BoxRec

I was just checking through some early Jones clips (see below against Ron Johnson), and I started to think how unstoppable he was for so long. Then I think of him now. A shell of a fighter, cruelly remembered for his last awful fights.

This is a modern day legend of the sport, and easily one of (if not the) the greatest of all time.

But who can look past the Tarver, and Johnson fights?

Did his greed for recognition ultimately take away from his achievements?

The unnecessary weight hopping took too much from his body. He had nothing to prove, and proved nothing by beating Ruiz.

People look past Ali’s latter failures, is this just a natural process where the best struggle to let go?

I wish Jones all the best, but I wish he would retire.

youtube.com/watch?v=N110bo2PsUg&search=roy%20jones

Legacy damaged - but not too much - He won the Heavyweight Championship and ruined his body going back to lt heavy.

ROY JONES JR IS A BONA FIDE LEGEND..







Tarver is a 1 hit wonder.

Well, Roy's last few fights haven't helped. His problem is he couldn't function when the chips were down. His legacy has looked worst, while someone like Hopkins' coninues to look better.

Roy spent most of his career as a light heavy champion. But in his prime, not once did he fight the best fighters. Michalczewski was a beast in 1997-2000 and Jones got the titles that were stripped from him. He might've been unbeatable from 1997-2002 (Jones), but he ducked Tarver for 3 years and then lost 2 out of 3 and sort of abused his position ($5m a fight) at HBO for too long.

Obviously, winning titles at 160, 168 and heavyweight balance things out a bit, in fairness to him.

I'm not being harsh to Jones. But ppl were saying he ight've been the best ever, so we have to judge him by harsh standards.

And although stepping up to heavyweight from light heavy is nothing to be scoffed at, he did pick the weakest of the heavy champs at the time.

he beat a top 5 heavy in reality.

Simple answer, Yes.

DG. wrote:Legacy damaged - but not too much - He won the Heavyweight Championship....

oh no he didn't

Hurt, yes, destroyed, no.

Neri1983 wrote:And although stepping up to heavyweight from light heavy is nothing to be scoffed at, he did pick the weakest of the heavy champs at the time.

he beat a top 5 heavy in reality.

If only he'd beaten Lewis...lol. But that fight was never ever going to be made.

viciousmaussa wrote:Well, Roy's last few fights haven't helped. His problem is he couldn't function when the chips were down. His legacy has looked worst, while someone like Hopkins' coninues to look better.

Roy spent most of his career as a light heavy champion. But in his prime, not once did he fight the best fighters. Michalczewski was a beast in 1997-2000 and Jones got the titles that were stripped from him. He might've been unbeatable from 1997-2002 (Jones), but he ducked Tarver for 3 years and then lost 2 out of 3 and sort of abused his position ($5m a fight) at HBO for too long.

Obviously, winning titles at 160, 168 and heavyweight balance things out a bit, in fairness to him.

I'm not being harsh to Jones. But ppl were saying he ight've been the best ever, so we have to judge him by harsh standards.

Dariusz would have been totally mutilated by Jones. I mean a horrible beating. He wasn't nearly quick enough. This is no doubt whatsoever. They are two different species. Guys who Jones dominated went life and death with Dariusz.

Ducked Tarver?? Wtf? He didn't duck Tarver. From memory I think Tarver lost an eliminator for Jones belt, the shot went to the other guy.

Not once did he face the best fighters?? Hahaha.......just go look again at his record. Dariusz is the only VIABLE challenger he didn't face, and that would have happened had Dariusz came to America.

Go back and watch Jones vs Toney and Thomas Tate for a reminder of his genius.

The classic hometown fighter.

Lefthookhappy19 wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:Well, Roy's last few fights haven't helped. His problem is he couldn't function when the chips were down. His legacy has looked worst, while someone like Hopkins' coninues to look better.

Roy spent most of his career as a light heavy champion. But in his prime, not once did he fight the best fighters. Michalczewski was a beast in 1997-2000 and Jones got the titles that were stripped from him. He might've been unbeatable from 1997-2002 (Jones), but he ducked Tarver for 3 years and then lost 2 out of 3 and sort of abused his position ($5m a fight) at HBO for too long.

Obviously, winning titles at 160, 168 and heavyweight balance things out a bit, in fairness to him.

I'm not being harsh to Jones. But ppl were saying he ight've been the best ever, so we have to judge him by harsh standards.

Dariusz would have been totally mutilated by Jones. I mean a horrible beating. He wasn't nearly quick enough. This is no doubt whatsoever. They are two different species. Guys who Jones dominated went life and death with Dariusz.

Ducked Tarver?? Wtf? He didn't duck Tarver. From memory I think Tarver lost an eliminator for Jones belt, the shot went to the other guy.

Not once did he face the best fighters?? Hahaha.......just go look again at his record. Dariusz is the only VIABLE challenger he didn't face, and that would have happened had Dariusz came to America.

Go back and watch Jones vs Toney and Thomas Tate for a reminder of his genius.[/quote]

Genius? Hitting with fists makes one a genius? Great fighter or boxer, yes. but not a genius. If thats the criteria for genius, then many chimps would qualify too. Any chimp would beat the top boxers.

As for Darius, Roy should have fought him. Darius had punch endurance, stamina, and hit hard. Roy was chinny. Either a Roy decision or a late stoppage by Darius. 50/50. Roy didnt fight him because he knew his crystal chin better than anybody else.
Roy refused rematches to Hopkins and Toney, avoided Darius and fought a lot of public workers/part time boxers. His heart wasnt in boxing; he loved basketball, only he was too short to be a star in that sport.

Roy was very talented. I think his legacy is safe: he is a future HOFer. Yes, since Ruiz he fought very badly. I dont buy into the weight drainage argument, nor into the argument he lost on purpose to Tarver 3 or that he didnt train/wasnt motivated agaisnt Johnson. He lost fair and square because he lost some of his speed and reflexes and since he never developed a proper defense, nor could he take a hard punch he lost. Thats it. Happens when you get older.

Was Roy the best ever? No. But a top 5 for sure.

Would he have lost to Darius, or in rematches to Hopkins and Toney? Who knows? These fights never happened. It is partially Roys fault: it takes 2 to tango.

I think the only thing that would really hurt his legacy is the fact that Roy fought way too many public workers, when better competition was available.

As for Ruiz, he didnt prove much there: Ruiz was the worst belt holder. Its not like Roy fought Wlad, Vitali, Tyson(didnt have a belt but was then way better than Ruiz), Byrd or Lewis. Any of these were miles ahead of Ruiz and would have beaten Roy. Yes, even Byrd. All Roy did was beat a heavyweight top 10. Nothing more.

I would say that at cruiser which back then was 190lb Toney, Jirov and Gomez would have beaten Roy.

And from what we saw in Hopkins v Tarver, he would have lost a rematch agaisnt Hopkins.

The entire legacy of Roy was based on his fights v Hopkins who was not yet peak and a weight Drained Toney. Yes, weight drained. If Roy fans buy his weight drainage argument v Tarver 1, then more so that is the case in his bycycle run against the weight drained Toney who dropped from 200 to 168 in 2 weeks.

Good yes, even great (based on his speed, reflexes and talent); but not best ever.

viciousmaussa wrote:

Neri1983 wrote:And although stepping up to heavyweight from light heavy is nothing to be scoffed at, he did pick the weakest of the heavy champs at the time.

he beat a top 5 heavy in reality.

If only he'd beaten Lewis...lol. But that fight was never ever going to be made.

Yes that truly would have made history but would be a complete mismatch. Roy Jones matchmaking was extremely calculating.

'And they have the nerve to say i don't fight nobody, I just make em' look like nobody...and Y'all musta Forgot!!!'

No. I don't think this legacy can be destroyed. But he has made a bit of a clown of himself. He should have retired after the Glencoffe Johnson fight, the latest after Tarver III; that he fights on means he goes down the Holyfield route.

Don't want to start a new thread about this so I'll post it here. I think it's a pretty big thing (a total lie of course) which hasn't been given the attention it should.

In this week's Boxing News in a small piece headlined 'Jones: I threw fight' it says:

'Roy Jones said this week he made a conscious decision to lose his third clash with Antonio Tarver because he didn't want his father Roy Snr to get any of the glory if he won. Roy Snr was in the corner but they have a love-hate relationship.'

Is this the worst excuse ever ?

Lefthookhappy19 wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:Well, Roy's last few fights haven't helped. His problem is he couldn't function when the chips were down. His legacy has looked worst, while someone like Hopkins' coninues to look better.

Roy spent most of his career as a light heavy champion. But in his prime, not once did he fight the best fighters. Michalczewski was a beast in 1997-2000 and Jones got the titles that were stripped from him. He might've been unbeatable from 1997-2002 (Jones), but he ducked Tarver for 3 years and then lost 2 out of 3 and sort of abused his position ($5m a fight) at HBO for too long.

Obviously, winning titles at 160, 168 and heavyweight balance things out a bit, in fairness to him.

I'm not being harsh to Jones. But ppl were saying he ight've been the best ever, so we have to judge him by harsh standards.

Dariusz would have been totally mutilated by Jones. I mean a horrible beating. He wasn't nearly quick enough. This is no doubt whatsoever. They are two different species. Guys who Jones dominated went life and death with Dariusz.

Ducked Tarver?? Wtf? He didn't duck Tarver. From memory I think Tarver lost an eliminator for Jones belt, the shot went to the other guy.

Not once did he face the best fighters?? Hahaha.......just go look again at his record. Dariusz is the only VIABLE challenger he didn't face, and that would have happened had Dariusz came to America.

Go back and watch Jones vs Toney and Thomas Tate for a reminder of his genius.

Just like he gave Griffin a horrible beating in their first fight? I suppose they were different species as well? Have you seen Michalczewski-Griffin?

What a waste of time this guy is.

Roy shouldve fought Michalczewski, period. (and vice versa) No ifs and or buts about it.

The only think that might have damaged his legacy was the manner of the 2nd Tarver defeat and the Johnson fight - i.e. getting Ko'd.

Now some poster here are saying "Roy was always chinny".... I don't think so personally, but a case can be made.

Mind you Holyfield go stopped vs a Middleweight in his penultimate fight - so was he always chinny. Mike Tyson got stopped in three of his last four fights, was he always chinny?

I personally see these losses in much the same way as Holyfield vs Toney especially, or Norris vs Leonard... Aging legends who cannot hold a shot as good anymore.... Was Leonard/Holyfield's legacy tarnished with these, no - neither is Jones', but it is strickly my opinion and can see the argument why you would think otherwise.

Axe wrote:

Lefthookhappy19 wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:Well, Roy's last few fights haven't helped. His problem is he couldn't function when the chips were down. His legacy has looked worst, while someone like Hopkins' coninues to look better.

Roy spent most of his career as a light heavy champion. But in his prime, not once did he fight the best fighters. Michalczewski was a beast in 1997-2000 and Jones got the titles that were stripped from him. He might've been unbeatable from 1997-2002 (Jones), but he ducked Tarver for 3 years and then lost 2 out of 3 and sort of abused his position ($5m a fight) at HBO for too long.

Obviously, winning titles at 160, 168 and heavyweight balance things out a bit, in fairness to him.

I'm not being harsh to Jones. But ppl were saying he ight've been the best ever, so we have to judge him by harsh standards.

Dariusz would have been totally mutilated by Jones. I mean a horrible beating. He wasn't nearly quick enough. This is no doubt whatsoever. They are two different species. Guys who Jones dominated went life and death with Dariusz.

Ducked Tarver?? Wtf? He didn't duck Tarver. From memory I think Tarver lost an eliminator for Jones belt, the shot went to the other guy.

Not once did he face the best fighters?? Hahaha.......just go look again at his record. Dariusz is the only VIABLE challenger he didn't face, and that would have happened had Dariusz came to America.

Go back and watch Jones vs Toney and Thomas Tate for a reminder of his genius.

Just like he gave Griffin a horrible beating in their first fight? I suppose they were different species as well? Have you seen Michalczewski-Griffin?

What a waste of time this guy is.

Roy shouldve fought Michalczewski, period. (and vice versa) No ifs and or buts about it.

What the fornicate are you smoking. Griffin is a tricky bastard. And Roy was still about to stop him had the foul not occured, he settled it in the rematch. Go fornicate yourself, you point is laughable. Sure the number 1 p4p fighter in the sport has to go fight in Germany to please Dariusz, thats if he would have even accepted the fight. And thats a big IF.

Dariusz was slow as hell, and Roy doesn't get hit while doing great damage in return. You could have put your life on Roy not only beating him but probably stopping him from accumilation.

jab wrote:

Lefthookhappy19 wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:Well, Roy's last few fights haven't helped. His problem is he couldn't function when the chips were down. His legacy has looked worst, while someone like Hopkins' coninues to look better.

Roy spent most of his career as a light heavy champion. But in his prime, not once did he fight the best fighters. Michalczewski was a beast in 1997-2000 and Jones got the titles that were stripped from him. He might've been unbeatable from 1997-2002 (Jones), but he ducked Tarver for 3 years and then lost 2 out of 3 and sort of abused his position ($5m a fight) at HBO for too long.

Obviously, winning titles at 160, 168 and heavyweight balance things out a bit, in fairness to him.

I'm not being harsh to Jones. But ppl were saying he ight've been the best ever, so we have to judge him by harsh standards.

Dariusz would have been totally mutilated by Jones. I mean a horrible beating. He wasn't nearly quick enough. This is no doubt whatsoever. They are two different species. Guys who Jones dominated went life and death with Dariusz.

Ducked Tarver?? Wtf? He didn't duck Tarver. From memory I think Tarver lost an eliminator for Jones belt, the shot went to the other guy.

Not once did he face the best fighters?? Hahaha.......just go look again at his record. Dariusz is the only VIABLE challenger he didn't face, and that would have happened had Dariusz came to America.

Go back and watch Jones vs Toney and Thomas Tate for a reminder of his genius.[/quote]

Genius? Hitting with fists makes one a genius? Great fighter or boxer, yes. but not a genius. If thats the criteria for genius, then many chimps would qualify too. Any chimp would beat the top boxers.

As for Darius, Roy should have fought him. Darius had punch endurance, stamina, and hit hard. Roy was chinny. Either a Roy decision or a late stoppage by Darius. 50/50. Roy didnt fight him because he knew his crystal chin better than anybody else.
Roy refused rematches to Hopkins and Toney, avoided Darius and fought a lot of public workers/part time boxers. His heart wasnt in boxing; he loved basketball, only he was too short to be a star in that sport.

Roy was very talented. I think his legacy is safe: he is a future HOFer. Yes, since Ruiz he fought very badly. I dont buy into the weight drainage argument, nor into the argument he lost on purpose to Tarver 3 or that he didnt train/wasnt motivated agaisnt Johnson. He lost fair and square because he lost some of his speed and reflexes and since he never developed a proper defense, nor could he take a hard punch he lost. Thats it. Happens when you get older.

Was Roy the best ever? No. But a top 5 for sure.

Would he have lost to Darius, or in rematches to Hopkins and Toney? Who knows? These fights never happened. It is partially Roys fault: it takes 2 to tango.

I think the only thing that would really hurt his legacy is the fact that Roy fought way too many public workers, when better competition was available.

As for Ruiz, he didnt prove much there: Ruiz was the worst belt holder. Its not like Roy fought Wlad, Vitali, Tyson(didnt have a belt but was then way better than Ruiz), Byrd or Lewis. Any of these were miles ahead of Ruiz and would have beaten Roy. Yes, even Byrd. All Roy did was beat a heavyweight top 10. Nothing more.

I would say that at cruiser which back then was 190lb Toney, Jirov and Gomez would have beaten Roy.

And from what we saw in Hopkins v Tarver, he would have lost a rematch agaisnt Hopkins.

The entire legacy of Roy was based on his fights v Hopkins who was not yet peak and a weight Drained Toney. Yes, weight drained. If Roy fans buy his weight drainage argument v Tarver 1, then more so that is the case in his bycycle run against the weight drained Toney who dropped from 200 to 168 in 2 weeks.

Good yes, even great (based on his speed, reflexes and talent); but not best ever.

[/quote]

???

Why would Roy have gave Toney and Hopkins rematches?? He beat both EASILY, he even beat Hopkins with a damaged hand. I can't remember Hopkins and Toney ever being in the picture for rematches anyway. They where off doing their own things. Shit, James Toney's weight is his own damn fault being a junk food addict, he's done it his whole career. It probably didn't even matter anyhow as Jones style is all wrong for him. Roy bulked up and got bigger and stronger to fight Ruiz. Then had to get rid off that extra strength to get back down to 175 for Tarver. Flab in Toneys case, Muscle in Jones, big difference. Roy was shredded at 200. While (back then at least) Toney was just fat.

You think Jirov would have beat Jones??

mrbassie wrote:

DG. wrote:Legacy damaged - but not too much - He won the Heavyweight Championship....

oh no he didn't

Of The WBA - he did. not The Ring.

of course he has tarnished his rep. he certainly has not enhanced it.
should have retired before tarver. fought the worst heavy champ in many a long year and must consider himself a lucky mutha to have had that golden opportunity. in his prime top 5 of all time. in decline a sorry loser.

Roy doesn't care about legacy.

Anywhere he goes, people will respect him. That matters to him, not what Bert Sugar and Larry Merchant say.

That's my hunch.

RJJ is probably the greatest talent i have ever seen.Not saying he is the geatest of all time ,but for me he is a legend without doubt. he can not possibly hurt his legacy,because he went about 13 years almost untouchable.winning every title from middle to heavy.whether people want to believe it or not he hurt his body coming back down 2 divs. loses 3 in a row,after a real struggle to regain his title which is certainly no coinsidence.muhamed ali's legacy was certainly not hurt after losing to holmes and berbick at the back end of his career nor should it be.so neither should Roy Jones jnr.