Adamek-Jones: "Roy wants to fight Adamek"

agREED on both counts

I always admired Jones for being just a sensational fighter and he was truly special, but he blew a lot of opportunities to really silence any criticism coming his way

and I agree, i think any good ranked fighter from 175 up beats him clean right now

 

The knockout losses were five years ago.

 

you are missing the point

 

Not really.

Your point would only be valid if Jones' performance is completely incongruous with his recent performances.

If a similar-looking fighter, physically, to the one that's fought Sheika, Calzaghe, et al (though heavier, being at the cruiserweight limit) beats Adamek impressively there's no argument.

If he comes out and looks like he's dropped 10-15 years off, the main thing it would probably do is raise questions about how he did it.

 

If Roy Jones in his current state defeats this guy, it means the guy isnt very good more likely than not because Jones has looked shot for the past 5 years or so, even in his victories

but if people think Adamek is something special, it means you have to give more credence to those losses from 5 years ago if Jones beats him

just as an example:

Imagine Pernell Whitaker had been brutally KOd by Rafael Pineda and Freddie Pendleton before beating Buddy McGirt ... we would have to assess Whitaker by saying he was a great boxer but he had a lousy chin and if you could get to that chin, you'd knock him cold... thus he would pretty much cease to be a legend or what have you... he would just be another very good fighter

do you see what I mean?

 

But who considers Adamek special?

I think most people's opinions of him are pretty realistic. He has a solid chin, he's tough, he's a pressure fighter (though in a more European-style), with some power...but he's beatable.

 

agree completely, dont get me wrong

but he ought to be able to beat this current version of Roy Jones, and I dont think you need to be too special to do that anymore

 

It'd be an upset if Jones won, but the thing is, for a pressure fighter Adamek is pretty selective, at times too selective. He lets some minutes, and rounds, pass without getting much done.

I'd at least be curious about what Jones, and his legs, are like at the heavier cruiserweight limit at this point.

 

Since it seems like the drop from Heavyweight back down to 175 was detrimental and exacerbated his sudden downfall, do you think going back up again might be a little bit rejuvinating for him or is it simply too late now, given his age?

 

The only thing that Merqui Sosa hit "Tarver-Jones 2" flush that day was air and Roy's guard on the ropes. Roy's reflexes and defensive speed were much better these days...

That being said i think the Sosa fight is the perfect example what Roy would do to a pressure fighter like Goffe Johnson - just that it would take a lil longer since Johnson'S beard is better.

I also agree that cdogg's lose-lose scenario in case that Roy wins the fight is hilarious - if Roy were to produce a last great win like that it would definitely help him and stop with the "losses would become stronger" bullshit. That already woulda happened since Roy was ten times better in the Tito and Calzaghe bout ALREADY. Roy from the Johnson bout was the worst Roy you'd ever see and i dunno what was wrong with him that day but he never looked that shitty again. He's still way past his prime and will lose to Adamek imo.

 

Same question:

Imagine Pernell Whitaker had been brutally KOd by Rafael Pineda and Freddie Pendleton before beating Buddy McGirt ... we would have to assess Whitaker by saying he was a great boxer but he had a lousy chin and if you could get to that chin, you'd knock him cold... thus he would pretty much cease to be a legend or what have you... he would just be another very good fighter

use your head

 

REED Isn't Really "Getting" it Either, C-Doggy...REED was Always of the Belief that a GREAT Fighter has 1 More Great Fight IN Him...Tomasz Adamek is Quite Clearly the BEST Current Crusier & That'd B a MEANINGFUL Win for Roy Jones...

But REED Doesn't See WHAT that has to Do w/Tarver & Glencoffe KO'ing him...Roy's Been DECLINING Since about the Year 2000...Tarver Waxed him in 03 or 04...It Seems that U're Arguing LEVELS of Diminishment, which REED Doesn't "Get"...

Again, does it Look Bad on Duran that he BEAT Iran Barkley After LOSING to Robbie Sims & Kirkland Laing???....NO, but the Fact is, Duran had 1 Last GREAT Fight in Him...
REED:hammert:

 

Is Pernell Whittaker a 35 Year Old Fighter in Decline, In Your Scenario???....


REED:dunno:

 

REED Recalls a Flush Right Hand & 1 or 2 Temple Shots, NOT Unlike the Shot that Glencoffe FELLED Roy w/...Believe it or Not, a Highly Regarded Boxing Mag had just ANNOINTED Sosa "The BEST CHIN in Boxing", Prior to his Fight w/Roy...

But Yeah, it's NEVER a Bad Thing when a Fighter Notches a Meaningful Win...Past Prime, Shot or Not...
REED:hammert:

 

I'm with cdogg.

I'll try to put it as simple as possible.

Cdogg is arguing the following:

Right now, Roy's KO loses can be excused to an extent because of the idea that he was shot when they happened. Those losses, however, would seem a lot more important when analyzing his career 20 years from now, if he was to rebound years later with a great performance against the cruiserweight champion.

The KO loses would become more relevant when discussing his career and his greatness. As of now, you can argue that Roy didn't "have it" anymore when he was knocked out. That argument would lose a lot of strength if it turned out that he would still fight at a high level afterward.

At the very root of the idea, the guys who are going to say "Yeah, but he was knocked out by Tarver and Johnson" when discussing Roy's merit as a great light heavyweight will have a lot more credibility than they would have if Roy continues to suck.

 

But HOW???:dunno:...

It's Pretty Much ACCEPTED that Tarver & Johnson Beat LESS than Vintage Versions of Roy...& Bear N Mind, Roy DID BEAT Tarver Also...He BEAT the Guy THEN Got KO'ed...

REED Keeps Harping on Duran & that's for a REASON...NONE of Duran's Losses R Held Against him...The LOSSES to Benitez, Laing, Hearns, Hagler & Sims ARE NEVER Held Against Him, Especially Since he Beat Barkley...Shit, the Hagler Loss is Damn Near Looked @ as a WIN, Depending on who U Debate w/....

Can we Now QUESTION Duran's Legacy Because he DARED to LOSE, PRIOR to the Win Over Barkley???...REED Won't, Because REED Thinks the Barkley Win is a Case of a GREAT Fighter having @ Least 1 More GREAT Performance in him...Duran was PAST his Best Even PRIOR to Barkley & Nobody Argued Otherwise...

It Seems to REED that Some of Ya'll REALLY THINK Roy was Still N his PRIME, Even @ 35 Years of Age...



REED:mj:

 

I tend to go in the compete opposite direction of you both.

Roy's shown over and over again, since those fights, that he isn't close to the same fighter he was physically in his prime.

He is a different fighter.

He isn't like Hopkins, who was said to be over the hill against Taylor and then in his next fight give one of the best performances of his career, or at least late career...against Tarver...and then in a very similar scenario, was said to have been over the hill against Calzaghe and then come up with the Pavlik performance.

If Roy could have done that, I think we'd have seen that by now...(and if you want to go by Hopkins' standard, was he really hurt his legacy by beating Tarver and Pavlik?).

So the question is whether Roy can win with what he's got...which isn't close to what he had.

If he can go out and win a major world title, especially in a new weight class against arguably the top cruiserweight, after much of his outstanding physical abilties have eroded I think it only adds to his legacy. Perhaps more than you're allowing.

 

For Whatever Reason, Roy Jones has ALWAYS Been Held to a HIGHER Standard than Just about Everybody Else...By Fans AND the Media...Sure, the Guy was # 1 in the World, Lb for Lb, @ the Age of 35, but that DOESN'T Mean Roy was Near His PRIME...



REED:hammert:

 

Those are great points. Maybe I shouldn't have said "I'm with cdogg"... just that I understand his point. I can see it your way too.

 

Hopkins Style was Alot More STEADY than Roy's, he Didn't Rely as Much on Athletic Ability as Roy Did, so Even Though Bernard has Clearly SLIPPED, he HASN'T Slipped as Noticeably or DRASTICALLY as Roy Has...

Roy's 40 & STILL Trying to Fight the Same Exact Way he Did @ 25...Though More SUBTLE, a Style like Bernard's or James Toney's is BETTER Suited for Past Prime Success than Roy's...


REED:hammert:

 

What both sides of a fairly interesting argument fail to have realised is the most obvious thing of all. Roy loses to Adamek right now, because he is shot and Adamek is a hard hitting, tough CW at the top of his game.

MTF

 

Guess that magazine was wrong, although i can't tell how good his chin really was - I just assumed Glens is better.


@ cdogg - Pernell Whitaker might not fit the prescription and yes he as a legend didnt have bad KO losses like Roy but how many legends exist that have very bad losses and won a meaningful fight later on. No way would ROy be the first.

 

EXACTLY

 

Its not THAT he lost, REED, its HOW he lost

Tarver knocked him dead and then chased him around in the third fight... Johnson knocked him dead

Those are the kind of losses that great fighters have when they are shot

Duran never appeared "shot", just fat and lazy, but not "shot'

His KO Death loss was to a great fighter in Tommy Hearns

Duran didnt appear shot until the 90s really

 

But when the KO losses are attributed solely to the fighter being SHOT??

What fighter who was SHOT had a meaningful win later on?

I dont mean "a little over the hill" or "diminished" , I am talking "SHOT" like Ali versus Holmes, Leonard against Norris, Duran against Joppy, Chavez against Tszyu... that is what many of us (myself included) felt was the case with Roy in his losses to Tarver and Johnson, he had NOTHING left, couldnt take a punch anymore... he hasnt done anything since those losses to make me feel any differently, I think he is SHOT, not just over the hill... and I think he was SHOT when those two guys knocked him dead

you dont come back from being SHOT... you can have some good performances when you are old, but not when you have nothing left

 

I did not do that - he had an exceptional bad day/performance in the Johnson and third Tarver fight. Adding to that is his non legendary chin which makes the losses look even worse.

@ meetthefeebles - one side does not fail to see that - I see him losing to Adamek, too.

 

so now you are saying Roy had a bad chin?

 

The Tarver KO was Almost FLUKISH...Duded Landed a PERFECT Left, INSIDE of Roy's Protective Guard, w/his Fucking Eye's CLOSED...

Like him or Not, Tarver's 1 of the BETTER Punchers of his Era...The Dude Could CRACK w/his Left Hand...& Glen Johnson has Been VERY GOOD these Last Few Years...He's BASIC, but he's Undeniably Been EFFECTIVE (Against Waaaaaaaaaay MORE Guys than Roy Jones)...It Sounds like U're Calling Tarver & Johnson JOURNEYMAN or Something...

@ the Time that he Stretched Duran, there were STILL QUESTIONS about Hearns' Greatness...That Fight was PRE-Hagler, Roldan, Leonard II, Hill, etc...All REED is Saying is, it's NOT Exactly a CRIME for a Past Prime Fighter to Get Beaten by the Likes of Tarver & Johnson...


REED:hammert:

 

That's Certainly NOT Lost on REED, Mr. FEEBLES...Adamek's BIG, AGGRESSIVE & he Hits VERY Hard...He Could Conceivably KO Roy N WORSE Fashion than Tarver & Glencoffe did, which is Saying ALOT...Adamek would have to B HEAVILY Favored Here....

Roy's Probably Banking on Adamek Being ALOT Slower, but he CAN'T Afford to Lay on the Ropes Covering Up Or B Overly Flat-Footed Against THIS Guy...
REED:hammert:

 

I understand that point.

Jones is like a pitcher who's lost 15-20 mph on his fastball.