BoxRec

People tend to forget how talented Roy Jones was in the 90's. No I don't think it was the best crop of Light Heavys, but not only did he beat that crop, he thoroughly embarrassed everybody he faced. The Tarver and Johnson fights are too fresh in somes memories.

Ya'll Musta Forgot!

Roy has the personality of a jackass but the man had skills.

Ambling Alp wrote: Michalczewski TKO10 and TKO11 against Hall. Jones TKO 11 Hall.

DM was twice on the edge of losing, while RJJ toyed with a totally overmatched Hall.

Michalczewski TKO4 vs Griffin. Jones Lost by DQ against Griffin and won by KO1.

DM lost the first 3 rounds. And there is little doubt that RJJ would have also won the first fight without the DQ.

Michalczewski won decsion against Hill and Jones KO4 against Hill.

DM took a close decision (in his finest performance ever), while Jones took Hill out with one shot.

Michalczewski KO9 vs Harmon and Jones TKO11 against Harmon.

.... except that DM-Harmon was at best even at the time of the stoppage, while Jones won every single round.

This is pretty comparable.

On paper perhaps, but not if you see the fights.

Of course this doesn't tell the whole and I agree that for the most part Jones looked better on film. However, it's pretty obvious that Michalczewski was easily the second best lightheavyweight for several years and Jones should have fought him.

OK, but the fault is pretty evenly distributed here. DM had not interest in fighting RJJ either.

There are many, many other lightheavyweights in history who would beaten the guys that Jones beat.

Dunno -- for me Virgil Hill is a top 20-30 ATG light-heavyweight. Hence there are not too many guys who would have beaten him. All time Hill does not rate below DM.

P

Who else has Calzaghe fought beside Lacy that was even considered to be a challenge for him? I know he fought Brewer, and thats it. I do believe he is the most overated fighter today. Roy Jones has a resume of wins against guys like B-Hop, James Toney and Mike Mcallum even though he was past his best, but still a huge win none the less.

for me roy just left too many questions for him to be to be considered for a place in the top echelon of atg fighters.
all that skipping through the weights proved nothing.
whilst jones was still fighting people like michalczewski, collins, ottke, calzaghe, eubank, benn and mcclelland were all active.
now i`m not saying it was jones fault these fights were never made nor am i saying these fighters would beat jones but they are of a good enough standard to leave question marks imo.
plus considering how jones has since been ko`d a couple of times fighters like benn and mcclelland might have got lucky.
roy jones was capable of and probably would have beaten all these fighters and that type of resume would have had him up there with robinson in my book.
but roy chose a different path.

headhunter wrote:for me roy just left too many questions for him to be to be considered for a place in the top echelon of atg fighters.
all that skipping through the weights proved nothing.
whilst jones was still fighting people like michalczewski, collins, ottke, calzaghe, eubank, benn and mcclelland were all active.

Would you rate any of these higher than Hopkins, Toney, Hill?

pundit wrote:

headhunter wrote:for me roy just left too many questions for him to be to be considered for a place in the top echelon of atg fighters.
all that skipping through the weights proved nothing.
whilst jones was still fighting people like michalczewski, collins, ottke, calzaghe, eubank, benn and mcclelland were all active.

Would you rate any of these higher than Hopkins, Toney, Hill?

well put it this way, i think the likes of mclelland and benn (not to mention `one shot` sven) had the power to beat jones.
calzaghe and eubank would give jones a good argument too. he certainly wouldnt have stopped either of them.
as i said there is enough of them and they are of sufficient standard to leave question marks about a fighter who claims to be one of the greatest of all time.
him faffing around at light heavy whilst these fighters were plying their trade around him damages his legacy in my eyes.

On this forum I'd say it's Rocky Marciano followed by Sonny Liston. Sure they were good fighters, but there abilities have been magnified to the point of ridiculousness by quite a few posters.

If we are talking about in the media, boxing fans, and boxing historians

Suger Ray Robinson..,,,hands down

He was a great fighter, but I would put middleweights Monzone, Hearns, Haggler, and Welterweights Naploes, SRL, and Duran (as a Welterweight) ahead of him.

His media endowed title as the best fighter pound for pound of all time, is totally ridiculous

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:

silkov wrote: If youre a 'great' champ then you should be able to fight anyone anywhere... if Calzaghe deserves to be criticized for being a 'homebody' then so should Jones be.... if he had nothing to fear from Michalczewski then he should have fought him anywhere to prove he was the better man, simple as that...

This is what I have always said. If Jones was really that great, then prove it by fighting the best. Beating the tomato cans that he beat at lightheavyweight doesn't put him in the class of the very best lightheavyweights.

Virgil Hill is a tomato can?

This is ridiculous.

Sorry, I didn't mean to say Hill as a tomato can. I didn't have him in mind when I was thinking of the string of mismatches that Jones had. Hill was a pretty good lightheavyweight in his prime. However, he far past it when Jones beat him.
By the way I'm not trying to say jones was the most overrated fighter ever either. Just wished he would have fought DM.

Ambling Alp wrote:Evander-Are you nominating Michael Spinks as the most overrated fighter of All-Time?
You could make a good case that he is the most underrated fighter of all time.

Of course I don't have the experience that you guy's have on this part of the board.

But I have been watching since the early 80's.
I know there are some absolute quality scribes around these parts who could put me in my place.

But it's just my take.

Spinks was a good fighter.

But in my opinion not great.

Great to me is.
Whitaker
Chavez
Leonard
Jones
Hagler
Hopkins

Those kind of boxers.

I mean without a doubt great fighters.

Spinks falls into the maybe's.

Just me I suppose.

silkov wrote:Yeah, theres still some that belive Mikey was the 'greatest'... another champion that has long been overrated beyond his achievements imo is Rocky Marcinao.... 8)

I'm surprised BrocktonBlockbuster hasn't said anything yet about this.

Decagon wrote:Spinks > Hopkins

What do you mean by that ?

I consider Michael Spinks somewhat overrated. His career was too short, his defense at LHW wasen't particularly good, though his chin was, and he got gift decisions against Eddie Davis and Larry Holmes in the second fight.

That sounds on the fence Seamus.

The second Spinks went up against a top notch Heavyweight in Tyson opposed to a veteran Holmes.

Well you saw it.

If Michael had gone 3,4 5 with Tyson I could understand the argument somewhat if even I didn't agree with it.

Tyson in 1.
No way..
Great fighters don't go out that way.
Not in my time anyways and not at that age.

But the fighters you mentioned either did or went on to greater things.

1. Jack Johnson
2.Jack Dempsey
3. Rocky Marciano
4.Mike McCallum
5.Roberto Duran
5(tie). Harry Wills


Although i believe all these fighters are indeed great, I still feel they are overrated to an extent, especially on these boards.

Larry Holmes - great jab, about 5 or 6 really decent opponents; the rest mediocre fighters in a weak division at that time.

I forgot to mention one John Mugabi his claim to fame really is giving a great fighter "Past His Prime" a great fight I still think he could of really of been something.. but overrated nonetheless

Decagon wrote:

Victor*KC wrote:I forgot to mention one John Mugabi his claim to fame really is giving a great fighter "Past His Prime" a great fight I still think he could of really of been something.. but overrated nonetheless

Mugabi's claim to fame was the way he fought before the Hagler fight.

Really? I always thought it was because the good showing he put against Hagler and because he wasn't that same fighter he once was and is rated on his fight with Hagler mostly.. im sure others rate him on what he did before But It's usually hagler that pops up when discussing Mugabi

Mugabi before Hagler was 25-0 w/ 25 KOs and considered one of the most feared men in boxing at the time, is what I think he was referring to. He was ranked #1 by all three governing bodies (a feat that NEVER happens today).

Evander wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Evander-Are you nominating Michael Spinks as the most overrated fighter of All-Time?
You could make a good case that he is the most underrated fighter of all time.

Of course I don't have the experience that you guy's have on this part of the board.

But I have been watching since the early 80's.
I know there are some absolute quality scribes around these parts who could put me in my place.

But it's just my take.

Spinks was a good fighter.

But in my opinion not great.

Great to me is.
Whitaker
Chavez
Leonard
Jones
Hagler
Hopkins

Those kind of boxers.

I mean without a doubt great fighters.

Spinks falls into the maybe's.

Just me I suppose.

Evander- Unfortunately many people think mainly of the Tyson fight when they think of Michael Spinks. However, it was his lightheavyweight career which should be remembered. When he came along the lightheavyweight division was loaded. It may never have been better. By the time he left the lightheavyweight division there was no doubt that he was the best.
He unified the title by beating both Dwight Qawi and Eddie Mustapha Muhammad, who were both great lightheavyweights. He beat former champion Marvin Johnson who was a very good lightheavy. (Johnson went on become champion again after Spinks left the division). Spinks also beat other good fighters like Murray Sutherland and Yaqui Lopez. Both of them would be beltholders today.

There is no question if he was great or not. He was.

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:

Michalczewski won decsion against Hill and Jones KO4 against Hill.

DM took a close decision (in his finest performance ever), while Jones took Hill out with one shot.

I saw the DM-Hill fight and it was a DOMINANT PERFORMANCE by the German. The fight was not even close. Hill got a beating of his life.
Jones KO'd Hill with one body shot. Hill was also WASHED UP. King Dariuz already softened him up for Roy.

headhunter wrote:for me roy just left too many questions for him to be to be considered for a place in the top echelon of atg fighters.
all that skipping through the weights proved nothing.
whilst jones was still fighting people like michalczewski, collins, ottke, calzaghe, eubank, benn and mcclelland were all active.
now i`m not saying it was jones fault these fights were never made nor am i saying these fighters would beat jones but they are of a good enough standard to leave question marks imo.
plus considering how jones has since been ko`d a couple of times fighters like benn and mcclelland might have got lucky.
roy jones was capable of and probably would have beaten all these fighters and that type of resume would have had him up there with robinson in my book.
but roy chose a different path.

I agree with you 100% my friend. These were the REAL FIGHTS that Jones should have fought, but somehow these fights were not made. I cannot see RJJ in the top 50...No way.

then went up on weigh to fight a clumsy John Ruiz...that is laughable...What Michael Spinks and Bob Fitzsimmons did in beatin g the best heavyweight in the division was way GREATER AND MORE ACCOMPLISHED than that Jones-Ruiz crap.

Presently.....in this era. Bernard Hopkins.

I don't know who the most overrated fighter of all-time is, but Jack Dempsey has certainly got to be up there. He is, in any case, about as overrated as Gene Tunney is underrated. I'm surprised only one person has mentioned him thus far. I love Dempsey, but his career, when you think about it, is defined by four fights:

1. Battering Jess Willard, considered one of the worst heavyweight champions of all-time, into oblivion.

2. Shelby, Montana.

3. Knocking down Luis Angel Firpo seven times, then nearly getting knocked out, then finally beating Firpo.

4. The Long Count.

Dempsey did beat some solid fighters, including Ed "Gunboat" Smith, Bill Brennan, Billy Miske, and Battling Levinsky, before beating Willard, but with the exception of Levinsky (who, frankly, was already on the downside of his career), I wouldn't consider any of those fighters "great."

After beating Willard Dempsey defended the title 6 times in 7 years (that's entering Chris Byrd and O'Neil Bell territory). It's not like there was a lack of opponents either.

His defenses were against:

1. Billy Miske (whom he already beat)
2. Bill Brennan (whom he already beat)
3. Georges Carpentier (a light heavyweight)
4. Tommy Gibbons
5. Luis Firpo
6. Gene Tunney (a fight in which he lost)

In fact, Dempsey's greatest victory may have been his final one, his KO of Jack Sharkey before the rematch with Tunney.

Is Jack Demspey a great fighter? Yes. Is he one of the top 20 heavyweights of all-time? Yes. But he's also very overrated. He's not in the top 5. He's probably not even in the top 10.