Roy Jones' Legacy

[Ezzard]

Just look at the excuses for Jones. That’s all this thread is…excuse after excuse…

There are more tears than the last 5 minutes of an episode of “Lassie”.

Start a thread about Robinson or Armstrong or Charles or Hagler or Leonard and there are no excuses needed. That’s all you need to know.

[Ezzard]

“Please don’t analyse his career…he was my hero…”

[The 1bangkid]

We'll never know.

He was set to face Lamar Parks (good prospect) before he came up w/a positive AIDS test. Then he went and faced Gilbert Baptist (who gave in your eyes a supposed prime Hopkins a very tough fight) and blew him out in one round -- late sub or not (some thing Terry Norris (x2), Lamar Parks, Bernard Hopkins, Vincent Pettway, Gianfranco Rosi, Quincy Taylor, Laurent Boudouani could not do).

Jackson showed no signs of being "faded" before their first fight. He was only questioned as such because he couldn't KO Thomas Tate and had early rounds trouble with Ron Collins.

Also, Alfredo Asaro absolutely fvcked G-Man from a first round TKO over Nigel Benn w/his incompetence in that round (and also later in the fight allowing Benn to get away with a lot of rabbit punching).

As far as a possible fight between RJJ and G-Man. I cannot see RJJ making it to the final bell even if he stayed on his bicycle all night. G-Man used lateral movement very well, had a very nice jab (and 1-2), went to the body like a savage, was freakishly strong (especially on the inside), would destroy opponents who kept their backs against the ropes (which Roy had a habit of doing), had beyond warrior spirit, had a cast iron chin and had devastating power.

I truly believe that would have been a terrible styles match-up for RJJ, even if he was up on points in the fight, he would eventually get stopped . . brutally.

[Perseus]

I love how this thread got moved into BOTP even though RJJ hasn't retired.
Roy, are you getting the hint here?

Do we know Roy hasn't retired?
He hasn't been in the ring since last June, I haven't seen any articles about him fighting soon and the boxrec schedule doesn't have anything listed for him.

[elmersalsa]

Jones was fine until the lawyers could no longer get him off the failed tests. And even then he managed to avoid almost all the live fights. Jones is nowhere near a top 30.

Top 30 at Light heavy? Maybe at a push.

I agree that the great Roy Jones, Jr. won't make the top 50 all-time greats. His resume is not strong enough. But at light heavyweight, I got him ranked between 15 to 20 spots. At least I give him that.

Jones ranking all time in the following weight classes in my view:
Middleweight: 15th to 20th slot
Super Middleweight: Top 5, maybe top 3, but not the best at that weight class.
Light-Heavyweight: As I said before, from 15th to 20th slot.

Jones had unbelievable talent and speed. Great reflexes and he carried his punching power at any weight class he participated in.

That victory over John Ruiz was full of MULARKEY. The victory of the great Bob Fitzsimmons, a middleweight, that beat the best heavyweight of the time in James J. Corbett with a solar plexus punch was way more remarkable. Now, Fitz, he is an all-time top 15 fighter in my view.

[diddy]

You European windbags crack me up. The initial post simply asked where Jones would fall in the pantheon of all time fighters had he retired at the first sign of slippage. If you want to tear the guy down, be my guest, it's your right but answer the damn question as it was posed in its original form.

[diddy]

I love how this thread got moved into BOTP even though RJJ hasn't retired.
Roy, are you getting the hint here?

Do we know Roy hasn't retired?
He hasn't been in the ring since last June, I haven't seen any articles about him fighting soon and the boxrec schedule doesn't have anything listed for him.

Exactly. He still fights. But this board is generally run by Europeans so draw your own conclusions.

#Bias

[diddy]

Just look at the excuses for Jones. That’s all this thread is…excuse after excuse…

There are more tears than the last 5 minutes of an episode of “Lassie”.

Start a thread about Robinson or Armstrong or Charles or Hagler or Leonard and there are no excuses needed. That’s all you need to know.

When addressing Jones' prime the excuses are more on the side of the anti-Roy side than the pro-Roy side. "Uh he didn't fight Rochiggiani", "Uh he didn't fight Michaelzewski". Do you know ridiculous this crap sounds? You all know what wouldve happened in these fights. It sounds silly. Really silly. If you want to say he didnt fight in the Hagler era - fine. He can't help when he's born. And spare me the Calzaghe crap. Jones was the lineal champ of the world spanning divisions. JC was a relative nobody fighting domestically. It wasn't Jones' responsibility to go see an unknown in his backyard. It was JC's responsibility to come to the States to chase the big fights. Instead he chose to wait til Roy was 40 and shot. Then he comes to the States.

[diddy]

You move threads here and no one reads them. The guy is still fighting, why is it here? Great dialogue on a board no one reads. Stellar.

[polecateddy]

You move threads here and no one reads them. The guy is still fighting, why is it here? Great dialogue on a board no one reads. Stellar.

Well the thread keeps popping up on view new posts, so I think people are reading it. I still submit the only credible opponent he possibly swerved a little was Daruisz, and he could have decisioned that guy.

[ReggieDiggs]

These conversations are always silly. I'm guessing less than 1% of the people here have seen enough fights of fighters from the past to accurately rank them to begin with + its always silly to compare guys from different eras cuz the rules were different, the benefits fighters have today are greater + it seems like people are just bigger in general today. Having said that RJJ was the most unbeatable guy I've ever seen when he was at his peak so to me he represents the #1 guy. Tyson would probably be in my top 5 although his peak was mad short, but during that short peak he was pretty f#cing bad ass. Floyd would probably be #2 or #3. Not sure who'd round out my top 5, but I think I'd have a hard time not putting those three fighters in my top 5 during "my era".

Tyson's prime wasn't that short. Dude had 42 fights before he went to prison.

Dude was only champ from the end of '86 til the beginning of '90. Some might even argue he wasn't even THE CHAMP til he beat Michael in '88. By comparison RJJ was champ from 1993 to 2004 & RJJ was pretty much THE CHAMP in every division once he beat Toney in '94 & Floyd is still THE CHAMP & has been pretty much since '98 in most fans eyes I'd assume anyway. Tyson's 3 years & change is short when compared to RJJ's decade & Floyd's decade & change.

[bollox]

Jones' legacy is easy...the best fighter of his generation by a mile. Dominated for a decade and dominated like nobody else

[jezzamundo]

The overanalyzing in this thread is stupifying. Drop any man in the planet who has ever laced gloves between 160-175 into the same boxing ring as RJJ in the 90's, and that man is going to need to fight the fight of his life to get out of there with a W.

The vast majority of fighters between 160-175, yes, but I think there are several fighters, light heavyweights in particular, who would be deserving favourites against RJJ, such as:

Ezzard Charles
Archie Moore
Bob Foster
Michael Spinks

Of the above, I simply can't see RJJ lasting 12 rounds against the top 3 in particular, let alone 15 rounds. I'd also favour Monzon and Hagler to beat RJJ at middleweight, thought not by a lot. At 168lb a prime-for-prime matchup with Calzaghe would be an interesting fight, though I'd favour Jones to win that one.

...so lets get this right. You're saying if slow old Archie Moore was time jumped to the 1990's he would have beaten Roy Jones? :)

Slow, old Archie Moore? No, but he'd still have a good puncher's chance. A prime (1945-1956 he was a later bloomer) Archie Moore could conceivably lose a decision to a prime RJJ, but I certainly wouldn't bet on it.

[polecateddy]

[/quote]

The vast majority of fighters between 160-175, yes, but I think there are several fighters, light heavyweights in particular, who would be deserving favourites against RJJ, such as:

Ezzard Charles
Archie Moore
Bob Foster
Michael Spinks

Of the above, I simply can't see RJJ lasting 12 rounds against the top 3 in particular, let alone 15 rounds. I'd also favour Monzon and Hagler to beat RJJ at middleweight, thought not by a lot. At 168lb a prime-for-prime matchup with Calzaghe would be an interesting fight, though I'd favour Jones to win that one.[/quote]

...so lets get this right. You're saying if slow old Archie Moore was time jumped to the 1990's he would have beaten Roy Jones? :)[/quote]

Slow, old Archie Moore? No, but he'd still have a good puncher's chance. A prime (1945-1956 he was a later bloomer) Archie Moore could conceivably lose a decision to a prime RJJ, but I certainly wouldn't bet on it.[/quote]

And Floyd Patterson would kick Vitali's butt too wouldn't he buddy! Lol

[man]

I'm going to be honest Roy Jones Jr in his prime would have beaten Sugar Ray Robinson at 160lbs.

don't know if this is a reasonable comparison. as i
understand SRR had his prime at welter and RJJ at
light heavy. prime for prime and pound for pound
i never saw RJJ in any ranking even close to SRR.

[jezzamundo]

No, Vitali would beat Patterson, who while better than anyone Vitali has faced bar Lewis, would get worn down by the much bigger man. Not a great comparison, there's a great size and strength disparity there that wouldn't exist in the proposed Jones-Moore matchup.

How about the other three fighters I mentioned: Charles, Foster and Spinks?

[gilgamesh]

No, Vitali would beat Patterson, who while better than anyone Vitali has faced bar Lewis, would get worn down by the much bigger man. Not a great comparison, there's a great size and strength disparity there that wouldn't exist in the proposed Jones-Moore matchup.

How about the other three fighters I mentioned: Charles, Foster and Spinks?

I think Roy could beat Bob Foster, I don't see him beating Ezzard Charles or Michael Spinks though.

[Ambling Alp II]

He would not have gone the distance vs Foster, Charles, or Spinks, let alone beat them.

Hard to say what hid "legacy" will be. He was a remarkable talent, but he had some flaws.
He also could have fought better competiton. DM was by far the best potential opponent for him for several years and he never took him on.
He had gotton used to toying with ridiculausly weak competition that he didn't want the trouble of taking on a real challenge. That will tarnish his legacy.


Keep hearing how no one could touch him in the 1990 but he lost to Montell Griffin. Yes he avenged the defeat but he should not have lost to him in the first place.
The Hopkins win is overrated by some people; This was not some big showdown. Hopkins had not beaten anyone worth mentioning going into the fight. He was not the fighter that he would become.

The Toney win was impressive. However that alone doesn't make him a legend.

[JC]

And the whole pound for pound best of all time argument is always a little too far fetched. Are you supposed to imagine a prime Roy Jones magically transported back in time as he was? Or was he supposed to have been born and trained back in the 1950's? Hard as it may seem modern fighters are stronger, fitter and faster than your Sugar Ray Robinson's. It's evolution and sports science. Just look at athletics world records.

Sports science maybe, evolution no.

[JC]

And the whole pound for pound best of all time argument is always a little too far fetched. Are you supposed to imagine a prime Roy Jones magically transported back in time as he was? Or was he supposed to have been born and trained back in the 1950's? Hard as it may seem modern fighters are stronger, fitter and faster than your Sugar Ray Robinson's. It's evolution and sports science. Just look at athletics world records.

Sports science maybe, evolution no.

If it is not an evolution what would it be then? facts would not show regression in performance.

Depends what is meant by 'evolution'. But since the evolution of training methods/sports nutrition would be included under 'sports science' I'm assuming (could be wrong) that he means the actual physical evolution of the species, which takes a lot longer than 60 years.

[polecateddy]

Sports science maybe, evolution no.[/quote]

If it is not an evolution what would it be then? facts would not show regression in performance.[/quote]

Depends what is meant by 'evolution'. But since the evolution of training methods/sports nutrition would be included under 'sports science' I'm assuming (could be wrong) that he means the actual physical evolution of the species, which takes a lot longer than 60 years.[/quote]

...so if that's right, why are people taller and heavier than 60 years ago. Isn't that evolution of a type?

[JC]

...so if that's right, why are people taller and heavier than 60 years ago. Isn't that evolution of a type?

No, if people below a certain height we're less likely to survive into adulthood and reproduce then that would be evolution.

The reason people are on average taller now than they were 50 or 100 years ago is down to greater availability of food in childhood and improved public health.

People often assume the human race has gotten continuously taller but in actual fact height in Europe declined between Roman times and the 17th century mainly because people started moving to cities where the living conditions were so appalling. Since then height has increased again as fewer people starve in childhood. But our genetic make up is the same.

Also sports such as basketball and HW boxing accentuate this effect as they draw in people on the extremity of the height range. Because there are many more people in the world today there are also many more very tall people (like the Kilts) around.

[polecateddy]

...so if that's right, why are people taller and heavier than 60 years ago. Isn't that evolution of a type?

No, if people below a certain height we're less likely to survive into adulthood and reproduce then that would be evolution.

The reason people are on average taller now than they were 50 or 100 years ago is down to greater availability of food in childhood and improved public health.

People often assume the human race has gotten continuously taller but in actual fact height in Europe declined between Roman times and the 17th century mainly because people started moving to cities where the living conditions were so appalling. Since then height has increased again as fewer people starve in childhood. But our genetic make up is the same.

Also sports such as basketball and HW boxing accentuate this effect as they draw in people on the extremity of the height range. Because there are many more people in the world today there are also many more very tall people (like the Kilts) around.

Yeah, but in the context of boxing there is no getting around saying that boxers today are bigger, faster, stronger and fitter. Please no more but they did 20 or 15 rounds. 12 rounds at a higher pace is more demanding full-stop!

[JC]

...so if that's right, why are people taller and heavier than 60 years ago. Isn't that evolution of a type?

No, if people below a certain height we're less likely to survive into adulthood and reproduce then that would be evolution.

The reason people are on average taller now than they were 50 or 100 years ago is down to greater availability of food in childhood and improved public health.

People often assume the human race has gotten continuously taller but in actual fact height in Europe declined between Roman times and the 17th century mainly because people started moving to cities where the living conditions were so appalling. Since then height has increased again as fewer people starve in childhood. But our genetic make up is the same.

Also sports such as basketball and HW boxing accentuate this effect as they draw in people on the extremity of the height range. Because there are many more people in the world today there are also many more very tall people (like the Kilts) around.

Yeah, but in the context of boxing there is no getting around saying that boxers today are bigger, faster, stronger and fitter. Please no more but they did 20 or 15 rounds. 12 rounds at a higher pace is more demanding full-stop!

Yeah I was just commenting on the 'evolution' issue which often causes confusion in these discussions.

As for the old/new era debate, I don't really take a side in that one I think it's usually best to avoid comparing eras as much as possible. On the one hand I certainly agree there have been huge leaps in strength training and nutrition on the other hand people are way too quick to compare boxing to sports like sprinting or swimming when what makes a successful boxer is a lot more complex than what makes a faster sprinter.

As for 'Faster, stronger and fitter' could well be, 'bigger' is an interesting one as you have to factor in the 24hr weigh-in. People will often compare the LW Shane Mosely with the LW Duran and say, 'look how much bigger and stronger Mosely looks'. But in reality Mosely could never have done 135 with same day weigh-ins. It's not really like for like

[polecateddy]

No, if people below a certain height we're less likely to survive into adulthood and reproduce then that would be evolution.

The reason people are on average taller now than they were 50 or 100 years ago is down to greater availability of food in childhood and improved public health.

People often assume the human race has gotten continuously taller but in actual fact height in Europe declined between Roman times and the 17th century mainly because people started moving to cities where the living conditions were so appalling. Since then height has increased again as fewer people starve in childhood. But our genetic make up is the same.

Also sports such as basketball and HW boxing accentuate this effect as they draw in people on the extremity of the height range. Because there are many more people in the world today there are also many more very tall people (like the Kilts) around.[/quote]

Yeah, but in the context of boxing there is no getting around saying that boxers today are bigger, faster, stronger and fitter. Please no more but they did 20 or 15 rounds. 12 rounds at a higher pace is more demanding full-stop![/quote]

Yeah I was just commenting on the 'evolution' issue which often causes confusion in these discussions.

As for the old/new era debate, I don't really take a side in that one I think it's usually best to avoid comparing eras as much as possible. On the one hand I certainly agree there have been huge leaps in strength training and nutrition on the other hand people are way too quick to compare boxing to sports like sprinting or swimming when what makes a successful boxer is a lot more complex than what makes a faster sprinter.

As for 'Faster, stronger and fitter' could well be, 'bigger' is an interesting one as you have to factor in the 24hr weigh-in. People will often compare the LW Shane Mosely with the LW Duran and say, 'look how much bigger and stronger Mosely looks'. But in reality Mosely could never have done 135 with same day weigh-ins. It's not really like for like[/quote]

Yeah there's too many stubborn people out there who want to believe Jack Dempsey would have caned Evander Holyfield, or whatever. And going off on further tangents, plenty of sports are as technical as boxing. I mean who would suggest tennis players of 70 years ago would survive in the pros today. Clearly they would have no chance. Yet people cling to that belief that pre-world war 2 boxers could have done well today. :)