Jones and McClellan

First topic message reminder :

First of all can I just say that I thought last nights documentary of the Benn vs McClellan 'the fight of their lives' was quite excellent. Sad, moving, insightful, it had the lot.

I was going to mention this on Azania's thread, but didn't want to derail what is an excellent article.

Clips were shown of Gerald training and being interviewed prior to the fight, and it is clear he was one mean bloke, intent on causing as much damage as possible once he stepped through those ropes. He exuded an air of confidence that comes with having a record like his. When told "You are widely seen to be P4P #2" he replied "who's number one?!" (Out of interest, does anyone know who was #1 then, was it Jones Jr?) in a disbelieving, arrogant tone that said 'I'm the best'.

It is well documented that McClellan beat Roy in the amateurs (was this a stoppage or points?) and they mentioned on the documentary that Roy said he would go nowhere near McClellan in professional boxing.

Had such a fight happened in the professional ranks, how would you have seen it going around that time? Would Roy's supposed own fears be right and he'd be hunted down and stopped by G-Man, or would Jones use his incredible speed, reflexes and skills to pick the charging McClellan off? It is a fight that has always intrigued me given the styles, the amateur background and the excitement it could have provided, but how do you chaps see it going?

Can't agree with you on Dariusz beating Roy, Ghosty. I think Roy wipes the floor with him, embarassing him just like he did with so many others. A decent fighter, but nowhere near the class of Jones.

The WBA in particular had two non entities in Del Valle and Smulders fight for the vacant title and guess who gets the winner Jones. There is in fact very little between the opposition of the pair and seeing as the only reason Jones wasn't the champion was his own reluctance to travel (the challenger is the one expected to) rather than being avoided like say Charles or Tunney. He gets let off things that others simply aren't and then to top it off his failed drugs test gets swept under the carpet as if it never happened.

Would Mayweather be expected to go to Mexico to challenge Alvarez for his title?

Alvarez fights fairly often in America does he not?

As Darius should have done.

Hatton was the established light welter champion, was never a cat in hells of Manny coming to Manchester for the fight, the guy who puts the noughts on the end of the cheque tends to call the shots, and before anyone says it I am more than aware Manny is not American but he is for all intents based out of there.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:There is in fact very little between the opposition of the pair.

I'm sure even Jones' harshest critics would be forced to concede that, outside of their mutual opponents of significance in Hill and Griffin, Jones' competition at Light-Heavyweight was notably better.

Be reasonable. Tarver, Woods, Johnson, Harding etc is far better than Piper, Thadzi and Rocchigiani.

Look how the trilogy to Tarver ended and would consider Rocchigiani a better fighter than Woods for instance.

Bob wrote:

J.Benson II wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:People deride Jones' opposition but then slate him for not fighting a guy who defended against Nicky Piper and Mark Prince.

Not to mention the fact that Michaelczewski would eventually lose to a man that Jones beat by a shut out.

Aged 35. Let's not compare how Roy was doing at that age.

And Jones' losses at that age are often held against him by his critics. Therefore, Michaelczewski shouldnt be exempt from it either.
I just find it slightly ironic that Jones opposition is so strongly criticized while he is accused of ducking a man whose opposition is far more questionable.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Look how the trilogy to Tarver ended and would consider Rocchigiani a better fighter than Woods for instance.

The fact remains, though, that Jones' one win over Tarver is still much better than anything on Michalczewski's record outside of their meaningful mutual opponents which were mentioned earlier. Duran was 1-2 against Leonard but that first win is still (quite rightly) used as a means of giving him an edge over the men who rank similarly to him in an all-time pound for pound sense.

As for Rocchigiani being a better win than Woods, well I simply disagree, but that's just me. And even then, let's not forget that Rocchigiani was on top against Dariusz first time out before being disqualified (wrongly disqualified, at that).

But arguably against the best fighter he fought at the weight he was 1-2, I just don't think he was anywhere near as good as people make out.

Ghosty even so, you know full well he was pretty much gone at that point.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:But arguably against the best fighter he fought at the weight he was 1-2, I just don't think he was anywhere near as good as people make out.

True, but I don't think anyone will pretend that the Jones who was outscored in their third fight was anything like the Jones of yesteryear. Moore was 0-3 against the best Light-Heavyweight he fought in Charles, doesn't mean he himself wasn't one of the greatest to earn a living at 175 lb. I fully acknowledge that Charles was, of course, a hugely better fighter than Tarver, but at the same time I'm not trying to put Jones alongside Moore, so the comparison is valid.

Where anyone wishes to rank Jones at Light-Heavyweight is up to them, of course, but I think the way he secured his victories in his pomp needs to be considered as well as the actual names he was up against, much like Bob Foster three decades before. There wasn't all that many star names in the division when Foster was on top, but there was no doubting its master. I'd say the same applies to Jones - and yes, I say that knowing fully well of Michalczewski's position at the time. There's simply no way on God's green earth that anyone can be more impressed with Michalczewski's Light-Heavyweight career than they can with Jones', surely.

Not saying that Michalczewski reign was more impressive but it's a fight that should have happened and Charles' wins over Moore are largely the reason why him not being the champion can be overlooked, the same can't be said of Jones im afraid. I'll give a bit more leeway to some fighters but drugs cheats don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Have always had Michalczewski winning a close fight, he gets lumped in amongst some of the dross Jones beat but was a clear couple of levels above them.

I dont know if this is a joke or not. How can any boxing fan claim that they would have RJJ losing anyting other than sweat against DM? Incredible. And you laugh at my opinions about old timers.

My opinion is best on Michalczewski and Jones specifically rather than generalising a whole generation of fighters, surely even someone with such a lack of intelligence as you can tell the difference.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:My opinion is best on Michalczewski and Jones specifically rather than generalising a whole generation of fighters, surely even someone with such a lack of intelligence as you can tell the difference.

Go on tell me. How does DM get to beat RJJ?

Jones excelled when he was able to force the pace something Michalczewski would be more adept at stopping than anyone else around at the time. He had sound fundamentals, a good chin and very good power, he could impose his will on Jones and force the fight, the flashier work would be done by Jones but over time he would be slowed and knocked out late on. I do struggle to see why Jones is considered so invincible when his best win at light heavyweight was against a previous Michalczewski and Hearns victim in Hill.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Chris it's really not blown out of proportion in any way, Michalczewski was the IBF, WBO, WBA and lineal champion which of those titles did Jones obtain by beating him in the ring, absolutely none, what comes after really doesn't matter he was screwed by the governing bodies because Jones was the bigger draw.

And which of those titles did DM win in an opponent's back yard (or even abroad!) which is what you're asking of Jones?

He won the lineal title's by getting Hill to travel to Germany and took a UD. RJJ was the draw, DM should've been the one to travel to make the fight happen, especially when the 'home' country has such an awful hometown decision record.

Manner of victory Ghosty.

Jones would have shut out or stopped Michalsewski for me. Michalsewski was the benefit of some extremely shady carry on against Rocchigiani where he was getting beaten up and all but knocked out only for the powers to be to rule it a DQ.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Jones excelled when he was able to force the pace something Michalczewski would be more adept at stopping than anyone else around at the time. He had sound fundamentals, a good chin and very good power, he could impose his will on Jones and force the fight, the flashier work would be done by Jones but over time he would be slowed and knocked out late on. I do struggle to see why Jones is considered so invincible when his best win at light heavyweight was against a previous Michalczewski and Hearns victim in Hill.

RJJ excelled when forcing the pace of when his opponent was attacking him. Sound fundermentals would not be enough against RJJ. Sound fundermentals with a rifle would be. DM would have been slaughtered. I cant believe any boxing person can actually pick DM to win against RJJ.

Mike McCallum said RJJ was the best boxer he'd ever seen. Many others have said similar things. The bottom line like many German based fighters, they refused to travel. RJJ was the main draw not DM. RJJ brought the zeros, not DM. DM didn't want any part of RJJ as he could milk his lineal status for all its worth.

McCallum has in fact called about 4/5 of his opponents the best he ever faced, he has always been very complimentary of his opposition so how much you can really take from that is down to interpretation.

Dariusz may have won his titles in Germany but he at least beat the rightful holder of those belts in Hill.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:McCallum has in fact called about 4/5 of his opponents the best he ever faced, he has always been very complimentary of his opposition so how much you can really take from that is down to interpretation.

Yep. In the series in The Ring earlier this year called "The best I've ever faced" McCallum gave that particular accolade to Toney.

Bob wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:McCallum has in fact called about 4/5 of his opponents the best he ever faced, he has always been very complimentary of his opposition so how much you can really take from that is down to interpretation.

Yep. In the series in The Ring earlier this year called "The best I've ever faced" McCallum gave that particular accolade to Toney.

Well Jones made him look silly when they met.

Imperial Ghosty wrote: Dariusz may have won his titles in Germany but he at least beat the rightful holder of those belts in Hill.

Exactly, because the 'rightful holder' travelled. If DM had granted RJJ the same courtesy then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

Scottrf wrote:

Bob wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:McCallum has in fact called about 4/5 of his opponents the best he ever faced, he has always been very complimentary of his opposition so how much you can really take from that is down to interpretation.

Yep. In the series in The Ring earlier this year called "The best I've ever faced" McCallum gave that particular accolade to Toney.

Well Jones made him look silly when they met.

Probably because the body snatcher was fighting about 20lbs above his optimal weight class where he made his name and had done next to nothing at LHW to warrant the victory being meaningful.

coxy0001 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Bob wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:McCallum has in fact called about 4/5 of his opponents the best he ever faced, he has always been very complimentary of his opposition so how much you can really take from that is down to interpretation.

Yep. In the series in The Ring earlier this year called "The best I've ever faced" McCallum gave that particular accolade to Toney.

Well Jones made him look silly when they met.

Probably because the body snatcher was fighting about 20lbs above his optimal weight class where he made his name and had done next to nothing at LHW to warrant the victory being meaningful.

Still made him look silly.

coxy0001 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Bob wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:McCallum has in fact called about 4/5 of his opponents the best he ever faced, he has always been very complimentary of his opposition so how much you can really take from that is down to interpretation.

Yep. In the series in The Ring earlier this year called "The best I've ever faced" McCallum gave that particular accolade to Toney.

Well Jones made him look silly when they met.

Probably because the body snatcher was fighting about 20lbs above his optimal weight class where he made his name and had done next to nothing at LHW to warrant the victory being meaningful.

Toney.

Scottrf wrote:

Bob wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:McCallum has in fact called about 4/5 of his opponents the best he ever faced, he has always been very complimentary of his opposition so how much you can really take from that is down to interpretation.

Yep. In the series in The Ring earlier this year called "The best I've ever faced" McCallum gave that particular accolade to Toney.

Well Jones made him look silly when they met.

1. McCallum was almost forty amnd well past his magnificent best.
2. You have just illustrated that you have never watched the fight. Yes, the scorecards showed a shutout, but the rounds (apart from the knockdown) were hard won by Jones Jr. Jones Jr's reputation dipped after this fight, and many journalists felt that McCallum's ability not to get suckered into Roy's tricks in the corners and using the jab had exposed the flaws in Jones' style.

Pity no-one had the skill to expose that flaw then (until he turned old). Or it could be that RJJ's style nullified his opponent's best sttributes. He was that good.

Bob wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Bob wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:McCallum has in fact called about 4/5 of his opponents the best he ever faced, he has always been very complimentary of his opposition so how much you can really take from that is down to interpretation.

Yep. In the series in The Ring earlier this year called "The best I've ever faced" McCallum gave that particular accolade to Toney.

Well Jones made him look silly when they met.

1. McCallum was almost forty amnd well past his magnificent best.
2. You have just illustrated that you have never watched the fight. Yes, the scorecards showed a shutout, but the rounds (apart from the knockdown) were hard won by Jones Jr. Jones Jr's reputation dipped after this fight, and many journalists felt that McCallum's ability not to get suckered into Roy's tricks in the corners and using the jab had exposed the flaws in Jones' style.

Toney.

Scottrf wrote:

Bob wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Bob wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:McCallum has in fact called about 4/5 of his opponents the best he ever faced, he has always been very complimentary of his opposition so how much you can really take from that is down to interpretation.

Yep. In the series in The Ring earlier this year called "The best I've ever faced" McCallum gave that particular accolade to Toney.

Well Jones made him look silly when they met.

1. McCallum was almost forty amnd well past his magnificent best.
2. You have just illustrated that you have never watched the fight. Yes, the scorecards showed a shutout, but the rounds (apart from the knockdown) were hard won by Jones Jr. Jones Jr's reputation dipped after this fight, and many journalists felt that McCallum's ability not to get suckered into Roy's tricks in the corners and using the jab had exposed the flaws in Jones' style.

Toney.

Ignore everything I've just said then. Fiddlesticks. Apologies.

Bob wrote:Ignore everything I've just said then. Fiddlesticks. Apologies.

No worries.

azania wrote:Pity no-one had the skill to expose that flaw then (until he turned old). Or it could be that RJJ's style nullified his opponent's best sttributes. He was that good.

That is the reason why Jones Jr frustrates so many fans. The hardest fight he had in his pomp was against a 40 year old legend. I'll ignore the Toney fight because Toney threw it away long before they got in the ring. Besides those two, Jones looked sensational against B list fighters, and his style was such that he always would (like Naz to a degree), but we never saw him in there against guys who we could really measure him against.

Toney = weight drained, Jones would have lost a rematch.

Hopkins = green, Jones would have lost a 2001 / 2002 rematch.

McCallum = washed up, Jones would have lost had they fought at Middleweight a few years earlier.

Just thought I'd save Coxy the bother of posting in case he decides to return to this thread.

Why is it that RJJ's detractors take away his credit and blame the loser? Hop was green. Toney threw it away before the fight. I dont buy that. Toney was going into the biggest fight of his life. He didn't throw it away. RJJ made him look silly.

No one had his measure until he faded. You may as well say Green had his measure.

88Chris05 wrote:Toney = weight drained, Jones would have lost a rematch.

Hopkins = green, Jones would have lost a 2001 / 2002 rematch.

McCallum = washed up, Jones would have lost had they fought at Middleweight a few years earlier.

Just thought I'd save Coxy the bother of posting in case he decides to return to this thread.

Thanks Chris, saves me the hassle and gives me extra time to prep for an interview later on.

Hop was green

He was a 20 fight novice with no amateur experience.

It's pretty black and white to be honest.

Out of genuine interest, Coxy, at what point do you think Hopkins ceased to be 'green'? It's not as if he was meeting genuinely top class fighters immediately after the Jones fight. Moreover, before he faced Jones, who could have really prepared him for such a style?

coxy0001 wrote:

Hop was green

He was a 20 fight novice with no amateur experience.

It's pretty black and white to be honest.

If you are fighting for the World title against the best, you have lost your 'green' tag. Its not as though he was Alvarez fighting Hatton for the title. Hoppo had earned his shot. He lost to the far better boxer. Something Hoppo admitted himself.

The 'green' argument has always been one-eyed to me.

Jones was a veteran of only 22 pro fights and Hopkins had 24 to his name. It was both men's first shot at a world title as well.

I understand the belief that Jones was better prepared because of his amateur exploits, but 24 pro fights are hardly an inconsequential amount, and as has been proven once or twice, amateur sucess guarantees nothing in the pro game. That Jones, with his skills in full flow beats any version of Hopkins for me.

azania wrote:Why is it that RJJ's detractors take away his credit and blame the loser? Hop was green. Toney threw it away before the fight. I dont buy that. Toney was going into the biggest fight of his life. He didn't throw it away. RJJ made him look silly.

No one had his measure until he faded. You may as well say Green had his measure.

Not a matter of buying it. Toney was 206lbs 6 weeks before the fight, and 188 the morning after weigh in. Look at his body compared to when he fought Barkley, then see his flabby body against Jones.

Why do people insist on trying to give Jones the benefit of the doubt they wouldn't give other fighters, much of what has been said is true. Toney had started to throw his career away, Hopkins was a fairly green fighter and McCallum was an old man. When your level of opposition is so rank poor it's easy to look good.

88Chris05 wrote:Out of genuine interest, Coxy, at what point do you think Hopkins ceased to be 'green'? It's not as if he was meeting genuinely top class fighters immediately after the Jones fight. Moreover, before he faced Jones, who could have really prepared him for such a style?

The first time he really started to appear like he was becoming more seasoned etc was probably from '97 onwards when he stopped Johnson and then went through Allen and Echols which was a step up from what he fought pre and post Jones.

Amateur experience counts for an awful bloody lot, i mean you get taught balance, ring craft, stance and countless other techniques. You move to the pro game and certain things change yeah, but who would you back in someones first pro fight:

A guy with 100 amateur fights and a 6 year amateur career vs a guy with no amateur experience?

Martinez, Chavez Jr etc all took a considerable amount of fights to learn the game. Heck, Martinez got walloped by Marg in his early days, the difference between him then and now is complete and utter chalk and cheese. Just like looking at Bhop back then is unrecognisable from the guy who stuffed Trinidad to where he is today.

coxy0001 wrote:A guy with 100 amateur fights and a 6 year amateur career vs a guy with no amateur experience?

The guy with no amateur experience. He'd have no bad habits.

Imperial, don't forget that BHop "priced" himself out of the rematch even though their PPV numbers were roughly similar (RJJ was never a big PPV spinnner), and that he wanted a catchweight.... The same BHop who when prepared to take on the best took a catchweight against DLH and Pavlik......

Scottrf wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:A guy with 100 amateur fights and a 6 year amateur career vs a guy with no amateur experience?

The guy with no amateur experience. He'd have no bad habits.

Who'd win out of you and Fred Evans (amateur GB welter) then?

coxy0001 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:A guy with 100 amateur fights and a 6 year amateur career vs a guy with no amateur experience?

The guy with no amateur experience. He'd have no bad habits.

Who'd win out of you and Fred Evans (amateur GB welter) then?

Me, I'm 6 foot 1 and about 12 and a half stone.

Scottrf wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:A guy with 100 amateur fights and a 6 year amateur career vs a guy with no amateur experience?

The guy with no amateur experience. He'd have no bad habits.

Who'd win out of you and Fred Evans (amateur GB welter) then?

Me, I'm 6 foot 1 and about 12 and a half stone.

With zero ability.