Page 3 of 3
Posted: 16 Mar 2008, 05:07
by Syntax Error
HomicideHenry wrote:jones would be the favorite against all the fighters listed above, even the old-timers. foster and charles could have given him trouble but jones would have been too fast imo.
You're seeing something I ain't. Jones was knocked out by Tarver and Johnson, and while you can blame it on his weight loss from the Ruiz fight, I still stand firm to my opinions that Jones never took a genuine risk until it was too late in his career to count. Some say better late than never, but back when he was at the height of his 'powers' he should have took bigger and better fights [I mean hell, he was supposed to fight Douglas right?].
As far as Foster and Charles being the only ones to give him trouble out of a list of fighters I made [Conn, Foster, Charles and Moore], I really do disagree with you. I'll go as far to say Gene Tunney, though he never made Light Heavyweight champion was better than Jones at that weight, and his own heavyweight endeavors outshine Jones one win over a top five heavyweight [WBA strap or not, Ruiz was no Lennox Lewis or someone dangerous like Tua or Tyson who were still contenders; I'd place the win on equal ground of Harold Johnson's win over 'contender' Tom McNeeley].
Jones had the speed and power, yes, but through it all he NEVER faced anyone with the exception of Bernard Hopkins as a middleweight, who had a genuine chance at beating him.
OK, it was at super middle (but they're all the same anyway :P ), but what about James Toney; one of the top p4p fighters of 1994?
Posted: 16 Mar 2008, 05:11
by HomicideHenry
I think in an overall sense, Toney is 'better' than Jones. While Jones had numerous defenses at 175; he beat Toney at 168 and mind you Jones didn't stay long enough, in my mind, to be an all time great middleweight or super middleweight, much like how Michael Moorer was at Light Heavyweight, it can be argued that had he stayed at the weight he would have possibly been a much better fighter than he was as a heavyweight.
Toney's resume is just as solid as Jones, and there's no doubt in my mind that his heavyweight credentials are a hell of a lot more superb than Jones' has been, as his one night 'experiment' was just against a top five heavyweight, while Toney made Holyfield lose via TKO, outclassed the unbeaten Rydell Booker with ease, duplicated the same result that Jones done to Ruiz [though was later changed to a NC] and thus far been the only guy to really give Sam Peter a hard time in the ring [that is if you dont count the McCline fight].
Throw in Toney's Cruiserweight credentials, his resume at 175, as well as 160 and 168...that's a tough one to beat...
Posted: 16 Mar 2008, 11:42
by bjermaine
HomicideHenry wrote:I think in an overall sense, Toney is 'better' than Jones. While Jones had numerous defenses at 175; he beat Toney at 168 and mind you Jones didn't stay long enough, in my mind, to be an all time great middleweight or super middleweight, much like how Michael Moorer was at Light Heavyweight, it can be argued that had he stayed at the weight he would have possibly been a much better fighter than he was as a heavyweight.
Toney's resume is just as solid as Jones, and there's no doubt in my mind that his heavyweight credentials are a hell of a lot more superb than Jones' has been, as his one night 'experiment' was just against a top five heavyweight, while Toney made Holyfield lose via TKO, outclassed the unbeaten Rydell Booker with ease, duplicated the same result that Jones done to Ruiz [though was later changed to a NC] and thus far been the only guy to really give Sam Peter a hard time in the ring [that is if you dont count the McCline fight].
Throw in Toney's Cruiserweight credentials, his resume at 175, as well as 160 and 168...that's a tough one to beat...
toney imo is an atg but i can't say he's "better" than jones. when they fought jones was 27-0 and toney was 44-0-2. they were both in the top 3 lb-4-lb and jones was far superior that night. it's hard for me to ignore that they faced each other in their primes and jones won, easily. i know toney had weight problems but that had to do with his discipline.
Posted: 16 Mar 2008, 17:22
by HomicideHenry
Its one of those arguments you could make for the other guy, you know? Its like a thread I once made that proposed the question, who overall was better: Jones or Hopkins (though Jones did in fact beat Hopkins at middleweight)?
I still stand firm to that one as well, that Hopkins is just as great if not slightly better than Jones in terms of accomplishments.
Re: Roy Jones Jr vs this list of fighters..your thoughts??
Posted: 16 Mar 2008, 17:48
by theone
masterorder19 wrote:Nigel Benn
Michael Watson
Gerald McCellan
Steve Collins
Julian Jackson
Mike McCallum (prime)
Chris Eubank
Michael Nunn
Jones in his prime beats them all...handedly.
Posted: 16 Mar 2008, 18:20
by I Feel Fine
I think Jones clearly ranks ahead of Toney and Hopkins. Hopkins is getting closer though, if he were to beat Calzaghe that would be interesting; though even then, I would probably still lean towards Jones a little. And I'm a huge Hopkins fan, not a Jones fan.
That said, I think Whitaker was the best fighter of the last 20 years, not Jones.
As for this thread; again, as I said earlier, I think Jones would be the favorite against all of these men individually, but I think its a hard bet to say that he would go undefeated if he were to fight all of them. He could do it, but it would be tough. He could lose to someone on a given night, though he could possibly win a rematch.
In the end, Jones should have fought some of these guys. And DM. If he had, he'd be rated a lot higher; and the sad thing is that he probably would have won if he had pushed for it and gotten some of these fights made. Not saying that it was all his fault, but he should have tried harder to make these fights happen. Instead, he only has basically three or four big wins, and one against a Hopkins who was not near his best.
Posted: 17 Mar 2008, 03:19
by Crew2
I THINK NUNN, BENN, MCCALLUM, MCCLELLAN WOULD OF BEATEN ROY JONES
NUNN WOULDOF OUTBOXED HIM,ROY WOULD HAVE TO JUMP TO LAND AND NUNN BARELY TOOK A PUNCH IN HIS FIRST 30+ FIGHTS
BENN WOULD HAVE KNOCKED HIM UNCONSCIOUS IN A FEW ROUNDS, JONES LIKED TO DODGE INSTEAD OF BLOCK
MCCALLUM WOULD HAVE PICKED HIM OFF WITH BODY AND HEAD SHOTS AND OUTLANDED HIM IN EXCHANGES, THEIR ACTUAL FIGHT WAS DAMN CLOSE ENOUGH AND THAT WAS 50 YR OLD MIKE
GERALD BEAT HIM ONCE, HE'D BEAT HIM AGAIN, HE WAS TOO HEAVY MITTED FOR ROY AS IS EVIDENT IN THERE AMATEURFIGHT IN 88, HE HAD ROY DOUBLED OVER FROM A BODYSHOT IN THERE AS WELL AND ROY COULDN'T GET OFF THE ROPES OR OUT THE CORNERS
EUBANK WOULD HAVE ONLY WON THE FIRST 4 ROUNDS AGAINST JONES, ROY WOULDOF NEEDED TIME TO GET USED TO EUBANKS AWKWARD STYLE BEFORE OUTWORKING HIM
JACKSON VERY SLIM PUNCHERS CHANCE
WATSON & COLLINS -NO CHANCE
Posted: 17 Mar 2008, 03:25
by Crew2
TONEY IS WAY AHEAD OF ROY
TONEY BEAT MICHAEL NUNN, MIKE MCCALLUM AND REGGIE JOHNSON IN THEIR PEAKS AT 160, FIGHTERS FAR SUPERIOR TO HOPKINS AT THE TIME AND NUNN & MCCALLUM SUPERIOR TO HOPKINS EVER HAS BEEN. HIS PERFORMANCE AGAINST BARKLEY IS BETTER THAN ANY ROY JONES PERFORMANCE EVER ! HE WAS IN THE POCKET INSTEAD OF JUMPING ABOUT ON THE OUTSIDE AND WITH PERFECT SHOTS AND COUNTERS, RELYING ON TIMING MORE THEN REFLEXES
IF TONEY WAS AT HIS BEST AGAINST JONES, ROY JONES WOULDSTRUGGLE TO LAND CLEANLY WITH ANY PUNCH
Posted: 17 Mar 2008, 23:14
by I Feel Fine
Jones beat an old McCallum more clearly than Toney did an old McCallum in their rubber match, which was McCallum's first (and last) fight after Jones. Jones beat Reggie Johnson more easily. Jones did better against Griffin, over all. Jones did better against Ruiz, and didn't need roids (as far as we know, anyway.) And I don't buy the stuff about Toney's weight drain, Toney dealt with that his whole career; typical Toney. He would have never beaten Jones.
What would Jones have done to Barkley? Toney's win over Barkley was very impressive, but I wouldn't say it was better than some of Jones', at least not in terms of dominance/skill.
Posted: 18 Mar 2008, 04:46
by Crew2
ITS NO SECRET THAT REGGIE JOHNSON USED TO GET THE BETTER OF RO JONES IN THE GYM IN PENSACOLA IN 91/92, ROYJONES SR SAID AFTER RJONES BEAT JOHNSON IN 99 THAT IF IT HAPPENED IN THE EARLY-MID 90S REGGIE WOULD OF BEATEN HIM ! JOHNSON WAS AS SLICK AS A GREASEBALL BACK THEN
TONEY WAS FAT AND UNINTERESTED BETWEEN THE PRINCE CHARLES AND JIROV FIGHTS
GRIFFIN WAS OUTFEINTING AND OUTBOXING JONES INTO SUBMISSION ND WON FAIR AND SQUARE ( BEFORE RIDDING OF EDDIE FUTCH FOR THE RETURN MATCH ... ), WHERE TONEY BEAT HIM CLEARLY TWICE
ROY WAS JUICED UP TO THE EYEBALLS AGAINST RUIZ ! LOL, COME ON
IN TERMS OF DOMINANCE /SKILL, TONEY'S PERFORMANCE AGAINST IRAN IS AS GOOD AS GETS, IT REALLY IS. HE WAS CLEARLY THE BEST FIGHTER IN THE WORLD, IN THAT FIGHT AND AGAINST TIM LITTLES ( WHO CHRIS EUBANKS WANTED NOTHIN TO DO W/ )
ROYS ONLY PERFORMANCE TO COMPARE IS THE ONE AGAINST VINNY PAZ, THAT WAS PICTURE PERFECT IN TERMS OF A FIGHTER RELYING ON SPEED AND REFLEXES, BRILLSHOWING WITH ALOT OF ENEGRY TOO
Posted: 18 Mar 2008, 19:06
by I Feel Fine
Crew2 wrote:IN 91/92, ROYJONES SR SAID AFTER RJONES BEAT JOHNSON IN 99
That's fair. I don't think that Johnson would have beaten him, but Johnson had declined by the time he fought Jones.
Fat and uninterested or not... that just shows Jones could be more consitently great. Jones was coming back in the Griffin fight, but he screwed up by hitting Griffin when he was down. He blasted him out in the rematch.
The thing about Barkley is... he was Barkley. He lost to Duran and got stopped by Benn in the first round. Jones' performance against Toney is more impressive than Toney's against Barkley.
And, as I implied, for all we
know Jones wasn't on steroids against Ruiz. That doesn't mean he wasn't, but there's no official evidence as there is with Toney. Either way, he was more impressive than Toney against Ruiz.
Posted: 18 Mar 2008, 22:38
by bjermaine
Crew2 wrote:ITS NO SECRET THAT REGGIE JOHNSON USED TO GET THE BETTER OF RO JONES IN THE GYM IN PENSACOLA IN 91/92, ROYJONES SR SAID AFTER RJONES BEAT JOHNSON IN 99 THAT IF IT HAPPENED IN THE EARLY-MID 90S REGGIE WOULD OF BEATEN HIM ! JOHNSON WAS AS SLICK AS A GREASEBALL BACK THEN
TONEY WAS FAT AND UNINTERESTED BETWEEN THE PRINCE CHARLES AND JIROV FIGHTS
GRIFFIN WAS OUTFEINTING AND OUTBOXING JONES INTO SUBMISSION ND WON FAIR AND SQUARE ( BEFORE RIDDING OF EDDIE FUTCH FOR THE RETURN MATCH ... ), WHERE TONEY BEAT HIM CLEARLY TWICE
ROY WAS JUICED UP TO THE EYEBALLS AGAINST RUIZ ! LOL, COME ON
IN TERMS OF DOMINANCE /SKILL, TONEY'S PERFORMANCE AGAINST IRAN IS AS GOOD AS GETS, IT REALLY IS. HE WAS CLEARLY THE BEST FIGHTER IN THE WORLD, IN THAT FIGHT AND AGAINST TIM LITTLES ( WHO CHRIS EUBANKS WANTED NOTHIN TO DO W/ )
ROYS ONLY PERFORMANCE TO COMPARE IS THE ONE AGAINST VINNY PAZ, THAT WAS PICTURE PERFECT IN TERMS OF A FIGHTER RELYING ON SPEED AND REFLEXES, BRILLSHOWING WITH ALOT OF ENEGRY TOO
wow! let's make an excuse for every jones victory ever. this is one of the worst posts i've ever read, and that's saying a lot on this site.
Posted: 22 Mar 2008, 12:16
by generic screen name
Diamond WEAPON wrote:I think Jones would've beaten all of them, with McClellan having the best shot at beating him due largely to his power, timing and great pressure.
I think Jones really gets an unfair shake historically with people saying he fought nobodies, but if you look at the records of the guys he fought, many were actually pretty good, he just made them look like nobodies. Hell, he even made ATGs Hopkins and Toney look a tad bit ordinary, and those are guys who had kicked the shit out of their opponents before Jones, and have continued to do so long afterward.
Thing is people focuses Jones on his losses. They act like he was just putting the snooze bar and relying on his talent 24/7.