I love Roy Jones, but even in his prime...

I don't he woulda beaten this man at 175.

The baddest muthafucka to ever rule light heavy.

Frightening what he did to Rondon.

 

I think he was too long and quick not to eventually. And that jab.... it was like a shot gun hitting guys.

Roy can't be touched by any supermiddle in history, but at light heavy, as a fan... I'd fear for his health against Foster.

 

Hard to tell, it now seems that Jones never had the best of chin, so if Foster lands cleanly, it's probably lights out. On the other hand, Foster is pretty ponderous and his footwork not in the same stratosphere as Jones

 

Foster is better than Montell Griffen though...

 

don't get me mad cos i'm amped already, took titles from fighters who were shot already

 

Hard to say. For me Foster only has a punchers chance against Jones but a significant one at that. Jones would be one punch away from peril in all 12 rounds but should he survive he'd win a decision.

 

Roy's chin was made in China

 

Foster landed on Ali for Christ sake. He landed on everybody. Hard for me to envision Roy going the whole fight with Foster without getting touched. Foster didn't have the fastest feet, but his hands were extremely quick, and he was 6'3, and had a longer reach than many heavyweights.

This is more about styles than anything. Roy was better than Foster, and Roy definitely ranks higher than Foster on the overall ATG list. But head-to-head, I think the most likely scenario is Roy getting caught.

 

Ali was a punching bag in the 70s...hence why he was a mess in his later years. Ali was reasonably easy to hit from 1970 onwards. Plus Ali took Foster lightly IMO...seeing as Foster was much smaller. Prime Jones was far more elusive than a post-exile Ali.

 

I don't think that was the case earlier in his career. He took flush shots from Ruiz who was a heavyweight and was tagged hard and cleanly by Griffin who although not a power puncher landed a perfect shot. Neither fighter had Roy hurt in any capacity so I think the weakness of Jones' chin is a bit overstated.

IMO, Jones' confidence was shattered after his first loss to Tarver and he never truly believed in himself again which led to more loses and more KOs; but early in his career he had a very dependable chin.

 

I don't believe like most Roy Jones hater that all you really had to do was land on Roy(Prime/post-Ruiz) to knock him out....but Foster will land and hurt a prime Roy...he will make a prime superman Jones look human...but beat him? I dont know...

 

Foster's power wasn't of this Earth.

 

Foster has a Puncher's Chance for Certain (as Would Michael Spinks and Archie Moore), but the Thing is, Roy's Fought TALLER Guys...Roy's Fought PUNCHERS...Roy's Fought Guys w/GOOD Jabs...

But WHO Exactly has Foster Fought that Even APPROACHED Roy's Level of Handspeed, Mobility, Counterpunching and Unorthodoxy???...





REED

 

Roys chin was never bad until he went up and down in weight and was older by that stage too.

 

Foster could land on ANYBODY

 

I'm not as impressed by foster than Most. Terrific power and jab, but tons of flaw in his game. I think Jones could wins a dec my using his speed and movement, but if Foster lands solidly, it's obviously a KOTY

 

Especially on guys that fought after the 80s...

 

Definitely lots of awful light heavyweights after that for him to annihilate

Good post

 

LOL. Don't take Sly seriously. The guy has seen maybe 2-3 fighters pre-80s.

Sly thinks boxing began in 1981, and thinks that the sport's full potential wasn't reach until 96 when Floyd turned pro.

It's FACT that the light heavyweight division was at its talent peak in the late 70s/early 80s.

Jones is the only great light heavyweight of the post 80s.

 

I was only messing around...jeez do I have to put a laughing emoticon after every joke for y'all to realize?

 

I'd favor Foster and Spinks over Roy at 175, but I don't know about Foster vs. Spinks

 

Same here. Foster and Spinks are the only guys I'd pick over Roy at 175, head-to-head.

He most likely loses to Ezzard Charles as well, but there's not a lot of film of Charles at his true 175 peak.

I think Roy could decision Archie Moore.

As for Foster vs Spinks... I'd take Foster.

 

I think the mid 40s is just as good as the mid 70s to early 80s at 175, if anything better ... Charles, Moore, Bivins, Marshall all at the same time... when a quality pro like Joey Maxim is at best a distant number 5, that's a ridiculous era

The period from Galindez to Spinks has more high quality names in total (Saad, EMM, Qawi, Lopez, Conteh, Parlov, Johnson, Ahumada, Kates, etc) but the Ezzard and Archie, two ATG p4p fighters in the same division is amazing and there were plenty of other tough contenders in the mold of the Ahumadas, Yacquis etc around too ... I think the 40s edges it by a nose

 

I heard that Cdogg would favor Seanie Monaghan over Charles, Moore, Foster, and Spinks.

 

What about Michael Moorer? Vs Jones or Foster?

 

I'd quite confident in saying both Jones and Foster beat Moorer at 175.

 

Michael Moorer fought NOBODY at 175... he's not even in the discussion

 

Tall powerful Kronk bastards are ALWAYS in the discussion, homie.