ten years ago??? joe wont even get in to the ring with roy ten years ago..
-
-
I wouldn't like to call it, but it would be a much more difficult night's work for JC than Saturday.Comment
-
believe me, he wouldn't even take the fightComment
-
I will likely never post here again, so I will try to make this post meaningful yet not demanding of my omnipresence. This is part one of my post...
First: I am a huge Roy Jones Jr. fan. I have been ever since I was mistakenly shipped a DVD collection of Roy's entire career (through Tarver 3). I had seen Roy fight before, but I had just started watching boxing on a weekly basis in '05, so I hadn’t seen every Roy fight.
Second: I watched last night's fight, and two things came to mind: Roy looks old, and this fight solidifies that a prime Roy would defeat a prime Calzaghe, at a minimum, by a comfortable UD (something like 8 rounds to 4), though I suspect by a wide margin.
Third: Roy did the only thing in this fight that he had to avoid in order to secure a victory - he lay on the ropes with his guard up and let Joe get off. This behavior (as we have seen from the first Tarver fight through last night), supports the obvious claim that Roy is simply old. I am not sure I would use the term shot, only insomuch as he is still, at his advantaged age and diminished capacity, well equipped to defeat 95 of the top 100 guys in the LHW division. But, he is nothing like the Roy Jones the fought Clinton Woods (which has always seemed to me to be the last "Roy as Roy" fight).
Fourth: I am actually quite surprised that it is not almost unanimous that a prime Roy would defeat a prime Joe after last night. I suppose that is a reflection of the members posting - perhaps they haven't grasped the many nuances of boxing (the sweet science, as they say). I'd say many of the posts in this thread reflect a clearly unsophisticated understanding of the sport.
Fifth: I think almost everyone in this thread is talking around the points proffered and offering self-referential claims of their own, all of which indicates lacunae in formal logic that I find disheartening on a personal level. In any event, I also think most of the important points to be made on this issue have been; they just need to be collected and redistributed in a palatable form. I will try.Comment
-
Part two of my post...
Sixth: The points...
- I think it is indisputable that Roy is more than just past his prime; he's very old and thoroughly slowed. I actually think his prime ended in 2002, and that his decline was precipitous. Doubtless Roy fell off with respect to his physical gifts many years ago, and the Roy that fought last night, while gifted beyond most people's imaginations, is nowhere near the Roy the fought pre-'03 (and by nowhere near, I mean a prime Roy would toy with the Roy the fought last night).
- To support the above point (though, again, I don't think it requires support), if you watch Roy's last three victories, he did (and more importantly, didn't do) a number of things that clearly underscore his physical decline. One, he lay on the ropes for chunks of rounds, with his guard up, and let his opponents pound him. Two (related to one), he had no foot speed, integral to his defense his entire career. Three, his head movement (while punches were thrown), was almost non-existent. Now, for Roy, head movement means going straight back (a no-no for almost anyone else), yet in his last three victories, he chose to cover up rather than move. This is telling. Four, Roy showed a guard. Roy never needed a guard pre-'03. He fought with his palms out and/or his left hand at his kneecap. Five, he could barely throw combinations, and when he did, they were almost exclusively two-punch combinations. This is not the Roy Jones Jr. that fought from '93-'03. This is an old man (as sportsman go) who is blessed to be in the shape he is in for an old man, but he doesn't have the gifts he had when he was great.
-I don't think anyone who thought Roy would win this fight denied that Roy was old and well past his prime. Rather, I think they felt that Joe didn't have what it took to beat this Roy Jones. In fact, before the fight, I thought that this Roy Jones would win a close decision if he stayed off the ropes. I probably always knew that the caveat would play a role in this fight, as watching Roy's last three victories, it was clear that hanging out in the corner and on the ropes is something Roy can no longer avoid. Anyway, I figured that if Roy couldn't stay off the ropes, Joe could punch the bag for a while and look good doing it, and thus win a decision. That came to fruition. Again, though, pointing out after the fact that Roy is not in his prime is not an excuse as much as a reiteration of a point made by Roy fans before the fight and known by every boxing fan around the world - it's no secret, Roy is old and past his prime. As an aside, I spent every round after round one pleading with the Roy on the television to punch (the words exactly, "Punch Roy, Punch. ****. C'mon.")
-One useful observation from this fight (useful to answer the question of who would win in their respective primes) is the way Roy easily touched Joe with his patented straight rights (aka jabs, in Roy's case) throughout the bout (pre-cut). The problem, of course, is that since the Woods fight, Roy has only been able to potshot and either clinch or move away...nothing behind the one shot. And, that's what happens when you get old. You can't throw combinations, you can't get off. When you do throw combinations, they're not as crisp or effective (though, when Roy is able to get off, they are fairly crisp even at this advanced stage in his career). And, before anyone claims that Joe's style played a role in Roy having trouble getting off, let me concede the Joe's style played some role. But, as evidenced by Roy's previous three wins, no style is enough style for Roy to have trouble getting off. Why? Because he's old. So, I am arguing that the fact that Roy could easily potshot Joe indicates that a prime Roy would likely have no more trouble tagging a prime Joe with potshots (and quite a few combinations), and considering his elusiveness in his prime (and, you know, that fact that he didn't take naps on the ropes 20 seconds at a time), would not have allowed Joe to score points as he did last night. I don't see what's controversial about this.
- On the topic of Roy having chosen not to fight Joe when Roy was in his prime, I don’t understand why anyone would have expected that from him. Roy was a big name, and Roy wanted to become a bigger name so that he could make bigger money. Fighting Joe was not necessary to this end. At best it could have help. At worst it was dangerous. If you recall, Roy never made big money (in HW boxing terms, the terms Roy considered) until the John Ruiz fight. Mentioning that HBO heads discussed possible opponents for Roy late in his prime and that Roy didn’t fight them somehow means Roy ducked them is simple and suggests you are either a “hater” or often concomitant “nuthugger” or you have limited business sense. By all accounts, a fight with Michalczewski would have made more sense than a fight with Calzaghe from a competitive standpoint. But, at the time (and this is largely still the case), European fighters aren’t big enough draws in the US to make big money. Further, no American fighter with anything to lose wants to risk a bogus decision abroad, and certainly not against a fighter history will likely forget. The cliché speaks volumes here – the risk outweighs the reward. The notion that Roy ducked Calzaghe is mind blowing to me. Who the **** was Calzaghe to Roy? Roy knew of him, knew British fans would have loved the fight, and knew that he didn’t want to fight in Britain (for reasons mentioned (too risky, little reward)) and didn’t want the fight in the US (for reasons mentioned (no money)). Let’s remember, at the time that Joe became a viable opponent for Roy (albeit, in a lower weight class), Roy was looking to cash in on the minor fame he’d developed. Joe wouldn’t have done anything for him. Now, if Joe began his career three years earlier, and if Joe was an American fighter, Joe probably would have fought Roy years earlier in what I suspect would have been an uneventful UD for Roy.
-This, I think, is somewhat incidental, but I’ll mention it anyway. When people talk of Roy’s punching power, they may forget that it was somewhat remarkable that Roy retained that power as he moved up in weight. As one post in passing mentioned earlier, Roy is a blown up middleweight. Roy’s power did not come from flat footed power shots, but rather from quick, precise shots that peppered opponents (and sometimes potshot) from bizarre angles and hurt. Roy is not a power puncher. I repeat: Roy is not a power puncher. His nickname isn’t “Lefthook.”
-A point about Joe. To my mind, Joe’s career (the part that matters) started in 2006. Joe fought nobody before 2006. Veit accomplished nothing and Eubank retired a year after his fight with Joe (losing his subsequent two fights to Thompson). Joe’s career truly began in ’06, when he redefined “owned” in his victory over Lacy. He then had a solid victory (a tough fight, as I recall) over Bika, (skip Manfredo) and what I think was his most impressive victory (in terms of how he fought and the opponents abilities at the time of the fight) over Kessler. Then he fought Hopkins. I have watched that fight three times, and I have scored it a two point victory for Calzaghe, a one point victory for Calzaghe, and a draw. I can see a four point margin in that fight (two point victories one way or the other). But, even as I scored victories for Calzaghe, I always felt Hopkins out-boxed him and landed the cleaner, more effective shots. However, Hopkins was way too stagnant, and Joe won rounds on volume of punches thrown (landed or not) alone. That is why I am not surprised that Hopkins often receives more credit in the loss than Calzaghe receives in the SD win. And, that brings us to last night. Joe beat an old, slow Roy Jones. Roy had no foot speed, could not evade, and could not throw more than one or two punches at a time. Roy is old. I have come to terms with it. I think it’s time (just over a day later) that Joe’s fans come to terms with it. And, I wonder whether Joe really thinks he accomplished something with respect to his legacy by beating an old Roy Jones. I suppose this will go down in history much the same as Rocky Marciano’s victory over an old (shot) Joe Louis, though perhaps not as satisfying for the retiring undefeated fighter, as it was Calzaghe who hit the canvas in this fight while having no chance of taking out the old, slow Roy Jones. At least Marciano was able to put his aging legend away (in dramatic, heartbreaking fashion, as it were). But, to return to topic of this thread, Joe would not defeat a prime Roy. Not this Joe, not a prime Joe (and I don’t think this Joe is far from a prime Joe), not any Joe.Comment
-
It is completely ****** and out of question to even mildly think Camacho could win a round vs Leonard when he was peak. Lets see Camacho does not win a round vs Chavez, DLH, Trinidad....but you think he could be Leonard, based on beating him when he was 40 and had not fougt for 6 years. Give me a break. That is the most idiotic statement I have heard in years.Originally posted by Pelon Psyclone View Post
Then for Calzaghe vs Jones in the 90's. I could see this issue being more valid, as Roy did not take on all comers. However, just looking at the styles Calzaghe IMO would get stopped early vs prime Roy. Keep in mind Calzaghe speed at his peak is no where near the speed of prime Roy. Calzaghe also fights like a girl with those weak as slaps. But more importantly he would catch counter after counter vs a peak Roy. The Roy he fought simplyk had nothing left. It was sadd.
Bact to the Camacho vs Leonard, Please. It would be a easy walk down for Ray in fact either Camacho would run and run like he did vs Chavez. For Christ sakes he let DLH pummel him and are we saying DLH was as good as a prime Leonard. I hope no one is that crackheadish. Leoanrd bigger stronger, faster, better combinations etc...and Camacho would have to move up to face him at 147. Easy Easy Easy fightComment
-
What would have happened the other night if Joe didnt have so many hand problems over the years?/ if he had the power he had 10 years ago? and also if he wasnt show boating so much?
The very best jones on his very best night would be looking at SD lose to Joe.Comment
-
no way, i have seen the calzaghe fights on nuts and he was no better back in the 90s the only thing that he has lost is some of his power.Originally posted by Hard Chaw View PostComment
-
If you'd consider the possibility of prime Camacho beating prime Leonard, you are confirming the popular opinion that you dont know or understand much about boxing.Originally posted by Pelon Psyclone View Post
Alsom Roy and Bernard being much more recognized, should have pushed for a fight against someone who did not move out of UK? Isnt it the other way round usually?Comment
-
Sometimes I think you are Ray Leonard, the viciousness with you which you jump in to defend anything about him is amazing.Originally posted by wpink1 View Post
In this case I completely agree with you.Comment
Comment