Roy Jones was Great, BUT....

Why is there Almost ALWAYS a "BUT" when Naysayers Discuss Roy Jones Jr.????:dunno: ...

Even his Staunchest Critics R FORCED N 2 Complimenting him (Somewhat), but that Compliment ALWAYS Contains a Caveat...

"Yeah, he had Fast Hands, BUT...Yeah, he Could Punch a Little Bit, BUT...Yeah, he Moved up from Jr. Middle to Heavy, BUT...Yeah, he RARELY Lost Rounds N his Prime, BUT...Yeah, he's the Most TALENTED Fighter I've Ever Seen, BUT..."

More than ANY Fighter, Roy Jones' Resume, Abilities & Accomplishments R DISSECTED...What RJ Naysayers FAIL to Realize is that ANY Fighter can B NITPICKED N this Same Regard...But RARELY Do the RJ Naysayers Apply the SAME Level of Criticism & Analysis to THEIR Faves (U KNOW Who U R)...

He's the ONLY Fighter N History that Required 16 Years to FINALLY Get "Exposed":: ...

What's the Deal w/the "BUTS" @ the End of Most RJ Compliments???...



REED:dunno:

 

"He's the ONLY Fighter N History that Required 16 Years to FINALLY Get "Exposed":: ...
"


That is a great line.

 

BUT.....he was knocked the fuck out by Tarver and looked like a punching bag against Johnson.

 

Look at how old he looked when he deflated from hw. he looked like an old man. You could see he physically had changed and was a different fighter.


Woods fight image-http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/1385374.jpg%3Fv%3D1%26c%3DViewImages%26k%3D2%26d%3D17A4AD9FDB9CF1939057D9939C83F1065DB0B002167101175A5397277B4DC33E&imgrefurl=http://www.viewimages.com/Search.aspx%3Fmid%3D1385374%26epmid%3D2%26partner%3DGoogle&h=397&w=594&sz=44&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=zO46QcnfeuZEhM:&tbnh=&tbnw=&prev=/images%3Fq%3Droy%2Bjones%2Bvs%2Bclinton%2Bwoods%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN


Tarver- http://www.thesweetscience.com/images/11352/jones_vs_tarver001_240x230_20071019.jpg


Looks like a totally different person

 

AND???:dunno: ...

So Go Ahead & Place Roy Jones N the Looooooooooooong Line of GREAT Fighters who were Made to Look BAD @ the Tail End of their Careers...What was he, 35 when that Happened???...

Roy DOES have a WIN Over Tarver, by the Way..."Ya'll Musta Forgot"...


REED

 

WFT, seriously?

"But" means that you are comparing the fighter to others and nobody is perfect. SRR was perhaps the greatest ever BUT he lost to many guys at middleweight. Ali was great BUT he won many questionable decision. Joe Louis was great BUT his opposition wasn't. ANd so on

There is not difference here. In fact, if you read my gallup thread you will see that most people (including me) picked Jones as the most talented fighter ever. To me, that is a compliment. However, if you don't agree on that he is also the greatest fighter ever, you have to insert "BUT" somewhere there

You are seeing ghosts again, BUT it happens

 

I wonder what happened with Roid..ahm ahm Roy there.BUT shockingly he´s now making 170 easily. ::

 

It was About HOW MUCH Weight he Took Off AND the TIME FRAME N Which he Did it...

Roy KEPT his Weight CLOSE to Heavy, as he Negotiated w/Holyfield for SEVERAL Months...

When that Fight FAILED To Materialize, Roy STILL had a PPV Date to Fulfill w/HBO & He Ended Up Facing Tarver @ 175, Instead of Holyfield...

The FACT is, Roy Jones CUT about 25 Lbs of MUSCLE N about 5 Weeks...


REED

 

brother REED, what these clowns do not realize is that is ridiculous.. to take off 25lbs when you are already SHREDDED and do it in 5 weeks and have a title fight???? it is crazy that he could even do it!

 

He won the first Tarver fight though so this really isn't helping your case. Explain the second Tarver fight which happened 6 months later and the Johnson fight which happened 4 months after that.

Surely 6 months is enough time to properly drop the weight no?

 

he got old.

 

Tito schooled him and then got robbed. End of story.

Cupey

 

The only "but" that I typically apply to Jones goes like this:

"Sure he won the middleweight title BUT he didn't fight Benn"

"Sure he won the super middle title BUT he didn't fight Eubank"

"Sure he won the lightheavy title BUT he didn't fight Michalczewski"

"Sure he won the heavyweight title BUT he didn't fight Lewis"

 

Benn
Eubank
Michalczewski
Lewis

:: that could be a list of the worst fighters to ever hold belts

 

Benn didn't fight Hopkins

Eubank didn't fight Toney

Michalzewski didn't fight Jones

Sure, 5'11 Jones didn't fight 6'5 Lennox, and 6'5 240 Lennox didn't fight 5'11 190 Jones

 

in 6 months? ::

I think this "But" business is more used by his fans than his detractors.

"Yeahm sure he got knocked the fuck out by Tarver, BUT..."

 

"Yeah, sure he should have fought Michalcewski, BUT..."

 

Go have a word with yourself. :nono:

Benn near KILLED your all-American hero G-Man in one of the most brutal, engaging and challenging WARS ever seen in a boxing ring. To downplay that fight is to disrespect the whole of boxing, IMO. That fight encapsulated everyone GREAT and ultimately terrible about this fantastic sport.

And Lewis is a top 5 all time HW. In everyone's mind bar yours, anyway... :laughing:

 

..MichalSHITsky was toooo much of a bitch and ran back to Germany or Poland..or whatever...

 

PLENTY Of All Time Great Fighters have been KO'ed...


REED

 

U Say this as if MichalSHITski Actually WANTED to Fight Roy Jones....


REED::

 

yes, of course, and there is no shame in that. My point was, why can't his fans just say that he was the lesser fighter that night, why are there always excuses.

 

Because boxing is the way it is, there will always be points to potentially 'nit-pick' for anyone who tries to find them.

Fact.

With Jones, they are usually coming from haters. I mean, Nigel Benn is my favourite fighter EVER, but I can't honestly say I'd pick him to beat Roy at 168. Especially at 168. BUT, because he never fought him, the point is always left open to conjecture for people to pick upon.

That said REED, I do agree that you are seeing ghosts when there are none here. Anyone with half an ounce of boxing knowledge KNOWS that RJJ was one of the very best.

End of argument...

 

LOK, you know I love you, but only a person that is clueless about boxing could say something like that. All of those guys were either very good, or great (Lewis).

 

this is exactly my point. ::

 

Roy looked like shit before, during and after the Tarver fight. He won but he clearly wasn't the 175lb Roy we'd seen before the Ruiz fight.

6 months later, he got caught with a good punch and wasn't steady enough to answer the ten.

4 months after that, a gunshy Roy got KO'd after fighting scared most of the fight.

It's pretty clear that Roy lost alot coming back down from HW. Couple that with age, his own lack of confidence in his chin and his usual lack of killer instinct you have the Roy of today.

No excuses. He's a great fighter that hurt himself moving around in weight late in his career. Bad enough that he gained the muscle mass to make HW but then to shed it in the short time frame he did? Not good for anyone.

 

but he didnt have any other superstars to fight during his prime so he will never be mentioned in the same breath as a Leonard or Hearns.

He never gave us an epic to rewatch over and over that demonstrated his courage. He never showed the ability to save himself from the brink of destruction a la JCC. He never produced a spectacular win in a mega-bout. The list goes on and on.

 

:eeeek: :doh:

 

The sooner you admiit that you were completely incorrect in your fantasies about Lennox, the better. He was not a British glass-chinned snaker swallower as you hoped for but an all-time great heavyweight