BoxRec

Posted: **01 Feb 2005, 02:28**

Jones has showed that he has difficulty against guys who apply pressure in a skillful manner
sure he took apart bums who tried to rush him, but take a look at Griffin, Tarver, Johnson etc...and even sparring footage that dates back as far as amateur days

this fact makes it no coincidence that he did not fight Michalczewski or Jirov

Posted: **01 Feb 2005, 10:40**

Coclusion: Jones is not in the top all time 30

:P :P :P

Posted: **01 Feb 2005, 14:55**

But the CONCLUSION of your original question is a resounding YES, he most definitely makes the list of any knowledgeable boxing fan

Posted: **01 Feb 2005, 17:54**

Roll With The Punches wrote:Jones has showed that he has difficulty against guys who apply pressure in a skillful manner
sure he took apart bums who tried to rush him, but take a look at Griffin, Tarver, Johnson etc...and even sparring footage that dates back as far as amateur days

this fact makes it no coincidence that he did not fight Michalczewski or Jirov

I would call the kind of pressure that Jirov and Michalzewski apply ANYTHING but skillful. Those guys had ZERO defence and relied on toughness. Skillful pressure is Roberto Duran, not Dariusz and Jirov.

Posted: **02 Feb 2005, 14:19**

Two more fighters that were better than Jones: Freddie Miller and Gene Tunney

Posted: **02 Feb 2005, 15:05**

Lefthookhappy19 wrote:
Its proves Del Valle can punch. You just dismissed him earlier. Also note that Del Valle had sparred with Jones a bit and may have known him better than most.

Just because a fighter has a decent punch does not make him a good fighter,which is the reason why i dissmissed him.

Anything can happen in boxing. You could say the same about any fight anywhere. Toney was pretty lucky against Nunn. Nunn got careless and wanted to prove a point because of Toneys trashtalk.

Ruiz hardly even tried to clinch nearly as much as usual. He got stung and didn't really want to risk getting drilled again. Again, Ruiz has many willing opponents in the heavyweight division when it comes to clinching. Roy wasn't at all willing. It was broke up a lot because a 240lb man leaning on a 200lb one looks out of place and far more noticable than usual. Its illegal anyway so it just doesn't matter. So iyo Roy wanted a ref that would enforce the rules of boxing? O no that shouldn't be allowed

Roys power is just not in doubt. Maybe at lightheavy but not below. Not at all. He has multiple one punch KO's and threw those hands like rocks. Ever seen the Serwano KO? I like Julian Jackson very much but Roys in a different class in every way but power. Roy just didn't get hit all that often and Julian could be quite crude. I'd fancy Roy to get him out of their in the early to mid rounds.

I interpret the Del Valle knockdown different. It look part punch part slip to me. Like Roy saw it at the last second and slipped getting out of the way and caught a bit of it as well. The logo's on the ring are known to be slippy. The look on his face was like "Yeah, you got me" His eyes where TOTALLY clear and he gave the punch some respect and casually held on for a while. It was a new experience for him and it may have given Del Valle a big boost so he played it safe. If he was groggy then maybe questions but he was totally clear headed. Focusing on 1 knockdown in the mans prime is clutching at straws. Who else gets judged by these kind of standards?

Roy just all wrong for Dariusz. They are at different ends of the scale in terms of speed of everything. You saw the way Roy dealt with Hall in comparison. Roy played with him. Dariusz would be getting peppered. Not really a slight on Dariusz, its just the way it is.

On the last point. What about Tarver 1? That was guts against a very determined hungry opponent. Roy had all time great talent and ability, just not the opposition to prove it. Does Roy get penalized for dominating guys and not needing to dig deep like some lesser fighters? He dominated guys from bell to bell on most occasions. Easily top 30 all time p4p. Give the man his due.

I wont respond to every paragragh in your post for i am not interested in a debate that could carry on for days with no end in sight.I wont change my opinion of Jones and neither will you or the other two who have taken up his cause.But do tell me who are those other great fighters that Jones beat who can be considered HOFers and who were in their prime that would qualify labelling Jones as an all time great??Besides a weight drained Toney and a Hopkins who still hadnt hit his prime yet who did Jones beat that could be considered a great fighter in their prime at the time??

It seems to me that the Jones fans rank him highly historically because they assume that he would have dominated other HOFers in different eras like he dominated this poor era he fought in.Well,simply put to me thats not good enough,and no one will ever convince me otherwise.He did have the talent and ability to be competitive in any era that i do believe,but looking at his overall career accomplishments i dont see how anyone can rank him in the top 30 fighters of all time.

Posted: **02 Feb 2005, 15:33**

Senya13 wrote:
Senya13,i remember you as being a die hard Jones fan on another thread and i commend your unwavering support for your favourite fighter.And like i said to lefthookhappy i am not interested in repeating myself over the course of several days to people who obviously will never agree with me and i never agree with them.But i do have to address one paragraph of your post,here goes:

In this particular fight Jones "woke up" on several occasions, making Johnson look like a schoolboy who doesn't know how to defend himself.
I guess we werent watching the same fight then,yes Jones fought back once or twice most notably when he was stunned in that 5th round and he fired back when against the ropes.But Jones clearly wasnt interested in going for broke and trying to get Glen out of there,and thats because he respected Glens power and was wary of opening himself up too much so as to avoid getting clocked and stopped.

Or how to use that bully style vs a fighter who can and is ready to hurt you back
Unless Jones planned on laying againt the ropes from the opening bell then i have to disagree.Glen jumped on Roy from the getgo and Roy never really recovered from the shock of realizing he was gonna be in a dogfight that night.And when he realized he couldnt move out of the way of trouble since Glen kept bullying him to the ropes he resigned himself to only try and survive the distance,thats the distinct impression i got from watching the fight and Jones face during clinches

I remember at least two times when Jones retreated to the ropes (even to the corner, on far right from the camera), but showed with his stance or something that he was going to defend himself and fight, and Johnson froze at these times too, not wanting to go forward and get under fire.

Once again i disagree and i guess we saw a different fight.The few times Jones did get set to throw some leather Glen bullied him into the ropes and prevented Jones from actually pulling the trigger.The only time in the fight were i saw Jones actually fighting back with purpose was in that 5th round when he got stunned by that overhand right when against the ropes.He let his hands go and his handspeed was apparent when he did so which is one of the reasons i disagree with people saying he is totally shot as a fighter.I dont think he is shot physically,but he is shot mentally now that he knows he wont be able to dance out of trouble anymore and that his opponents are gonna try and knock his head off from the opening bell.

And that is one reason why in my book at least he doesnt qualify for all time great status,the way he resigned himself to defeat in the Johnson fight without even making a genuine attempt to win the fight shows me he never really had the mindset of a true all time great fighter.And that look of helplessness he had on his mug at times during the fight just confirmed my belief in my opinion.Honestly i have never seen another fight were a fighter had such a look of "please get me out of this ring,i dont wanna be here!!" look on his face as Jones did in that fight.Jones makes the the top ten in my book of fighters in terms of natural talent,blazing handspeed and reflexes and great foot work.But in terms of career accomplishments showing heart in the face of adversity,coming back from the brink of defeat to pull out a win and defeating many fellow HOF fighters also in their or close to their prime to me he doesnt find a spot anywhere near the top 30 of all time,let alone top 100 IMO.

Posted: **02 Feb 2005, 15:53**

The Raging B(_)LL wrote: ...beating guys who do nothing but stand in front of you and who dont push you to excel does not make you a GREAT fighter.It showcases your ability and talent,but it doesnt in any way,shape or form show greatness to me,no way.

Posted: **02 Feb 2005, 19:06**

The Raging B(_)LL wrote:
Lefthookhappy19 wrote:
Its proves Del Valle can punch. You just dismissed him earlier. Also note that Del Valle had sparred with Jones a bit and may have known him better than most.

Just because a fighter has a decent punch does not make him a good fighter,which is the reason why i dissmissed him.

Anything can happen in boxing. You could say the same about any fight anywhere. Toney was pretty lucky against Nunn. Nunn got careless and wanted to prove a point because of Toneys trashtalk.

Ruiz hardly even tried to clinch nearly as much as usual. He got stung and didn't really want to risk getting drilled again. Again, Ruiz has many willing opponents in the heavyweight division when it comes to clinching. Roy wasn't at all willing. It was broke up a lot because a 240lb man leaning on a 200lb one looks out of place and far more noticable than usual. Its illegal anyway so it just doesn't matter. So iyo Roy wanted a ref that would enforce the rules of boxing? O no that shouldn't be allowed

Roys power is just not in doubt. Maybe at lightheavy but not below. Not at all. He has multiple one punch KO's and threw those hands like rocks. Ever seen the Serwano KO? I like Julian Jackson very much but Roys in a different class in every way but power. Roy just didn't get hit all that often and Julian could be quite crude. I'd fancy Roy to get him out of their in the early to mid rounds.

I interpret the Del Valle knockdown different. It look part punch part slip to me. Like Roy saw it at the last second and slipped getting out of the way and caught a bit of it as well. The logo's on the ring are known to be slippy. The look on his face was like "Yeah, you got me" His eyes where TOTALLY clear and he gave the punch some respect and casually held on for a while. It was a new experience for him and it may have given Del Valle a big boost so he played it safe. If he was groggy then maybe questions but he was totally clear headed. Focusing on 1 knockdown in the mans prime is clutching at straws. Who else gets judged by these kind of standards?

Roy just all wrong for Dariusz. They are at different ends of the scale in terms of speed of everything. You saw the way Roy dealt with Hall in comparison. Roy played with him. Dariusz would be getting peppered. Not really a slight on Dariusz, its just the way it is.

On the last point. What about Tarver 1? That was guts against a very determined hungry opponent. Roy had all time great talent and ability, just not the opposition to prove it. Does Roy get penalized for dominating guys and not needing to dig deep like some lesser fighters? He dominated guys from bell to bell on most occasions. Easily top 30 all time p4p. Give the man his due.
I wont respond to every paragragh in your post for i am not interested in a debate that could carry on for days with no end in sight.I wont change my opinion of Jones and neither will you or the other two who have taken up his cause.But do tell me who are those other great fighters that Jones beat who can be considered HOFers and who were in their prime that would qualify labelling Jones as an all time great??Besides a weight drained Toney and a Hopkins who still hadnt hit his prime yet who did Jones beat that could be considered a great fighter in their prime at the time??

It seems to me that the Jones fans rank him highly historically because they assume that he would have dominated other HOFers in different eras like he dominated this poor era he fought in.Well,simply put to me thats not good enough,and no one will ever convince me otherwise.He did have the talent and ability to be competitive in any era that i do believe,but looking at his overall career accomplishments i dont see how anyone can rank him in the top 30 fighters of all time.

Other than the guys he did beat their was no other great fighters around at the time he fought at for him to beat. What he did do was dominate from bell to bell a string of pretty good fighters, not bums. He rarely lost a round in these fights. For what? Ten years, thats a pretty impressive reign. As ive said before, who do people want him to fight that would have provided a serious threat? He can only beat the guys put in front of him. Jones is a tough one in ranking all time, but imo he is at least top 30 all time P4P.

Their is no evidence whatsoever that Hopkins was pre-prime when Jones beat him. He hasn't lost since as you know. Also, Roy Jones himself it can be argued was pre prime. Roys 1st big title fight and real test. He had knocked out all but 1 opponent when he fought Hopkins so he was used to getting guys out early. Hopkins won 3 rounds at the most in this fight imo. Its James Toneys fault if he gets to fat and can't get in shape for a big fight. He's done this throughout his career. Jones style is just all wrong for him anyway. Any version of Toney would get dominated by Jones imo.

Posted: **02 Feb 2005, 19:36**

Lefthookhappy19 wrote:
Other than the guys he did beat their was no other great fighters around at the time he fought at for him to beat. What he did do was dominate from bell to bell a string of pretty good fighters, not bums. He rarely lost a round in these fights. For what? Ten years, thats a pretty impressive reign. As ive said before, who do people want him to fight that would have provided a serious threat? He can only beat the guys put in front of him. Jones is a tough one in ranking all time, but imo he is at least top 30 all time P4P.
Your point is well taken but in my personal opinion the fact that he had competition that couldnt push him for almost his entire career will always hurt his standing from a historical perspective.He beat some decent to good fighters in his career but he never beat a fellow HOF in his prime which,like i said,will always hurt his standing among all time greats.And fighting and defeating the likes of DM,Liles,Jackson (that fight could have been made at the time,before Julian met up with Gman) and a rematch with Hopkins at the very least would have all greatly helped his case for a better all time ranking.At least like that he could have said at the end of his career he defeated every big name fighter he possibly could in his day,but he never did this and never had any intention of doing so.

Their is no evidence whatsoever that Hopkins was pre-prime when Jones beat him.

Are you kidding me??One but has to look at Hopkins resume before his fight with Jones to see he clearly hadnt hit his prime yet and was still learning and perfecting his style.It was after the Mercado rematch that he really started to hit his stride,this is blatantly apparent by watching film of him post Jones.

He hasn't lost since as you know. Also, Roy Jones himself it can be argued was pre prime.

You may be right,which makes the fact that they didnt have a rematch when they were both in their respective primes years later that much more disapointing.The sad part is that the rematch was all but a done deal until Jones wanted Hopkins to move up to his weight when the original deal called for a catch weight of 168 i believe it was.Now Hopkins could have just said fornicate it and gone for the fight anyway,but why would Jones not say anything until the 11th hour and then suddenly demand that Hopkins gain all the weight to move up to meet him??Makes one wonder why the sudden change of heart on Roys part,methinks he thought it wasnt worth going through with the rematch to preserve that aura of invincibility he so cherished about himself.Keep in mind thats just my take on it,no need to go nuts in case you really disagree with that last sentence of mine.

Roys 1st big title fight and real test. He had knocked out all but 1 opponent when he fought Hopkins so he was used to getting guys out early. Hopkins won 3 rounds at the most in this fight imo.
True,but Jones did not dominate Hopkins during their fight.He clearly outpointed him over the distance,but not in dominating fashion,so therefore a rematch was very warranted and the demand was there for it to be made.But in typical Jones fashion he scuttled the fight with his demands,and so the fight never happened as a result.Ray Robinson was a tremendously popular and excellent fighter in his time,and he was also notoriously greedy at the negotiating table,yet he still managed to get in the ring versus the best fighters of his time and often on more then one occasion.Why couldnt Roy do the same??Answer is because unlike Robinson Jones never cared about his legacy and he even admitted as much.He even went as far as to say why should he get in the ring versus opponents that could give him more troubles then its worth financially,and some of you consider this kind of attitude championship material??Im sorry but i can never agree with that school of thought concerning Jones,i simply cannot.

Its James Toneys fault if he gets to fat and can't get in shape for a big fight. He's done this throughout his career. Jones style is just all wrong for him anyway. Any version of Toney would get dominated by Jones imo.

You know what,i actually agree with you here,even about how Jones style would always give Toney nightmares in the ring.

Posted: **02 Feb 2005, 23:25**

Ive heard different stories about the Hopkins rematch. Stuff about money and the weight. Who the hell knows whose telling the truth? Look at it like this. Hopkins defeats Trinidad, just below him are Oscar, Mosley and Vargas. Now if im Bernard Hopkins do I really want too after the biggest win of my career move up and take on a guy who dominated me years earlier? A guy who (at the time) looks as invincible as ever and beating up bigger guys. Or do I stay at middle and bide my time constantly calling out the smaller big money guys hoping one will eventually move up? In the meantime setting records with title defences. Bernard is a business man, Roy Jones would have been bad business. He had a lot to lose, especially at his age. No second chances. Also if I remember correctly for a long time it was Bernard who was being heavily critisised for making various big fights fall through and not capitalising on the Trinidad win.

You point about his legacy still doesn't stand because their was no-one really around for him to fight. Unless he opted for suicide and moved up and took on a Klitchko. Robinson fought in a golden age with many choices.

Also, do you really see the older Hopkins providing a serious challenge had they fought at supermiddle? Roy had been beating up bigger guys for a while and Hopkins doesn't look that special at the best of times. Check out Hopkins/Trinidad. Hopkins looked great but Roy would have murdered Tito had he been in with him. It wouldn't have lasted. Roy would have outpointed him again imo. Roy would really start digging the body this time which he didn't do in their 1st fight.

Posted: **03 Feb 2005, 02:07**

It's of course well-known, that I'm a big fan of Jones. Although I can criticize him for many things (including the money thing and the motivation), but I think that there are too many critics already and too few people who "defend" him by providing real argumentation. So I'm trying my best to do just that. And I try to stay away from argueing his place in the list of all-time greats. I don't know where he stands. I only know that he's the most talented fighter in history I've seen, that including Robinson, Leonard, Clay, Whitaker.

I can watch the fight again and point out the rounds and timing when I saw Jones "wake up" and show the willingness to hurt Johnson if he dares to come nearer, while Roy was standing near the ropes, and where Johnson froze and hesitated on going forward. The same way Tarver did in I think 11th or 12th round (again I can look and point out round/time if necessary).
Also, one more thing about this Johnson fight, you have to look at Jones when he's in his corner and listen to what they speaking about. I certainly didn't see him shocked or being unprepared for a "dogfight". Not even after 1st round (the only round when Johnson was super-active, but this again was nothing new that Jones didn't face in several of his previous fights, there his opponents started as active). The problem was, as in many fights of ageing or not-properly-prepared all-time greats I've seen, he was too reluctant to do anything himself, to break the course of the fight. I knew that he could and what exactly he could do, but alas I waited in vain, as he never started doing what he usually did vs this type of opponents. It was like he confused who he was fighting, he chose the "posing" style he used vs counter-punching opponents instead of style he used vs sluggers (withstand the initial onslaught, go to the body to make them retreat, then go to the head and beat the aggressiveness out of their heads). And Merkerson was also unwilling or unable to make him adjust and change through the course of the fight, something he was obliged to do, that was another disappointment.

Posted: **03 Feb 2005, 18:49**

To say rj hasnt fought any good competition is just sick....he beat bernard hopkins soundly with one good hand, he basically made his fight with james toney look like a mismatch, and then theres all the other fighters such as virgil hill, john ruiz, etc. He made these guys look mediocre. And remember, he was a middleweight who won the heavyweight crown against a heavyweight, whether u like him or not, has beaten the best the division currently has to offer (i know im gonna catch flack for that last comment, but bare with me).

Posted: **04 Feb 2005, 00:20**

gubber_singh wrote:To say rj hasnt fought any good competition is just sick....he beat bernard hopkins soundly with one good hand, he basically made his fight with james toney look like a mismatch, and then theres all the other fighters such as virgil hill, john ruiz, etc. He made these guys look mediocre. And remember, he was a middleweight who won the heavyweight crown against a heavyweight, whether u like him or not, has beaten the best the division currently has to offer (i know im gonna catch flack for that last comment, but bare with me).

He didnt win the HW championship. He won a paper title. Back in Ezzard Charles´s day you didnt have bogues ABC champions, and Charles still beat a handful of HWs who wouldve taken Ruiz to school and back again. There have been MANY great fighters through the past 100 years. To rank someone top10 PFP based on wins against Hopkins and a drained Toney is preposterous.

Top 30 . . I could live with that. But he´d be 25-30 . . .not any higher.

Posted: **04 Feb 2005, 10:27**

I can’t believe so many people who I know are knowledgeable are letting their dislike of Roy Jones cloud their view of this undoubtedly talented boxer.

Posted: **04 Feb 2005, 11:37**

tonyevs wrote:I can’t believe so many people who I know are knowledgeable are letting their dislike of Roy Jones cloud their view of this undoubtedly talented boxer.

What does a fighters talent have to do with his all time ranking among other great HOF fighters who although not as naturally gifted as Jones talentwise they made up for it by perfecting their craft and by consistently seeking out and fighting the best of their eras??My not ranking Jones in the top 30 all time great fighters has nothing to do with his attitude or ego,it is solely based on his body of work which to me simply doesnt cut it to give him such a high spot.He was a great fighter although i still doubt and always will wether or not he ever had the mental fortitude and true grit when the going tough of a real all time great,however his talent was undeniable.

But just like Hopkins who i also consider to be a very good fighter in his own right his legacy will also suffer since he dominated arguably the weakest bunch middleweights in the past 100 years.I have no doubt he could have competed and held his own in another era when great middleweights were plentyful like say in the 40s or 60s.But no one can convince that he would have dominated like he has done in todays piss poor division and went on to defend the undisputed middleweight crown 19 times.Just like no one can convince me that Jones would have been as dominant in another more competitive era of lightheavys like say in the 70s or 80s,he would have held his own but he would not have dominated like he has in todays weak era.

Let me put it this way,Jones greatness as a fighter cannot be argued,but his greatness careerwise and in quality of opposition simply doesnt make the grade to qualify for all time greatness,especially not among the top 30 of all time fighters.

Posted: **04 Feb 2005, 12:18**

That explains your view very well.
I agree with your view of Bernard Hopkins totally.

I just see Roy Jones in a different light to you.
I personally see him being able to compete with just about any fighter from middle to supermiddle. His style would pose problems for any of the greats.

Posted: **04 Feb 2005, 13:40**

tonyevs wrote:
That explains your view very well.
I agree with your view of Bernard Hopkins totally.

I just see Roy Jones in a different light to you.
No harm there man,its all good.

I personally see him being able to compete with just about any fighter from middle to supermiddle. His style would pose problems for any of the greats.

I can agree with that statement,he did have the talent to be competitive in any era,same as Hopkins and Toney for that matter.

Posted: **07 Feb 2005, 19:08**

dempseyfire wrote:
gubber_singh wrote:To say rj hasnt fought any good competition is just sick....he beat bernard hopkins soundly with one good hand, he basically made his fight with james toney look like a mismatch, and then theres all the other fighters such as virgil hill, john ruiz, etc. He made these guys look mediocre. And remember, he was a middleweight who won the heavyweight crown against a heavyweight, whether u like him or not, has beaten the best the division currently has to offer (i know im gonna catch flack for that last comment, but bare with me).
He didnt win the HW championship. He won a paper title. Back in Ezzard Charles´s day you didnt have bogues ABC champions, and Charles still beat a handful of HWs who wouldve taken Ruiz to school and back again. There have been MANY great fighters through the past 100 years. To rank someone top10 PFP based on wins against Hopkins and a drained Toney is preposterous.

Top 30 . . I could live with that. But he´d be 25-30 . . .not any higher.

as far as paper title, who is to say which belt is the true crown....in my opinion, byrd and ruiz have fought higher levels of opposition then vitali in the past 2 years or so.....whether or not ruiz is the recognized champ, he's handed many HW defeats, and hasnt lost since the RJ whooping....also, yes ezzard charles did beat many heavyweights, but the majority of the time he was right up on the scale along with his opponent...RJ was outweighted by 30 pounds.....and yes, u can say, well ruiz isnt talented, anyone could have done that, bull....RJ deserves more credit than deserved, and if he retired after the ruiz fight, we wouldnt be having this conversation of whether hes in the top 30.....

P.S. How could anyone have roy out of the top 30 but have duran, JCC, or a leonard in teh mix of things??

Posted: **09 Feb 2005, 03:35**

Roy Jones was an exceptional talent, probably in the top 30 by that criteria. But the only real way to rate a fighters greatness is by achievement and level of opposition, and by that criteria I couldn't comfortably place him among the top 50 even. In fact, I'd hesitate to put him amongst the top 5 light heavies.

Roy was a very good fighter at his best, but how can one compare the opposition on his record to guys like Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore? Those old-timers were in a league of their own, constantly fighting the very best opposition available, often several times over.

The best fighters Roy beat were Toney, a raw Hopkins and a disputed decision over Antonio Tarver. Is Tarver even a top 100 fighter? Not imo. As for his stint at heavyweight, John Ruiz will never be remembered as a great fighter. Jones has got to more than beat those guys to convince me is in the same league as Charles, Moore, Armstrong, Robinson, Ali, Louis, Benny Leonard, Pep, Saddler, Holyfield... my list goes on well past 30 before I get around to mentioning Roy Jones Jr.

Alister

Posted: **09 Feb 2005, 14:23**

This has been a great topic so far...In my opinion, Jones was a great fighter that had unbeliavable SPEED AND POWER. Something very rare!!! But you just cannot be great by TALENT ALONE, ask Meldrick Taylor, Howard Davis, and Donald Curry too name a few that had extraordinary talent. And my criterias to be an alltime great fighter are these:

1. QUALITY OF OPPOSITION: After his great win vs James Toney, I thought that Jones was going to UPGRADE HIS OPOSITION SOME MORE..WHAT HAPPENED??? I don't know. He had in his time AT LEAST, I MEAN AT LEAST, 8 GOOD QUALITY FIGHTERS TO FACE and build his legacy at 168 and at lightheavyweight: Nigel Benn, Chris Eubanks, Michael Nunn, Gerald McClellan, Steve Collins, Julian Jackson, Steve Littles, Frankie Liles at 168 and Dariuz Machilweski at 175...Look at this great opposition folks!!! If he at least would have fought 5 of them, specially the first 4 mentioned plus the German, and beat 3 out of 2 at least, HIS PLACE IN THE TOP 30 MAYBE WOULD HAVE BEEN SECURE DEPENDING OF THE OUTCOMES. But Did Jones want to fight these guys??? I think not. He chose to go to lightheavy, were he saw that there was NOBODY THERE, BUT HE DID NOT WANT A FIGHT WITH DARIUZ MACHILWESKI. Then he jumped to heavyweight to "make History", but almost evryone in here knows that it was a buch of hogwash and BALONEY...JOHN RUIZ??? PLEASE!!! If a fight with Lennox Lewis would have been made, I WOULD NOT HAD ASK ABOUT JONES' HEART...Don't you guys think a fight with Lewis at the time would have paid him at least $50 million??? It would have been one of the most important and most anticipated matches in history of boxing without question. The #1 pound per pound king vs the baddest heavyweight on the planet...David vs Goliath...Speed vs Power...England vs USA... and all the hype!!!
would have Jones won the fight, don't you think guys right now he would have put in a lot of people's minds an argument as THE GREATEST FIGHTER OF ALL TIME??? And if he would have lost and gave a great show, ain't at least be a top 10 or 15 all time great??? Did Jones wanted it??? I THINK NOT!!! He always lokked for the EASIEST WAY OUT: JOHN RUIZ. And to put Jones with the same class of Emile Griffith, Evander Holyfield, Freddie Miller, Tony Canzoneri, Archie Moore, Alexis Arguello, Stanley Ketchel, Marvin Hagler and Duran, Robinson, Ali and Armstrong too name a bunch, IS A TRAVESTY

2. HISTORICAL IMPACT: What has he done??? Oh, beat John Ruiz??? That is not convincing enough. He beat the worst HEAVYWEIGHT THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE. The victories of Bob Fitzsimmons vs James J. Corbett and Michael Spinks vs Larry Holmes TO ME, WERE MORE SATISFYING. And Jones is not the ONLY middleweight in history to beat heavyweights. There's been greats like Mickey Walker, Harry Greb, Sam Langford, Charley Burley, Ezzard Charles, Stanley Ketchel and others that beat and fought heavys very often. Jones did not had that fight to talk about like Zale-Graziano I, Hagler-Hearns, Moore-Durelle I, Marciano-Walcott I or Ali-Frazier I and Louis-Schmelling II or other fights that people can remember

3. DOMINANCE IN DIVISION: Let's give him credit for dominating the 175 pound division. But he did not dominated COMPLETELY if you ask me. There was a man waiting for him: Dariuz Machilweski. Well, at least he had dominion there.

b]4. CONTRIBUTIONS AND INFLUENCE:[/b] What are his contributions??? At least Dempsey, Moore, Duran, Ray Leonard, Greb, Frazier, Ali, Robinson, Tyson and even Oscar DeLaHoya had contributions to the sport...I want to know Jones' contributions right now, please!!!

5. WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP RECORD: At least we can say is excellent in this departemt. He fought in 26 world title bouts (mostly nobodies) , winning 23 and losing 3. The last 2 by devastating KOs... But I give him credit for having a great title fight record.

6. LONGEVITY: His longevity has been great, thanks for the choosing and picking of foes. But I got give him CREDIT FOR FIGHTING FOR 16 YEARS AS A PRO AND STILL COUNTIG...HE IS NOT RETIRED.

7. AWARDS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Here in this section, HE DID MAGNIFICALLY, VERY WELL...NO QUESTION ABOUT HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS. Jones won 4 world titles and was Undisputed World Lightheavyweight Champion making 11 defenses of the crown. It was a WEAK DIVISION THOUGH, BUT HE DOMINATED. He was The Ring Fighter of the Year in 1994 and fought in 26 world title fights. He even was the best for almost 10 years pound per pound. Lost only once in 47 fights before losing to Antonio Tarver. A total of 15 years without really losing a fight or being stopped.

b]8. OVERALL PRO RECORD:[/b] Is a good one, 49-3, with 38 KOs (.938 pct )...BETTER RECORD THAN MANY IN THE LIST OF TOP 30 GREATS, BUT HIS BODY OF WORK IN QUALITY OF OPPSOSITION, SPECIALLY, IS QUESTIONABLE.

9. WORLD RECORDS: Does he has any world records under his belt like Archie Moore's 141 KOs or Wilfred Benitez' youngest champion in history at 17, or Julio Cesar Chavez' 87 fight win streak??? I THINK NOT.

10. UNBEATEN STREAKS: There are plenty in the top 30 that had more victories in a row than Jones. example: Carlos Monzon, Ray Robinson, Willie Pep, Roberto Duran, Julio Cesar Chavez, Henry Armstrong and Eder Jofre were fighting better opposition... Jones longest streak stopped at 34.

Jones has been great...How great??? Not in the top 30 all time...top 40??? maybe...top 50??? definetly a yes!!!

Posted: **09 Feb 2005, 14:38**

jones is my favorite fighter to begin with... reason i like him, and this might sound wierd is hes not really a good boxer. he breaks every rule in boxing first of all, he has no technique,and a lack of consentration.... i believe that floyd mayweather sr said "roy is a tremendous athelete with no skills"... he gives me the same impression i get from bret hull (hockey)
bret never liked playing hockey, but he was good at it... thats the vibe i get from jones SOMETIMES.... he talks shit cause he can, ever try and box someone u cant catch?... well he was like that, but would also land powerful and fast punches as he dissapeared.... roy clearly beat toney and b-hop... also at the end of (cant remember who he faught) one of his fights he was talking about a rematch with hopkins and its hopkins who didnt want cause of a split 60/40 or something like that....

all in all boxers who fight like jones (style) usually get no where... except for a hand full who u can say had or have the same technique...its a gift he had, not a talent...IMO.

i only wish to see jones come back and win again, beat a few fighters, and make people realize he is that good, and its not his opponents that were that bad....but all in all, jones has alot of heart for boxing, but he doesnt need to hurt himself permanitely... stay with HBO.

Posted: **09 Feb 2005, 15:23**

Alister wrote:Roy Jones was an exceptional talent, probably in the top 30 by that criteria. But the only real way to rate a fighters greatness is by achievement and level of opposition, and by that criteria I couldn't comfortably place him among the top 50 even. In fact, I'd hesitate to put him amongst the top 5 light heavies.

Roy was a very good fighter at his best, but how can one compare the opposition on his record to guys like Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore? Those old-timers were in a league of their own, constantly fighting the very best opposition available, often several times over.

The best fighters Roy beat were Toney, a raw Hopkins and a disputed decision over Antonio Tarver. Is Tarver even a top 100 fighter? Not imo. As for his stint at heavyweight, John Ruiz will never be remembered as a great fighter. Jones has got to more than beat those guys to convince me is in the same league as Charles, Moore, Armstrong, Robinson, Ali, Louis, Benny Leonard, Pep, Saddler, Holyfield... my list goes on well past 30 before I get around to mentioning Roy Jones Jr.

Alister

Reggie Johnson, Virgil Hill and even Richard Hall are all better than Tarver imo. Give some credit for these wins. More than 10 years of total dominance cannot go unrecognised.

Posted: **10 Feb 2005, 07:01**

Lefthookhappy19 wrote: [Reggie Johnson, Virgil Hill and even Richard Hall are all better than Tarver imo. Give some credit for these wins. More than 10 years of total dominance cannot go unrecognised.

I agree with you to a certain point here. Johnson was a solid fighter at 160 lbs, but only fought a handful of times at 175, losing his biggest fights there (Willam Guthrie was never a top fighter).
Virgil Hill I admit I overlooked, he was still a good fighter in '98, although past his peak.
Disagree with you about Richard Hall. Who did he ever beat? Hall was imo not amongst Jones' best opponents. Tough as nails, yes, but nowhere in the league of the aforementioned fighters.

Alister

BoxRec

Roy Jones, Jr., Is he in the top 30 All-Time???