc. in the past who
defeated the best that was there and kept looking for new and better
challenges. Instead, he talks like he invented the game. Witht the
exception of Duran, IMO, the above fighters would teach RJJ a painful
lesson in facing adversity and prevailing.
:I think you're full of shit about his
: accomplishments being in the novice league compared to Hagler. You
: can say Hagler has accomplished more but to call Jones a novice at all
: show's how poor a judge of boxing talent you are.
Brian, You keep going on the personal attack and demeaning my ability to
judge boxing talent. If you're argument was sound and stood on its own
merits, you would not need to resort to adhominem attacks. Prove to me
with facts, not attacks...if you can. So far you have never been able to
do that.
: >That analysis is anything but absurd.
: Your postings don't qualify as an analysis. In order to be an
: analysis you would have to do more than make the that Roy Jones Jr's
: opposition are novices. That is not an analysis. Your process of
: reasoning is flawed and therefore the conclusions you reach are
: flawed.
And yours do? You who went on for several posts with some kind of theory
about women boxers breasts exploding in the ring? That is your definition
of analysis?
RJJ's opposition is so limited in comparison to the cahmpions of a
generation or two ago, that you cannot provide a comparative analysis
leading to his greatness that you subscribe to. Marvin Hagler fought good
and great fighters and almost always prevailed. RJJ has faced two very
good fighters at or near their peak and turned off half of his game in
order to survive with a decision. Shoot, he turned kitten against Mike
McCallum.
Until RJJ looks for a contest and tries to show the fans something
other than a boxer's version of batting practice, he'll always be in the
what could have been catagory.
--
-mwh
Michael Haught
Robert Phillips (RP...@concentric.net) wrote:
: Michael Haught wrote:
: Pie
You apparently indicate that RJJ has not had that happen to him, so he can
withstand the punch, pressure, etc.
Montell Griffin (in the first fight) and Lou Del Valle (and not just
the KD) showed something inside RJJ, that tells me that he doesn't really
like what he does for a living. Now when faced with severe adversity, RJJ
could go one of two ways. He could dig down and display all of his
talents along with determination and grit or he could look for a soft
place on the canvas. My years of participating in and watching competitive
sports tells me that this kind of guy could swing easier to taking the easy
way.
Let's look at RJJ's reaction to his first KD. He next goes down TWO
weight classes for a challenger who does not have power at 160 lbs.! Let
alone 175 lbs.
I have always been wary of frontrunners who seem to always find a way to
drop down a level to face opposition rather than step up to test themselves.
--
-mwh
Computer Lab User
classes to find a fignter who does not ahve power at 160 is a stupid
idiot to say the least. Jones has offered to fight every other fighrter
at 168 and 175 and anyone who says differently is a liar. He is having
trouble finding anyone who will step in the ring with him. It is not
his fault. Darius can make the same money in Europe, so why would he
risk it. Jones is what Hamed is and what Tyson was. That is the
champioh period. Otis Grant is one of the few people with enough balls
to challenge Roy. He will get his face handed to him on a silver
platter, but at least he has guts and would step up for this
opportunity.
Robert Phillips
Michael Haught wrote:
> Robert Phillips (RP...@concentric.net) wrote:
> : I've always thought that a fallacy - that because Jones has so far been so superiour as
> : to avoid facing those questions, that he would/will fail them if and when he does.
> : That's a non-sequitur, IMO...
> : That's very similar to saying that "Hey, he's never really been tagged, so he must not
> : have much of a chin..." I see that all the time - and it just doesn't follow.
> You apparently indicate that RJJ has not had that happen to him, so he can
> withstand the punch, pressure, etc.
I do? Where? That's just as much of a fallacy as what I describe above, and that's what I'm
cautioning against...If they are unanswered questions, then they are unanswered questions. I
wouldn't draw conclusions either way, that he has some deficiencies to hide OR that he is
therefore without those deficiencies...
But, as with Hamed, every successive fight for Jones has been nothing but one more fight
where those raging doubts that so many people seem to have are NOT realized. Now, after
McCollough, a one-sided if boring performance, we're STILL seeing the arguments that "Well,
sooner or later, Hamed's tactics won't work. Someone's gonna exploit this or that..." That
may or may not be true. But it hasn't happened yet against Hamed, and it hasn't happened yet
for Jones, either, even though those warnings have been darkly whispered about both men for
years now.
That doesn't mean what we are obligated to give either man the benefit of the doubt (but if
we do, we must be cautious), but I do think fans are too tempted to draw firm conclusions
based on what they have NOT seen. I would no sooner argue that since Jones has never needed
to dig down deep that he COULD when necessary, than I would that since he's never needed to
dig down deep that he could NOT when necessary. A cruise-control win over Lou Del Valle
doesn't indicate much for either case, IMO. It's a fallacy to say "He hasn't so he can't,"
and it's a fallacy to say "He hasn't so/but he could."
> Montell Griffin (in the first fight) and Lou Del Valle (and not just
> the KD) showed something inside RJJ, that tells me that he doesn't really
> like what he does for a living.
I think every interview he's ever given tells us the same thing! And yet, but for the mental
lapse in Griffin I that I am loathe to magnify into indications of deep character flaws, both
were superiour performances by Jones. (I may need to remind some people - not you in
particular - that Jones WAS ahead on the cards at the time of the DQ.)
> Now when faced with severe adversity, RJJ
> could go one of two ways. He could dig down and display all of his
> talents along with determination and grit or he could look for a soft
> place on the canvas. My years of participating in and watching competitive
> sports tells me that this kind of guy could swing easier to taking the easy
> way.
Could? Sure he could. He could do lots of things. But there's also a wide gap between
digging down and looking for the soft spot, isn't there? So far he's been in the middle,
because he's never had to go to either extreme. Even so, even if faced with severe
adversity, must his choice be one of the extremes?
> I have always been wary of frontrunners who seem to always find a way to
> drop down a level to face opposition rather than step up to test themselves.
> -mwh
That argument can be made, sure, but when you say "drop down a level" - are you referring to
weight class (OG currently a middle) or apparent talent level? I'm not defending the Grant
fight for Jones - I was mystified when I first heard about it, and I haven't seen any
convincing justifications from Jones or Grant yet. If Del Valle had not been a champion, or
the fight not a unification, I might be more generous to the theory. But I'm not sure I
should be so quick to discredit the one and judge him more by the follow-up. Does taking an
entirely voluntary unification mitigate any of the doubts about his determination that were
created IN the unification?
Pie
Brian Losabia
strapped on a prototype VR helmet and shouted:
">>"=mwhaught
<<snipped>>
>> Montell Griffin (in the first fight) and Lou Del Valle (and not just
>> the KD) showed something inside RJJ, that tells me that he doesn't really
>> like what he does for a living.
>
>I think every interview he's ever given tells us the same thing! And yet, but for the mental
>lapse in Griffin I that I am loathe to magnify into indications of deep character flaws, both
>were superiour performances by Jones. (I may need to remind some people - not you in
>particular - that Jones WAS ahead on the cards at the time of the DQ.)
Roger that. Jones could have ended the first Griffin fight as
easily as he ended the second. Something tells me that Jones
might not have been taking the first Griffin fight seriously
enough. Oh, yeah. The mic in the trunks, that's what it was.
>> Now when faced with severe adversity, RJJ
>> could go one of two ways. He could dig down and display all of his
>> talents along with determination and grit or he could look for a soft
>> place on the canvas. My years of participating in and watching competitive
>> sports tells me that this kind of guy could swing easier to taking the easy
>> way.
Jones could have stayed down after Del Valle tagged him. He was
clearly shaken up, and could have hung on/ran for the remainder
of the bout, even after electing to get up. He remained the
aggressor, and outclassed a pretty good, strong fighter.
How can you watch Jones-Griffin II and doubt Jones'
intensity/determination?
<<snipped>>
>...If Del Valle had not been a champion, or the fight not a unification,
>I might be more generous to the theory. But I'm not sure I
>should be so quick to discredit the one and judge him more by the follow-up.
>Does taking an entirely voluntary unification mitigate any of the doubts
>about his determination that were created IN the unification?
>
Well said.
>
>Pie
>
-Brian Losabia
--
Brian Losabia
DoD #010976
fl...@nojunkmail.jurai.net
PGP Public Key available
<<HINT: remove "nojunkmail." to send email.>>
Michael Haught
Computer Lab User (no_ema...@uets.gsu.edu) wrote:
: Whoever made the ludicrous comment about Jones going down two weight
--
-mwh
Michael Haught
I'll try to answer Chapters 1 and 2 here and address 3 & 4 with footnotes
tomorrow. ;-)
I guess to put it simply and quickly, when fighters avoid competition and
challenges, it usually means there is some kind of self doubt in the
fighter or there is an outstanding financial interest in taking any risk
(and decided by his handlers).
I think we see a little bit of both with ODLH and since there is not much
money jumping around out there for RJJ, I tend to feel the reason is he is
not enthralled with what he does for a living and it makes me wonder how he
would feel about enduring a difficult bout.
Simply my opinion. But with the way fighters face challenges now-a-days,
all we can do is guess and proclaim how great (or not so great) they are. It
hardly ever is proved in the ring.
Robert Phillips (RP...@concentric.net) wrote:
: Michael Haught wrote:
: > Robert Phillips (RP...@concentric.net) wrote:
: > : I've always thought that a fallacy - that because Jones has so far been so superiour as
: > : to avoid facing those questions, that he would/will fail them if and when he does.
: > : That's a non-sequitur, IMO...
: > : That's very similar to saying that "Hey, he's never really been tagged, so he must not
: > : have much of a chin..." I see that all the time - and it just doesn't follow.
: > You apparently indicate that RJJ has not had that happen to him, so he can
: > withstand the punch, pressure, etc.
: I do? Where? That's just as much of a fallacy as what I describe above, and that's what I'm
: cautioning against...If they are unanswered questions, then they are unanswered questions. I
: wouldn't draw conclusions either way, that he has some deficiencies to hide OR that he is
: therefore without those deficiencies...
<snipped>
--
-mwh
The Sanity Cruzer
Michael Haught wrote in message <72cr1l$j...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>...
>Whew! Pie, this is supposed to be fun, not work!!
>
>I'll try to answer Chapters 1 and 2 here and address 3 & 4 with footnotes
>tomorrow. ;-)
That's enough for me to see.
TSC
Brian
wrote:
>Montell Griffin (in the first fight) and Lou Del Valle (and not just
>the KD) showed something inside RJJ, that tells me that he doesn't really
>like what he does for a living.
You forgot that Roy was coming back and wobbled Griffin so bad Griffin he took a
knee, THEN went going overboard and by hitting him while he was on a knee.
Remember too that he did this in part because we had one of the worst referees
in boxing, Tony Perez, being severely out of position. Against Del Valle he got
right back up from a huge shot to the head. If he had stayed down then you
might have a point but he went on to win the remaining rounds and I believe he
won every single round except for that round he was knocked down.
> Now when faced with severe adversity, RJJ
> could go one of two ways.
See you seem to be missing the point. Roy Jones Jr. is so talented he may never
be faced with the severe adversity that other fighters face. You seem to think
facing severe adversity in the ring makes a fighter better. You ignore the
abilities Roy Jones has to avoid taking the punishment other fighters do.
I see Roy Jones like I see NFL Superstar Deion Sanders. Deion Sanders is the
best cornerback in football (IM0 the greatest athlete I've ever seen), but you
won't see him rack up as many INTs as other cornerbacks and he hardly ever gets
thrown too because he's such a superior cornerback. Does the fact he doesn't
face as much adversity as other football players mean he isn't the best
cornerback? not IMO. It means he's so talented teams can't throw to his side of
the field or he'll make them pay, so consequently Deion doesn't get tested as
much as other cornerbacks.
>Let's look at RJJ's reaction to his first KD.
He got right back up and went on to win the final rounds of the fight.
Brian
wrote:
>If you're argument was sound and stood on its own
>merits, you would not need to resort to adhominem attacks. Prove to me
>with facts, not attacks...if you can. So far you have never been able to
>do that.
There are no "facts" in this argument. I attempted to bring facts into the
argument by asking you what aspects of Hagler's boxing skills are superior to
Jones. But I now realize there's no way to prove you wrong or for you to prove
yourself right. Its really very easy to take the stance your taking. It's
impossible to ever know what would happen if an older boxer fought a current
boxer. You can go on saying all the old guys were better but it proves nothing.
Why argue about something so stupid and pointless and use old boxers to put down
today's boxers? That's basically what you're doing in all of these threads.
Anyone can argue any point of view and not back it up in these old boxer vs.
today boxer threads. You can just say Hagler would beat Jones...but what does
that prove, what's the point? Are they ever gonna fight? NO. Will we ever
know what would happen? NO. There were different circumstances back then, no
one can say definitively what would happen. There is no point in deliberating
about it because there is never *ever* going to be any answer to these questions
I ask you, why can't you guys talk about something that's going on NOW?! Why
can't you talk about fights that will actually happen?
Brian
wrote:
>Brian, I know you're in love with today's fighters. It sure seems that
>you're perspective of boxing and what has brought it to where it is today
>starts with the Tyson era.
Maybe that's your problem, that you have a problem with boxing today. Perhaps
your just annoyed at boxing today and you don't enjoy it enough to talk about it
with a person who actually *likes* boxing now.
pa...@samerica.com
"toughness
> >and tenacity" would be enough to overcome Jones' physical advantages-
unbelievable
Hagler wasn't slow, nor was he exactly lacking in power. Look at his KO
number - Jones will never get there. Hagler knocked out some very tough
cookies, guys that were known to have a granite chin (Roldan, Hamsho, Minter)
and took the bombs of some knock-out punchers (Mugabi, Hearns..). I actualy
think Hagler's opposition *before* even being champ was higher than anyone
Jones has faced being a champ or ever in his career. Not entirely Jones
fault, but hey, that means nothing would have prepared him for Hagler.
Jones has been strangely defensive and lacksadiacal whenever he's met a truly
threatening opponent - think of the Toney or Hopkins fights. Damn, even the
McCallum one. What makes you assume he'd look al explosive against someone
like Hagler, who's ten times the fighter any of these guys (expect a prime
McCallum) ever were? Jones would be looking quite defensive and tame, and
Hagler would throw seven times the leather Toney threw, and land, and take
anything Jones could throw at him (which wouldn't be much).
I have little doubt that Hagler would win it. If Jones had faced better
opposition and were better prepared, well, we'd have to see. But the way it
is, when I see Jones fight I don't see a fighter that conveys the power,
dominance, determination and smart boxing savvy that Hagler possessed.
> I am inclined to agree. Just for snicks, how do you think either of
> them would have stacked up against Monzon? Personally, I take Carlos
> over either one...
Monzon against Hagler... man, I've repeatedly say that if that's what they
show on Heaven PPV, it makes mortality easier to bear with. And if it's what
they show on Hell PPV, well damn, than the Devil's a damn shrewd marketeer.
I don't know. It'd be a clash of awesome will. Monzon refused to lose, has a
monster right cross, and a chin that would resist the impact of a
freight-train. Hagler refused to lose, was a master infighter, and also has
an awesome chin. It'd go to the cards, and there I'd give Monzon the edge by
about a tenth of an inch due to his reach advantage, but I don't know.
Jones wouldn't be ready for either, in my opinion. His physical potential is
awesome, but his lack of experience at the top echelon of the game would lead
to him getting a boxing lesson and being worn down in the mid rounds.
...pablo
pa...@samerica.com
RP...@concentric.net wrote:
>.. AND Roy has been OVERwhelming.
He wasn't anywhere near overwhelming against Toney or Hopkins or McCallum.
Even against Del Valle. Let's not even talk Griffin I. He was clearly behind
on points, clueless as to how to win, and then he fouled out and lost. Against
the formerly mentioned, he merely won adequately, but those weren't
scinitllating, breath-taking performances.
Mark Brown
>Would Hagler have beaten Jones at 165 lbs?
>Whilst I have always had the utmost admiration for Marvin, I can't help but
>think that Jones may be just a little too slick and win on points (like
>Leonard).
>However, a converse point of view may be that because Jones hits harder
than
>Leonard, he may be less likely to run, and choose to play the machismo
>game; which would suit Marvin quite nicely thank you.
>Glen harsh
Hagler would have been knocked cold by RoyJones. However, Jones would have
had to wear a solid cup to protect against Hagler's fouls. Still with
Jones's style, it is unlikely Hagler would have many chances to reach him
with his fouls. Hagler would not have lasted 5 rounds with Roy Jones.
But the real answer is simple: Hagler would never have fought Roy Jones.
Like any other true middleweight at the time, Hagler would have ducked Jones
and ran from the contract signing table.
Mark Brown
Michael Haught
pa...@samerica.com wrote:
: Hagler wasn't slow, nor was he exactly lacking in power. Look at his KO
: number - Jones will never get there. Hagler knocked out some very tough
: cookies, guys that were known to have a granite chin (Roldan, Hamsho, Minter)
: and took the bombs of some knock-out punchers (Mugabi, Hearns..). I actualy
: think Hagler's opposition *before* even being champ was higher than anyone
: Jones has faced being a champ or ever in his career. Not entirely Jones
: fault, but hey, that means nothing would have prepared him for Hagler.
<snipped rest of post>
Nice post. I think you articulate the same point a tad better than I. ;-)
--
-mwh
Michael Haught
Brian (op...@netcene.com) wrote:
: On 11 Nov 1998 09:48:53 -0500, mha...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Haught)
: wrote:
: >Montell Griffin (in the first fight) and Lou Del Valle (and not just
: >the KD) showed something inside RJJ, that tells me that he doesn't really
: >like what he does for a living.
: You forgot that Roy was coming back and wobbled Griffin so bad Griffin he took a
: knee, THEN went going overboard and by hitting him while he was on a knee.
: Remember too that he did this in part because we had one of the worst referees
: in boxing, Tony Perez, being severely out of position. Against Del Valle he got
: right back up from a huge shot to the head. If he had stayed down then you
: might have a point but he went on to win the remaining rounds and I believe he
: won every single round except for that round he was knocked down.
And you forget that we're talkign about Montell Griffin and Lou Del Valle.
Two guys who would have been lucky to get to title shot status 20 years
ago. Griffin may have been a guy who hovered in the bottom half of the
top ten. Del Valle, he wouldn't have been there at all except in a
cannon fodder title defense.
Now imagine if Michael Spinks had hit Jones with the shot Del Valle hit
him with. End of Roy's night without a doubt. If it was Marvin, well he
would have been on Roy so relentlessly that Roy couldn't breathe until he
fell.
: > Now when faced with severe adversity, RJJ
: > could go one of two ways.
: See you seem to be missing the point. Roy Jones Jr. is so talented he may never
: be faced with the severe adversity that other fighters face. You seem to think
: facing severe adversity in the ring makes a fighter better. You ignore the
: abilities Roy Jones has to avoid taking the punishment other fighters do.
: I see Roy Jones like I see NFL Superstar Deion Sanders. Deion Sanders is the
: best cornerback in football (IM0 the greatest athlete I've ever seen), but you
: won't see him rack up as many INTs as other cornerbacks and he hardly ever gets
: thrown too because he's such a superior cornerback. Does the fact he doesn't
: face as much adversity as other football players mean he isn't the best
: cornerback? not IMO. It means he's so talented teams can't throw to his side of
: the field or he'll make them pay, so consequently Deion doesn't get tested as
: much as other cornerbacks.
No fighter in history has been so dominant as you describe. And Roy Jones
Jr. is not a guy who will rewrite the record books as you wish for him to.
The fact is that Roy has faced inferior competition. In his days as a
champ he has faced only four credible fighters at or near the top of their
game. If you go back only 10 years you won't see such a dearth of
competition. Most of his title defenses have been boxing's version of home
run derby instead of actual competitions.
And he doesn't seem too upset by this.
Dion is another example of too much ego for what he can perform. He is a
great CB, but we have seen Dion burnt his share of times. When a QB
and receiver do burn him he pouts for a while and is prone to be burnt
again until he gets his head back on straight. And he is a mediocre baseball
player at best.
: >Let's look at RJJ's reaction to his first KD.
: He got right back up and went on to win the final rounds of the fight.
Then sets up his next fight against a guy with no punching power who
fights at TWO weight classes below his own. Now that is a stepping stone
to greatness if I have ever seen it! ;-)
--
-mwh
Michael Haught
Brian (op...@netcene.com) wrote:
: On 11 Nov 1998 09:37:54 -0500, mha...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Haught)
: wrote:
: >If you're argument was sound and stood on its own
: >merits, you would not need to resort to adhominem attacks. Prove to me
: >with facts, not attacks...if you can. So far you have never been able to
: >do that.
: There are no "facts" in this argument. I attempted to bring facts into the
: argument by asking you what aspects of Hagler's boxing skills are superior to
: Jones. But I now realize there's no way to prove you wrong or for you to prove
: yourself right. Its really very easy to take the stance your taking. It's
: impossible to ever know what would happen if an older boxer fought a current
: boxer. You can go on saying all the old guys were better but it proves nothing.
: Why argue about something so stupid and pointless and use old boxers to put down
: today's boxers? That's basically what you're doing in all of these threads.
The facts are that Roy Jones Jr's opposition is so pale in comparison to
Hagler, much of the skills you cite for Roy could simply be a mirage.
True he has abundant speed and power. But, Roy Jones ahs never faced a
fighter who has had all of the questions asked of himself and knew exactly
what to do to try to beat him. And Roy Jones Jr. has never had to answer
those questions of himself. And it is not because he has sought out
challenges of himself.
Those are facts that you conveniently ignore. Then you call somebody
ignorant or something.
: Anyone can argue any point of view and not back it up in these old boxer vs.
: today boxer threads. You can just say Hagler would beat Jones...but what does
: that prove, what's the point? Are they ever gonna fight? NO. Will we ever
: know what would happen? NO. There were different circumstances back then, no
: one can say definitively what would happen. There is no point in deliberating
: about it because there is never *ever* going to be any answer to these questions
: I ask you, why can't you guys talk about something that's going on NOW?! Why
: can't you talk about fights that will actually happen?
Because the fighters today are not tested as in the past. You speculate
that Roy is at least one of the best ever, when he has not really had to
answer questions that a fighter a generation ago had to answer regularly.
Brian, it is much more of a glamour sport now-a-days and we may never see
Roy test himself against a fighter who poses some kind of danger to him
for the rest of his career. Simply because he doesn't have to to.
--
-mwh
Michael Haught
Brian (op...@netcene.com) wrote:
: On 11 Nov 1998 09:37:54 -0500, mha...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Haught)
: wrote:
: >Brian, I know you're in love with today's fighters. It sure seems that
: >you're perspective of boxing and what has brought it to where it is today
: >starts with the Tyson era.
: Maybe that's your problem, that you have a problem with boxing today. Perhaps
: your just annoyed at boxing today and you don't enjoy it enough to talk about it
: with a person who actually *likes* boxing now.
I have followed the sport since I was a young tot in the 1960s. I have
enormous respect for the fighters who have paid their dues and gave us
thrills by laying it all on the line.
I will call a spade a spade when I see it. And most of today's fighters
will find a million reasons not to fight a tough opponent instead of
trying to march over top of one to attain the next level in the sport.
Comparatively, today's fighters do back their way into title shots and
seek every way to protect their precious belt and income rather than give
the fans a good contest.
I have no problem discussing the fight game with a fan of today's
fighters. In fact I have been able to educate most of them. ;-)
--
-mwh
Michael Haught
: Hagler would have been knocked cold by RoyJones. However, Jones would have
: had to wear a solid cup to protect against Hagler's fouls. Still with
: Jones's style, it is unlikely Hagler would have many chances to reach him
: with his fouls. Hagler would not have lasted 5 rounds with Roy Jones.
: But the real answer is simple: Hagler would never have fought Roy Jones.
: Like any other true middleweight at the time, Hagler would have ducked Jones
: and ran from the contract signing table.
: Mark Brown
Brian,
Mark Brown is now agreeing with you.
Need I debate this point with you more? ;-)
--
-mwh
Michael Haught
Brian (op...@newscene.com) wrote:
: On 12 Nov 1998 09:20:50 -0500, mha...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael
: Haught) wrote:
: >Dion is another example of too much ego for what he can perform.
: No he's an example of another great athlete that Michael Haught has a
: problem with. Sanders is an extremely gifted and versatile athlete.
: I'm not at all surprised that Mike Haught can say not one positive
: thing about. It's comforting to know that the same people who put
: down Lennox Lewis also put down other great athletes. At least Haught
: is consistently dumb.
I did say he was a great CB. So it does not surprise me that you first
resort to the adhominem attack in your attempt to defend the "great"
Lennox Lewis.
Brian, You need to get a point of reference in sports beyond your years
of legal drinking. If you've reached that point yet.
: >He is a great CB, but we have seen Dion burnt his share of times.
: You should try getting your eyesite checked...Btw his name is spelled
: Deion. Since you remember him being burned so many times (but can't
: remember to spell his name right) can you give us an example of this
: occuring. Keep in mind even the greatest cornerbacks of all time have
: been beat occasionally, it goes with the territory. I recall many
: times in big games teams didn't even *throw* to his side of the field
: let alone burn him.
I knew Dion was not correct, but did not feel like looking up the correct
spelling.
I did say he was a great CB. But (as usual) you tend to inflate your
heroes of today. I won't get into a Deion debate with you for obvious
reasons Brian.
: >And he is a mediocre baseball
: >>player at best.
: In 1992 Deion had a phenomenal World Series (he batted .533). He
: would've easily won the World Series MVP if the Braves could've won
: the series. However Deion wasn't a raw baseball talent like say for
: instance Bo Jackson. Deion worked pretty hard to be an average player
: with flashes of greatness.
I watched Deion plenty of games in Cincy. He was mediocre at best. If he
had concentrated on one sport, he could have been an adequate baseball
player with good speed. Great...not so.
: For anyone who's not a football fan and hasn't witnessed Deion
: Sander's play in the NFL, here's a profile of him from NFL.com the
: offical NFL website:
<snipped 20 pages of Deion hi-lites>
Aren't you the one who complains about off topic posts?
--
-mwh
Chico
>> Michael Haught wrote:
>>
>> Today there are abundant questions as to how RJJ would react if pressured,
>> hurt, cut, etc. And RJJ has only had to answer one of those questions
>> when knocked down by a fighter who could not put more than one punch
>> together against him.
>Pie wrote:
>
>You illustrate the weakness in your argument. There's a very good reason why Jones has
>not had to answer those questions - because so far the margin between him and his
>opponents has been so large that he's been at little risk of having to face those
>questions. And there are two factors in that, in turn - that the opponents have been
>RELATIVELY underwhelming, AND Roy has been OVERwhelming. If the former needs to be
>remembered, IMO so does the latter.
>I've always thought that a fallacy - that because Jones has so far been so superiour as
>to avoid facing those questions, that he would/will fail them if and when he does.
>That's a non-sequitur, IMO...
Exactly.
The premise is this: "Roy Jones is so good that he easily beats everybody."
The conclusion: "Roy Jones must not be that good."
That doesn't make any damn sense.
Chico
pa...@samerica.com
mha...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Haught) wrote:
> Nice post. I think you articulate the same point a tad better than I. ;-)
It's just that I choose who to respond to a bit more carefully.
The naive Roy Jones and Lennox Lewis cheerleaders have not reched the point
of maturity to separate contructive criticism from disrespect. By saying that
Jones would get a boxing lesson from Hagler, you're not disrespecting him.
You're not disrespecting Otis Grant by stating he's going to lose to Jones,
either. And it's all guesswork, anyway.
I think we all agree Jones is an accomplished athlete, but potential doesn't
make greatness, and what's more, Jones doesn't seem willing to really
showcase his potential by doing what boxers are supposed to do: seek the
limits of their potential and push themselves. And it's only by doing that
that in the end you polish your skill-set and built up your confidence level.
Jones has never been in a war, which means that he'd be at total disadvantage
once he finds himself in one. If he sticks with the game and realy seeks his
limits, and seeks them too quickly, you'll see him exposed, just like every
boxer in history. Don't doubt it for a second. The ring is the perfect
parable for the struggle of life itself, and with all the talent in the
world, you still need that little devil luck to ride it out. Jones has had a
lot of luck, and when his luck ran out (against Griffin) he was exposed as a
spoiled brat, in my opinion. It showed he is still way too fragile mentally
at the top of the game. When pushed, he lost his cool. You'd never see Hagler
respond like that - whe pushed, fighters like Hagler and Monzon would react
by letting al strategy fo to blazes, and going to war, opening themselves up
to land, and taking leather in the total conviction that they'd take whatever
the other guy dished out, and that the other guy wouldn't be able to take
theirs. And you know what? They proved their point every time out, they left
no element of doubt out there. Unlike Jones.
Unlike the Jones fans, though, I can perfectly live with criticism of Hagler
or Monzon. While I think they're truly all-time greats, I don't take it
personally when someone dares criticizing them, or ranking them lower than I
do. To eahc their own. I ain't a screaming teenager leading the Hagler fan
club. I loved to see him fight, but he had his off nights, too. He was old
against Leonard, yeah, but damn, he *should* have pushed himself more. Of
course, that wasn't a prime Hagler anymore, that was a softened version, and
that's why he retired and never came back - and you got to respect that, too.
A fighter that allows fans to mostly remember them by their prime
performances, and not by keeping on and on in diminished condition. I've seen
that so often that it's why I refused to watch Duran's fights after the
victory against Iran Barkley. I didn't want him to spoil my memories.
In the case of Jones, he can't spoil my memories much, 'cause he doesn't
leave any behind. It ain't his fault he's way above today's way mediocre
opposition, but then he also has had good excuses on why he allowed the
exciting opportunities to pass by. Benn. Eubank. Michalczewski. I mean,
there's a damn pattern there. "I'll move to heavyweight." Then he don't.
"I'll fight the best, I'm on a mission." Then he signs up Otis Grant. The sad
thing is I don't doubt he could beat any of the fighters mentioned above, or
that he would've beaten Buster Douglas. "Risk of major injury". For Douglas,
anemic and overweight and shot and slow and pathetic as he consistently
looked in his comeback, maybe. But Jones simply doesn't seem to have
confidence in himself at that level, no matter what he says. And against
fighter like Hagler, he'd be lead to doubt himself ten times over in the ring
- the worst possible place for it to happen. He'd have to go to greatness
school first, then he could mix it with the Hagler's and Monzon's. But he's
missing class, and most definitely not taking care of business at all. If he
were, he'd be a PPV act. And now he's pushing 30, and his opportunity to make
history and to really make the big bucks seems to have passed him by. And if
he tries to make it happen and seek the challenges too late, you'll see quite
a few disappointed fans in this forum. Oh, probably you won't seem them,
'cause they'll lose all interest in boxing.
Michael Haught
<snip>
: Exactly.
: The premise is this: "Roy Jones is so good that he easily beats everybody."
: The conclusion: "Roy Jones must not be that good."
: That doesn't make any damn sense.
: Chico
No, the premise is that the level of competition in boxing today is suspect as
compared to past eras. Thus, the level of greatness bestowed upon RJJ by
many persons today is suspect as well.
--
-mwh
Michael Haught
Brian (op...@newscene.com) wrote:
: On 12 Nov 1998 11:30:39 -0500, mha...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael
: Haught) wrote:
: >I knew Dion was not correct, but did not feel like looking up the correct
: >spelling.
: huh? you knew it was wrong but you said it anyway...ok...kinda sums
: up the thought process that goes into your posts.
Brian,
If you would read more slowly and digest the content, you may reply to a
post someday without going off halfcocked. You may even actually reply to
the written word that you quote.
I know that is a reach for you, but try it someday. Read a post, count to
10, take a deep breath and comprehend what is written.
Back in the old days (when we learned things in school rather than how to
feel things) teachers took cognitive processes for granted in young folks.
In reading your view points, I think it may become a prerequsite before
graduation of 12th grade.
You have graduated, haven't you?
--
-mwh
Michael Haught
pa...@samerica.com wrote:
: In article <72eptu$o...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
: mha...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Haught) wrote:
: > Nice post. I think you articulate the same point a tad better than I. ;-)
: It's just that I choose who to respond to a bit more carefully.
: The naive Roy Jones and Lennox Lewis cheerleaders have not reched the point
: of maturity to separate contructive criticism from disrespect. By saying that
: Jones would get a boxing lesson from Hagler, you're not disrespecting him.
: You're not disrespecting Otis Grant by stating he's going to lose to Jones,
: either. And it's all guesswork, anyway.
<snipped rest of post>
Damn you're good! If you got that down into 3-4 less paragraphs, you'd be a
close #2 to DCI on my first posts to read.
But you moved up to #4 on my all time r.s.b P4P lists and could challenge
for the lineal title soon. We'll have to see if Brian lets you onto his
basketball team. ;-)
--
-mwh
pa...@samerica.com
mha...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Haught) wrote:
> But you moved up to #4 on my all time r.s.b P4P lists and could challenge
> for the lineal title soon.
RSB politics - the champs duck me, the different orgs don't rank me. The
linear title preceded recent misconceptions within RSB anyway. It was passed
on from Lee Tokuda (I count on people having short memories here) to me, and
I haven't lost it in the prediction ring. :-)
pa...@samerica.com
King...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> The premise is this: "Roy Jones is so good that he easily beats everybody."
The problem with this starting premise it's that it's wrong. He hasn't beaten
"everybody", even though there's not much good opposition to beat. Cleaning
three division has never been as easy as it is today, and yet Jones still
won't do it.
> The conclusion: "Roy Jones must not be that good."
That's your conclusion. Roy Jones is the best right now. That makes him good.
Not good enough to be memorable 10 years down the road, though. You might
perceive his bouts against Del Valle, Pazienza etc as scintillating and epic
and legendary stuff, but I don't.
> That doesn't make any damn sense.
That's true. The linarity you constructed doesn't make sense.
No one's saying Jones isn't good. The point is he's simply not done enough to
be mentioned in the same sentence along the names of Hagler or Monzon. That's
no disgrace, though.
Chico
>>
>> The premise is this: "Roy Jones is so good that he easily beats everybody."
>pablo wrote:
>
>The problem with this starting premise it's that it's wrong. He hasn't beaten
>"everybody", even though there's not much good opposition to beat. Cleaning
>three division has never been as easy as it is today, and yet Jones still
>won't do it.
What are you talking about?
Jones IS easily beating everybody that he fights.
Who do you think that Jones is "avoiding"?
>> Chico wrote:
>>
>> The conclusion: "Roy Jones must not be that good."
>pablo wrote:
>
>That's your conclusion. Roy Jones is the best right now. That makes him good.
>Not good enough to be memorable 10 years down the road, though. You might
>perceive his bouts against Del Valle, Pazienza etc as scintillating and epic
>and legendary stuff, but I don't.
No. I think that Jones IS that good. I think that he could have beaten a
Hagler or a Monzon.
But some of you seem to think that, since Jones has never been "tested", he
isn't in Hagler or Monzon's league. Or put another way, since Hagler and Monzon WERE
tested, they must be better than Jones. That line of reasoning is illogical.
>pablo wrote:
>
>No one's saying Jones isn't good. The point is he's simply not done enough to
>be mentioned in the same sentence along the names of Hagler or Monzon. That's
>no disgrace, though.
What do you mean "he's simply not done enough"?
You seem to be saying that "since Jones has never been tested by a top contender (and/or
since he's not beating top contenders), he shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence
as Hagler or Monzon".
I'm saying that he hasn't been tested because he IS that good. Bernard Hopkins,
James Toney, Montell Griffin, Virgil Hill, Lou Del Valle and Otis Grant ARE (or were)
legitimate top 10 160-175lb fighters- and Jones easily beat them all.
Chico
Michael Haught
<snip>
: What do you mean "he's simply not done enough"?
: You seem to be saying that "since Jones has never been tested by a top contender (and/or
: since he's not beating top contenders), he shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence
: as Hagler or Monzon".
: I'm saying that he hasn't been tested because he IS that good. Bernard Hopkins,
: James Toney, Montell Griffin, Virgil Hill, Lou Del Valle and Otis Grant ARE (or were)
: legitimate top 10 160-175lb fighters- and Jones easily beat them all.
: Chico
You forgot Mike McCallum in that list.
Of those on this list, only Toney and Hopkins could be considered at or
near the top of their game. Griffin in many person's eyes had received a
gift decision or two against Toney and Grant was a fighter coming up 2
weight divisions.
And if Jones Jr. was really a compelling fighter by skills and
performance, you would think the USA Today would have recapped his bout
from last Saturday. There is ample coverage of tennis, golf, motor sports,
hockey, horse racing, power boating, softball, speed skating, baseball and
football. No mention of the RJJ as far as I could find it. There's more
ink on the ABL than coverage of a weekend title fight of an annointed P4P
titlelist.
--
-mwh
pa...@samerica.com
King...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >> The premise is this: "Roy Jones is so good that he easily beats everybody."
>
> >pablo wrote:
> >
> >The problem with this starting premise it's that it's wrong. He hasn't beaten
> >"everybody", even though there's not much good opposition to beat. Cleaning
> >three division has never been as easy as it is today, and yet Jones still
> >won't do it.
>
> What are you talking about?
>
> Jones IS easily beating everybody that he fights.
Now you've changed your original statement to "everybody that he fights", not
"everybody", thus limiting the scope and implicitly acknowedging he hasn't
fought "everybody". You've corrected what was wronf with your original
premise.
Point is, "everybody that he fights" don't amount to much. His opposition is
lacklustre.
> Who do you think that Jones is "avoiding"?
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said he's actively "avoiding" anybody.
But it's a fact he isn't fighting Michalczewski, or Johnson, or quite some
other light-heavy or super-middle contenders we *must* rank above a
middleweight like Otis Grant. He might think he's got perfectly sound biz
reasons to do so, but fact is he ain't strengthening his position in boxing
history by doing that.
> >> Chico wrote:
> >>
> >> The conclusion: "Roy Jones must not be that good."
>
> >pablo wrote:
> >
> >That's your conclusion. Roy Jones is the best right now. That makes him good.
> >Not good enough to be memorable 10 years down the road, though. You might
> >perceive his bouts against Del Valle, Pazienza etc as scintillating and epic
> >and legendary stuff, but I don't.
>
> No. I think that Jones IS that good. I think that he could have beaten a
> Hagler or a Monzon.
>
> But some of you seem to think that, since Jones has never been "tested", he
> isn't in Hagler or Monzon's league. Or put another way, since Hagler and
Monzon WERE
> tested, they must be better than Jones. That line of reasoning is
illogical.
The logic *you* put into it doesn't work. Hagler's and Monzon's opponent
level was far higher than Jones. Jones fights in divisions that lacks the
depth it had when Hagler and Monzon were around. A Monzon opponent like
Rodrigo Valdez would give Roy Jones fits. Twenty times better than anyone
Jones has faced. Valdez could bang and was fast and tough. If Del Valle put
Jones down, Valdez would've kept him there.
Hagler and Monzon *were* tested by great opponents, not because they were
mediocre themselves, which is what you try to imply. You resort to a
ridiculous hidden argument to make your Roy Jones point. Hagler's and
Monzon's worth was proven beyond any doubt.
> >pablo wrote:
> >
> >No one's saying Jones isn't good. The point is he's simply not done enough to
> >be mentioned in the same sentence along the names of Hagler or Monzon. That's
> >no disgrace, though.
>
> What do you mean "he's simply not done enough"?
>
> You seem to be saying that "since Jones has never been tested by a top
contender (and/or
> since he's not beating top contenders), he shouldn't be mentioned in the same
sentence
> as Hagler or Monzon".
>
> I'm saying that he hasn't been tested because he IS that good. Bernard
Hopkins,
> James Toney, Montell Griffin, Virgil Hill, Lou Del Valle and Otis Grant ARE
(or were)
> legitimate top 10 160-175lb fighters- and Jones easily beat them all.
Oh, we've been here before. Suffice to say that every time Jones has faced
what passes for a top opponent these days, he's looked tentative and far less
dominant. The fight against Toney was quite a bore, possibly because Toney
came in shot. Griffin... top opponent? ROTFL. Virgul Hill - the quinessential
non-puncher. Del Valle - a journeyman at best. Grant - a freaking
middleweight fighting for the light heavy title through some machination no
one has for some reason been too upset about.
I am not saying Jones isn't the best now. I am just saying it doesn't take
that much to be perceived as the hottest thing since sliced bread these days.
It's more about marketing than substance. HBO is doing a decent marketing
job, though, but if Jones really were a great fighter, it's sad he's not
fighting better fights on PPV. That fact alone gives away something's missing
there, and Jones fans avoid that point. Note how you keep editing it out of
your replies, 'cause you can't credibly respond to that. The fighter I saw
against Grant didn't impress me. He was ineffective and took far too long to
get to a fighter he totally overwhelmed physically - but Jones didn't have
the real boxing tools to do that more effectively. I wasn't impressed. Maybe
he lacks a challenge, but again, my PPV spending money if Jones wants to earn
it with real fights, and make some real money himself.
pa...@samerica.com
pa...@samerica.com
Chico
>
>The logic *you* put into it doesn't work. Hagler's and Monzon's opponent
>level was far higher than Jones. Jones fights in divisions that lacks the
>
>Hagler and Monzon *were* tested by great opponents, not because they were
>mediocre themselves, which is what you try to imply. You resort to a
>ridiculous hidden argument to make your Roy Jones point. Hagler's and
>Monzon's worth was proven beyond any doubt.
First of all, I'm not trying to imply that Hagler and Monzon were "mediocre".
That's ridiculous.
Anyway, let's look at who Hagler fought between 1980 and 1985. This was his prime.
This was well after his two losses to Bobby Watts and Willie Monroe (Jones, BTW, has
no such losses on his resume).
Loucif Hamani
Bobby Watts
Marcos Geraldo
Alan Minter
Fulgencio Obelmejias
Vito Antuofermo
Mustafa Hamsho
William "Caveman" Lee
Fulgencio Obelmejias
Tony Sibson
Wilford Scypion
Roberto Duran
Juan Roldan
Mustafa Hamsho
Thomas Hearns
Who are these "great" opponents that you are talking about?
Well, we can obviously count out Hamani, Watts, Geraldo, Lee, Scypion and Sibson.
Duran, at that time, could hardly be considered a "great" middleweight.
So who were the "great" fighters that Hagler beat? Antuofermo (in '81)?
Roldan? Hamsho? Minter? Obelmejias?
I'd say that only Hearns could be considered "great", wouldn't you?
Don't get me wrong- yes, Marvin Hagler was great. But so is Jones. Your
"quality of opposition" argument (in which you claim that "Hagler was tested
by great opponents" and that "Hagler's and Monzon's opponent
level was far higher than Jones") is weak.\
You're turn.
Chico
Chico
>> >pablo wrote:
>> >
>> >The problem with this starting premise it's that it's wrong. He hasn't beaten
>> >"everybody", even though there's not much good opposition to beat. Cleaning
>> >three division has never been as easy as it is today, and yet Jones still
>> >won't do it.
>> Chico wrote:
>>
>> What are you talking about?
>>
>> Jones IS easily beating everybody that he fights.
>pablo wrote:
>
>Now you've changed your original statement to "everybody that he fights", not
>"everybody", thus limiting the scope and implicitly acknowedging he hasn't
>fought "everybody". You've corrected what was wronf with your original
>premise.
By "everybody", I didn't mean "everybody in the world"!
I guess that I should have typed "everybody that he fights".
Chico
Chico
>
>You're turn.
Uhh.. I mean "your turn".
I hate that!
Chico
pa...@samerica.com
King...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> First of all, I'm not trying to imply that Hagler and Monzon were "mediocre".
> That's ridiculous.
You said the fact that their opponents tested their skills shows they're not
quite as good as Jones, who -in your eyes, mind you- has been so utterly
dominant every time out.
This fails to take into account 2 facts:
1. Jones hasn't looked as good as you say whenever he's faced anyone that
could be labeled as "good". His efforts against Toney and Hopkins can hardly
be regarded as shut-outs. Jones looked strangely tentative and defensively
minded in each of those, so it's not like he looked head and shoulders above
them.
2. When Hagler and Monzon were active, the middle divisions had far more
depth. Many fighters back then were far above today's contenders, but of
course their names and level is somewhat forgotten because their times were
totally overshadowed by the presence of a Monzon or a Hagler. Jones, as of
now, leaves no reason behind to stay in our memories ten years down the road.
> Loucif Hamani
> Bobby Watts
> Marcos Geraldo
> Alan Minter
> Fulgencio Obelmejias
> Vito Antuofermo
> Mustafa Hamsho
> William "Caveman" Lee
> Fulgencio Obelmejias
> Tony Sibson
> Wilford Scypion
> Roberto Duran
> Juan Roldan
> Mustafa Hamsho
> Thomas Hearns
Obviously, you weren't following the sport back then. I think that is a pretty
damn awesome list, one that shows how thoroughly Hagler cleaned the divison.
What do you know or Lee, or Mugabi, or Antofuermo, or Hamsho, or Watts, or
Scypion, or Roldan? You judge them by the fact Hagler beat 'em. Thing is, they
proved themselves gainst other top fighters and were tough, hard-hitting
customers. None of which can be said about Jones' opposition.
> I'd say that only Hearns could be considered "great", wouldn't you?
"Great" in boxing history terms, but the others were all tough, hard-hitting
and thus, yeah. great opponent. If I say a prime Chris Eubank or Nigel Benn
would've been great opponents for Jones, it's not because they're legends -
it's just because they would've tested Jones, something his usual opposition
can't.
> Don't get me wrong- yes, Marvin Hagler was great. But so is Jones. Your
> "quality of opposition" argument (in which you claim that "Hagler was tested
> by great opponents" and that "Hagler's and Monzon's opponent
> level was far higher than Jones") is weak.
Your perception of Jones opposition is strangely distorted. If you think it
compares to the level of opposition Hagler faced, I am wasting my breath, as
I am not talking to a true boxing afficcionado, but rahter a passionate Roy
Jones fan club member that puts wishful thinking and hero worship before
whatever facts exist in the boxing world.
I am not bashing Jones. I am just convinced that 10 years down the road no
one will remember him, for he hasn't tried to accomplish anything memorable,
and the great fights have passed him by consistently. And fact is he ain't
getting younger, he's probably already slightly past his prime, and thus he
will not start to go for the big challenges now. He's lucky there's not much
young talent coming his way in his division. If young lions like Vargas were
lingering anywhere his weight division (Tarver is very unimpressive as a
pro), he wouldn't be able to hold on to his title for much longer. Nothing he
showed last Saturday was particularly impressive. Fact is he struggled for
too many rounds againt a guy two weight divisions under his own, and that a
middleweight had moments against him.
Ivan Weiss
> Anyway, let's look at who Hagler fought between 1980 and 1985. This was his prime.
> This was well after his two losses to Bobby Watts and Willie Monroe (Jones, BTW, has
> no such losses on his resume).
>
> Loucif Hamani
> Bobby Watts
> Marcos Geraldo
> Alan Minter
> Fulgencio Obelmejias
> Vito Antuofermo
> Mustafa Hamsho
> William "Caveman" Lee
> Fulgencio Obelmejias
> Tony Sibson
> Wilford Scypion
> Roberto Duran
> Juan Roldan
> Mustafa Hamsho
> Thomas Hearns
>
> Who are these "great" opponents that you are talking about?
>
> Well, we can obviously count out Hamani, Watts, Geraldo, Lee, Scypion
> and Sibson.
>
> Duran, at that time, could hardly be considered a "great" middleweight.
>
> So who were the "great" fighters that Hagler beat? Antuofermo (in '81)?
> Roldan? Hamsho? Minter? Obelmejias?
>
> I'd say that only Hearns could be considered "great", wouldn't you?
>
> Don't get me wrong- yes, Marvin Hagler was great. But so is Jones. Your
> "quality of opposition" argument (in which you claim that "Hagler was tested
> by great opponents" and that "Hagler's and Monzon's opponent
> level was far higher than Jones") is weak.\
Chico, Paul can defend himself quite well. All I want to say is Hamsho,
Roldan, Minter and Obelmejias were better than anyone Jones fought at 160,
except for Hopkins, who wasn't near the fighter then that he is now. It's
obvious you know nothing about these fighters, or you wouldn't even be
making this lame argument. No disrespect intended, but I have to disagree
forcefully with your opinion.
I don't blame Jones entirely for the low caliber of his opposition. But if
he was really as good as he says he is, he'd fight Michalczewski in
Germany, a fight which he certainly be the favorite. Then he could have a
few more bragging rights.
John L. Sullivan said: "I can lick any man in the house." Joe Louis (was
it Joe?) said: "The bigger they are, the harder they fall." Muhammad Ali
said: "I beat the Bear, and now I will beat the Hare." Roy Jones says: (I
paraphrase) "It depends on what my marketing people say." Hardly the
stuff of which all-time greats are made.
The best out there right now? Sure. The best all-time? Don't insult my
intelligence.
Ivan Weiss CORPORATION, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual
Vashon WA profit without individual responsibility
-- Ambrose Bierce: "The Devil's Dictionary"
Christopher Liu
pa...@samerica.com wrote in message <72qc1s$c52$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>1. Jones hasn't looked as good as you say whenever he's faced anyone that
>could be labeled as "good". His efforts against Toney and Hopkins can
hardly
>be regarded as shut-outs. Jones looked strangely tentative and defensively
>minded in each of those, so it's not like he looked head and shoulders
above
>them.
Jones vs. Toney was a shut-out. not hardly... definitely. Toney didn't
land more than a few clean shots. The fight could have been more exciting
(if Jones tried harder for a KO), but Jones is always cautious in
championship bouts.
I didn't give Hopkins any rounds either, but there were some "close" ones.
Still Jones' domination of Hopkins was clear... imo The only reason why
this fight looked like a contest was because of Jones' tendency to back up
straight into the ropes. Hopkins was crowding Jones against the ropes for a
large part of the fight (somewhat like Griffin 1), but Hopkins could not
land effectively and was getting smacked with counters all night long. This
was also Jones first championship fight.
>> Loucif Hamani
>> Bobby Watts
>> Marcos Geraldo
>> Alan Minter
>> Fulgencio Obelmejias
>> Vito Antuofermo
>> Mustafa Hamsho
>> William "Caveman" Lee
>> Fulgencio Obelmejias
>> Tony Sibson
>> Wilford Scypion
>> Roberto Duran
>> Juan Roldan
>> Mustafa Hamsho
>> Thomas Hearns
Where would you rank Hopkins on this list? I say he beats all but hearns
and maybe Duran (just because he was a favorite). IMO the only reason why
most think that today's top middleweights suck compared to Hamsho or
Antuofermo is because boxing is less popular and they cannot escape
comparison to Jones.
I loved watching boxing in the early 80s. It was more exciting because it
was very popular due to Ali and Ray Leonard. Every fight on TV seemed like
a big fight even when the fighters were relative nobodys. When i watch some
of these fights now im suprised by how pathetic Antuofermo and Minter look
compared to what i remember. Hamsho just sucked then and now
>"Great" in boxing history terms, but the others were all tough,
hard-hitting
>and thus, yeah. great opponent. If I say a prime Chris Eubank or Nigel Benn
>would've been great opponents for Jones, it's not because they're legends -
>it's just because they would've tested Jones, something his usual
opposition
>can't.
what a test. I don't believe Eubank or Benn would have given Jones any
trouble.
I'm happy he moved up to fight bigger guys who can try to bully him and at
least have a shot at knocking him out.
>I am not bashing Jones. I am just convinced that 10 years down the road no
>one will remember him, for he hasn't tried to accomplish anything
memorable,
>and the great fights have passed him by consistently. And fact is he ain't
Nothing he
>showed last Saturday was particularly impressive. Fact is he struggled for
>too many rounds againt a guy two weight divisions under his own, and that a
>middleweight had moments against him.
It's too bad that you can't find any objectivity to enjoy watching an
incredible fighter. If you can't remember Jones in 10 years you are not
much of a fan or you have poor memory. I was a bit disappointed that Jones
didn't try to end this fight faster, but i was not suprised. He said he
liked the guy so I was pretty sure he wouldn't crush him. You say he
struggled, you got a problem with Roy. The only struggle in the ring was
Grant trying real hard to last 12. Had you ever seen Otis Grant fight
before the jones fight. If not then you dont have a very good idea of how he
would compete against 80s middleweights. I can't stand how people talk
about todays fighters as if they are weak and unskilled when many of these
fighters haven't been shown on tv due to boxing's plummeting popularity. I
think they are somewhat weaker overall, but not so bad as you make it seem.
my take on Jones vs Hagler. It would start like Jones vs Griffin 1 with
Hagler crowding and attacking Jones trying to land body shots and looping
hooks and uppercuts. few shots connect, but Jones takes more shots than in
any other fight. Jones leans against the ropes, uses quick lateral movement
to set up counter hooks and uppercuts. Hagler does not have the strength or
size to hold Jones still and therefore eats alot of hard shots to the head.
Middle rounds Jones counters take their toll and Hagler backs off a little
and tries to box with Jones. Jones takes advantage and lands his left hook
consistently. Last 2 rounds, Hagler behind on points opens up looking for
KO. He has some succes but cannot land big shots cleanly, Jones is too
quick and fights cautiously, avoids exchanges. Jones W12 Unanimous decision
IMO Hagler was more exciting than Jones, but not a better fighter.
clint lavender
Christopher Liu wrote:
> Jones vs. Toney was a shut-out. not hardly... definitely. Toney didn't
> land more than a few clean shots. The fight could have been more exciting
> (if Jones tried harder for a KO), but Jones is always cautious in
> championship bouts.
> I didn't give Hopkins any rounds either, but there were some "close" ones.
> Still Jones' domination of Hopkins was clear... imo The only reason why
> this fight looked like a contest was because of Jones' tendency to back up
> straight into the ropes. Hopkins was crowding Jones against the ropes for a
> large part of the fight (somewhat like Griffin 1), but Hopkins could not
> land effectively and was getting smacked with counters all night long. This
> was also Jones first championship fight.
Toney/Jones- were are on the same page. I mean I dont think that Toney fought
a bad fight. He just could not hit Jones. Hopkins/Jones more competitive but
Jones was too much.
I would pay top Dollar to see Jones fight some ot the Middles of the middle 80's
McCallum, hearns, hagler, SR Leonard, Mugabi, The Hawk.
The problem is that the middles of the 90's are not a decent challenge for the
type Jones is.
Clint.
Brian
>And if Jones Jr. was really a compelling fighter by skills and
>performance, you would think the USA Today would have recapped his bout
>from last Saturday.
Gee I think you're right because McPaper doesn't cover a boxing fight that
proves Roy Jones doesn't really have great skills.
Just out of curiosity I decided to check the USA Today's boxing page
(http://www.usatoday.com/sports/other/sobx.htm), which I have bookmarked, and
wouldn't ya know but right there at the top is "Jones defeats Grant." So it
looks like you were wrong again anyways...
> There is ample coverage of tennis, golf, motor sports,
>hockey, horse racing, power boating, softball, speed skating, baseball and
>football. No mention of the RJJ as far as I could find it. There's more
>ink on the ABL than coverage of a weekend title fight of an annointed P4P
>titlelist.
Uhh I shouldn't have to explain this but I guess I'll have to...the USA Today
doesn't give much coverage to sports events which take place on Saturday in
their Monday paper.
Brian
>Where would you rank Hopkins on this list? I say he beats all but hearns
>and maybe Duran (just because he was a favorite). IMO the only reason why
>most think that today's top middleweights suck compared to Hamsho or
>Antuofermo is because boxing is less popular and they cannot escape
>comparison to Jones.
Yeah some people have a totally warped perception of boxing. They have this
rosy view of boxing in the past that forgets all the bad stuff about it and
thinks its done nothing but decline. They forget that at the time of Sugar Ray
Robinson he couldn't get a title shot because the mob controlled boxing. They
forget that it was very common for fights to be fixed. A&E had a documentary
about how boxing during this time period was completely ruled by the mob.
>It's too bad that you can't find any objectivity to enjoy watching an
>incredible fighter.
Yes isn't it too bad he can't enjoy such obvious things!
> If you can't remember Jones in 10 years you are not
>much of a fan or you have poor memory.
He isn't much of a fan. He's using boxers of the past to put down modern day
boxers. It's an argument really easy to make because there is no way to
disprove it! It's very easy to take the stance he is taking.
None of us are saying anything bad about the boxers of the past like Hagler.
Hagler was awesome and boxing fans should say his name with reverence, just like
Bob Foster and others all-time greats mentioned in this thread (Incidently if
you get Classic Sports, footage of Bob Foster vs. Joe Frazier is going to be
shown on Sat 11/28/98 at 12:45PM). I just find it a little pathetic that people
can just sit there and say "oh well Jones sucks" and use these great fighters of
the past to put down Jones.
> I was a bit disappointed that Jones
>didn't try to end this fight faster, but i was not suprised. He said he
>liked the guy so I was pretty sure he wouldn't crush him.
That's what I saw thought would happen too. Compared to how he came in to the
2nd Griffin fight Jones was idling. Just from the expression on his face I
didn't except the aggressive killer we saw against Griffin in the 2nd fight.
Only a couple of times did he ever step on the gas against Grant.
> You say he
>struggled, you got a problem with Roy. The only struggle in the ring was
>Grant trying real hard to last 12.
Yep that's exactly what was going on. Can't blame Grant for doing that...he
must have figured at least if he lasted 12 he might be in line for another nice
payday on HBO.
> Had you ever seen Otis Grant fight
>before the jones fight. If not then you dont have a very good idea of how he
>would compete against 80s middleweights. I can't stand how people talk
>about todays fighters as if they are weak and unskilled when many of these
>fighters haven't been shown on tv due to boxing's plummeting popularity. I
>think they are somewhat weaker overall, but not so bad as you make it seem.
These guys would actually have you believe that boxing today is not a good sport
anymore. They spew negativity like this statement a few days ago by Michael
Haught that boxing today is "almost like we have reentered the exhibition era of
the late 1800s and early 1900s again." I wonder what Gerald McCellan would have
to say to that statement. If they really feel this way you have to wonder why
they even participate in this newsgroup. I guess they want to convince everyone
that they shouldn't enjoy boxing anymore and that all these talented fighters we
see aren't really good...
Brian
JCohen9626
would be fighting people who could challeneg him for chump change. Its that he
rebuffs those challenges, which can not endear you a fan. of course you be
deluded and say that Roy doesn't need to fight them because he is Roy Jones,
but that doesn't mean spit when Jones finally retires and we look back and see
how many top fighters of his day that Roy didn't fight.
Chico
>> Chico wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, let's look at who Hagler fought between 1980 and 1985. This was his prime.
>> This was well after his two losses to Bobby Watts and Willie Monroe (Jones, BTW, has
>> no such losses on his resume).
>>
>> Bobby Watts
>> Marcos Geraldo
>> Alan Minter
>> Fulgencio Obelmejias
>> Vito Antuofermo
>> Mustafa Hamsho
>> William "Caveman" Lee
>> Fulgencio Obelmejias
>> Tony Sibson
>> Wilford Scypion
>> Roberto Duran
>> Juan Roldan
>> Mustafa Hamsho
>> Thomas Hearns
>>
>>
>> Well, we can obviously count out Hamani, Watts, Geraldo, Lee, Scypion
>> and Sibson.
>>
>> Duran, at that time, could hardly be considered a "great" middleweight.
>>
>> So who were the "great" fighters that Hagler beat? Antuofermo (in '81)?
>> Roldan? Hamsho? Minter? Obelmejias?
>>
>> I'd say that only Hearns could be considered "great", wouldn't you?
>>
>> Don't get me wrong- yes, Marvin Hagler was great. But so is Jones. Your
>> "quality of opposition" argument (in which you claim that "Hagler was tested
>> by great opponents" and that "Hagler's and Monzon's opponent
>> level was far higher than Jones") is weak.\
>Ivan wrote:
>
>Chico, Paul can defend himself quite well. All I want to say is Hamsho,
>Roldan, Minter and Obelmejias were better than anyone Jones fought at 160,
>except for Hopkins, who wasn't near the fighter then that he is now. It's
>obvious you know nothing about these fighters, or you wouldn't even be
>making this lame argument. No disrespect intended, but I have to disagree
>forcefully with your opinion.
You are entitled to your opinion.
And you can say what you want about me "knowing nothing about these fighters". That
doesn't make it so.
The fact of the matter is this- Hamsho, Roldan, Minter and Oblemejias were not
"great" middleweights. They were not far better than Toney and Hopkins.
That was my argument (see above). If you disagree with these two statements, then you
might suffer from "yesterday's fighters were better than today's fighters" syndrome.
Just don't tell me that you think that Caveman Lee was a great middleweight. Exciting?
Yes. Great? Hell no.
>Ivan wrote (regarding Jones):
>
>...The best out there right now? Sure. The best all-time? Don't insult my
>intelligence.
The best of all-time? Possibly.
Could he have beaten Marvin Hagler? Probably.
Chico
Michael Haught
read slowly and do not reply with obscenity laced emails. Doesn't do much
for a civil discourse.
Brian (op...@netcene.com) wrote:
: Yeah some people have a totally warped perception of boxing. They have this
: rosy view of boxing in the past that forgets all the bad stuff about it and
: thinks its done nothing but decline. They forget that at the time of Sugar Ray
: Robinson he couldn't get a title shot because the mob controlled boxing. They
: forget that it was very common for fights to be fixed. A&E had a documentary
: about how boxing during this time period was completely ruled by the mob.
I know very well the history of boxing, warts and all. And you do not
think there is today's brand of fight fixing, denied title shots, etc.?
Talk about looking at it through rosey glasses!
<snip>
: > If you can't remember Jones in 10 years you are not
: >much of a fan or you have poor memory.
: He isn't much of a fan. He's using boxers of the past to put down modern day
: boxers. It's an argument really easy to make because there is no way to
: disprove it! It's very easy to take the stance he is taking.
: None of us are saying anything bad about the boxers of the past like Hagler.
: Hagler was awesome and boxing fans should say his name with reverence, just like
: Bob Foster and others all-time greats mentioned in this thread (Incidently if
: you get Classic Sports, footage of Bob Foster vs. Joe Frazier is going to be
: shown on Sat 11/28/98 at 12:45PM). I just find it a little pathetic that people
: can just sit there and say "oh well Jones sucks" and use these great fighters of
: the past to put down Jones.
But if you compare the trials faced by the older boxers discussed here, most
modern day fighters are not tested nearly as much. I don't recall a lot
of people saying "Jones sucks." That is you misquoting those who debate a
point with you again.
<snip>
: > You say he
: >struggled, you got a problem with Roy. The only struggle in the ring was
: >Grant trying real hard to last 12.
: Yep that's exactly what was going on. Can't blame Grant for doing that...he
: must have figured at least if he lasted 12 he might be in line for another nice
: payday on HBO.
And that was something to brag about? How RJJ could step it up and down
against a fighter coming up from TWO weight classes. One who did not have
any power at 160 lbs.?
: > Had you ever seen Otis Grant fight
: >before the jones fight. If not then you dont have a very good idea of how he
: >would compete against 80s middleweights. I can't stand how people talk
: >about todays fighters as if they are weak and unskilled when many of these
: >fighters haven't been shown on tv due to boxing's plummeting popularity. I
: >think they are somewhat weaker overall, but not so bad as you make it seem.
: These guys would actually have you believe that boxing today is not a good sport
: anymore. They spew negativity like this statement a few days ago by Michael
: Haught that boxing today is "almost like we have reentered the exhibition era of
: the late 1800s and early 1900s again." I wonder what Gerald McCellan would have
: to say to that statement. If they really feel this way you have to wonder why
: they even participate in this newsgroup. I guess they want to convince everyone
: that they shouldn't enjoy boxing anymore and that all these talented fighters we
: see aren't really good...
Brian, here you go again. That "exhibition" comment was regarding the
non-competitive defenses of many of today's elite fighters. Back in that
era a champion would go around and fight nobodies in semi-fixed bouts for
2-3 years between title defenses. Its getting to that point again.
Tell me that ODLH and RJJ are not creating this precedent for boxing
again.
Of course there were many mismatched defenses in title fights over boxing's
history. But fighters also gave us an abundant number of good matches. Can
you honestly say that RJJ is working very hard to get the most competitive
match he can give fans put together? Nope.
You drone on about Gerald McClellan, implying something in your own mind I
guess. McClellan had the guts to take on a tough opponent and -- as usual
-- gave it his all in the ring. Unfortunately there was a tragedy (as
happens in boxing from time to time). If you're somehow excusing RJJ's
chracteristics in avoiding a competitive match to what happened to Gerald
McClellan. Then maybe you're tacitly admitting that there are too many
risks in boxing for RJJ and he should retire for his own safety's sake.
--
-mwh
Michael Haught
Brian (op...@netcene.com) wrote:
: On 16 Nov 1998, mha...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Haught) wrote:
: >And if Jones Jr. was really a compelling fighter by skills and
: >performance, you would think the USA Today would have recapped his bout
: >from last Saturday.
: Gee I think you're right because McPaper doesn't cover a boxing fight that
: proves Roy Jones doesn't really have great skills.
: Just out of curiosity I decided to check the USA Today's boxing page
: (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/other/sobx.htm), which I have bookmarked, and
: wouldn't ya know but right there at the top is "Jones defeats Grant." So it
: looks like you were wrong again anyways...
Brian,
You may want to read the paper copy before you decalre yourself the King
of Knowledge again. Say what you want about McPaper. If folks want to
read it, it will be in there. Funny how other fights seem to get covered
in there.
Now explain to me how an annointed P4P champ fights for only $2 million
and receives minimal post fight press coverage and most of it
semi-negative.
: > There is ample coverage of tennis, golf, motor sports,
: >hockey, horse racing, power boating, softball, speed skating, baseball and
: >football. No mention of the RJJ as far as I could find it. There's more
: >ink on the ABL than coverage of a weekend title fight of an annointed P4P
: >titlelist.
: Uhh I shouldn't have to explain this but I guess I'll have to...the USA Today
: doesn't give much coverage to sports events which take place on Saturday in
: their Monday paper.
Funny how they'll get Fri/Sat results from other fight cards in there. I
guess they only report what the fans demand. I read a fair amount about
the other champs in there on Mondays.
Nice try Brian. Keep it up. ;-)
--
-mwh
Michael Haught
<snip>
: John L. Sullivan said: "I can lick any man in the house." Joe Louis (was
: it Joe?) said: "The bigger they are, the harder they fall." Muhammad Ali
: said: "I beat the Bear, and now I will beat the Hare." Roy Jones says: (I
: paraphrase) "It depends on what my marketing people say." Hardly the
: stuff of which all-time greats are made.
: The best out there right now? Sure. The best all-time? Don't insult my
: intelligence.
: Ivan Weiss
Ivan,
Sums it up as well as anybody could. An annointed champ has never seemed
to last long in the history books. Funny how we remember the epic skills
demonstrated in epic contests. Also funny how Ali's performance against
Cleveland Williams can be placed in perspective by how he reacted to the
fire and pressure of a Joe Frazier.
--
-mwh
Eric ***
Derrick Brasslett
Christopher Liu wrote in message <72qlvb$gst$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>...
Just my two cents...
>>> Loucif Hamani
>>> Bobby Watts
>>> Marcos Geraldo
>>> Alan Minter
>>> Fulgencio Obelmejias
>>> Vito Antuofermo
>>> Mustafa Hamsho
>>> William "Caveman" Lee
>>> Fulgencio Obelmejias
>>> Tony Sibson
>>> Wilford Scypion
>>> Roberto Duran
>>> Juan Roldan
>>> Mustafa Hamsho
>>> Thomas Hearns
>
>
>Where would you rank Hopkins on this list? I say he beats all but hearns
>and maybe Duran (just because he was a favorite).
The 1998 version of Hopkins IMO would rate pretty high on the list. Like
you, I'd pick Hearns or Duran over him. I'd also say Mugabi and Hamsho
shouldn't be big underdogs...their styles and grit would give Hopkins a real
challenge. The younger and less experienced Hopkins that Jones faced would
also have a hard time with Minter or Roldan and possibly some of the others.
IMO the only reason why
>most think that today's top middleweights suck compared to Hamsho or
>Antuofermo is because boxing is less popular and they cannot escape
>comparison to Jones.
I think most middleweight today suck because ... well, because they suck.
Hopkins is what I'd call a solid champ but not a superstar talent. Grant is
one of the top three middleweights in the world, but he's very ordinary.
Most of the rabble beneath these guys are what I'd call club fighters at
best.
>I loved watching boxing in the early 80s. It was more exciting because it
>was very popular due to Ali and Ray Leonard. Every fight on TV seemed like
>a big fight even when the fighters were relative nobodys. When i watch
some
>of these fights now im suprised by how pathetic Antuofermo and Minter look
>compared to what i remember. Hamsho just sucked then and now
IMO Hamsho would easily own a title belt today, and keep it for some time.
When guys like Cherifi and Joppy own titles, do you really think Mugabi,
Hamsho or Minter wouldn't be able to get a piece of the action?
>what a test. I don't believe Eubank or Benn would have given Jones any
>trouble.
>I'm happy he moved up to fight bigger guys who can try to bully him and at
>least have a shot at knocking him out.
I'll never credit a fighter with cleaning up a division without actually
fighting the best available opponents. I also think Jones would have nailed
Benn or Eubank, but the fact is he didn't and we'll never know for sure. One
thing that is certain, though, is that he didn't clean up that division and
he isn't cleaning up the LHWs.
>It's too bad that you can't find any objectivity to enjoy watching an
>incredible fighter. If you can't remember Jones in 10 years you are not
>much of a fan or you have poor memory.
I doubt Paul really won't remember Jones at all, and I don't think he meant
it that way. Jones isn't a truly memorable fighter IMO because he's had so
few memorable fights. I have a feeling that's what Paul meant as well. Jones
will be remembered as a great talent -- he's damn fast, hits hard, great
reflexes -- but with all that talent, he's something of an underachiever.
(snip)
Had you ever seen Otis Grant fight
>before the jones fight. If not then you dont have a very good idea of how
he
>would compete against 80s middleweights. I can't stand how people talk
>about todays fighters as if they are weak and unskilled when many of these
>fighters haven't been shown on tv due to boxing's plummeting popularity.
I think you're way off here. Grant has received a fair amount of TV
exposure. Most people on r.s.b. had seen him fight at least a few times
before last weekend.
I
>think they are somewhat weaker overall, but not so bad as you make it seem.
>
>my take on Jones vs Hagler. It would start like Jones vs Griffin 1 with
>Hagler crowding and attacking Jones trying to land body shots and looping
>hooks and uppercuts. few shots connect, but Jones takes more shots than in
>any other fight. Jones leans against the ropes, uses quick lateral
movement
>to set up counter hooks and uppercuts. Hagler does not have the strength
or
>size to hold Jones still and therefore eats alot of hard shots to the head.
>Middle rounds Jones counters take their toll and Hagler backs off a little
>and tries to box with Jones. Jones takes advantage and lands his left hook
>consistently. Last 2 rounds, Hagler behind on points opens up looking for
>KO. He has some succes but cannot land big shots cleanly, Jones is too
>quick and fights cautiously, avoids exchanges. Jones W12 Unanimous
decision
>IMO Hagler was more exciting than Jones, but not a better fighter.
You have your opinion on this, and who's to say you're wrong? The only
problem I have with your assessment is the idea that Hagler wouldn't have
the size or strength at middleweight to crowd Jones. Pazienza and Grant both
had limited success at putting Jones on the ropes and getting some shots in,
despite their *huge* physical disadvantages. Jones was not IMO effective off
the ropes against Grant, and he hasn't been effective like that against
anyone else for that matter. I have no problem seeing Hagler, with his
southpaw stance and willingness to go to war, giving Jones hell on the ropes
once he figured out Jones doesn't like it there. But we'll never know...
Derrick
Brian
>I didn't enjoy Saturday's fight, no. It wasn't particularly skilled or
>exciting.
zzzzzzzzz
I think you've made your point, is it really necessary to make post after post
after post, (thousands of words long posts too) saying how you dislike Jones and
you don't enjoy the fights anymore...Get over it.
Listen Paul "pablo" Liesenberg you've been making these posts for months and
months...I think you were heard the first time. Get classic sports network or
something...please give us a break. If you dislike boxing than stop watching
it!
King...@webtv.net
great opponent"??
Do you even know who he was?
Believe me, Lee was not a great middleweight. Exciting? Yes. Great?
No. Roy Jones would beat Lee 11 times out of 10.
Lee wasn't very good at robbing 7-11's either.
Chico
"CHICO YOU'RE THE MOST FAMOUS WRITER IN THIS THING" -pkowal1104
pa...@samerica.com
"Christopher Liu" <gin...@erols.com> wrote:
> Jones vs. Toney was a shut-out. not hardly... definitely. Toney didn't
> land more than a few clean shots.
It was shut-out on points, sure enough. It was not like jones looked totaly
and utterly superior and could have knocked out Toney any time he wanted.
Jones was *very* cautious.
> .. The fight could have been more exciting
You said it. It wasn't a dominant performance by a boxer from a different
planet. It was a very careful, smart boxing performance by a boxer very aware
of his own vulnerability.
> I didn't give Hopkins any rounds either, but there were some "close" ones.
> Still Jones' domination of Hopkins was clear... imo
In mine, too. But Hopkins back then was a far inferior boxer to today's
boxing, it is generally said. Not that I think Hopkins is awesome, he just
looked that against some pretty weak opposition himself... but Jones, again,
looked very careful in this bout. It was not a fight to merit super-boxer
status.
> >> Loucif Hamani
> >> Bobby Watts
> >> Marcos Geraldo
> >> Alan Minter
> >> Fulgencio Obelmejias
> >> Vito Antuofermo
> >> Mustafa Hamsho
> >> William "Caveman" Lee
> >> Fulgencio Obelmejias
> >> Tony Sibson
> >> Wilford Scypion
> >> Roberto Duran
> >> Juan Roldan
> >> Mustafa Hamsho
> >> Thomas Hearns
>
> Where would you rank Hopkins on this list? I say he beats all but hearns
> and maybe Duran (just because he was a favorite). IMO the only reason why
> most think that today's top middleweights suck compared to Hamsho or
> Antuofermo is because boxing is less popular and they cannot escape
> comparison to Jones.
With words like "suck", you're making up your own little argument, and not
quoting me. I am not disrespecting today's fighters. I think it's smart of
them to seek maximum return for minimum risk - it's a market economy, so more
power to them. But the sport and competitiveness in boxing are suffering...
When it comes to Hopkins... I say he would have struggled against most of the
fighters on the list above. And it's not because I romanticize fighters of
old. They gave some weak performances in their time, too. But when I look at
those middleweight fights in the mid eighties, I see far more competitive
matchups between far craftier boxers than I see today. The defense, the setup
of the offense, the way to respond to a certain situation - today's boxers at
middleweight to light heavy are so limited, so robot-like in their approach
to boxing. I do think Jones could dig out so much more in a competitive
fight... never had I said he'd be a pushover for Hagler. Hagler was as close
as it comes to a super-boxer, but he still had his vulnerabilties. What is
funny to see is that Jones' fans are unable to detect or admit to any
vulnerability of their star. Jones stands unbeatable, godlike and superhuman,
on some pedestal or something. Give us a break.
> I loved watching boxing in the early 80s. It was more exciting because it
> was very popular due to Ali and Ray Leonard.
I am not sure when you saw Ali fight in the 80s. The sad Holmes and Berbick
fights certainly didn't make many fans. I, for one, couldn't watch them, even
though I was only a teenager.
> ... Every fight on TV seemed like
> a big fight even when the fighters were relative nobodys. When i watch some
> of these fights now im suprised by how pathetic Antuofermo and Minter look
> compared to what i remember. Hamsho just sucked then and now
I think you ought to watch those tapes again. You're making your argument out
of thin air. Minter was a very good boxer. Hamsho, just like Minter, would
easily hold a title today. I have no idea what makes you think that if a
novice pro like Sven Ottke, simply 'cause he has some real skills, can go and
get a title, someone like Hamsho, who was twice the boxer -and this is no
disrespect to Ottke, a very accomplished amateur- woulldn't be hot today.
Damn he would. Why do you think so many 80s stars try a comeback? 'cause they
are stupid? No, because they're frustrated of what they see, and they know if
they could turn the clock back just a little they'd own a belt.
> what a test. I don't believe Eubank or Benn would have given Jones any
> trouble.
> I'm happy he moved up to fight bigger guys who can try to bully him and at
> least have a shot at knocking him out.
In case you missed it, Eubank and Benn were most successful at super-middle,
and Eubank has challenged unsuccessfully for the cruiser title, and gave Carl
Thompson fits. They'd both be a far better physical challenge than Otis
Grant. And Del Valle. And... most Jones opponents. Whatever, fact is Jones
never felt like answering that question for us when he still could have made
the point. And he keeps on letting those challenges pass him by, because his
gullible fans simply believe those other top guys like Michalczewski couldn't
touch him, and thus why make the fight happen at all, as it's pointless? He
might as well fight a middleweight.
Suprises do happen. Gerald McClellan looked far better than Jones in his day.
Totally wiped the floor with Julian Jackson, taking Jackson's best bombs (and
jackson is proparly the hardest middleweight puncher in the last 10 years,
well above Roy Jones). No one gave Nigel Benn a shadow of a chance. And
then... hell yeah, it is very sad. But it comes to show a top fighter, even
when no one gives him a chance, can pull off a mahor upset. Jones prefers not
to run that risk.
> It's too bad that you can't find any objectivity to enjoy watching an
> incredible fighter.
I didn't enjoy Saturday's fight, no. It wasn't particularly skilled or
exciting. Should I -like you- get all wet and hot 'cause it's Roy Jones,
oh-my-gawd? Give me a break. Jones looked like the goods coming up quite
often. I recall how crushingly he defeeated some decent guys - Wolfe, the
awful knockout of Serwano, of Tate, Malinga.. he looked damn awesome. So I
have been watching. Probably for longer and with closer attention than you.
But then, ever since people and a gullible public -which loudly and
hysterically defends him against anything remotely perceived as an attack- he
went into snooze mode, and never has looked like delivering on his potential.
Pazienza? Thornton? Brannon? Eric Lucas???? Damn. His opposition has been
abysmal for a champ. I can't rate him highly based on his recent opposition.
Don't mention Hill - he's been long past his prime and was never the same
since Hearns beat him years ago. He was ready for the pick, and had already
been beaten before, only then did Jones take on him.
> ... If you can't remember Jones in 10 years you are not
> much of a fan or you have poor memory.
There's many so called champs of the 80s I hardly remember. Eve guys that did
more to deserve being remembered than Jones has done. Who do I remember from
'88? damn... Tyson was around for sure. So was Chavez. Holyfield. Breland?
Marlon Starling? "Jibaro" Perez? Some names I can't even exactly place even
though I know they were champs and pretty decent boxers. About Jones, I'll
remember controversy, not really memorable fight moments that had me on the
edge of my seat. I certainly won't remember that anticipation that comes when
you're looking forward to a good fight - the slight tingle I feel thinking
about McKinney-Espinoza or Tszyu-Gonzalez or, to a lesser degree,
Vargas-Campas (I think Vargas will kick Campas butt). You'll note those are
fights that are happening here and now - I am not at all, by nature, a
melancholic look-back-to-the-good-old-days person. My life's gotten better
every year, and I'd *hate* to turn back the clock of time and be back in the
80s. On the other hand, I know a good product when I see one. Hagler was the
real deal for sure. Jones... he leaves me lukewarm. His renowed "potential"
isn't enough to excite my pugilistic heart - talk unfircation, consitent
matcups against top-5 contenders, that's the deal. Clean up the house, I say.
> .. He said he
> liked the guy so I was pretty sure he wouldn't crush him.
yadda dadda. You're a psychologist. You know for sure what goes on in Jones'
head. Good for you.
Pity is, I don't give a damn about what goes through a champs head as long as
he gives an exciting, complete performance. I am sure many things were going
through Lopez' head Friday night, but what will stay in my memory is a
performance that by far over-shadowed Jones'. I *will* remember Lopez 10
years down the road. He's earned himself the braincels I'll dedicate in my
long-term memory. Jones hasn't.
> .. You say he
> struggled, you got a problem with Roy. The only struggle in the ring was
> Grant trying real hard to last 12.
When Grant pushed forward, he got Jones reall good a few times. But of course
I wouldn't expect you to see such fine details in a boxing match. I have no
problem with Jones, he's just like any other boxer I see. I have no personal
feelings riding on boxing matches, at least in most cases I don't.
> .. Had you ever seen Otis Grant fight
> before the jones fight. If not then you dont have a very good idea of how he
> would compete against 80s middleweights.
I've seen him before. I was disappointed. He would've struggled to make the
top 10. I have tried to convince myself the middles would make a comeback.
Remember Lamar Parks? Quincy Taylor? None of them's changed much, for one
reason or the other.
> .. I can't stand how people talk
> about todays fighters as if they are weak and unskilled ..
As I haven't done that as generically as you put it, I'd regard this statement
as irrelevant to the discussion at hand. There's some pretty good fights among
pretty good fighters going on to this day, of course. Only Roy Jones hasn't
featured in those in a couple of years.
> .. I
> think they are somewhat weaker overall, but not so bad as you make it seem.
In the light heavies? Oh, come on. Only a few years ago, you had Michael
Moorer, a prime Virgil Hill and Prince Williams, and tough cookies like
Leslie Stewart in there. Andrew Maynard would be holding a belt if he'd come
down the road a few years later, he's by far superior to most of today's
light heavies, and look what heppened to him. Wrong time.
> ..much fantasized dream match based on wishful conjecture deleted..
Alejandro Olague
>On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, plies...@bix.com aka pa...@samerica.com wrote:
>
>>I didn't enjoy Saturday's fight, no. It wasn't particularly skilled or
>>exciting.
>
>zzzzzzzzz
>
>I think you've made your point, is it really necessary to make post after post
>after post, (thousands of words long posts too) saying how you dislike Jones and
>you don't enjoy the fights anymore...Get over it.
It's an f'ing thread. That's what this place if for. It;s for
discussion and debate. He's definitly in the minority in terms of all
the "Roy Jones is God" posts.
>Listen Paul "pablo" Liesenberg you've been making these posts for months and
>months...I think you were heard the first time. Get classic sports network or
>something...please give us a break. If you dislike boxing than stop watching
>it!
I would gladly read one of Paul's posts instead of all the dozens of
rehashed stories pulled off the wire services. He's one of the few
people that actually have something of substance to stay
You do well to listen closely to what he has to say. He's gotten off
his ass and DONE it competitively for many years. He sees the subtle
things that many of us miss.
Alejandro
pa...@samerica.com
op...@netcene.com wrote:
> <usual mental diarrhea deleted>
Brian - go take your ecommendations and suggestions where they're welcome.
Like, for instance, up your ass.
I have no respect for your boxing intelligence or overall intelligence
whatsoever. Simply don't reply to my posts. Haven't you gotten the drift by
now, that I never reply to any of the idiocies you post? Damn you're thick.
Now it's back to totally ignoring you. Doesn't matter what on earth you post.
Unless you tell me a gym, a date and a time. But even that would be a
predictable bore and a waste of frequent flier miles, I am afraid.
Michael Haught
<snip>
: It's an f'ing thread. That's what this place if for. It;s for
: discussion and debate. He's definitly in the minority in terms of all
: the "Roy Jones is God" posts.
Some fellows have a hard time figuring that out, don't they? ;-)
<snip>
: I would gladly read one of Paul's posts instead of all the dozens of
: rehashed stories pulled off the wire services. He's one of the few
: people that actually have something of substance to stay
: You do well to listen closely to what he has to say. He's gotten off
: his ass and DONE it competitively for many years. He sees the subtle
: things that many of us miss.
: Alejandro
Now why would you want reality to get in the way of boxing history as
recorded by "Knockout Kings" (registered trademark of EA Sports).
--
-mwh
The Sanity Cruzer
pa...@samerica.com wrote in message <72t9mt$u0q$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <72qlvb$gst$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>,
> "Christopher Liu" <gin...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>> Jones vs. Toney was a shut-out. not hardly... definitely. Toney didn't
>> land more than a few clean shots.
>
>It was shut-out on points, sure enough. It was not like jones looked totaly
>and utterly superior and could have knocked out Toney any time he wanted.
>Jones was *very* cautious.
>
>> .. The fight could have been more exciting
>
>You said it. It wasn't a dominant performance by a boxer from a different
>planet. It was a very careful, smart boxing performance by a boxer very
aware
>of his own vulnerability.
And Roy Jones, Jr. does not hide that fact. I've never heard a boxer speak
so clearly on how he's not interested in 'warring'. Jones is much more
interested in living a long and happy life than he is in establishing
himself as one of the 'undisputed' all-time greats. Jones is not interested
in making an exciting fight for the fans if it means taking damaging blows
to the head.
Without passing judgement one way or the other on his decision, I respect
the guy for saying what he means and meaning what he says. I won't ask him
or expect of him to be a way he's not. I do expect that a person in his
position speak straight to the public. And IMO Jones has done that. That
is why I am satisfied with how Roy Jones, Jr. is conducting his career.
He's doing what he says he going to do.
As a fan, do I wish he'd be involved in more competitive and exciting
fights? Heck yes. As a human being, do I respect his decision to put his
health in front of financial gain and/or fan wishes? Definitely. How will
this effect his place in boxing history? IMO there will always be a big
question mark by his name at Canastota.
TSC
Michael Haught
<snip previous posts>
: And Roy Jones, Jr. does not hide that fact. I've never heard a boxer speak
: so clearly on how he's not interested in 'warring'. Jones is much more
: interested in living a long and happy life than he is in establishing
: himself as one of the 'undisputed' all-time greats. Jones is not interested
: in making an exciting fight for the fans if it means taking damaging blows
: to the head.
: Without passing judgement one way or the other on his decision, I respect
: the guy for saying what he means and meaning what he says. I won't ask him
: or expect of him to be a way he's not. I do expect that a person in his
: position speak straight to the public. And IMO Jones has done that. That
: is why I am satisfied with how Roy Jones, Jr. is conducting his career.
: He's doing what he says he going to do.
Except RJJ will imply his own greatness in his commentary on HBO and other
comments in the media. He also has yet to disagree or downplay Jim
Lampley's lathering all over him with the "all time P4P greatest fighter"
stuff.
: As a fan, do I wish he'd be involved in more competitive and exciting
: fights? Heck yes. As a human being, do I respect his decision to put his
: health in front of financial gain and/or fan wishes? Definitely. How will
: this effect his place in boxing history? IMO there will always be a big
: question mark by his name at Canastota.
: TSC
I guess I can respect a person's decision to not put himself in harm's
way. But, he probably chose the wrong profession if that is his
reasoning. It would be like a guy siging up for the Navy Seals and being
able to choose his own assignments.
In certain jobs there are implied or directly stated risks. Boxing is
amongst the riskiest of them all.
I am not pleased with RJJ's career because all of the guys who do not
have the gifts he has, must risk life and limb to get a fraction of what he
gets for a glorified sparring session. If every fighter took the RJJ career
path, I doubt there would be more than 6 or 8 guys posting to this group
every day because boxing would be as boring as a televised horseshoe
tournament.
I realize that he gets paid what people are willing to pay. Might be why
he's so scarce on the PPV shows.
--
-mwh
Michael Haught
: On Wed, 18 Nov 1998 03:41:38, Alejandro Olague <al...@provide.net>
: wrote:
: >It's an f'ing thread. That's what this place if for. It;s for
: >discussion and debate. He's definitly in the minority in terms of all
: >the "Roy Jones is God" posts.
: Nobody is arguing that Roy Jones is God...He might be Godlike at times
: when he's in a boxing ring though.
LOL! Its at this point you realize you will never reach the state of
conciousness required to discuss this subject with Brian. ;-)
--
-mwh
Beast of Bourbon
>Who are these "great" opponents that you are talking about? (his prime, 1980-85)
First of all, I'd mark his prime as beginning around the time of his victory
over Bennie Briscoe in '78.
>Well, we can obviously count out Hamani, Watts, Geraldo, Lee, Scypion and Sibson.
I'd give Sibson a bit more credit than that. At the time he challenged Hagler,
Sibson was champion of Britain and Europe, winner of almost 50 fights, and had
beaten Dwight Davison to earn his shot.
>Duran, at that time, could hardly be considered a "great" middleweight.
Well, Duran wasn't doing that bad in the traditional middleweight range, having
clobbered Pipino Cuevas and Davey Moore at jr. middle. I don't think many
middleweights were eager to fight him, anyhow. And don't forget, Duran later
went on to that amazing battle with Iran Barkley, a world-class middleweight.
>So who were the "great" fighters that Hagler beat? Antuofermo (in '81)?
>Roldan? Hamsho? Minter? Obelmejias?
Antuofermo, not really. Roldan, not great. Hamsho, close. Minter, not really.
Obelmejias, perhaps... when Hagler defended against him the first time,
Obelmejais was 30-0, 28 knockouts. Also, in '83, Hagler punished the
never-before-stopped Wilford Scypion, who had beaten Frank Fletcher to earn his
shot. Briscoe wasn't bad, either.
>I'd say that only Hearns could be considered "great", wouldn't you?
Hearns was great. And Hagler just about reduced an undefeated possible great,
Mugabi, to virtual mediocrity in his last title defense.
>Don't get me wrong- yes, Marvin Hagler was great. But so is Jones.
As a middleweight? Had Jones stayed at middleweight and cleaned up the
division, perhaps I'd give him more credit. I'd put him below Hagler.
Beast of Bourbon
>John L. Sullivan said: "I can lick any man in the house." Joe Louis (was
>it Joe?) said: "The bigger they are, the harder they fall." Muhammad Ali
>said: "I beat the Bear, and now I will beat the Hare." Roy Jones says: (I
>paraphrase) "It depends on what my marketing people say." Hardly the
>stuff of which all-time greats are made.
Hehehe, this one's a keeper.
>The best out there right now? Sure. The best all-time? Don't insult my
>intelligence.
I agree. I was rather stunned by IBD's recent assessment of Jones as greatest
P4P ever. Not enough to cancel my subscription, though.
The Sanity Cruzer
Michael Haught wrote in message <72vcep$g...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>...
>The Sanity Cruzer (sanity...@cruzers.com) wrote:
>: Without passing judgement one way or the other on his decision, I respect
>: the guy for saying what he means and meaning what he says. I won't ask
him
>: or expect of him to be a way he's not. I do expect that a person in his
>: position speak straight to the public. And IMO Jones has done that.
That
>: is why I am satisfied with how Roy Jones, Jr. is conducting his career.
>: He's doing what he says he going to do.
>
>Except RJJ will imply his own greatness in his commentary on HBO and other
>comments in the media.
Except "what"? You're not taking exception to what I said, but adding to
it. And yes, Jones does think he's great.
> He also has yet to disagree or downplay Jim
>Lampley's lathering all over him with the "all time P4P greatest fighter"
>stuff.
What you have added is mutually exclusive to what I said, and I agree with
your comments (except your use of the word "except").
>I guess I can respect a person's decision to not put himself in harm's
>way. But, he probably chose the wrong profession if that is his
>reasoning. It would be like a guy siging up for the Navy Seals and being
>able to choose his own assignments.
How many Navy Seals make several million dollars annually? And why
shouldn't Jones pick his "own assignments"?
>In certain jobs there are implied or directly stated risks. Boxing is
>amongst the riskiest of them all.
That does not mean Jones has to accept what you see as "implied or directly
stated risks" as you see he 'should'. It's like some attorney's I know who
work 60+ hours per week, and they tell me it's the nature of the business.
Then I've got a friend who rarely puts in 40 (I don't recall his ever
working that much) hours per week, and he finds time to surf, spend time
with his kid, and do what's important to him. He, like Jones, plays and
lives life by HIS rules, not some observers' standards.
>I am not pleased with RJJ's career because all of the guys who do not
>have the gifts he has, must risk life and limb to get a fraction of what he
>gets for a glorified sparring session.
I don't recall Jones saying he cares what you or anyone else thinks. In
fact, he specifically said recently that he does not care if people call him
"reluctant". He's not going to risk his future because you or I want to see
him in a tough fight. I'm sure HBO would like to see him 'in tough' too.
TSC
Mike Haught
<sanity...@cruzers.com> wrote these words:
>
>Michael Haught wrote in message <72vcep$g...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>...
>>The Sanity Cruzer (sanity...@cruzers.com) wrote:
>
>>: Without passing judgement one way or the other on his decision, I respect
>>: the guy for saying what he means and meaning what he says. I won't ask
>him
>>: or expect of him to be a way he's not. I do expect that a person in his
>>: position speak straight to the public. And IMO Jones has done that.
>That
>>: is why I am satisfied with how Roy Jones, Jr. is conducting his career.
>>: He's doing what he says he going to do.
>>
>>Except RJJ will imply his own greatness in his commentary on HBO and other
>>comments in the media.
>
>Except "what"? You're not taking exception to what I said, but adding to
>it. And yes, Jones does think he's great.
>
Correct, that word was an incorrect usage. ;-)
>> He also has yet to disagree or downplay Jim
>>Lampley's lathering all over him with the "all time P4P greatest fighter"
>>stuff.
>
>
>What you have added is mutually exclusive to what I said, and I agree with
>your comments (except your use of the word "except").
>
>
>>I guess I can respect a person's decision to not put himself in harm's
>>way. But, he probably chose the wrong profession if that is his
>>reasoning. It would be like a guy siging up for the Navy Seals and being
>>able to choose his own assignments.
>
>
>How many Navy Seals make several million dollars annually? And why
>shouldn't Jones pick his "own assignments"?
>
Oh...the ones that make decent money go into "private practice" after
their discharge.
Jones does have that right. But, you now hear HBO's brass getting
antsy. That may indicate their market research shows that Jones "Q"
rating is down compared to their other house fighters..
>>In certain jobs there are implied or directly stated risks. Boxing is
>>amongst the riskiest of them all.
>
>
>That does not mean Jones has to accept what you see as "implied or directly
>stated risks" as you see he 'should'. It's like some attorney's I know who
>work 60+ hours per week, and they tell me it's the nature of the business.
>Then I've got a friend who rarely puts in 40 (I don't recall his ever
>working that much) hours per week, and he finds time to surf, spend time
>with his kid, and do what's important to him. He, like Jones, plays and
>lives life by HIS rules, not some observers' standards.
>
As a boxing fan...would you honestly like to follow a sport with all
fighters conducting their career like Mr. Jones? Would you have even
become a fan? Will you find yourself looking back in the history
books to see if Jones fought Eric Lucas at 160 or 168?
If you're friend does not produce more than he sits idle, he will
slowly be losing clients to the more aggressive attorneys that will
produce more to the client's demand.
With the fan as the client, Jones may looking for a superfight someday
and find out nobody cares anymore.
>>I am not pleased with RJJ's career because all of the guys who do not
>>have the gifts he has, must risk life and limb to get a fraction of what he
>>gets for a glorified sparring session.
>
>I don't recall Jones saying he cares what you or anyone else thinks. In
>fact, he specifically said recently that he does not care if people call him
>"reluctant". He's not going to risk his future because you or I want to see
>him in a tough fight. I'm sure HBO would like to see him 'in tough' too.
>
>
>TSC
True, Jones has not asked me. But, I doubt Mark McGuire asked the
baseball fans if they'd spend their ticket money to watch him take
batting practice last summer and nothing else.
-mwh
The Sanity Cruzer
Mike Haught wrote in message <3657a3cf....@news.netwalk.com>...
>On Wed, 18 Nov 1998 15:29:12 -0800, "The Sanity Cruzer"
><sanity...@cruzers.com> wrote these words:
>
>fighters conducting their career like Mr. Jones?
No.
> Would you have even become a fan?
Possibly, if every fighter had his ability.
> Will you find yourself looking back in the history
>books to see if Jones fought Eric Lucas at 160 or 168?
Maybe, but it would only be done if someone brought it up. Then, I don't
usually look up weights of fighters unless there's a specific reason.
Usually that reason is someone else's having made a statement which I think
might be inaccurate.
>If you're friend does not produce more than he sits idle, he will
>slowly be losing clients to the more aggressive attorneys that will
>produce more to the client's demand.
You don't know what you're talking about. You're under the assumption that
my friend does not take care of his clients as well as do other attorney's
take care of their clients. My friend simply has less clients and cares for
them quite well.
>With the fan as the client, Jones may looking for a superfight someday
>and find out nobody cares anymore.
That is a possibility, and I doubt Roy Jones is going to lose any sleep over
it. I think Roy knows that the quality of his life has little or nothing to
do whether he makes 15 or 50 million dollars during his career.
>>>I am not pleased with RJJ's career because all of the guys who do not
>>>have the gifts he has, must risk life and limb to get a fraction of what
he
>>>gets for a glorified sparring session.
>>
>>I don't recall Jones saying he cares what you or anyone else thinks. In
>>fact, he specifically said recently that he does not care if people call
him
>>"reluctant". He's not going to risk his future because you or I want to
see
>>him in a tough fight. I'm sure HBO would like to see him 'in tough' too.
>>
>True, Jones has not asked me. But, I doubt Mark McGuire asked the
>baseball fans if they'd spend their ticket money to watch him take
>batting practice last summer and nothing else.
And what does that irrelevant comment have to do with anything?
TSC
The Sanity Cruzer
>In article <Fi%42.7$ED5...@news6.ispnews.com>,
> "The Sanity Cruzer" <sanity...@cruzers.com> wrote:
>And indeed, far less people watched the Jones fight than the Nassem Hamed
>Fright Night farce. None of the two events, I am pretty sure, made boxing
>many new friends. Peopled tuned in, and probably thought "this is boring".
My
>wife is the perfect indicator. She gets excited and into it when there's
some
>good action, but she didn't bother to watch more than 2 rounds of the Hamed
>fight, and while she watched Mosley-Leija, she quickly lost interest in
>Jones-Grant and did something else. Her fav fights: Hamed-Kelly,
>Hagler-Hearns and Chavez-Taylor. Is it a suprise?
No, that is no surprise. That's like thinking the whole side of beef is
going to be filet mignon, and it's not. So maybe the problem is HBO giving
a long term contract to someone like Jones. Jones knows he's going to make
a chunk of change regardless of what he does or who he fights. And just as
the two German titlists don't want to come here to fight, Jones likewise
does not feel the need to go there to fight.
>We will see about that. I see a significant difference in those numbers,
>especially when the investor decides to invest havily in a booming business
>such as music production and boxing. ask Ray Leonard if his investment in,
>among others, Maynard's career paid off. Depending on what you do,
$10million
>isn't nearly enough to retire, and most boxers seem to fall into that
>category these days.
Not too many people ever retire with $10 million. And if you can't make it
on that amount of money, you're likely not going to live within your means
with double or quadrupal that amount of money. That's like winning the
lottery!
>Jones shouldn't care about what boxing fans think, that is true. It's a
fact
>in today's boxing world - it's not a sport driven by competitive spirit
>anymore. You could argue "was it ever?", and I'd concur there's always been
>issues there, but not nearly as many as these days. Boxing is learning a
bit
>too much from the WWF model, milking a public that doesn't care for
*sport*,
>but merely for *entertainment*. The difference between the two is huge,
>though, and I don't think true boxing afficcionados should accept this as
>matter of factly as Mr Sanity Cruzer seems to do.
Other than writing letters and voting by withholding your dollar, there is
little to do other than accept it or complain about it. I say, if you're
going to complain about it, do so effectively. That would be done by
complaining to someone who can do something about it. Otherwise, IMO,
you're just looking for agreement.
> I know my head tells me
>it's a fact, but hey, I still ought to be able to voice what my heart says.
>And it is that boxing is a competitive sport. It sure is in the amateurs: a
>true sport where everybody itches to meet the best.
Well, they might meet the 'best', but they fight to win, and that is not the
same as being exciting. They fight to 'score points', not to really best
the other fighter in the same way as is done in professional boxing.
> And I *know* it *must*
>bother Jones, as a boxer, that he hasn't put all doubts aside. Boxers *are*
>highly competitive people - there's no way you get to that point in a sport
>that requires as much dedication without a strong competitive inner fire, a
>fire which cries out for measuring your skills against the best.
Well, if it bothers him, it's a Catch-22 (I think I'm using that correctly).
If he wants competition, he takes on health risks, which he does not want.
He's in a 'predicament' that he's in an inherently dangerous sport, and the
guy doesn't want to live dangerously.
>And, if not about the fans, Jones should care about money.
I think Jones knows he's got enough money. You want to talk "money", talk
to Larry Holmes.
>This discussion
>keeps ignoring the fact that he's fighting for relative peanuts on cable.
"Relative" to ODLH, Holyfield, and Tyson, but not to anyother current
fighters who readily come to mind. The guy is still making millions of
dollars this year.
> A boxer should strive to make big PPV cards happen.
Pablo, that's what you would do, but you're more driven than are most
people. Jones has stayed at the 'top' of his game for several years now.
That's not too shabby. Not every man wants to "be all he can be" at any
cost. Not everyone attorney wants to be a partner. Not all accountants
want huge practices (most though).
>That's where the huge
>purses are. Fact is Jones is nowhere near the point where he can command a
>huge PPV purse. A fight against Michalczewski would be a natural PPV event,
>but none of these two guys has driven his career in a way that allowed them
>to reach that level. They're happy with a somewhat provincial celebrity
>status, they're quite content with a certain degree of underachievement.
And
>right there lies the huge difference to a Hagler or Monzon.
Well, the sport, as you mentioned, has changed since then. I think Jones is
for good reason a bit more cynical than were some of the great champions
from the past. Hell, he's Generation X, and that should say something.
TSC
pa...@samerica.com
> >fighters conducting their career like Mr. Jones?
>
> No.
That is pretty much the key question, the rest is open to debate.
> >If you're friend does not produce more than he sits idle, he will
> >slowly be losing clients to the more aggressive attorneys that will
> >produce more to the client's demand.
>
> You don't know what you're talking about. You're under the assumption that
> my friend does not take care of his clients as well as do other attorney's
> take care of their clients. My friend simply has less clients and cares for
> them quite well.
And indeed, far less people watched the Jones fight than the Nassem Hamed
Fright Night farce. None of the two events, I am pretty sure, made boxing
many new friends. Peopled tuned in, and probably thought "this is boring". My
wife is the perfect indicator. She gets excited and into it when there's some
good action, but she didn't bother to watch more than 2 rounds of the Hamed
fight, and while she watched Mosley-Leija, she quickly lost interest in
Jones-Grant and did something else. Her fav fights: Hamed-Kelly,
Hagler-Hearns and Chavez-Taylor. Is it a suprise?
> >With the fan as the client, Jones may looking for a superfight someday
> >and find out nobody cares anymore.
>
> That is a possibility, and I doubt Roy Jones is going to lose any sleep over
> it. I think Roy knows that the quality of his life has little or nothing to
> do whether he makes 15 or 50 million dollars during his career.
We will see about that. I see a significant difference in those numbers,
especially when the investor decides to invest havily in a booming business
such as music production and boxing. ask Ray Leonard if his investment in,
among others, Maynard's career paid off. Depending on what you do, $10million
isn't nearly enough to retire, and most boxers seem to fall into that
category these days. I hope Jones is smart enough to invest wisely and not
overspend, on the other hand he's not making nearly as much money as some
other boxers. Given his talent and ability, that is a shame, for he could
have initiated a new golden era of the middle divisions. Didn't happen. I
think that, with him heading for 30, we can speak in the past already.
Jones shouldn't care about what boxing fans think, that is true. It's a fact
in today's boxing world - it's not a sport driven by competitive spirit
anymore. You could argue "was it ever?", and I'd concur there's always been
issues there, but not nearly as many as these days. Boxing is learning a bit
too much from the WWF model, milking a public that doesn't care for *sport*,
but merely for *entertainment*. The difference between the two is huge,
though, and I don't think true boxing afficcionados should accept this as
matter of factly as Mr Sanity Cruzer seems to do. I know my head tells me
it's a fact, but hey, I still ought to be able to voice what my heart says.
And it is that boxing is a competitive sport. It sure is in the amateurs: a
true sport where everybody itches to meet the best. And I *know* it *must*
bother Jones, as a boxer, that he hasn't put all doubts aside. Boxers *are*
highly competitive people - there's no way you get to that point in a sport
that requires as much dedication without a strong competitive inner fire, a
fire which cries out for measuring your skills against the best.
And, if not about the fans, Jones should care about money. This discussion
keeps ignoring the fact that he's fighting for relative peanuts on cable. A
boxer should strive to make big PPV cards happen. That's where the huge
purses are. Fact is Jones is nowhere near the point where he can command a
huge PPV purse. A fight against Michalczewski would be a natural PPV event,
but none of these two guys has driven his career in a way that allowed them
to reach that level. They're happy with a somewhat provincial celebrity
status, they're quite content with a certain degree of underachievement. And
right there lies the huge difference to a Hagler or Monzon.
...pablo
Mike Haught
words:
>On Thu, 19 Nov 1998 20:21:13 -0800, "The Sanity Cruzer"
><sanity...@cruzers.com> wrote:
>
>>"Relative" to ODLH, Holyfield, and Tyson, but not to anyother current
>>fighters who readily come to mind. The guy is still making millions of
>>dollars this year.
>
>Not only is he making millions but I bet he's made more than Hagler
>did at this age. Hagler fought many of his big fights on network
>television. From what I've seen the networks don't pay as well as HBO
>does. Hagler really cashed in with the Sugar Ray Leonard Superfight
>PPV.
In that era you had to be Sugar Ray Leonard or fighting Sugar Ray
Leonard to make the monster purse. Exceptions to that rule (off of
the top of my head) would be purses in the Holmes/Ali and
Holmes/Cooney bouts. Maybe Hagler/Hearns to a slightly smaller
extent.
Becoming a "house fighter" for HBO or Showtime can be financially
beneficial to a boxer.
-mwh
Chico
>>
>> First of all, I'm not trying to imply that Hagler and Monzon were "mediocre".
>>
>> That's ridiculous.
>pablo wrote:
>
>You said the fact that their opponents tested their skills shows they're not
>quite as good as Jones, who -in your eyes, mind you- has been so utterly
>dominant every time out.
There's a huge difference between "mediocre" and "not quite as good a Jones",
don't you think!?
>pablo wrote:
>
>Obviously, you weren't following the sport back then. I think that is a pretty
>damn awesome list, one that shows how thoroughly Hagler cleaned the divison.
>What do you know or Lee, or Mugabi, or Antofuermo, or Hamsho, or Watts, or
>Scypion, or Roldan? You judge them by the fact Hagler beat 'em. Thing is, they
>proved themselves gainst other top fighters and were tough, hard-hitting
>customers. None of which can be said about Jones' opposition.
Which top fighters did Caveman Lee prove himself against?
You don't have any idea who he was, do you?
>pablo wrote:
>
>Your perception of Jones opposition is strangely distorted. If you think it
>compares to the level of opposition Hagler faced, I am wasting my breath, as
>I am not talking to a true boxing afficcionado, but rahter a passionate Roy
>Jones fan club member that puts wishful thinking and hero worship before
>whatever facts exist in the boxing world.
Lee, Scypion and Watts (who beat Hagler in 1976, BTW) weren't in the same league as
Toney and (especially) Hopkins.
Do you think that Mustafa Hamsho would have beaten Bernard Hopkins? How many
of Hamsho's fights have you seen? I'm guessing one or two.
What about the 1983 middleweight version of Roberto Duran? He took Hagler 15
tough rounds. How would he have fared against Bernard Hopkins? IMO, probably
about the same.
Chico
LBelknap
probably defeat both Hagler and Monzon. When you have the ability to make an
opponent miss as Jones would with his great defensive ability and yet have the
punch to take them out at any time, you have a very difficult combination to
beat.
Hagler was a great warrior but not fast enough, in my opinion, to catch Jones
and Monzon was tall but extremely slow and I can't see him catching Jones. In
short, I think Jones at 160 lbs would have beaten about any middleweight with
the exception of Ray Robinson (whose style of boxer puncher matches up with
Jones). Sounds crazy, I know, but I can't see Greb, Walker, Zale, or any of
the great middles catching up with Jones speed given his ability to hit hard.
And, I'm an oldtimer who leans to the old days.
J.B.
AlwynJC
...let's not even compare ...at 160 Hagler was more dominant than Jones ...At
168 and 175 Jones is probably the greatest of all time
Alwyn
Ivan Weiss
Let's see him beat Michalczewski before we say that, shall we? Besides,
Harry Greb, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore and Bob Foster might have
something to say about that. Well, at least their adherents might.
Ivan Weiss CORPORATION, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual
Vashon WA profit without individual responsibility
-- Ambrose Bierce: "The Devil's Dictionary"
monte christensen
What about Bob Foster. He held the title for a long time and beat everyone
around. His size and power would be tough to handle.
Archie Moore held the title for around 10 years. He also was able to be
competitive with heavyweights. His will, chin, and stamina would be very
tough on Jones.
Gene Tunney was a great fighter. Only lost one time in 77 fights. His lone
loss came to fellow great fighter Harry Greb who he beat 3 out of 4. He
moved up to handle Dempsey at heavy so I think he could take the punches of
Jones.
Tommy Loughran - another fighter at 175 I would rate way above jones.
At 175 Jones has fought:
Mike Mcallum - way too old and up from 154
Virgil Hill - Probably his best win and a good KO, though Hill not a top 10
all time at 175.
Eric Lucas - Woeful performance against a journeyman
Merqui Sosa - Mostly a runner up type of fighter. The KO was good though.
Montell Griffin - A DQ loss where he was losing the fight IMHO, and a good
KO though griffin not a great fighter, though pretty good.
Otis Grant - A blown up 160lber who moved up 2 weight classes overnight
Del Valle - Lost to Hill, a decent champion but nothing for the ages
Only the Hill fight even comes close to who the others had to fight. Plus
there are probably even more at 175 I would rate above Jones today. Now if
Jones were to get serious and KO Michalcheski, Nunn, and some others???
AlwynJC <alw...@aol.com> wrote in message
19981123130941...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
>At 160 Hagler beats Jones ......Hagler was never a supermiddle or
lightheavy
>...let's not even compare ...at 160 Hagler was more dominant than Jones
...At
>168 and 175 Jones is probably the greatest of all time
>
>
>Alwyn
Alejandro Olague
says.....
>Gene Tunney was a great fighter. Only lost one time in 77 fights. His lone
>loss came to fellow great fighter Harry Greb who he beat 3 out of 4. He
>moved up to handle Dempsey at heavy so I think he could take the punches of
>Jones.
>
>Tommy Loughran - another fighter at 175 I would rate way above jones.
Based on what I've seen on Tunney, I doubt Jones could even land much
on him. I hear everyone yapping about "modern training methods", but I
think boxing is one of the sports were it's athletes have actually
regressed. You have to *learn* how to fight, it's not something
high-tech. These guys fought there way up to the top, and honed their
craft. They didn't have HBO money which entitled them to feast on
no-hoper every single friggin time they stepped into the ring. Take a
look at Lennox Lewis, he is a great specimen, who probably has the
best nutrionists and equiment money can buy, but when it comes right
down to it, the guy can't box worth a damn. The fact that someone of
his skill level can make so much money is hilarious and sad at the
same time. And for all of their modern training methods, most of these
guys can't even keep there hands up for 12 rounds, much less 15.
Alejandro
Bob Sheehy
light heavy. Michael Spinks would have been more than Roy could handle.
And Dwight Qawi and Eddie Mustafa Muhammed would have given him some
anxious moments, to say the least.
mark_t...@iname.com
fighter in his life. You must be joking when you say that Marvin would get
knocked out in 5 rounds. He over sixty professional fights, fought better
fighters than Roy has and was never off his feet once! It would be a terrific
fight but if it was the same Hagler who fought Hearns I would pick him over
Roy any day.
In article <72ersk$1...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
mha...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Haught) wrote:
> Mark Brown (mkb...@mediaone.net) wrote:
>
> : Hagler would have been knocked cold by RoyJones. However, Jones would have
> : had to wear a solid cup to protect against Hagler's fouls. Still with
> : Jones's style, it is unlikely Hagler would have many chances to reach him
> : with his fouls. Hagler would not have lasted 5 rounds with Roy Jones.
>
> : But the real answer is simple: Hagler would never have fought Roy Jones.
> : Like any other true middleweight at the time, Hagler would have ducked Jones
> : and ran from the contract signing table.
>
> : Mark Brown
>
> Brian,
>
> Mark Brown is now agreeing with you.
>
> Need I debate this point with you more? ;-)
> --
> -mwh
Matt Tegen
Word of advic: Mark Brown's gone don't bring him back.
Matt Tegen