OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post

Jim Trunzo · 05-17-2004, 09:53 AM

I can't resist tossing my 2 cents into the ring. I have never been a huge Roy Jones fan. I grant him his tremendous physical gifts and I easily admit that he is, and has been, head and shoulders above most of the fighters in his era. That there has been a lack of competition during most of his career isn't his fault . . .

but . . .

Roy Jones doesn't like being a fighter and he is deathly afraid of being hurt. He has not been the same fighter since he witnessed what happened to Gerald McClellan. I have read everything there is to read on and about Jones. I have spoken to him on several occassions as well as to others who know him. I am not saying in any way, shape or form that Jones is a coward - no man that crawls into the ring is a coward - but he has a deep, abiding fear of permanent damage. And while that is extremely logical and very intelligent, it takes that special something away from a fighter.

I am not happy that Roy Jones lost, nor am I disappointed in him. What I am disapponted in (though not surprised) is that Jones immediately dismissed a third fight. That is not the trait of a champion. That is not the hunger for greatness that made a LaMotta fight Robinson so many times, that brought Ali and Frazier together three times, that made Mickey Ward and Arturo Gatti who they are.

The truth is that Roy Jones only takes fights that he is damn confident he can easily win. Of course, all successful fighters believe they can win, but I mean Jones take fights that he can see little or no way he can lose and win taking minimal damage - thanks to his great, great physical skills.

He refused to fight Michaelzewski - why? He didn't want hosed in Germany, especially after what had happened to him in the Olympics. But come on! That was the best fight out there for him for years and years - and Michaelzewski was MADE for Jones. But he was a risk. And before you site Jones' rematch with Tarver (a rematch that most insiders were shocked that Jones agreed to), keep in mind that Jones' ego surely convinced him that the if he beat Tarver in a fight in which Jones was clearly not 100%, what would he do to him in a bout in which he was not only motivated but physically ready for?

Tarver is a good fighter, not a great fighter. I would choose Jones, hands down in a rematch, even though Tarver may simply have his number. I don't think Jones has lost much from his prime; I think he got caught with the kind of punch that would have put anyone down - although I think many fighters would have taken it better and recovered.

Jones, like my favorite Muhammad Ali, is not a great boxer in the traditional sense. Neither is a great defensive fighter, for example, relying on tremendous speed and instinct to escape punches rather than pure technique. However, Jones, unlike Ali, doesn't have the same stuff inside nor does he have the chin.

I remember not long ago when many of you clamored that Jones belonged in the top three all-time heavyweights; I disagreed then and will again. A fighter who has a good chin, good hand speed, adequate power and the will to pressure Jones all fight long can beat him. Jones would never have beaten Ezzard Charles. I believe Jones is still Top Ten material but not Top Five.

I also disagree that history will be kind to Jones. I think that his reputation will take a minor hit (barring something unforeseen - like huge wins over tough opposition) in much the same way that Marciano's has (too small, fought old men). It won't be enough to hurt him much but he'll never be lionized like a Joe Louis or Muhammad Ali. Nor should he be!

05-17-2004, 09:53 AM	#40
Jim Trunzo OOTP Developments Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leechburg, PA Posts: 739	I can't resist tossing my 2 cents into the ring. I have never been a huge Roy Jones fan. I grant him his tremendous physical gifts and I easily admit that he is, and has been, head and shoulders above most of the fighters in his era. That there has been a lack of competition during most of his career isn't his fault . . . but . . . Roy Jones doesn't like being a fighter and he is deathly afraid of being hurt. He has not been the same fighter since he witnessed what happened to Gerald McClellan. I have read everything there is to read on and about Jones. I have spoken to him on several occassions as well as to others who know him. I am not saying in any way, shape or form that Jones is a coward - no man that crawls into the ring is a coward - but he has a deep, abiding fear of permanent damage. And while that is extremely logical and very intelligent, it takes that special something away from a fighter. I am not happy that Roy Jones lost, nor am I disappointed in him. What I am disapponted in (though not surprised) is that Jones immediately dismissed a third fight. That is not the trait of a champion. That is not the hunger for greatness that made a LaMotta fight Robinson so many times, that brought Ali and Frazier together three times, that made Mickey Ward and Arturo Gatti who they are. The truth is that Roy Jones only takes fights that he is damn confident he can easily win. Of course, all successful fighters believe they can win, but I mean Jones take fights that he can see little or no way he can lose and win taking minimal damage - thanks to his great, great physical skills. He refused to fight Michaelzewski - why? He didn't want hosed in Germany, especially after what had happened to him in the Olympics. But come on! That was the best fight out there for him for years and years - and Michaelzewski was MADE for Jones. But he was a risk. And before you site Jones' rematch with Tarver (a rematch that most insiders were shocked that Jones agreed to), keep in mind that Jones' ego surely convinced him that the if he beat Tarver in a fight in which Jones was clearly not 100%, what would he do to him in a bout in which he was not only motivated but physically ready for? Tarver is a good fighter, not a great fighter. I would choose Jones, hands down in a rematch, even though Tarver may simply have his number. I don't think Jones has lost much from his prime; I think he got caught with the kind of punch that would have put anyone down - although I think many fighters would have taken it better and recovered. Jones, like my favorite Muhammad Ali, is not a great boxer in the traditional sense. Neither is a great defensive fighter, for example, relying on tremendous speed and instinct to escape punches rather than pure technique. However, Jones, unlike Ali, doesn't have the same stuff inside nor does he have the chin. I remember not long ago when many of you clamored that Jones belonged in the top three all-time heavyweights; I disagreed then and will again. A fighter who has a good chin, good hand speed, adequate power and the will to pressure Jones all fight long can beat him. Jones would never have beaten Ezzard Charles. I believe Jones is still Top Ten material but not Top Five. I also disagree that history will be kind to Jones. I think that his reputation will take a minor hit (barring something unforeseen - like huge wins over tough opposition) in much the same way that Marciano's has (too small, fought old men). It won't be enough to hurt him much but he'll never be lionized like a Joe Louis or Muhammad Ali. Nor should he be!