Well ... I'm going to concede because there's no archive and we are at the mercy of revisionism and everyone wants to be right. But this is some boxing FAN site that cannot give a guy like Roy credit for finishing the 12 , winning some rounds and aggressively going for it in the 12th against a guy that brutally KO'd him , fighting after 2 consecutive and brutal KO's and a year layoff. Some fans. :bears: I actually "thought" there were some that respect the fighters and the hurdles they have to face in such challenges.
Yeah, except he didn't go for it in the 12th. Tarver was running on empty and Roy stared at him... he may have won the round, but that had way more to do with Tarver losing than Roy winning. Besides, we aren't arguing about fans and their respect. Petre... if Jake, Tam, MWS, myself and others agree on something that has happened in boxing, not to sound like an asshole, but chances are we are correct.
:atu: Come on steve, most guys on here don't know sh*t other than the obvious. Unless you think reading history books and reciting things from past years like Kellerman tends to do is considered as being knowledgeable.
dsimon writes: Calzighe fought much better against Roy and Lacy. I never said he alwayd pitty pats. I am talking about one fight specificially. Also... no, it does not follow that ineffective punching is better than no punching, I don't buy that argument.
dsimon writes: Maybe not to you and its a good thing you are not a judge. :nono: Look frankly? I am not evdn saying that if you score those slappies yu are a bad judge.. jhust that it is one interpretation. Me? Iwant a punch to be effective and land effectively on target to get a point. and not to be a slap.
I give and gave him credit, especially when there were so many haters talking about his china chin at the time :bears: In fact, I give him MORE credit for that performance and going after Tarver than the Calzaghe performance.
No. 20 punches (questionable or not) that land should always count more than 1 good punch. On activity alone... Also, what if you're not sure if it was a legit punch or not? Which way do you go? Does it count or not? Are you saying that in the midst of a quick flurry you can tell (from ringside) whether or not they were 'proper' punches? Every single time?
dsimon writes: You can't always tell, its a matter of interpretation in some instances. What you would not want to do is assume they landed every time. What if the guy avoiding the punches does a remarkable job doing so? like Hopkins? that should count as well. Activity alone is BS. It is antithetical to boxing and a slapping type blow will not have a measurable effect on the opponent. That is one way to tell. Your solution does not cut the mustard... you seem to be impying that the solution to these quandriesis to credit the guy throwing every time. If this is the case then boxing will turn into a game of tag, like martial arts tournaments did in the eighties.
Of course the activity has to be effective. You can't wing away on punches, miss them all and still win the round. That's not what Calzaghe did so it's irrelevant to the discussion in any case. That's not what I'm saying but you can't win a round by slipping punches and hardly fighting. Landing 5 good punches does not make up for sitting on the ropes for much of the round. If it slipping punches counted then we'd have two guys staring at each other all fight waiting for the other to throw. Call me crazy but I'd rather watch the game of tag. At least there'd be ACTION. The guy throwing doesn't get the round EVERY time but if he landed more than the other guy and there are no KDs or visible signs of hurt from either boxer then he definitely should.
On another note, something that bothered me with the commentating. We normally get The Colonel Bob Sheridan but this time around we got some guy called Dave Von Teppo (sp?). He kept saying all night that all Jones ever had throughout his career was a powerful right hand. Fair enough he never really threw a jab but he knocked down plenty of guys with lefts from what I remember. Just seemed like a strange comment to me. :dunno:
Obviously it was just you and me now. :doh: When there's no accurate record revisionism rules. I think because disagreements like these bring out personal feelings more than public record when discussing it one on one with someone. But I never said Jake or MWS or SteveD were the ones that gave Roy any credit for that fight. Even my typo REED was IMO slightly correct as , after REED got over his huge disappointment in Roy did give him some props for going the 12 as did others. (I believe it was with the caveat that he hoped he'd retire) I never realized years later , that I should have taken down names and quotes ... and if only I could predict which ones would later be important. :doh: Oh well ... not my job to archive threads from this site. ... SOME ADVICE THOUGH CUPEY ... STORAGE MEMORY IS CHEAP THESE DAYS. A TERABYTE COSTS ABOUT $200 Anyway , I'm done with this disagreement. I still say other than Calzaghe and Dawson , Roy's got some good fights left in him if he comes in the same shape as he did for Joe ... the rest are pick-em fights at this stage of Roy's career.
the fight has had some very shoddy coverage.....new setanta commentator David Croft said that this was Joe's defining fight......Lampley ballsed it up with an inaccuracy, apparently Joe got KDd vs Eubank......and in the press, reporting for the Guardian Kevin Mitchell round by round including THREE 10-8 rounds in favour of Calzaghe!......and in the Independent James Lawton when detailing Jones' downfall said that Tarver beat RJ in their first meeting in 2005....luckily i was on hand to save his blushes for the later editions ....oh, and btw Genius..... are you called so after GZA?......wondered this for some time.....seeing him live in London tomorrow night
I remember this. He was on here after saying that if Gatti would have followed "his" plan he could have won.:: Also, I'm a huge Roy Jones fan and I hated his performance in the third Tarver fight. He didn't fight to win and the fact that there were glimpses of the old Roy, but he was too scared to press the fight made me realize that it was over for him. His confidence was shot.
Yeah, Petre's Chock FULL of SHIT... He CLEARLY Picked Gatti to BEAT Floyd & Even Played the "Tough Italian" Card N the Process...There was NATHAN Vague about his Gatti Prediction... It's a SHAME when a Guy is 100% INCAPABLE of just ADMITTING when he's WRONG... REED:hammert:
Dave Bontempo... & Yes, that's a VERY Strange Comment... As GREAT as Roy's Right Hand was, the LEFT HOOK was his Bread & Butter, N REED's Opinion... REED:hammert:
I could be off on this, but I don't recall Bontempo ever being a big Roy fan. Maybe I'm basing it too much on the Pazienza fight, where they desperately tried to portray the idea of a competitive fight, at least until Paz' coffee buzz fizzled out
Didn't Al Bernstein Do that Fight OR was it Bernstein AND Bontempo???:dunno:... The Only Time REED can Recall Bontempo "Covering" Roy was for a Roy-Griffin II Preview Show, Along w/Tony Paige (???)...The Black N.Y. Boxing Guy w/Glasses & Buck Teeth::... Either Way, Bontempo Certainly WASN'T as Giddy about Roy as the Brother was... REED:kidcool:
Yep, Jones-Paz was Bernstein and Bontempo. Tony Paige is mad cool. Sure, kinda goofy looking ::... but IMO a credit to the sport all the same.
dsimon writes: Hmmm!? I think that the context is important here. The fact is I could see a situation in this fight where a fighter could rely on a jab to set up and to push Joe into the middle of the ring... now here is the thing though, Roy truly never did have to use a jab. So pointing out that Roy never used a jab is appropriate. I don't know about the exactitude of this commentator after this statement but i do know that many people assume that all fighters/fighting styles have a jab as part if the strategy when this is a wrong assumption. Roy never needed to work off a jab and... frankly Mayweather and Toney when using the michigan shoulder roll style often do not use the jab but instead counter the guy with a quick sneaky shot from the counter position. If yoiu jab in this situation you are out of range for the counter. My point is that it could have been a good observation countering somone's assertion that all fighters including Jones use the jab regularly. And finally: It is one danger of being so gifted: basically because Jones never had to use the jab to set things up, when he needed it it was not there as a part of his repetroire. He could really have used a jab and his corner could have forseen that development.
REED Sees what U're Saying, Brother DSimon, but here's what Bontempo Said (According to Genius)... He kept saying all night that all Jones ever had throughout his career was a powerful right hand Even Taking Into Consideration the FACT that Roy Often NEGLECTED the Left Jab, his Left HOOK is a Glaring OMMISSION by any "Boxing Guy"... REED:hammert:
Absolute bullshit ... it was absolutely as I said. Floyd was my pick but I wanted Gatti to win badly (Not only because I like the guy , but because I hate Floyd) and made a case for how he could do it. Not only did I say the smart money was on FLOYD , but I said it was an obvious easy pick. You guys are confusing my strong desire to see Gatti or anyone KO that classless turd Floyd with what was an obvious choice for the winner. CUPEY... Please start an Archive. :warning:
Whatever, Petre... Your INability to Take OWNERSHIP for Offbase Postings PRECEDES U... MORE than Enough Fightbeaters Recall EXACTLY What U Said, Dude...REED's DONE Arguing the Matter... REED:boohoo:
You know I didn't say that ... :doh: This is like dejavu as I made the "No plan b" Gatti could have done better argument back then even though I picked Floyd. What's funny here is , years from now , in a similar argument , you guys will tell me I picked Roy over Calzaghe because of this disagreement.
dsimon writes: Mayweather will use a jab at times, when he fights defensively... Often he does not. it depends with him. He does not like the jab though... I say that because he loves to counter like he did to Hatton and you can't counter a guy coming in like that if you keep him distant with a jab. Same thing against De La hoya... He prefered to counter him rather than jab at him. Ruiz is the kind of fighter that you simply have to jab... Its the only way to get some distance... and Roy was fighting in a different division under different circumstances.
