Comments Thread For: Conor Benn Willing To Face Adrien Broner in The United States

[Oregonian]

Oregonian: This is my favorite post guy. This guy has over 2000 posts, and zero points, lol. It's true Roy Jones Jr was P4P #1, and he deserved this ranking at one point. He was dazzling and pretty much undefeated (The Montell Griffin loss was unfortunate, but avenged). But after a while, Roy Jones opponents were jokes. I mean who were Richard Frazier, Reggie Johnson, David Telesco, Richard Hall, Derrick Harmon, Julio Cesar Gonzalez, and Glen Kelly? They had decent records, but fought no one. Hopkins, even though I thought he was a fraud, at least he had a belt, had recent victories over sloppy Joppy, small Tito and small De La Hoya. This warranted a match against Jones, especially since Jones really had no real names on his resume in a while. Virgil Hill was it. Plus, although Jones beat Hopkins on points in their first matchup, the showing was unspectacular. It could even be said that Hopkins wasn't as experienced at the time.

Jones as good as he was, wasn't making a name for himself outside of the boxing world. To demand a lopsided purse split wasn't the smartest move at the time. No fighter was really going to take a fight for peanuts. They were all trying to position themselves for greatness, knowing a loss would derail their momentum. To have no money to show for it, would have made no sense. So 70 to 30 splits were not going to happen. And to not travel to face someone was trivial. If you want it, you go get it!

Roy let ego and a lack of business intelligence get in the way of him becoming more than just a P4P great. And he was at the top of my list at one moment in time. He never lost. But once he started to lose, he lost in terrible fashion, and he actually showed no heart in some of those bouts. I lost a lot of respect for him in Tarver 3, and in his fight with Calzaghe. And he never dared to be great beforehand. In his prime, I think he would have beat Calzaghe and Hopkins. If he did 50/50 splits with them and won, he would've had the upperhand in all future negotiations going forward - and deservedly so.

The only fighters l think would have given him trouble in his prime were Julian Jackson, Gerald McCllelan, and Nigel Benn. But we'll never know, just forever speculate.

And Tyson was a big name before the **** allegations. He was fierce, fought everyone, beat everyone badly, and traveled to face opponents. He made himself a household name.

————
70/30 split was extreme and ego-driven of course. Roy offered Hopkins a 60/40 split and even agreed to a catchweight and Hopkins refused.
A 60/40 split against any of the European fighters would also have been fair.

As for him having no heart after his first loss, I will agree with you. He was beating Tarver in the 3rd fight when he was engaging him but he was fighting scared the whole time. I can equate that to guys like Tito and Naseem, both just lost their fighting mojo after losing. Naz could have been one of the greatest ever had he continued to fight. He was better than Barrera except for that one night.

I don’t know what you mean by points. Is that a reward system?
McLellan would have beaten Roy in my assessment. He had long hands and hit hard.
I think Julian Jackson was past his prime when Roy emerged.
Different question - why do you think the Eye ball test is flawed?

[Lefty0616]

————
70/30 split was extreme and ego-driven of course. Roy offered Hopkins a 60/40 split and even agreed to a catchweight and Hopkins refused.
A 60/40 split against any of the European fighters would also have been fair.

As for him having no heart after his first loss, I will agree with you. He was beating Tarver in the 3rd fight when he was engaging him but he was fighting scared the whole time. I can equate that to guys like Tito and Naseem, both just lost their fighting mojo after losing. Naz could have been one of the greatest ever had he continued to fight. He was better than Barrera except for that one night.

I don’t know what you mean by points. Is that a reward system?
McLellan would have beaten Roy in my assessment. He had long hands and hit hard.
I think Julian Jackson was past his prime when Roy emerged.
Different question - why do you think the Eye ball test is flawed?

Jones did something to Tarver in the mid rounds that had Tarver shook, going, and perhaps ready to quit. You could see it in Tarver's face and body language. Even the commentators said as much. All Roy needed to do was keep applying pressure, and the fight would've been over. But he let Tarver back into the fight, and then got rocked and almost stopped himself. He had a chance to become a household name that night but..... turned yellow. He claimed old feelings of anger towards his father made him stop doing what he was doing, during the course of that fight. I call BS. He just didn't dare to be great. Which is one of the reasons he started chasing ghosts, by staying in the ring too long.

Tito never lost it. He dared to be great by challenging himself against bigger opponents - in Hopkins and Jones. He was never really meant to be a middleweight. As for Nassem, he was a good fighter, but not an elite fighter. He was a fraud that tried to conquer the US market. He thought he could shine in the ring against one more handpicked opponent. He picked the wrong one in Barerra. Barrera brought Naz back to reality. I believe Nasseem started to second guess what he could be if he continued to fight the truly elite boxers of the world. Not to say, he could not get over his psychological fears....we never found out - due to the legal problems he would later find himself facing.

Jones beat Hopkins on the scorecards - is what I meant by on points. Yes I agree, perhaps Jackson was past his prime. I just gave him a punchers chance. And Yes, McClellan had ice cold power, and had what it took to beat Jones. Same thing can be said about Benn. But those are the fights Jones needed, but never really wanted. Do you think Sugar Ray wanted Hearns? Do you think Ali wanted Frazier 2, and Foreman? They needed those fights to be great!

Can you elaborate on "eye test"? I never use this term. I don't know what that term necessarily means.

[Oregonian]

Jones did something to Tarver in the mid rounds that had Tarver shook, going, and perhaps ready to quit. You could see it in Tarver's face and body language. Even the commentators said as much. All Roy needed to do was keep applying pressure, and the fight would've been over. But he let Tarver back into the fight, and then got rocked and almost stopped himself. He had a chance to become a household name that night but..... turned yellow. He claimed old feelings of anger towards his father made him stop doing what he was doing, during the course of that fight. I call BS. He just didn't dare to be great. Which is one of the reasons he started chasing ghosts, by staying in the ring too long.

Tito never lost it. He dared to be great by challenging himself against bigger opponents - in Hopkins and Jones. He was never really meant to be a middleweight. As for Nassem, he was a good fighter, but not an elite fighter. He was a fraud that tried to conquer the US market. He thought he could shine in the ring against one more handpicked opponent. He picked the wrong one in Barerra. Barrera brought Naz back to reality. I believe Nasseem started to second guess what he could be if he continued to fight the truly elite boxers of the world. Not to say, he could not get over his psychological fears....we never found out - due to the legal problems he would later find himself facing.

Jones beat Hopkins on the scorecards - is what I meant by on points. Yes I agree, perhaps Jackson was past his prime. I just gave him a punchers chance. And Yes, McClellan had ice cold power, and had what it took to beat Jones. Same thing can be said about Benn. But those are the fights Jones needed, but never really wanted. Do you think Sugar Ray wanted Hearns? Do you think Ali wanted Frazier 2, and Foreman? They needed those fights to be great!

Can you elaborate on "eye test"? I never use this term. I don't know what that term necessarily means.

————-
That was in the 6th round. Roy would have stopped Tarver but like you said, he turned yellow.
As for Tito, he was at 160 because he was too big for WW but he was only 29 when he got beat by Hopkins. Great fighters come back from losses.
Tito did not. He retired then came back 4 years later against Mayorga then fought Winky. Winky literally toyed with Tito with just the jab.
Tito was gone again a few years then cashed out with Roy.
Tito could have done more but he didn’t.

You mentioned that I have over 2,000 posts but zero points, hence my question about that.

The eye ball test is subjective. It’s what you see in a fighter by how he does certain things.

Similar to what talent scouts look for to early on in a fighter's prospective career. It’s very much the case in soccer (especially with playmakers). If you follow soccer then you’d have known that Gareth Bale was great before he went to Real Madrid.

I train and teach Karate. I can easily tell which fighter beats which one just by their stance, footwork and how they punch.

Of course the eye ball test is never 100% accurate as there are many other variables to look into. Broner passed my eye ball test when I saw him the first time at 130 but he has zero discipline and lacks respect for the sport so he turned out the way he did.

[Noelanthony]

The announcer tells him,” I’m scared to ask who you want next because you may say Crawford “. He goes and mentions names as far away from Crawford as possible with Broner and the Brook vs khan winner. At least say a Danny Garcia if you want to gain some sort of credibility.

TRUE but crawford knocked out both khan and Brook so Benn wants to follow in Crawford's footsteps

[Roberto Vasquez]

Which loss? He's 20-0

My bad I saw a fight where he got knocked down a lot and looked terrible. And he was just fighting a random guy. I think my mind equated that with a loss - esp when you hope to be a future star. I guess he thought the same because he really got a lot better after that.